Interesting article

[Zip]

"They live in a world that I can't understand," said Fowler. "There was no fun, there was no love, there was no joy."

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/09/09/...mission381.html

I agree with Fowler. It is not that there is no way to win this war as the main stream media usually reports but that there is no will to do what must be done in order to beat these Islamofascists.

[gags]

When US conservative opinion makers like George Will are calling for a pull-out from Afghanistan, it's only a matter of time. We should probably get out now, rather than in two or three years, after having spent additional billions and seeing hundreds more of our brave soldiers sacrificed.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...9083102912.html

Obama clearly doesn't have the stomach to continue this fight and his lefty base is going to turn up the heat in coming months. If anyone is good at cutting and running when times get tough, it's the American left.

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

"They live in a world that I can't understand," said Fowler. "There was no fun, there was no love, there was no joy."

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/09/09/...mission381.html

I'm reminded of something I read early on in this conflict, and that is that the Islamic Fundamentalist who turns terrorist is not interested in living, he's only interested in destroying the West and Western values. Here they are depicted as having a lap-top computer and possibly access to the Internet and definitely access to DVD's -- and what do they watch? video's of Americans being killed. I mean, we can recognize that there is something wrong with the younger generation that gets off on watching violence for the sake of violence, who thinks it's cool to watch things get blown up. But these Islamic Fundamentalists do them one better -- they watch people dieing in order to be inspired to go out and kill more people. And it makes sense that a humanitarian wouldn't understand this. He spends his whole life under the supposition that all anyone in the world needs is a helping hand to get out of their miserable conditions, and never realizes that some people -- the fanatically religious -- have disdained all things of this earth for the sake of salvation in heaven.

Have no doubt about it, they hate us with all their ability to do so, and would kill us all if given half a chance.

[gags]

...some people -- the fanatically religious -- have disdained all things of this earth for the sake of salvation in heaven.

Yes, I can't think of any view of life other than a religious one that creates this level of insanity. We should be very agressive when it comes to killing as many of these fanatics as possible.

[Zip]

Yes, I can't think of any view of life other than a religious one that creates this level of insanity. We should be very agressive when it comes to killing as many of these fanatics as possible.

Eco fascists...

[Zip]

Right on cue...

http://www.captainsjournal.com/2009/09/08/...ur-u-s-marines/

U.S. commanders, citing new rules to avoid civilian casualties, rejected repeated calls to unleash artillery rounds at attackers dug into the slopes and tree lines — despite being told repeatedly that they weren’t near the village.

[D'kian]

Eco fascists...

Absolutely. But they labor under a religious mentality, too. Not as explicit as Islam or Christianity, but religious just the same. The hallmark of religion is the acceptance of faith over reason. Thus Communism had the dialectic and the unshakable belief in their premises as a matter of faith. And so the Environmentalists believe in Nature as a living, sentient, nearly all-powerful being.

[phibetakappa]

there is no will to do what must be done in order to beat these Islamofascists.

Beat them at what? They produce nothing. If they "win" anything, they only win by default.

Meanwhile people continue to live and prosper, whenever they use their minds.

Pro-reality, pro-reason, pro-objective values philosophy is how irrationality is blasted.

You should really check your malevolent universe premise.

Quote from Ayn Rand, page 48, "The Virtue of Selfishness":

"The altruist ethics is based on a “malevolent universe” metaphysics, on the theory that man, by his very nature, is helpless and doomed—that success, happiness, achievement are impossible to him—that emergencies, disasters, catastrophes are the norm of his life and that his primary goal is to combat them.

As the simplest empirical refutation of that metaphysics—as evidence of the fact that the material universe is not inimical to man and that catastrophes are the exception, not the rule of his existence—observe the fortunes made by insurance companies."

“The Ethics of Emergencies,” The Virtue of Selfishness, 48.

Ayn Rand Lexicon: "Malevolent Universe"

Edited September 9, 2009 by phibetakappa

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

Quote from Ayn Rand, page 48, "The Virtue of Selfishness":

“The Ethics of Emergencies,” The Virtue of Selfishness, 48.

Ayn Rand Lexicon: "Malevolent Universe"

You are confusing a necessary war footing with the malevolent universe premise. Sure, let to their own, the Islamic Fundamentalist would live in misery, and if they would do that and leave everyone else alone, that would be fine. However, they have declared war on the West and they intend to destroy us, so leaving them alone is not an option. Look what happened when Pakistan gave them their northern territories. The Islamics didn't just claim it was a victory for peacefully living according to their code, but set about to attack Pakistan. These are not people who we cna just leave alone to die -- they must be outright attacked and destroyed as an act of self-defense. Now, one may argue that we should go after Iran instead of focusing on Iraq and Afghanistan, but nonetheless, they can't be left out there in the desert to simply disappear, because they won't. Their ideology needs to be crushed out of existence if we are to live; which in this case means that militant Islam needs to be crushed out of existence with full force instead of the mamby-pamby way we are doing it now. And being too concerned with civilians that get in the way and trying to fight a politically correct war will only act to encourage them to continue to take hostages and be near civilians. If they aren't killed, we will be -- have no doubt about that. And this is not a malevolent premise -- it is fact based.

[Zip]

Beat them at what? They produce nothing. If they "win" anything, they only win by default.

Meanwhile people continue to live and prosper, whenever they use their minds.

Pro-reality, pro-reason, pro-objective values philosophy is how irrationality is blasted.

You should really check your malevolent universe premise.

Quote from Ayn Rand, page 48, "The Virtue of Selfishness":

“The Ethics of Emergencies,” The Virtue of Selfishness, 48.

Ayn Rand Lexicon: "Malevolent Universe"

I'm going to ignore your assumption that I have a malevolent view of the universe because You have obviously misunderstood my point.

When I said beat them I meant as in destroy them (the Taliban). The lack of will to do so is coming from our political and unfortunately social leadership, not from the troops on the ground.

The Taliban are a small portion of the population of that country, the rest are more than willing to prosper, the problem is that they have no power. Do they suffer from a malevolent universe premise? Sure they do, but that has nothing to do with what I am talking about.

[gags]

Beat them at what? They produce nothing. If they "win" anything, they only win by default.

Meanwhile people continue to live and prosper, whenever they use their minds.

Pro-reality, pro-reason, pro-objective values philosophy is how irrationality is blasted.

You should really check your malevolent universe premise.

As Thomas said, this isn't a situation where we can sit back and watch Islamic fundamentalism collapse under its own weight. This is a virulent and powerful ideology that appeals to millions. Many of its followers are actively attempting to kill us and destroy this country and our allies. To not respond would be suicidal. By the way, if you read what Zip posts here, you'll see that he does not hold to a malevolent universe premise.

[D'kian]

As Thomas said, this isn't a situation where we can sit back and watch Islamic fundamentalism collapse under its own weight.

Right. These are not Amish farmers willing to live and let live. They are fanatics willing to die and kill. We should provide them with their wish to die. And if they do get 72 virgins in heaven, I can live with that.

[phibetakappa]

You are confusing a necessary war footing with the malevolent universe premise.

First, I'm not confusing anything. I was speaking about the original quote, and the poster's misguided hopelessness over something that has no object.

Also, There's no "war." The concept war has a meaning. Using the war in this context is as silly as saying there's a "war on drugs," or a "war on homelessness"

[phibetakappa]

I'm going to ignore your assumption that I have a malevolent view of the universe because You have obviously misunderstood my point.

When I said beat them I meant as in destroy them (the Taliban). The lack of will to do so is coming from our political and unfortunately social leadership, not from the troops on the ground.

The Taliban are a small portion of the population of that country, the rest are more than willing to prosper, the problem is that they have no power. Do they suffer from a malevolent universe premise? Sure they do, but that has nothing to do with what I am talking about.

You wrote, that you agree with this quote:

""They live in a world that I can't understand," said Fowler. "There was no fun, there was no love, there was no joy.""

Ignore all you want, but if you feel this way because of some group of primitive savages running around blowing themselves up and/or destroying instead of producing; you've got some serious issues with how you evaluate the significants of savages in a modern industrial world.

I can only judge what you write. You said that's how you feel, and I believed you.

[phibetakappa]

As Thomas said, this isn't a situation where we can sit back and watch Islamic fundamentalism collapse under its own weight. This is a virulent and powerful ideology that appeals to millions. Many of its followers are actively attempting to kill us and destroy this country and our allies. To not respond would be suicidal. By the way, if you read what Zip posts here, you'll see that he does not hold to a malevolent universe premise.

He wrote, that he agree with this quote:

""They live in a world that I can't understand," said Fowler. "There was no fun, there was no love, there was no joy.""

If he feels this way because of some group of primitive savages running around blowing themselves up and/or destroying instead of producing; he has some serious issues with how he evaluates the significants of savages in a modern industrial world.

I can only judge what he writes. He said that's how he feels, and I believed him.

this isn't a situation where we can sit back and watch Islamic fundamentalism collapse under its own weight.

Secondly, I did not make any claim that the US should have a policy of waiting to destroy a given enemy.

Also, "Islamic Fundamentalism" is a rubber term, as meaningless as the term "extremist." It's floating, and undefinable.

There are many, many, many more millions of "Islamic Fundamentalists," who are just living their lives, and are not actively planning to attack "america". There are millions who live in this country.

Edited September 9, 2009 by phibetakappa

[Zip]

You wrote, that you agree with this quote:

""They live in a world that I can't understand," said Fowler. "There was no fun, there was no love, there was no joy.""

Ignore all you want, but if you feel this way because of some group of primitive savages running around blowing themselves up and/or destroying instead of producing; you've got some serious issues with how you evaluate the significants of savages in a modern industrial world.

I can only judge what you write. You said that's how you feel, and I believed you.

I understand where you went wrong now. you didn't bother reading the article in which Mr Fowler says that it is a war that we (the western governments) are not willing to invest enough "blood and treasure" in to win.

His statement, which I also agree with is a statement of the malevolence of the ideology that consumes these terrorists.

You are/were mistakenly assuming that my quote of Fowler is what I was agreeing with not the article which I linked to after the quote and directly before my statement.

You know what they say about assuming. But I'm not the one looking like the first syllable of that word...

Edited September 9, 2009 by Zip

[RussK]

I thought a pullout may be a strong possibility once the democrats took over, and I knew it wasn't going to go well before the pullout when ISAF stepped up their extension of altruist policy, which Elan Journo rightfully dismissed last month. Before Obama took office, the democrats identified Afghanistan as being the good war. Once he took office, they gave him opportunity to take action, and didn't attack him much on what was going with the situation. Now, things are starting to heat up, and those liberals who withheld their comments, for whatever reason, are starting to make them known. If things continue on as they are now in Afghanistan, it wont be long before Obama's democrat base starts questioning the war more openly, and will force him to make some tough political decisions. If this happens, I think that Obama will decide to stay in Afghanistan, no matter what; maybe how he deals with his democrats on healthcare will cast some light on Obama's fortitude--misplaced or not.

Although I recognize the importance of the Afghanistan conflict, I don't support the military being over there. That is, so long as the right ideas and policy are not used there, in the attempt to destroy our enemies, I don't support the needless loss or injury of American personnel there.

[gags]

Secondly, I did not make any claim that the US should have a policy of waiting to destroy a given enemy.

Ok, what action(s) are you suggesting we take?

Also, "Islamic Fundamentalism" is a rubber term, as meaningless as the term "extremist." It's floating, and undefinable.

What term would you like to use to refer to the Muslims who are actively attempting to kill us?

There are many, many, many more millions of "Islamic Fundamentalists," who are just living their lives, and are not actively planning to attack "america". There are millions who live in this country.

And there are millions of Fundamentalist Christians who are "just living their lives" in this country as well. What's your point?

[Steve D'Ippolito]

When US conservative opinion makers like George Will are calling for a pull-out from Afghanistan, it's only a matter of time. We should probably get out now, rather than in two or three years, after having spent additional billions and seeing hundreds more of our brave soldiers sacrificed.

As a former concervative, I can assure you that the only people who think George Will is *actually* a conservative, are liberals. He's their pet conservative.

Anyone who could claim we are undertaxed, as he did during the early Reagan years, is not a conservative. But the liberals loved that comment, claiming that "even the conservatives" think we need a tax hike.

[gags]

As a former concervative, I can assure you that the only people who think George Will is *actually* a conservative, are liberals. He's their pet conservative.

Anyone who could claim we are undertaxed, as he did during the early Reagan years, is not a conservative. But the liberals loved that comment, claiming that "even the conservatives" think we need a tax hike.

I vaguely recall that comment by Will. If I remember correctly, his point was that if Americans want large amounts of government benefits, then the government should tax them to pay for those benefits rather than borrowing the money for government handouts.