airborne

Why should it matter? - http://www.debka.com/article.php?aid=1315

http://www.debka.com/article.php?aid=1320 This is strange. I've also heard mossad/ Israeli Intelligence estimates of a nuclear bomb by the mid-or end of 2008... [Edit - Removed quotation of entire article - RB]

I've been posting now for a while so I wanted to introduce myself. I'm 19. Born in Israel, raised in Australia. Currently living in Israel - studied on pre-army leadership academy and did 2 months of basic army training. I'm frustrated and have been for many years. At myself, at people, at the world. I guess I am just a pissed off person lol! I always hated school - almost everything that was taught except for a few rare subjects. I was never intellectually inactive though - in year 7 up I was hacking into teachers school accounts(I needed free internet and the school introduced this silly limited internet access policy and "print credits") and students e-mails. By year 9 I wrote up an XOR encryption program in C++ for a science project and was laughed at by the class. A while after this I left the world of linux, hacking, programming. Fast forward some very difficult years of my life.. I found a pro trader - so began trading equities in the US markets. Fast forward another 3 years and I'm in Israel finding about Ayn Rand(from an Israeli philosophy teacher on the pre-army academy). My appetite for learning has grown - I want to learn English(grammar, articulation, writing), History, Science and other general subjects. I'm happier but still frustrated like a mofo(more at the world than myself now thanks to Objectivism =)) and very glad I found Objectivism. When first reading her work(PWYNI) I felt like the answers which I've always been seeking but was never able to articulate were being clearly written and explained in front of me and actually made sense! Anyway I look forward to my continued involvement here and hope to see some great personal progression and hope to teach you guys something along the way too! p.s the picture in my profile is from a party so I'm not a fucking emo okay.

I was just discussing with a friend what we must do(Israel). I suggested all out war against any aggressor. The problem with this we discussed is that if Israel stands alone against her enemy and fights properly - total war - she will not be able to stand up against the pressure put on her by the world. UN and US sanctions and no tourism. If Israel nuked Lebanon, Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia and completely obliterated the Gaza strip the world would SCREAM genocide and completely turn against her. This includes the US. How accurate is this speculation? I can actually see this happening(well actually I doubt - but hope - that Israel will have leaders strong enough to hold their word and smash the enemy).... If so what can Israel actually do?

In what kind of society would this happen(context)? This reminds me more of Nazi Ghetto's. Certainly not an everyday event. I remember reading these altruists challenges to self-interest through life or death situations which almost never happen in real life, e.g. Your on a boat and you have to kill one person or die yourself. There is no morality in this situation. From what I've understood up till now evil is a person with evil ideas which are expressed the only way they can be, through action. A man could do something evil, e.g. steal and then realize what he is done is wrong and why on the most basic philosophical level. What he did was evil but now he is no longer evil, but obviously this wouldn't be a claim to avoid punishment.

dadmonson - I meet people like that often, they completely outrage me. They can completely confuse you by coming up with obscure random examples and words but you know something in their reasoning just isn't right. It would probably be better to study more Objectivism and History before practicing arguing with stupid Marxists.

When I said "I dont think a country should ever blow its citizens away" I was saying it within the context of an innocent civilian in answer to RationalBiker who said If there is hard and certain evidence that they are accomplices or terrorist then killing them may be warranted in a quick life or death situation, such as a mission. What do you mean if there is a choice between 10 citizens or 300 citizens dieing? if someone presents me suddenly with this option ?

This does work, the only difficulty is becoming aware of something which is an automatic response. I have many irrational responses I would like to change but it can sometimes take a while especially when it happens in a quick moment. My only thought is perhaps I should write these things down as soon as I become aware of them and make a list.

Occasionally I meet very interesting people. They stand out from a crowd with an "aura" if you like, probably due to very comfortable body language. The way they talk/handle themselves causes you to want to become friends with them. They aren't always intelligent(although most of these people I've met are) but they are always comfortable in social situations - meaning with themselves. There are people who talk, but these are the ones who take action. Upon meeting a beautiful girl they appear not to be intoxicated by her beauty when any other person would be. I could give many more examples, but you get my drift(I hope)... What is it that they have? How do they get this? or perhaps more appropriately what are they? It is easy to tell yourself that there is no point in being uncomfortable in front of people or "just be cool" but not so easy in practice and even if you are in practice you may not be as attractive as these people(I don't mean physically by the way - just the atmosphere or maybe Sense of Life these people project). Some things which struck me while reading Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged are similarities with some special people I know and main characters. E.g. When Roark is bated with an interesting statement he will never follow up with a question(significance of this? almost like he's uninterested), rather he will wait till the other party gives in and tells him. His complete comfort with Dominique while many other men would not be. and the way Francisco is described at parties. How do I/We get there?

I'm now inclined to say "no", it should not be legal.

The man in question was not israeli. I don't think a country should ever blow its own citizens away - no sacrifices to the greater good. RESULT: They went with the altruistic "moral" choice "". Upon entering the village they were ambushed by an informed militia and their bodies were mutilated.

In Israel there is a story(a real one) which is constantly told to emphasize how moral the Israeli army is. A group of soldiers are sent to capture/assassinate terrorists in the west bank. Before reaching the village an arab villager spots them. They have two choices. A) Kill him B ) Let him go - and suffer the consequences if he warns the terrorists The soldiers chose B ) but I think A) should have been the way to go as the soldiers are the first priority and any compromise could mean unnecessary injuries/fatalities. I'll provide the rest of the story soon.

No - because it is his president - of the government protecting his rights, but should he be free to sell a gun to a guy who tells the shop owner he is going to Rwanda to kill people for fun?

Yes, I think so. I see a difference between 'animal torture' and a totalitarian government posing a threat to 'us'(citizens of a semi-free state). However, I don't think we have a responsibility to help the world suffering from rights violations(totalitarian dictatorships in Africa which don't pose a threat to 'us'). So following this it would be logical to conclude that selling weapons to these countries should not be banned but is morally questionable? But then above fletch mentioned that "I am not sure why you would morally oppose it yet politically sanction it, however."(which would seem to imply banning animal torture because it is immoral?)

I understand that silence is likened to agreement. Evil is metaphysically impotent and therefore cannot survive without sanction from the good. Well I just want to try and pull this down into a concrete situation so I understand. Yesterday I was speaking to a kibbutznik friend about separation of economics and state and he said it was "interesting". Later on however when were driving along the Jordan Valley he starts telling me(I'll paraphrase what he said): how sometimes you have to keep people happy in your self interest. This is why Israel built a dam with Jordan and has water agreements with them. Touching off what was said earlier today about not helping people... It's like we all at the kibbutz like to fund kids after-school programs so they wont go running around causing havoc. This is how revolutions are caused, by unhappy people who overthrow the rich/happy minority. This is full of wrong comparisons and just plane silly. Comparing revolutions caused by angry people to "school children" and not co-operating with Jordan as Capitalist etc. One of the reasons I got interested in Ayn Rand was because solid arguments were given to me against lots of the things I believed so I followed up. Some people are just never convinced though, and in the above example it wasn't worth risking offending him as I was hosted at his place etc. So my question is how do you avoid sanctioning evil but at the same time not speaking out at everything people say which is wrong and offending them(which can be alot)?

I didn't say tell him they're doing something wrong. I said tell(force) them "not to do it". I don't think I have to. But I'm not sure if I should be forced not to. I'm just trying to figure out whether arms dealing to evil regimes or questionable ones should be a political issue(especially when they don't pose a threat to your country). and again whats the difference between me saying something is morally questionable vs ethically questionable(I remember someone saying animal torture was ethically questionable although it should not be banned by government).

What is the difference between me saying I ethically oppose it vs morally oppose it?. What I was trying to say is that I may think that animal torture is immoral but I have no right to tell someone else not to do it if they're not interfering with my freedoms.

Arms dealing to regimes in Africa? Immoral? I do think it is immoral as it is allowing evil to continue to survive. Politically though I do not oppose it.

Yes, and for scammers. you can't....

It is in the interest of large holders to have a public keen on the stock before they sell(to dump on). Institutional selling can take a few months to complete and many times news/media/analysts are most "bullish" about a stock while it is being sold by such institutions(such manipulation though is arguably unethical). Not all institutions do this however. Eitherway it doesn't matter because a sound investor will have enough evidence to realize something is wrong with a stock when it begins to be sold heavily(assuming he's studied the markets).

SoftwareNerd thankyou! I googled it a few times before and just found a bunch of crap.

You don't. However, when insider trading is allowed large holders(investment firms, hedge funds) will gain better information then the average investor and will also join the selling. This is much more beneficial to the small investor then restricting people and firms trading on their information. free "insider trading" will result in less unexpected volatile gap-downs, giving an informed rational investor more time to react appropriately. CROX and HANS are tickers that come to mind, fire up the charts on yahoo. Although this activity is more common at the end of a bull market(we have been in one for five years now!) if you go back before SarbanesOxley and analyze charts on earnings you will find such activity alot less common. Any financial graduate have some opinion on options backdating? recent scandals include Kobi Alexander who is hiding in Namibia...

I agree now with what you've said. Any book recommendations in helping me resolve the problem of the 'prudent predator'(I've read the whole thread on this forum and still find myself at conflict with the problem)?

I got that impression from reading some posts on the legal age. There was no other solution offered. I'll try find a quote. David Odden post #4 http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.p...amp;hl=underage Basically, I've seen this a few times on the forums including one quote by Peikoff. I can't really offer an alternative but I still have a problem with this.