RoR: Forum

I feel no need to destroy Islam, or any other religious belief. People must be free to hold any idea, no matter how wrong I may think it is. When it becomes an issue to be addressed by control, is where it is inflicted upon unwilling people.

We must make a clear distinction between attacking ideas and destroying those who inflict their bad ideas upon others. I know plenty of peacful muslims. I work with them. They are productive and kind people in all my dealings with them. I don't beleive every muslim is at heart a muderous person bent on my destruction.

Neither do I accept the idea that Islam is a religion of peace. Most religions at there heart and in there history are not religions of peace. I respect the sanctity of everyones minds and the necessity of allowing them to hold whatever ideas they wish. Are we to outlaw ideas and beliefs? No.

We must indeed start developing a coherent philosophy. To say that the "West" must do this is wrong though. The West, East, and Middle East are not individuals. Collectively we hold few ideas in common. Generalities like East and West are generally useless. It's time to get down to basics, and the basics are simple. We must accept the responsibility of freedom and punish only those individuals who seek to restrict this freedom and inflict themselves upo their neighbors by force.

Post 1

Saturday, June 28, 2008 - 1:28pm

One other thing:

The most basic rule of war is not to do what your opponent expects and wants.

Declaring a war on Islam creates more enemies for you to fight. You will never win a war against a belief. You cannot prevent people from believing anything. Only they can do that themselves. You must fight to stop something tangible or achieve some realizable goal. Anything else is a losing proposition and will destroy your military, your soldiers' will to fight, and is a disgrace to their service.

(Edited by Ethan Dawe on 6/28, 1:29pm)

Post 2

Saturday, June 28, 2008 - 3:51pm

Ethan write:

> You must fight to stop something tangible or achieve some realizable goal.

Amen brother.

Regards,
--
Jeff

Post 3

Sunday, June 29, 2008 - 7:52am

To say that the "West" must do this is wrong though. The West, East, and Middle East are not individuals. Collectively we hold few ideas in common. Generalities like East and West are generally useless. It's time to get down to basics, and the basics are simple. We must accept the responsibility of freedom and punish only those individuals who seek to restrict this freedom and inflict themselves upo their neighbors by force.

Thanks, Nathan.

Mark Steyn is perhaps the most recent, most visible writer to point out that the jihadi terrorists are not ignorant of the West. Television is everywhere. They reject it. It is that simple.

So, too, do the fundamentalist Mormons, the Amish and Mennonites, and many other groups,including rightwing patriotic militias unable to leave the 19th century.

Virginia Postrel's The Future and Its Enemies makes strong points about the millennarian strain within objectivist and libertarian circles. I once met a rightwing populist who said that Atlas Shrugged was a plan to destroy western civilization so that the international bankers (who paid Ayn Rand to write the book) could take over the world. Silly as that sounds, perhaps, it is undeniable that there is a goetterdaemmerung (ragnarok) quality to objectivist culture that could spin Herbert Spencer in his grave. Should Objectivists be wiped out as enemies of the West?

Lest anyone mired in the concrete of Objectivist catechism be confused about my thesis here. I do not believe in "wiping out" anyone. Violence is the last resort of the incompetent. The trader principle is more effective than the taking (warrior-guardian) principle.

You stop a jihadist the very same ways that you stop a bank robber or a rapist: with preventive defense, nothing more, nothing less.

(Edited by Michael E. Marotta on 6/29, 7:54am)

Post 4

Sunday, June 29, 2008 - 2:05pm

MM wrote: "You stop a jihadist the very same ways that you stop a bank robber or a rapist: with preventive defense, nothing more, nothing less."

The issue arises as to whether that will be enough. It's not necessary to wait until the bullet toward one's head is in flight to respond. If someone publically declares a credible intent to kill me, I have no qualms about taking preemptive action as needed.

It isn't necessary for all or even 1% of Muslims to carry out suicide bombings if the .001% who do are able to find the effective sanctuary and invisability within the other 99.999% necessary to carry out their evil. That's the nature of asymmetric warfare.

The way that the East L.A./Watts black ghetto moved into areas such as Long Beach, and reduced them to much the same gang and violence-plagued war zones was not by some incursion of large-scale troops with AK47s. It was through having a few hundred cars-with-a-boom keeping everyone from ever getting a good nights sleep in the affected areas, and a scattering of inviduals ready to move on opportunity against anyone who seriously opposed them.

That's classic military strategy. You don't even try to kill all the enemies troops. You just shoot anyone who sticks his head up, then mass your force on a single point, and finally, when you've broken through the line, you encircle the ends of the enemy line and chew it up.

The only thing that stopped the ghetto expansion was demographics. The ghetto birth rate fell at the same time the Hispanics began to move in in huge numbers. The gang-banger affiliated Hispanics then picked up the tactics formerly used by the ghetto gang-bangers and are now using them against everyone else, although the long-term projections are that they will in turn be defeated by the Asian influx.

Post 5

Sunday, June 29, 2008 - 5:57pm

I think the Cold War was basically a war against communism (the ideology) and the communists (the people). The West had to militarily defeat -- or at least hold off -- the Soviets, Chinese, and a few others. The West also had to intellectually prevent this false and evil ideology from infecting America, Western Europe, and elsewhere. And the West tried hard to undercut it philosophically via radio's Voice of America and other educational methods.

Similarly, I think "the war on terror" is essentially a war on jihadism (the ideology) and the jihadis (the people). Both are powerful enemies that need to be crushed. The Muslims basically declared war on the West in the 1970s with all those hijackings, kidnappings, and Western European club and airport bombings. In the 2000s the Muslims did even better, hitting New York, London, and Madrid. They're clearly looking to sneak suitcase nukes into multiple large Western cities in future.

I think we need to fight back. I think we need to win.

Ethan writes:

I feel no need to destroy Islam, or any other religious belief. People must be free to hold any idea, no matter how wrong I may think it is. When it becomes an issue to be addressed by control, is where it is inflicted upon unwilling people.

The people of the early 1940s emphatically disagree. The West felt a desperate need to destroy the belief of fascism during WWII. They tried hard via propaganda but failed. After the war was over, and the fascists were beaten militarily, the West still felt a desperate need to destroy the ideology of fascism to prevent future attacks. And they did. Thank god.

We must make a clear distinction between attacking ideas and destroying those who inflict their bad ideas upon others. I know plenty of peacful muslims. I work with them. They are productive and kind people in all my dealings with them. I don't beleive every muslim is at heart a muderous person bent on my destruction.

Maybe ask them what they think about 9/11 and Osama. Also Hezbollah and Hamas. Maybe ask yourself why all the Muslims you know are male. Ask if they accept or reject jihad (war) and sharia (slavery) as political and social ideals. Ask about their favorite writers, books, websites, and heroes. I've done all of this. I'll bet these peaceful, productive, kind Muslims have lots of interesting answers and responses to give. Especially if you're perceptive. That's been my experience.

Declaring a war on Islam creates more enemies for you to fight. You will never win a war against a belief. You cannot prevent people from believing anything. Only they can do that themselves. You must fight to stop something tangible or achieve some realizable goal. Anything else is a losing proposition...

Muslims emphatically disagree.

Post 6

Sunday, June 29, 2008 - 6:55pm

the West still felt a desperate need to destroy the ideology of fascism to prevent future attacks. And they did. Thank god.

No, they did not destroy it. Merely it's most obvious practitioners.

Maybe ask them what they think about 9/11 and Osama. Also Hezbollah and Hamas. Maybe ask yourself why all the Muslims you know are male. Ask if they accept or reject jihad (war) and sharia (slavery) as political and social ideals. Ask about their favorite writers, books, websites, and heroes. I've done all of this. I'll bet these peaceful, productive, kind Muslims have lots of interesting answers and responses to give. Especially if you're perceptive. That's been my experience.

I am perceptive. I also find that people's concepts affect how they interpret what other people say. Understanding is a lost art.

Muslims emphatically disagree.

I doubt you can speak for all of them, or even a sizeable majority of them.

(Edited by Ethan Dawe on 6/29, 6:57pm)

Post 7

Sunday, June 29, 2008 - 9:05pm

KZ: Maybe ask yourself why all the Muslims you know are male.

Not so. Not here in southeast Michigan.

I mean, you're talking to someone with a huge house and lots of land in a township who had just one party in three years, so it's not like I'm a big socializer. In fact, I confess to ethnocentrism. I have had good looking young Black women say "Hi, Mike" and had no idea who they were. We had class together. I mean, how can you miss orange cornrows? Well, wrong race, wrong gender, wrong age. I notice people who are male, old, and white in that order. All of which is to say that, no, I don't chat on the phone with Muslim women.... or anyone.... I don't meet them at restaurants, but I don't meet anyone at restaurants. My last meeting over lunch was with a professor, an old white guy. So, I confess.

That said, there is no shortage of unattached, educated Muslim women here. You just gotta be interested in them.

Post 8

Monday, June 30, 2008 - 8:44pm