RoR: Forum

Bravo, Andre! Brilliant. The apologia of mainstream Muslims to the terrorists is what makes the terrorists dangerous. We are at war with Islam.

Jim

Post 1

Tuesday, November 8, 2005 - 5:39am

If we're at war with Islam, then let's stop fucking around and show the Muslims just how worthless and weak their demon, Allah, really is.

Post 2

Tuesday, November 8, 2005 - 6:23am

Well I do invite contradiction at all times...so maybe you can teach me something here...

All these politically correct lies to the contrary which emanate from Tony Blair and George Bush are just that�lies

Lies are lies. Gotchya. Good goin' clearing that one up.

To begin with, Muslims are a naturally and profoundly warlike people. Historically, Islam almost entirely grew and triumphed via war and conquest

Unlike ourselves?

this is their principle technique and mindset to this day

Thus laying to rest at last how Cat Stephens has become so profoundly warlike these days.

options regarding non-believers: convert, conquer, kill.

Those aren't "Islamic options", those are the only options for any philosophy of life and surely your very own!

But one overall issue here�which everyone seems to miss or ignore�is, Why are the Muslims so childish and crazy in their beliefs in the first place?

For much the same reason libertarians, 'Objectivists' and Christians I would have thought. But this is collectivism, and quite unjust to all the mature and not-crazy Objectivists, Christians and Muslims who represent the majority of their mischaracterised tag.

West can't properly hear the you're-at-war-with-us Muslims is the stupidity and depravity of our own ideology. Alongside such good things as democracy, rule of law, an attempt at "liberty and justice for all," etc., we contradictorily also believe in cultural relativism, moral equivalency, and political correctness, along with subjectivism, post-modernism, and nihilism

I don't think it is our depravity that rules our decisions here, I think it's our 'live and let live' philosophy. Gender, sex and race are no longer controversial in matters political. Likewise culture need not be controversial. 'Live and let live' is a protection our civilisation extends to all those who choose to be bound by it. This is an idea, not our whole culture. So long as that idea is accepted different cultures, superior and inferior, can co-exist. In a word, multiculturalism is politically viable and politically practical.
By all means hate a culture with the same force as you hate men for their taste in food or art or philosophy. However only the initiation of force justifies response in kind, initiation of culture is not cause for war. This, I think, 'the West' knows that better than you do and this, far from the depravity you point to, is why we're not at war with the Muslims per se.

Our innocent and benevolent aspiration to give them freedom, justice, individual rights, and rule of law is, at bottom, a frontal assault on their way of life and whole being.

No it isn't. Maybe some Muslims are stupid enough to see it that way, but it's just not true. Those liberties allow Muslims to practise whatever stupid culture they please. If it's a yoke they want they may provide their own however they please, it's only that the state wont do it for them.

The fact is, whether we know or admit it or not�the West and Islam are currently at war

Well more fool me for not killing the nice Muslim girl in North Melbourne just after she helped me find the street I was looking for. Next time she's goin' down. Happy now?

Post 3

Tuesday, November 8, 2005 - 7:19am

Andre,

You assessment is exactly correct. Despite Rick Giles protests there is no possibility of a peaceful co-existence with Islam. What Giles doesn't know or doesn't what to believe is that the Koran is a strawman and a sham. There are very few Muslims in the world who follow the Koran; to say this is not an exaggeration. Much more important to them and their worldview is something called hadith. Anyone who wants to understand Islam must familiarize himself with these writings.

Post 4

Tuesday, November 8, 2005 - 7:46am

We are at war with extremist fundamentalists, from without, and within, currently to a lesser degree. Even if there was a way to kill all religion (and there isn't) for good, there would still be murderous, sick bastards.

On the macro-scale, it is fair to say that there is a strong polarization- Christianity and Islam. That is for sure. All the shit is on the top.

What do you do if you decide, yes, we are at war with Islam?- do you start giving suspicious, distrustful glances to your Islamic neighbor? What if they're just a regular church-goer, with no violence in them? What do we accomplish? More divisiveness, more fear, more hate. Swell.

Post 5

Tuesday, November 8, 2005 - 8:11am

I�ve read that before Mohammad began to �receive� the word of God he was angered by the growing business and commerce in his area that was just beginning to take hold. He grew up in a tribal setting and felt that without tribal ties the old and the weak would be left behind. Mohammad created his religion to be anti-capitalist. Islam at its very root is evil.

Post 6

Tuesday, November 8, 2005 - 8:52am

There is definitely a functional component that wants to pound us back into the stone age. However, suburban Islamics that I know have no interest in that.

Post 7

Tuesday, November 8, 2005 - 8:58am

Rich,

But is their non-interest in that a function of being Islamic or being suburban?

Jim

Post 8

Tuesday, November 8, 2005 - 9:55am

I know a very nice Muslim girl at my university. Perhaps your characterization of Middle East Muslims was correct, but the generalization may also be too broad.

Post 9

Tuesday, November 8, 2005 - 10:56am

If it's a war against Islam, and this is based on the assumption that Islam is and always will be untolerably evil, then doesn't it logically follow that we should kill or imprison every Muslim, unless he or she chooses to renounce their faith. Somebody tell me why the logic following such a premise DOESN'T lead to a "final solution" like this.

Post 10

Tuesday, November 8, 2005 - 11:12am

I'm going to quote myself from another thread:

http://solohq.com/Forum/Quotes/0848.shtml#0

Fear the enemy that openly cries that they want to destroy us. Fear more the enemy within that wants to "save" us. Some seek to take our lives, and the others seek make them impossible to live. Death by gunfire and bombs and death by the slow torture of lost freedom and forced extortion. Death is death. We must be careful. In our war against the Soviets we allied ourselves with and armed forces that are now directed at us. Now, in the new war, we must be careful not to make that same mistake. We must be careful not to ignore the threat that lies all around us, here, in the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave. Let's not win the battle and lose the war by forgetting our principles.

and

http://solohq.com/Forum/Quotes/0848.shtml#3

You make a good clarifying point that I didn't express in my post. Ideas don't exist outside of people. Individulas who espouse these bad ideas kill and enslave people. Islam is not a monolithic belief system, nor is any other faith or philosophy with wrong ideas. We must always avoid concepts that lump different classes of these people together. That said, many beleivers don't make it easy to distinguish. It's not just Islam, it's all faiths and creeds that promote the destruction of others. Some people have trouble with this, and it's certainly trouble from a logistics standpoint. Not a pleasant situation any way you look at it. Let's not forget that the governemnt is an agent of force and that people of all sorts of faiths and creeds are using it to attack individuals as well. That doesn't make Islamic terrorists any less of a threat. They exist. They must be stamped out. Let's also not focus so hard there that we miss the enemies slipping the knife into our back.

Post 11

Tuesday, November 8, 2005 - 11:29am

Actually I'd say that we are locked in an ideological battle with collectivism - of which Islam is a particularly virulent strain. But then so was fascism, communism and (prior to the separation of church and state) christianity. We should fight Islam the same way we fight every collectivist idea - with a better idea.

And also I'd also say that we are locked in a shooting war with militant-nationalists who rally under an Islamic banner. Not every follower of Islam is a potential-suicide-bomber. As Linz pointed out here, every man is capable of holding contradictory ideals and before you pass judgement on a man you have to weigh up what he believes and doesn't believe along with what he does and doesn't do. Hell, even Andre admits to being 95% objectivist, 100% liberal and by process of deduction he is 0% mathematician.

You must judge men individually by their actions - if you don't, you are no better than the collectivists you are fighting.

I say this because I want to be sure that somebody on this site draws a line that says these folks should be bombarded with explosives and these folks over here need to be bombarded with ideas.

I say all this because by declaring a blanket war on Islam, you run the risk of making people think that every SOLOist wants to execute anyone who faces Mecca and prays. And this SOLOist most certainly doesn't!

PS: This point needs to be made over and over and over again, because we must be careful never to provide an ideological enemy (who typically seeks to exploit illiterate or naive citizens) with free propaganda & disinformation.

(Edited by Robert Winefield on 11/08, 12:39pm)

Post 12

Tuesday, November 8, 2005 - 11:48am

Andre,

I sanctioned your article, but I am curiously divided on this. I was married into an Islamic/Catholic culture (typical of Brazil) for 5 years and I saw it up close. Islam and Catholicism lives side-by-side in peace in Brazil, not only in society, but within the same family.

What do you do with a warlike people who constantly growl at you? Well, one good idea is to stop arming them to the teeth. (That type of commerce is the bastard child of America's foreign trade and current globalization, anyway. And it is sanctioned at a government level, so it is not pure capitalism.)

Another is to contain them militarily. Fight force with force.

Then another is to fight ideas with ideas. I mentioned one thing before, but I want to mention it again. I think that the creation of an Arabian culture (in the broadest sense of the term) fictional hero who's essence is in rational individualism is one highly effective way. (I intend to do some work in this area later.) There are others. What will not work is to say that one form of irrational mysticism (like formal Christianity or Judaism) is superior to the Islamic brand. On the essential level it is not and "true believers" know it. You offer horseshit in exchange for cow shit.

I am against the wholesale slaughter (like physical murder) of a people because of their religion. That would be the height of hypocrisy for a country devoted to a very basic individual freedom of beliefs. I am for the enforcement and public clarification of the rules of what will be tolerated in terms of force, however. With strong emphasis on enforcement. I do not see Bush and Blair wanting in this area.

If you fight ideas with force - and not with better ideas - the only result will be widespread resentment and the only ultimate solution will be to annihilate the entire people. Then they will go away, not before. That sounds too much like another version of a "final solution" and I find it repugnant on rational terms.

I believe in the goodness and rational capacity of many Muslims (benevolent universe premise). I have known quite a few. Many I have observed up close have a healthy dose of selfishness (in the Objectivist sense) in their personal lives. Our ideas must appeal to their rational capacity and selfishness. It is a matter of competence in communication, not feeding ideas into a culture through brute force, and I sincerely believe that the rational will win.

I believe that articles like yours are good, though, because they keep the ideological issues clear on an essential level. Your article is a wake-up call. That is why I sanctioned it.

In brief, yes we are at war. But there are two wars going on. A physical war against terrorism and an ideological war against Islam. They must be fought according to their distinct natures (force in the first case and ideas in the second) in order to be won. Otherwise, they most surely will be lost.

Michael

Edit - Robert W - Our posts crossed. Bonk.

(Edited by Michael Stuart Kelly on 11/08, 11:50am)

Post 13

Tuesday, November 8, 2005 - 1:24pm

I'd better check the temperature in hell becuase I thought Robert Winefield just said something wise and not unkind simultaneously and at the same time!

Bet you can't do that again!

Post 14

Tuesday, November 8, 2005 - 1:31pm

If we are at war with Islam, then we are at war with Christianity and Judeaism and, of course, Buddhism, and about every other *ism. (And don't forget the ARI -- we'll get around to them eventually...)

Robert Winefield wrote: "Actually I'd say that we are locked in an ideological battle with collectivism - of which Islam is a particularly virulent strain. But then so was fascism, communism and (prior to the separation of church and state) christianity. We should fight Islam the same way we fight every collectivist idea - with a better idea."

Robert Winefield wrote: "You must judge men individually by their actions - if you don't, you are no better than the collectivists you are fighting."

Thank, you Robert, for the quiet voice of reason.

Nailing the rhetoric to the wall, Rick Giles wrote:
"But one overall issue here�which everyone seems to miss or ignore�is, Why are the Muslims so childish and crazy in their beliefs in the first place?

For much the same reason libertarians, 'Objectivists' and Christians I would have thought. But this is collectivism, and quite unjust to all the mature and not-crazy Objectivists, Christians and Muslims who represent the majority of their mischaracterised tag.

Both posts got my vote. The lead article did not.

Post 15

Tuesday, November 8, 2005 - 3:00pm

Robert Winefield writes:

Actually I'd say that we are locked in an ideological battle with collectivism - of which Islam is a particularly virulent strain. But then so was fascism, communism and (prior to the separation of church and state) christianity. We should fight Islam the same way we fight every collectivist idea - with a better idea.

And also I'd also say that we are locked in a shooting war with militant-nationalists who rally under an Islamic banner. Not every follower of Islam is a potential-suicide-bomber....

You must judge men individually by their actions - if you don't, you are no better than the collectivists you are fighting.

I say this because I want to be sure that somebody on this site draws a line that says these folks should be bombarded with explosives and these folks over here need to be bombarded with ideas.

I say all this because by declaring a blanket war on Islam, you run the risk of making people think that every SOLOist wants to execute anyone who faces Mecca and prays. And this SOLOist most certainly doesn't!...

I think what neo-conservative Norman Podhoritz calls "World War IV" [the West vs. Islam] is mostly an ideological war. But probably the current version of Western liberalism isn't strong enough to convert or deflect Muslims so we may have to defeat them as we did the Nazis -- with military force.

One key to winning this current battle is learning more about Islamic beliefs and culture. I think the West is currently in a classical position of niavety in that "knowing no evil, we fear none." But to win this fight, I think we need to much more hate and fear Muslims. Reality, truth, and their hateful, fearsome, fearless, aggressive ideology demand it.We need to regard Muslims as the medieval Christian-, medieval torturer-type people that they really are, in my view.

And let's not forget where these menacing savages and barbarians get almost all their power: We welcome them into the West to economically exploit us and undermine us from within. And starting in 1951,the British let the Iranians "nationalize" (steal) their legitimately-owned oil. And George Bush openly holds hands with the god-awful Saudi dictator who hates us and is hurting us and the Saudi people badly. At some point we all need to look in the mirror and see who the real enemy is. The West empowers Islam almost totally. Still...in the interim, I think the West really needs to expel these enemies from our home territory, as well as reclaim our oil, and stop generally morally sanctioning their evil ideals and acts.

A final point, as implied by Robert W and Michael SK above, is we need to distinguish clearly between Muslim tyrants, which are morally black, and regular Muslims, which are maybe dark gray but not completely evil. I think the West needs to selectively target and destroy a whole swath of Islamic government leaders. At times, the average Muslim civilian is simply the quasi-innocent victim of extraordinary Western perfidy as outlined above. Thus he deserves something of our sympathy, as well as our fear and hatred.

(Edited by Andre Zantonavitch on 11/08, 3:29pm)

Post 16

Tuesday, November 8, 2005 - 4:55am

Excellent! Bush and Blair should read this piece. They will not but they should.

Post 17

Tuesday, November 8, 2005 - 3:28pm

Andre:
     I'm tempted to comment on quite a few other commenters comments, but, I shan't; except for    :)    Rick Giles'.

     I do not dispute most everything you've argued, but for your referencing Islam per se, rather than it's fundamentalistic interpretation (apparently the most commonly promoted one): Wahhabism. Regardless, I 'sanctioned' it. Really well done re encompassing all problems resulting from the idiotic asking-for-death belief system of it's media-spotlighted adherents...of it's fundamentalistic interpretations.

     Clearly, fundamentalistic views of religious beliefs are the most lethal to any culture re non-believers (clearly physically, for evangelistic-oriented TBr's) as well as believers (at least 'spiritually'). Nowadays, Christianity (of whichever stripe [Catholicism/Protestantism], splinter [Quakers/Mormons], or cult [Koresh/New-Age amalgams]) has no...overt...political power as it once did in Inquisition-Times. And, for it, those times were it's fundamentalistic times.

     Wahhabism unfortunately does have it's 'political' power (via it's economic power to 'politicize' it's threats); it's merely not 'official.'

     Unfortunately, other interpretations of Islam are ignored (and luke-warmly played up by anti-Taliban believers), hence Islamism, per se, gets the blame of the seed it contains; a seed that means nothing without the money-backed (ergo, 'political') force to help it grow in weapons...and in further indoctrinations.

     In it's own way, akin to Christianity, there's benevolence advanced within Islamism for even non-believers (though, like all religious 'texts,' contradictions [or worse: ambiguities] are all over the place), until fundamentalistic interpretations take over the stage. This benevolence-orientation...while promoted...allows either/both as 'tolerable' within a secular-ruled society. When the orientation turns antagonistic against non-believers...well, that makes history, hmmm? --- I'd not condemn Islam as inherently lethally-dangerous to Western Civilization any more than Christianity...again, "per se;" I'd condemn it as merely a growth-retarder at worst, and irrelevent at best. But any fundamentalistic interpretations of any belief-system seem to require that some disagreers die.

     On the whole, I consider Rick Giles' comments a good complement to your article. Though he didn't make the distinction I did, he covers worthwhile considerations which methinks you did overlook. I sanctioned him also.

     I repeat: great article though, Andre. Let's have more !

LLAP
J:D

(Edited by John Dailey on 11/08, 3:30pm)

Post 18

Tuesday, November 8, 2005 - 4:22pm

All such religions or philosophies or positioneers begin with fundamentalism - it is, after all, nothing more or less than the premier notions first expressed.... in that respect, fundamentalism expresses the essence of those positions, like it or not... [take note, Rich - this includes Christianity, whether liked or agreed with or not] those other views, however, gained, to their various degrees, because of the nonreality of the fundamentalist positions, needing revisions to incorporate reality to their respective positions... in time, depending on the respective positions, all will, of necessity, end up reality oriented...

These revisioners may, and usually do, continue to refer to themselves by their fundamentalist name - even tho they actually no longer are: some such so much as to be akin only in the name, so revised are they... none the less, the essence lies in the fundamentalist position, not the revisions...

(Edited by robert malcom on 11/08, 4:28pm)

Post 19

Tuesday, November 8, 2005 - 6:49pm