About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Forward one pageLast Page


Post 60

Thursday, March 31, 2005 - 8:01pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Mark-

I've followed this thread from the start, and thank you for your thought provoking posts. I do not agree with everything you've said, but think you have brought up some interesting points and well as posed some questions that many seem intent on attacking you for asking rather than attempting to answer. I am most impressed by your ability to stay calm and thoughtful when some peoples' debating skills consist primarily of flinging derogatory terms at you.

The most novel to me was your note about Germany and the Soviet Union. I'd never thought about it before, but found it intriguing to consider if a Cold War beginning vs. the Third Reich would really have been qualitatively different from one beginning vs. Stalinist USSR. I agree with Jon's point that a strong defense probably was important to the US through the cold war, and it certainly would have been as well in a cold war vs. national socialists instead of soviet socialists (though I disagree with his point of supporting proxy wars). I'm still pondering and am not sure if there would have been some very distinct difference between the totalitarian foes, but enjoy thinking about historical counterfactuals and am glad you brought that one up.

Unrelated note since I just saw your newest post - the latest estimates I've seen are 1.3B Muslims in the world (2.0B Christians).


Post 61

Thursday, March 31, 2005 - 8:33pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Quoth Jason Pappas:

"Perigo's 'Saddamite' is too nice a word for this. Someone know of a stronger word?"

Yeah -- informed, rational individual. Okay, so it's three words.

Tom Knapp
(Edited by Thomas L. Knapp
on 3/31, 8:34pm)


Post 62

Friday, April 1, 2005 - 3:20amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

I don't think so, Tom. Why is it that most anti-war libertarians and many pro-war libertarians don't think it necessary to learn anything about Islam? Inquiring minds want to know.


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 63

Friday, April 1, 2005 - 4:10amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Just so we're clear here, Tom: referring to Iraqis who side with American troops as "collaborators" & those who oppose them as "insurgents (sic)" = being "rational" & "informed"?

Linz

Post 64

Friday, April 1, 2005 - 7:57amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I want to point out that the military itself refers to the enemy as "insurgents" or the "insurgency" so I do not get the problem with the term.  If you do not believe me, here are some links to some Marine Corps press releases:

Iraqi and U.S. soldiers conduct "River Thunder," detain suspected insurgents
2nd MarDiv. seizes arms caches, detains suspected insurgents
Iraqi, U.S. forces raid mosque compound, detain suspected insurgents
Iraqi, U.S. forces clash with insurgents in Haqlaniyah

I can give you more links from the Army and the Navy too but I think you should get the point.  The military calls them "insurgents" because that is what they are.  I remember reading about "counterinsurgency" in one of my Bibles, the "Marine Corps Small Wars Manual" (Fleet Marine Force Reference Publication 12-25).

Someone pointed out earlier that the military is not trained or equipped for fighting against insurgents, only against conventional military forces (i.e. the Powell doctrine).  I beg to differ.  That may be true for the majority of the Army with their mechanized infantry divisions.  That is not true of the Marines or the Special Operations Forces (e.g. Army Special Forces, Navy Seals) who live and breathe in so-called low-intensity conflicts.


Post 65

Friday, April 1, 2005 - 9:57amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Aaron - Think about a Cold War vs. Nazi Germany.  First, they already had Jets and Rockets, things both the USA and Russia only had success with after they stole this technology from the Germans.  I am sure they would have gotten them, but they were behind is the point.  Also, It would have been 3-way, because I think it is quite possible the Communists would have survived also.  If not, the advantage presses even more towards the Nazis.  Finally, the Atomic Bomb cost Billions and vast resources to create - something a non-interventionist Nation would never have spent the $ on.  That would be bad, umm-kay?

Finally, again and again we here talk about the "innocents" killed by these US wars.  What they fail to mention, other than the fact that they show almost no proof of their numbers but just grab them from "projections" by very anti-US sources, is all of the deaths that happen, and will and would continue to happen, from non-intervention.  For example, if the police intervene and 2 hostage takers, a policeman and 1 hostage are all dead, they would call these "dead innocents" - never mind that the hostage takers would have slaughtered 40 hostages, and had done so in the past.  The point I am making is that the innocents are dying also due to inaction, not to mention the vast numbers of people enslaved and their lives diminished and fraught with terror and privation.  Is it our DUTY to save them?  No - but it is, ultimately, in our self interest.  Why, because this is what causes wars (WW II), and now it causes terrorism.  Osama, Hussein, the Mullahs, Kim Jung Il - all want to maintain total control over people, and keep them isolated, suffering and under their thumb.  Because of the nature of the world today, this means that these people will use terrorism to gain their ends because they can no longer win through war.  It also means that their isolated, tortured and enraged populations can be manipulated to do their bidding.

So we SHOULD have agreement from almost everyone, altruists can say we are helping people and Objectivists can say we are acting in self-interest.  Why don't we?  That is why these people are Saddamites - they twist all possible sides of reason and even traditional altruist morality until it becomes anti-american.

I just had a younger colleague here make a CD for me of some newer, local music (I admit I like caterwauling - I don't agree with Linz here).  Well, it started with this absurd Rap diatribe (Ok, so some of it is caterwauling) about Evil US Capitalism/Imperialism etc... and I asked him why he put that garbage on there?  He had a reaction that has to come from these types of people.  He told me the US was built on the backs of the oppressed, on stolen land, and how can I be so callous?  (I did give a lengthy, as yet unanswered response).  The point is, this stuff gets inculcated into the young now.   In fact, they even think they are being "counter culture" when in fact, they are the very opposite and conforming to what they are told in the schools.


Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 66

Friday, April 1, 2005 - 10:40amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Byron, the juxtaposition, in one short headline, of calling the Iraqi forces working with the American military "collaborators," while calling the beheaders and truck bombers "insurgents," was no rhetorical accident. Not when you read the rest of the Freedom News Daily headlines, and observe which authors and sources they consistently cite, and which they consistently ignore.

Linz is exactly right on this.

(Edited by Robert Bidinotto on 4/01, 10:41am)

(Edited by Robert Bidinotto on 4/01, 10:43am)

(Edited by Robert Bidinotto on 4/01, 10:44am)


Post 67

Friday, April 1, 2005 - 6:07amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I think the question can be posed just as 'Why do most Americans don't think it necessary to learn anything about Islam?', and the answer probably has something to do with the fact that almost all either already have another religion or are opposed to religion, and in either case don't like learning about a different one. However, on the off-chance that a muslim is lurking on SOLO and would like to give us an Islam-in-one-easy-lesson I think it would be interesting to hear.

Lindsay-
I searched the thread to find context and didn't even see Mark use the word 'collaborators' at all. Quote, please.


Post 68

Friday, April 1, 2005 - 11:46amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Aaron,

FYI, Lindsay Perigo was referring to Thomas Knapp, not to Mark.  In post 15, he quotes from a post on ISIL (which I could not find) which appeared to be a reprint of a CNN article that used the terms "collaborator" and "insurgent".

Robert,

So you are saying the problem was with the juxtaposition of "collaborator" with "insurgent", not the term "insurgent" itself?  That was not the impression I got from Lindsay's post 15 and 63.  He wrote (sic) after "insurgent" in both posts, for example.  If anyone wants to call the insurgents by other appropriate terms, that is up to them.  I just don't see the problem with calling them what the military itself officially calls them.


Post 69

Friday, April 1, 2005 - 11:59amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Byron, the common (if grossly euphemistic) use by the ISIL-affiliated Freedom News Daily of the term "insurgent" might be ambiguous. But in context with the rest of the FND anti-U. S. offerings, and the use of "collaborators" ("collaborate: 2. to cooperate with an enemy nation") to describe the Iraqis working with our soldiers, the intention couldn't be clearer.

Has Mr. Knapp, the FND editor and a contributor here, deny that intention?

Did FND immediately publish any clarification or retraction?

No?

See my post about "context" here:  http://www.solohq.com/Forum/ArticleDiscussions/1121.shtml#7

(Edited by Robert Bidinotto
on 4/01, 12:01pm)

(Edited by Robert Bidinotto on 4/01, 12:23pm)


Post 70

Friday, April 1, 2005 - 12:19pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I think the question can be posed just as 'Why do most Americans don't think it necessary to learn anything about Islam?', and the answer probably has something to do with the fact that almost all either already have another religion or are opposed to religion, and in either case don't like learning about a different one. However, on the off-chance that a muslim is lurking on SOLO and would like to give us an Islam-in-one-easy-lesson I think it would be interesting to hear. – Aaron

Well that is one excuse for ignorance in the face of sworn enemies. Go back 60 years and this would have been similar to declaring that one doesn’t care to know anything about communism because one has decided on a political philosophy and one is unacquainted with any communists who can spew the party line ... um, explain their ideology.

I expected many different answers to my question but arrogant and willful ignorance wasn't one of them.
(Edited by Jason Pappas
on 4/01, 12:24pm)


Post 71

Friday, April 1, 2005 - 3:08pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
It wasn't the term "insurgent" I was querying. That simply means rebels, & is accurate. It's the use of "insurgents (sic)," which suggests Mr Knapp's site is trying to suggest the beheaders are the legitimate rulers of Iraq, trying to topple an illegitimate US-backed regime whose Iraqi supporters are "collaborators."

Tom?

Linz

Post 72

Friday, April 1, 2005 - 2:05pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
"I think the question can be posed just as 'Why do most Americans don't think it necessary to learn anything about Islam?', and the answer probably has something to do with the fact that almost all either already have another religion or are opposed to religion, and in either case don't like learning about a different one. However, on the off-chance that a muslim is lurking on SOLO and would like to give us an Islam-in-one-easy-lesson I think it would be interesting to hear." (my words)


>Well that is one excuse for ignorance in the face of sworn enemies.

You asked for an explanation - not a justification - and I gave one. Most people in this country are Christian, and don't want to learn about a competing monotheism. We Objectivists are atheists, and generally not too fond of religion at all. I personally think learning about major religions (a kind of 'know thy enemy' strategy for Oists) still valuable, though I've never gotten more than a couple chapters through the Quran. I'm not proud that I didn't finish it, but also suspect that is more than the majority of Americans have read.


>I expected many different answers to my question but arrogant and willful ignorance wasn't one of them.

Again, you asked for an explanation and I think mine describes well why most people in this country don't bother trying to learn about Islam. I'm not celebrating this fact, as I think it is generally valuable to have a working understanding of major religions by reading their texts, and would also appreciate hearing more from moslems if they'd like to share their view of their beliefs. I fail to see how pointing out reality - even if you wish things to be different - is either arrogant or willful ignorance.


Post 73

Friday, April 1, 2005 - 2:42pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
True the Germans had a fascination with creating new weapons. They also were several years ahead of everyone else in developing nerve agents (sarin and tabun), though these weren't even used in the real WWII. Their military weaknesses included limited navy and no aircraft carriers, disadvantages that would hurt them much more when dealing with the US than USSR. Tech advantages on both sides I expect would have evened or at least balanced out in an arms race.

I was thinking of a 2 way race with Germany controlling the Balkans and Russia cowering but not conquered. A 3 way race with Russia as more of a power would have been to the advantage of the US both due to European resources split more ways and hot wars more likely to spring up across a land border than 3000 miles of ocean.

I don't see why you regard MAD deterrence/potential retaliation use of nuclear weapons as incompatible with non-interventionism. The $Bs development cost might have been unlikely to raise though if you are talking about a laissez-faire capitalist govt, due to no coercive funding.


Post 74

Friday, April 1, 2005 - 5:22pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Adam, I did read your post as advocating or sympathizing with the position stated. If that was merely meant as a description of the problem, then I’m not in substantial disagreement. By the way, you needn’t fear being able to understand Islam without reading the Koran any more than believing that you can’t understand communism until you read Das Kapital.

 

I can suggest several very readable books on the religion. If you want to read the Koran, you’ll have to read the Hadith. Since the Koran is ordered by the length of the Sura (Chapter), you’ll need to know the chronological order to understand which Sura abrogates the others (this is given in the Hadith). For a quick intro, read Sura 9, it’s the last or penultimate Sura according to the various writers of the Hadith.

 

Amber Pawlick shows how you can sample the Koran and get the overall spirit. You may want to read what she has found and try this yourself.


Post 75

Friday, April 1, 2005 - 10:00pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
It's actually Aaron, not Adam, but thanks Jason for the informative response. I think reading the Quran itself still seems a prereq for not being shut out automatically when debating with muslims, but fortunately that's not a task I've had to attempt for some years. I like some of your summary and sampling-every-n verse info which I'll go through more for general understanding, and saw one link to an interesting sounding book called 'Why I am not a Muslim' written by a former believer (evoked fond memories of first reading Russell's anti-religious works of course). Thanks.


Post 76

Friday, April 1, 2005 - 11:11pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Mark, why don't you actually read Osama's Declaration of War ? It's really quite short.

And other than the religious quotations, it focuses almost entirely on Iraq. Here are the three key paragraphs:

"First, for over seven years the United States has been occupying the lands of Islam in the holiest of places, the Arabian Peninsula, plundering its riches, dictating to its rulers, humiliating its people, terrorizing its neighbors, and turning its bases in the Peninsula into a spearhead through which to fight the neighboring Muslim peoples. If some people have in the past argued about the fact of the occupation, all the people of the Peninsula have now acknowledged it. The best proof of this is the Americans' continuing aggression against the Iraqi people using the Peninsula as a staging post, even though all its rulers are against their territories being used to that end, but they are helpless.  

 

"Second, despite the great devastation inflicted on the Iraqi people by the crusader-Zionist alliance, and despite the huge number of those killed, which has exceeded 1 million... despite all this, the Americans are once against trying to repeat the horrific massacres, as though they are not content with the protracted blockade imposed after the ferocious war or the fragmentation and devastation. So here they come to annihilate what is left of this people and to humiliate their Muslim neighbors.  

 

"Third, if the Americans' aims behind these wars are religious and economic, the aim is also to serve the Jews' petty state and divert attention from its occupation of Jerusalem and murder of Muslims there. The best proof of this is their eagerness to destroy Iraq, the strongest neighboring Arab state, and their endeavor to fragment all the states of the region such as Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Sudan into paper statelets and through their disunion and weakness to guarantee Israel's survival and the continuation of the brutal crusade occupation of the Peninsula."


Post 77

Wednesday, April 6, 2005 - 7:06amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Quoth Jason Pappas:

"Why is it that most anti-war libertarians and many pro-war libertarians don't think it necessary to learn anything about Islam?"

Good question.

In general, I don't have an answer to it.

Specifically, however, if you're implying that I personally "don't think it necessary to learn anything about Islam," you're much mistaken. I don't consider myself an expert, but I've made it a point for many years (since 1990, when I realized that I was going to be spending time in Muslim countries and fighting Muslim enemies) to remain reasonably well-informed about Islam.

Tom Knapp

P.S. Sorry to take so long to respond. I've been busy and am only now catching up with SOLO posts.

Post 78

Wednesday, April 6, 2005 - 7:22amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Quoth Linz:

"Just so we're clear here, Tom: referring to Iraqis who side with American troops as 'collaborators' & those who oppose them as 'insurgents (sic)' = being 'rational' & 'informed'?"

Linz,

The fact that you both drop context and leave out details inconvenient to your argument is your problem, not mine. For the sake of your own education and that of anyone else who particularly cares, however, I'll explain the RRND/FND editorial policy in question:

1) There was no such thing as an "insurgent" in Iraq until recently, since insurgency is "rebellion against an established government or civil authority." Thus the "sic" when that term appeared in an article. Since Iraq has now a) had elections, b) convened a parliament and c) chosen its executives, "sic" is no longer appended to the terms "insurgent" or "insurgency" as of earlier this week.

2) Those who collaborate with a foreign occupying force are, indeed, "collaborators." Until Iraq's permanent government was elected and began to function, the allegiance of the "security forces" fighting with US forces was presumably either to those forces or to the quisling "interim government" set up by those forces and headed by the Ba'athist Iyad Allawi, Saddam Hussein's former chief European assassin. Now that Iraq has a native elected government instead of an occupational military dictatorship in place, the allegiance of said "security forces" is presumably to that government rather than to the occupying forces. Thus, the term "collaborators" is likewise going out of use.

3) The term that you left out, and that will NOT be going out of use in RRND/FND's editorial policy, is the substitution of the word "terrorists" when news accounts refer to those who car-bomb, kidnap and behead civilians as "militants" or "rebels" or "insurgents."

So, yes -- referring to collaborators as collaborators, and noting that the "insurgents" were no such thing, was indeed "rational and informed," as is referring to terrorists as terrorists. As Rand stressed, and as Limbaugh parrots, "words mean things."

Tom Knapp

Post 79

Wednesday, April 6, 2005 - 7:33amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Quoth Robert Bidinotto:

"Byron, the common (if grossly euphemistic) use by the ISIL-affiliated Freedom News Daily of the term 'insurgent' might be ambiguous. But in context with the rest of the FND anti-U. S. offerings, and the use of 'collaborators' ('collaborate: 2. to cooperate with an enemy nation') to describe the Iraqis working with our soldiers, the intention couldn't be clearer.

"Has Mr. Knapp, the FND editor and a contributor here, deny that intention?"

You seem to misunderstand the use of the word "insurgent" in RRND/FND. Until an insurgency became possible (earlier this week when an actual government/civil authority against which an insurgency could, um, insurge), RRND/FND always appended a "sic" to the use of the terms "insurgent/s" and "insurgency" (or, in cases where it seemed applicable, replaced it with "terrorists"), because it described a non-existent phenomenon.

"Did FND immediately publish any clarification or retraction?"

I have explained RRND/FND's editorial policy whenever asked to do so, and have written on this particular question at length in several venues.

Insofar as accusations of "anti-Americanism" on the part of RRND/FND are concerned, the only meaningful response to such accusations is: Bullshit. All four of RRND/FND's editors are proud Americans who support their country and the principles it was founded on. We simply disagree with the proposition that the war in Iraq is consistent with those principles or with the interests of the United States.

We recognize that there are those who disagree with our position in good faith. We also recognize that said disagreement, although it may be sincere, is not supported by history, fact or reality.

Tom Knapp
(Edited by Thomas L. Knapp
on 4/06, 7:37am)


Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.