A challenge to Yaron Brook

[AndrewSternberg]

So are you saying we should just leave iraq now then?

I am saying that the best way to deal with the situation now is, not to accept the situation Bush's naive policy has put us in, but to replace it with the correct one.

This means we should be explaining the reasons why we should never have gone into Iraq in the first place; why a self-sacrifical policy (to our soldiers) of collonization is the wrong approach; and why we should, as soon as possible, adopt the correct foreign policy, the one advocated by Yaron Brook and others.

Within the events of Atlas Shrugged, the proper way of achieving the neccesary transition from the wrong policy to the right one was a strike. I am not entirely sure what the transition from wrong to right in our current crisis should look like.

However, If the transition requires immediate departure from Iraq, then so be it. The concern of our government is not to increase the world's 'index of freedom', it is to protect its citizens.

I understand that If the world was more free, it would be easier for our government to protect us, but it can't spread freedom at the cost of our soldiers lives. We should only be spreading freedom by example and by free trade with those who are willing and with whom it is safe. We should only be colonizing in a spiritual sense, not a material one.

[Jack Wakeland]

By the way, Jack, thanks for the news round-up in your last post.  If not for that, I would not have known about Allawi's actions against the radicals.

Within days of Prime Minister Allawi's announcement of an anti-terrorist policy against Islamic prayer leaders, American military and Iraqi police raided a mosque in (or near) Baghdad. There was a shootout that killed a half dozen or so Islamists in the mosque. (EXCELLENT!)

In response to condemnations of the raid that followed, Allawi backed down, indicating that his policy would only be pursued against a few of the most egregious supporters of the insurgency.

Iyad Allawi's war is every bit as half-hearted as ours is. And in a few weeks he'll be voted out of office and replaced - probably by a representative of the Shi'ite Dawa Party.

Under the rotten proportional voting system and the rotten parliamentary system, every religious party will get delegates to the parliament and to its special constitutional session.

The biggest sacrifice of the War in Iraq is about to take place. The United States has not imposed a constitution of any kind on Iraq. The Bush Administration has refused to impose any limitations on the new government's power of any kind precisely BECAUSE that would be 'imperialist' - i.e. in our country's best interests. The election and the government formed as a result will turn out to be much worse than it should have been.

We can expect the new parliament to be populated with many anti-American members who want the same thing the Indonesian Government wants: for the U.S. Marines to deliver the billions in foreign aid we - the infidels - are stupid enough to give them and then to promptly leave under conditions of self-imposed humiliation.

At this moment it is totally unclear to me if there can be a pro-American coalition government formed in Iraq. The extent to which the Sunnis outside of Baghdad do not participate in the election, is the extent to which we have a chance - however small - that the new Iraqi government won't immediately begin pushing for the premature withdrawal of American forces.

Based on the total inaction - the total silence - from the White House on this issue, I suspect THEY have no idea if there will be a pro-American coalition government.

Rather than anticipate the possibility that the elected Iraqi government will be somewhat hostile or openly hostile towards us - and to make contingency plans to account for that outcome - it appears that the White House has simply put that possibility out of their minds.

After all, God implants in the breast of every man an intense desire for liberty. And liberty is a gift from god that cannot be questioned - a miracle that will suddenly arise without any prior evidence for the source of its existence.

I hate to sound so pessimistic, but the coming year in Iraq promises to be more troubled than the last.

Absent stronger political guidance from America, the embryonic Iraqi republic is unlikely to become pro-Western and pro-American for five or ten years...assuming the American people vote to stick it out that long.

Absent an all-inclusive, systematic anti-insurgency campaign, the fighting will continue at current levels for the foreseeable future.

In this I agree with Mr. "Al Kufr's" repeated comments that political-military success in Iraq depends on coming to grips with all of the parameters of insurgency war. After scattering the enemy from his only city - Falluja - victory will not come from employing the accurate and punishing firepower of our military. It will not come from the power to flatten cities that so many are so eager to see repeated after the destruction of Falluja.

The U.S. has successfully trained tens of thousands of new Iraqi soldiers and police for the battle, but the lack of press releases on the positive progress of the new forces indicates that they are falling behind schedule. The insurgency has been spending the main power of its meager resources killing these trainees, putting a significant dent into the morale, loyalty and steadfastness of the brave young Arabs who are on OUR side. The shortage of trained, disciplined, and committed American loyalist combatants will continue for many more months. This is a crippling shortage for an anti-insurgency war in a place where our soldiers don't speak the local language.

A program of frequent and far-reaching assassinations of the enemy's leadership would be a key tactic that indicates that an integrated, systematic anti-insurgency campaign is underway...but the evidence from Pentagon press leaks implies that such a program is - at best - only in the planning stages right now. We will have to wait for many months before evidence that such a secret program is underway comes to the surface in the press.

The Bush Administration may eventually recover from the ideological neglect its Iraq policy has suffered under - on-again, off-again - over the past two years. In the mean time we will all have to watch them 'learn' from elementary, obvious, unnecessary mistakes over and over again in the coming year. Hundereds and hundreds more American soldiers will die before they get it together. I'm gritting my teeth in anticipation of this moral/intellectual torture. I'm afraid that we'll have to depend on our enemy's weakness for any significant victories in the coming year.

At least we won't have to witness the rapid regression from an offensive posture to a defensive posture that would have been ordered by an anti-warrior like John Kerry.

________________________________________

Associated Press | Fri, 19 Nov 2004 12:02:13 -0500

U.S., Iraqi Troops Storm Baghdad Mosque

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20041119/D86EVHN00.html

On Thursday, the Iraqi government warned that Islamic clerics who incite violence will be considered as "participating in terrorism." A number of them already have been arrested, including several members of the Sunni clerical Association of Muslim Scholars which spoke out against the U.S.-led offensive against Fallujah.

"The government is determined to pursue those who incite acts of violence. A number of mosques' clerics who have publicly called for taking the path of violence have been arrested and will be legally tried," said Prime Minister Ayad Allawi's spokesman, Thair al-Naqeeb.

[MisterSwig]

In this I agree with Mr. "Al Kufr's" repeated comments that political-military success in Iraq depends on coming to grips with all of the parameters of insurgency war.  After scattering the enemy from his only city - Falluja - victory will not come from employing the accurate and punishing firepower of our military.  It will not come from the power to flatten cities that so many are so eager to see repeated after the destruction of Falluja.

This statement drops virtually the entire context of the war against Islamic totalitarianism. To imply that the enemy no longer has a single city is ridiculously evasive. I'm simply perplexed by such a patently false assertion. Do we really now need to prove that the enemy not only holds cities, but entire regions and nations of the world?

Is the "enemy" suddenly only those on the frontlines of Falluja? Good grief.

And on top of that, to say that victory will not come from flattening your enemy's cities is truly astounding. I suppose victory will one day magically appear after we pop a few "key" terrorists in a mosque?

I am very much in favor of attempts to civilize Iraq - and even Afghanistan - on the Western model, even if that requires all of our 'discretionary' military capacity. I am happy to weather the unearned grief I've gotten from ideological friends for writing that opinion. I'm sure that, in time, I will be proved right.

How many American soldiers, Wakeland? How many Americans must die so that Iraqis can be made to be "civil"? How many Americans must die so that Iraqis can live in peace? I want a number.

And how can you be so sure that you'll be proved right, when you can't even prove to yourself that you are right?

Can I prove my case that colonial war of America against Islamism is a more potent policy for self-defense than punitive war? No, not to the root.

Maybe you write so much that you can't remember what you wrote only days ago. But, which is it? Are you certain that you are right, or are you a little foggy on that point?

[Elle]

As I said, it would be "appropriate" that they get the practical implications of their ideas.  I said I would like to send the Muslims to the middle east, the Christian to the dark ages... and let me add the Kantians to Nazi Germany, the pragmatists to the socialist countries of the UK, the humanitarians to Africa, the environmentalists to Canada and so on... where it possible.  As I said before.  It's not, but it would be justice if it could be so.

Just for clarity's sake, that "where" should be "were" - to read "were it possible". Oops.

[Oakes]

Cox&Forkum quoted Tracinski's commentary on Bush's speech in their most recent blog, and I think it is relevent to Wakeland's talk about colonial war. Read what he (Tracinski) says in this quote:

The good part of the "Forward Strategy of Freedom" is Bush's recognition of the connection between tyranny and war. Nations that murder and enslave their own citizens always seek to export those evils outside their own borders. So it is true that America's long-term interests come from the spread of liberty across the globe.

In other words, MisterSwig and others are correct in that we shouldn't liberate a country for altruistic reasons, but if it will benefit us in the long term to topple dictatorships that don't directly threaten us, it would be morally right to do so. Philosophy only tells us to act in our interests and not sacrifice troops for altruistic purposes - the method of war changes with time.

In the Cold War, it would've been suicide to attack Russia, even though it was a constant and severe threat. The proper approach was the doctrine of Mutually-Assured Destruction (MAD) and proxy war. In the age of terrorism, however, pre-emptive, colonial war is precisely the right method. Pre-emptive because terrorists do not abide by MAD, and colonial because the disorder and economic isolation of the Third World is what fuels terrorism. Refer to the guru for further explanation: Thomas Barnett, author of The Pentagon's New Map.

[MisterSwig]

In the age of terrorism, however, pre-emptive, colonial war is precisely the right method. Pre-emptive because terrorists do not abide by MAD, and colonial because the disorder and economic isolation of the Third World is what fuels terrorism.

There have been disordered, economically isolated countries throughout history. The vast majority of which did not resort to terrorism against the West.

Ideas are fueling Islamic terrorism--not the chaos and poverty of the Third World. I'd go into detail, but I think this point has already been covered several times.

The question I still want an answer to is: How many Americans must die so that the Third World can have order and be economically connected? How high do you want the death count to rise before you advocate wasting cities to save American lives? Would you ever advocate such a thing?

[Oakes]

There have been disordered, economically isolated countries throughout history. The vast majority of which did not resort to terrorism against the West.

That's because global terrorism is only a recent phenomenon - before globalization, terrorism and violence were solely contained within the Third World. Their lawless nature is now spreading to developed countries, which means we no longer have the luxury of ignoring them. Colonial expansion and third-world immigration restriction is a must.

Ideas are fueling Islamic terrorism--not the chaos and poverty of the Third World.

I certainly agree that ideas are at the root of the problem - I do not mix cause & effect and suggest that economic isolation causes their anti-life ideology. Their ideas have damned them to the primitive existence they now suffer through. However, reconnecting their economies to the world will take away the only base they have to spread their ideas, and will open the doors to more life-affirming, Western views.

The question I still want an answer to is: How many Americans must die so that the Third World can have order and be economically connected? How high do you want the death count to rise before you advocate wasting cities to save American lives? Would you ever advocate such a thing?

I advocate wasting cities right now. Punitive war and colonial war are not mutually exclusive, as exemplified by our vaporization of cities in Imperial Japan followed by occupation. I want to see Arab countries brought to their knees with firepower and constitutions dictated to them afterwards.

[MisterSwig]

I certainly agree that ideas are at the root of the problem - I do not mix cause & effect and suggest that economic isolation causes their anti-life ideology. Their ideas have damned them to the primitive existence they now suffer through. However, reconnecting their economies to the world will take away the only base they have to spread their ideas, and will open the doors to more life-affirming, Western views.

Okay. I think I agree with your basic attitude toward fighting the war. Your view does not appear to be the same as Mr. Wakeland's.

However, I still don't agree with the above quote that "reconnecting [the enemy's] economies to the world will take away the only base they have to spread their ideas." I think it is the other way around. I think we are allowing them to spread their ideas to the rest of the world much more efficiently. Note the growing Western interest in and respect for the Koran and "true" Islam.

By hastily connecting our economies now, the enemy has been delivered whole new markets and minds to infiltrate.

If I'm misunderstanding your point, I apologize. It wasn't exactly clear to me.

[AisA]

Iran is a good example of MisterSwig's point. It is connected to the world's economy, fueled largely by its oil and gas revenues, and the world's economy is helping it build nuclear weapons.

Every time I look at an Iranian newspaper, I see more evidence or this. See here for example.

The Iranian radicals seized power twenty-five years ago. The "doors to more life-affirming, Western views" have been open ever since, but I've seen no evidence that this has weakened the mullahs grip on power.

Doesn't this refute Barnett's hypothesis?

[Oakes]

However, I still don't agree with the above quote that "reconnecting [the enemy's] economies to the world will take away the only base they have to spread their ideas." I think it is the other way around. I think we are allowing them to spread their ideas to the rest of the world much more efficiently. Note the growing Western interest in and respect for the Koran and "true" Islam.

The government has some role in this; It has the right to censor any direct commands to kill westerners, both here in America and elsewhere. As for the broader culture war between the West and Islam, it is just that: cultural. The government has no control over the ideas its citizens are exposed to, nor does it need to. Reason will prevail.

Iran is a good example of MisterSwig's point. It is connected to the world's economy, fueled largely by its oil and gas revenues, and the world's economy is helping it build nuclear weapons.

Witness Iran's dismal level on the Index of Economic Freedom, specifically check out the Foreign Investment section on their page. They are by no means connected to the global economy.

The Iranian radicals seized power twenty-five years ago. The "doors to more life-affirming, Western views" have been open ever since, but I've seen no evidence that this has weakened the mullahs grip on power.

This is not at all what I'm suggesting. I don't seek to weaken their grip on power by flushing in western ideas; in fact, I suggest the exact reverse. I want to dispose of the mullahs militarily and allow western ideas to enter via new economic freedoms.

[Zeus]

That's because global terrorism is only a recent phenomenon - before globalization, terrorism and violence were solely contained within the Third World. Their lawless nature is now spreading to developed countries, which means we no longer have the luxury of ignoring them. Colonial expansion and third-world immigration restriction is a must.

Oh yes, third-world immigration restriction is a must indeed...

Indian software engineers, go home!

African doctors, go home!

Asian scientists, go home!

Mexican workmen, go home!

First-world University professors of evil ideas and no-good, native-born Americans with no jobs to offer anyone, you MUST STAY!

Heil somebody!

[AisA]

Witness Iran's dismal level on the Index of Economic Freedom, specifically check out the Foreign Investment section on their page. They are by no means connected to the global economy.

Then I suppose I don't know what you mean by connected. Can you elaborate?

I understand that you want to dispose of the mullahs militarily. What does Barnett advocate on this point?

Oh yes, third-world immigration restriction is a must indeed...

Indian software engineers, go home!

African doctors, go home!

Asian scientists, go home!

Mexican workmen, go home!

First-world University professors of evil ideas and no-good, native-born Americans with no jobs to offer anyone, you MUST STAY!

Heil somebody!

Islam specifically allows deception for purposes of furthering its goals. For instance, it is okay to display tolerance for infidels for purposes of infiltrating their culture. A portion of Muslims (some say it is a small percentage, I fear it is greater than is generally recognized) are at war with America (all infidels, actually), and will settle for nothing less than our destruction or submission. Thus, every Muslim immigrant is a potential enemy combatant.

In view of this, do you think unrestricted Muslim immigration into the U.S. is a good idea?

[Oakes]

Oh yes, third-world immigration restriction is a must indeed...

[snip]

Heil somebody!

I am tempted to jump to the conclusion that you are a libertarian more interested in protecting the freedoms of foreign aliens than your own citizens, but than again, that would be making the same mistake you just made. You jumped on my usage of the word "restriction" and ran with it. And whether or not you intended it, I take the last line of your post as an insinuation that I am a fascist.

Let me start by saying that "restriction" != "ban." I have advocated complete bans on Muslims in particular, both because it is chosen and because it is behind our current war, but for the Third World in general I advocate restriction. I want strict background checks and patriotism tests. I'll leave the specifics to the experts.

I will repeat what I told you the last time we spoke: The purpose of government is to secure and protect the rights of its citizens - when retaliating against a foreign threat, we have no obligation to sacrifice our own safety to discriminate between the guilty and the innocent.

Then I suppose I don't know what you mean by connected. Can you elaborate?

I think the best measure of globalization is Foreign Investment: How willing are people to invest in your country? This is tied directly to the amount of economic freedom and rule of law.

I understand that you want to dispose of the mullahs militarily. What does Barnett advocate on this point?

He suggests the same - that we should shrink the Gap (the underdeveloped region of the planet) by exporting security to those areas. Although he shrouds it in altruistic language at times, he makes it clear that this is the way to fight this new threat; i.e., it is in our interests.

[Zeus]

Islam specifically allows deception for purposes of furthering its goals.  For instance, it is okay to display tolerance for infidels for purposes of infiltrating their culture.  A portion of Muslims (some say it is a small percentage, I fear it is greater than is generally recognized) are at war with America (all infidels, actually), and will settle for nothing less than our destruction or submission.  Thus, every Muslim immigrant is a potential enemy combatant.

But, the US also has spies, so deception is not unique to evil: espionage is a military tactic. And a military presupposes a nation-state.

You will have to provide evidence of what you have written above about Muslims. I personally know Muslim immigrant doctors who feel about America much the same way as many Americans do. In fact, I attended one's wedding 2 months ago; he married a Christian.

Besides, as I have written in many places on this forum, to sustain the [what I consider rationalistic] deductions you have made above, one would have to show that a Muslim could act militarily - and successfully - against the US without the support and sponsorship of a nation-state.

End the evil states, not the good men. In fact, you have no right to do the latter.

In view of this, do you think unrestricted Muslim immigration into the U.S. is a good idea?

I do not see Muslim immigration as separate from the immigration of followers of any other belief system, so long as they have no physical ties to force-initiators of any stripe.

I abhor many Christians, but there are also many I find to be superb people.

[Zeus]

Let me start by saying that "restriction" != "ban." I have advocated complete bans on Muslims in particular, both because it is chosen and because it is behind our current war, but for the Third World in general I advocate restriction. I want strict background checks and patriotism tests. I'll leave the specifics to the experts.

Islam is an ancient religion that was on its way out while the West was in colonization of the Arab world.

What brought it back to prominence? The ideas of a Westerner, Immanuel Kant, who disarmed the West philosophically, leading to the death of scores of millions from Marxism, Communism, Nazism, and Fascism. Islamism is simply the latest in a series of reversals and spin-offs from Kant's handiwork.

As for patriotism tests, what's to ensure that the bad immgrants won't lie? I agree with background checks. But, these should be conducted on every immigrant, not just the ones from the Third World.

In any case, we already have "patriotism tests," which are part of the process of naturalization.

I will repeat what I told you the last time we spoke: The purpose of government is to secure and protect the rights of its citizens - when retaliating against a foreign threat, we have no obligation to sacrifice our own safety to discriminate between the guilty and the innocent.

And as I had inductively shown the last time, what about the rational immigrant from the Arab world/Third World who is caught up in the appeasement of Islamic terror-states by the US? Is he to be sacrificed?

This individual, too, cannot "sacrifice [his] own safety to discriminate between the guilty and the innocent."

Morality ends where a gun begins.

[Oakes]

Islam is an ancient religion that was on its way out while the West was in colonization of the Arab world.

What brought it back to prominence? The ideas of a Westerner, Immanuel Kant, who disarmed the West philosophically, leading to the death of scores of millions from Marxism, Communism, Nazism, and Fascism. Islamism is simply the latest in a series of reversals and spin-offs from Kant's handiwork.

What's your point? Islam is the current threat, and other than the version practiced by a minority of Westernized Muslims like the one whose wedding you went to, it is still an extreme and violent ideology that continues to hold oppressive political power over millions of people. A proper foreign policy would make that connection and prevent Muslims from immigrating.

And as I had inductively shown the last time, what about the rational immigrant from the Arab world/Third World who is caught up in the appeasement of Islamic terror-states by the US? Is he to be sacrificed?

Since I do not advocate appeasement, this question doesn't make any sense.

Morality ends where a gun begins.

You are twisting a noble principle to strip a free nation of its right to retaliatory force.

[Zeus]

What's your point? Islam is the current threat, and other than the version practiced by a minority of Westernized Muslims like the one whose wedding you went to, it is still an extreme and violent ideology that continues to hold oppressive political power over millions of people. A proper foreign policy would make that connection and prevent Muslims from immigrating.

Look, I am beginning to lose patience with this package-dealing.

The destruction of Muslim terror-states is the necessary action, not the restriction of immigrant (Westernized) Muslims. Restricting immigration is useless: the most determined will make it to American shores; the truly convinced Muslims do not want to leave the Arab world anyway.

But, most of all, since these Muslims are not coming here to seek handouts from you (if you have any to give them, that is), why should you seek to violate their rights and their employers' rights to work and hire freely?

You are twisting a noble principle to strip a free nation of its right to retaliatory force.

You are still dropping context.

Retaliatory force against whom? The evil states, or the good men?

[Oakes]

The destruction of Muslim terror-states is the necessary action, not the restriction of immigrant (Westernized) Muslims.

You persist to treat terrorism as a conventional, governmental problem. Terrorism is supported by governments, but it is practiced by individuals. We need to fight it on both fronts.

BTW that was slick how you fused immigrant Muslims with Westernized Mislims. Hell, why would the radicals want to immigrate here?

Restricting immigration is useless: the most determined will make it to American shores; the truly convinced Muslims do not want to leave the Arab world anyway.

I thought I was being sarcastic just now, but apparently you do believe that the radicals have no reason to immigrate here, no reason to create terrorist strongholds in the heartland of America under the slogan of "Moderate Muslim" that the multiculturalist left handed to them.

Retaliatory force against whom? The evil states, or the good men?

Just as when we bomb the cities of Iran, when we restrict Islamic immigration we are bound to affect innocent people. The only alternative, however, is to put our own security at risk by evaluating the situation person by person. Between us and them, I choose us, fully confident in the fact that I am not responsible for harming any rational people dispersed in the mix - that, my friend, is a tragedy to be blamed on our enemy.

[ex_banana-eater]

On a related note, Oakes I suggest you watch tonights issue of Bill O'Reilly on Fox. For the impact segment he has the leader of the American Council of Muslims. The guest frequently urges America to use its diplomatic power to stand up and replace all of the despotic Muslim governments with free countries. He also argues that Islam must be radically modernized religiously, and politically in order to guarantee their freedom and ours. As he said, he was an "American Eagle."

[Zeus]

You persist to treat terrorism as a conventional, governmental problem. Terrorism is supported by governments, but it is practiced by individuals. We need to fight it on both fronts.

This will be my last post to you in this vein. I have better things to do with my time.

I just want to reiterate that Objectivism is NOT The Savage Nation. Rationalistic sloganeering in order to please fascists is not the approach used by men of reason.

I leave you with a few quotes from Dr. Peikoff's End States Who Sponsor Terrorism, which I think you should read very carefully:

For over a decade, there was another guarantee of American impotence: the notion that a terrorist is alone responsible for his actions, and that each, therefore, must be tried as an individual before a court of law. This viewpoint, thankfully, is fading; most people now understand that terrorists exist only through the sanction and support of a government.

We need not prove the identity of any of these creatures, because terrorism is not an issue of personalities. It cannot be stopped by destroying bin Laden and the al-Qaeda army, or even by destroying the destroyers everywhere. If that is all we do, a new army of militants will soon rise up to replace the old one.

The behavior of such militants is that of the regimes which make them possible. Their atrocities are not crimes, but acts of war. The proper response, as the public now understands, is a war in self-defense. In the excellent words of Paul Wolfowitz, deputy secretary of defense, we must "end states who sponsor terrorism."

[...]

If one were under a Nazi aerial bombardment, it would be senseless to restrict oneself to combatting Nazi satellites while ignoring Germany and the ideological plague it was working to spread. What Germany was to Nazism in the 1940s, Iran is to terrorism today. Whatever else it does, therefore, the U.S. can put an end to the Jihad-mongers only by taking out Iran.

[Oakes]

I just want to reiterate that Objectivism is NOT The Savage Nation.  Rationalistic sloganeering in order to please fascists is not the approach used by men of reason.

Let the record show that this is twice you've accused me of rationalism and twice you have called me a fascist, both as stand-alone emotionalistic grumbling.

I leave you with a few quotes from Dr. Peikoff's End States Who Sponsor Terrorism, which I think you should read very carefully:

Peikoff is saying that only going after individuals is useless without going after their source of funding and support. He does not say that we should ignore individuals. I repeat: We need to fight it on both fronts.

[Marc K.]

Morality ends where a gun begins.

What do you mean by this?

[AisA]

But, the US also has spies, so deception is not unique to evil: espionage is a military tactic.  And a military presupposes a nation-state.

You will have to provide evidence of what you have written above about Muslims. 

Besides, as I have written in many places on this forum, to sustain the [what I consider rationalistic] deductions you have made above, one would have to show that a Muslim could act militarily - and successfully - against the US without the support and sponsorship of a nation-state.

What about the 19 Muslims that immigrated into the U.S. under false pretenses, lied their way through flight training, hijacked four airliners and used them to murder 3,000 people -- and who are revered as heros throughout the Muslim world, much of which danced in the streets in celebration as the Towers collapsed?

What about the dress rehersal attacks on the World Trade Center back in 1993, masterminded and carried out by Muslims that most definitely hid their plans and goals and went to prayers while doing so?

What about the shoe bomber who attempted to destroy an airliner while traveling to the U.S. under false pretenses?

What about the numerous plots that have been foiled both before and since 9/11, such as the millenium plot to simultaneously detonate numerous airliners at LAX?

Or how about the recently-foiled plot to bomb the Brooklyn Bridge?

A small act of induction lets me identify the fact that, for purposes of killing infidels, deceit and treachery are considered acceptable by Islam, and a little more induction lets me identify that Muslims can and will launch devastating attacks on us from within.

End the evil states, not the good men. In fact, you have no right to do the latter.

If innocent people are killed during the use of retaliatory force, that is regretable, but the responsibility for those deaths is with those who initiated force in the first place. Likewise, if some good Muslims are refused immigration as part of a program to keep out the bad ones, the responsibility for that rests with the bad guys, not us.

I am in favor of ending the evil states. But that cannot be done overnight, and in the meantime we have the right to attempt to screen out potential enemy combatants.

I do not see Muslim immigration as separate from the immigration of followers of any other belief system, so long as they have no physical ties to force-initiators of any stripe.

99.999% of the terrorism around the world is being initiated by Muslims. It is folly to say that we should look at a Muslim immigrant the same way we look at Jewish, Hindu, Christian and Buddhist immigrants.

I abhor many Christians, but there are also many I find to be superb people.

I personally know Muslim immigrant doctors who feel about America much the same way as many Americans do.  In fact, I attended one's wedding 2 months ago; he married a Christian.

I invite you to review post 140 in this thread: Here.

[Zeus]

What about the 19 Muslims that immigrated into the U.S. under false pretenses, lied their way through flight training, hijacked four airliners and used them to murder 3,000 people -- and who are revered as heros throughout the Muslim world, much of which danced in the streets in celebration as the Towers collapsed?

What about the dress rehersal attacks on the World Trade Center back in 1993, masterminded and carried out by Muslims that most definitely hid their plans and goals and went to prayers while doing so?

What about the shoe bomber who attempted to destroy an airliner while traveling to the U.S. under false pretenses?

What about the numerous plots that have been foiled both before and since 9/11, such as the millenium plot to simultaneously detonate numerous airliners at LAX?

Or how about the recently-foiled plot to bomb the Brooklyn Bridge?

But, all the above examples are state-sponsored, except perhaps for the lone shoe bomber. Which is very likely why he failed.

And as for the Muslims dancing in the streets, as truly despicable as it was (and I almost lost my job, at the time, campaigning for a US reprisal), many American liberals danced in the privacy of their bedrooms.

A small act of induction lets me identify the fact that, for purposes of killing infidels, deceit and treachery are considered acceptable by Islam, and a little more induction lets me identify that Muslims can and will launch devastating attacks on us from within.

I may be misinterpreting your tone here, but I get the impression that you're raising "deceit and treachery" to the status of essentials. Heck, even Objectivism sanctions deceit, but it depends on whom this deceit is being practiced on. Moral action, since it is based on knowledge, is contextual.

But, this is not an overriding problem with your post.

If innocent people are killed during the use of retaliatory force, that is regretable, but the responsibility for those deaths is with those who initiated force in the first place. Likewise, if some good Muslims are refused immigration as part of a program to keep out the bad ones, the responsibility for that rests with the bad guys, not us.

Now, you're talking. This is a strong point which I have considered at length. Because of this, I almost began to think that all advanced immigration problems belonged to the ethics of emergencies.

But, this one too fails.

For one, why would the good Muslims be left out? Because there is still a danger that some bomber would sneak in, right? But this then leads to the question: Can a bomber not sponsored by a nation-state succeed? If an example or two of such phenomena is found and presented to me, I will stop arguing against the halt of Muslim immigration.

But no-one here has come forward with contextually-viable concretes, which is why I almost lost my temper when arguing with Oakes. The onus of proof is on he who asserts the positive; in the absence of such proof, the negative position requires no evidence to dismiss the positive claims.

I am in favor of ending the evil states. But that cannot be done overnight, and in the meantime we have the right to attempt to screen out potential enemy combatants.

I'm sorry to be the one to have to tell you this, but, to quote Dr. Peikoff, who was quoting Hegel, the True is the Whole. All existence is a system. The America that will do the right thing by war against terror-states will do the right thing by immigration. If there is no proper foreign-policy regarding war, there can be no proper foreign-policy regarding immigration.

Note that the altruistic, anti-business liberals and conservatives both support vigorous immigration restrictions but oppose a vigorous, ruthless war on Islamic terror. The altruists always know whom to sacrifice first: The Creator.

You believe that America has the right to take her time in appeasing evil states, yet you vociferously defend her right to [let me grant] unavoidably deny admission to good men. Yet, it is individuals who make or break whole cultures. Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas, Ayn Rand, Kant. The fate of millions depends on any one of these types of extraordinary individuals. After all, if Ayn Rand and Leonard Peikoff hadn't emigrated to the US, how would you have been so sure about what method to apply in fighting Islamic terrorism?

99.999% of the terrorism around the world is being initiated by Muslims. It is folly to say that we should look at a Muslim immigrant the same way we look at Jewish, Hindu, Christian and Buddhist immigrants.

You seem to have dropped the "Islamic" in front of the "terrorism." What about Christian abortion-clinic bombers? What about Timothy McVeigh, an American libertarian? What about the Unabomber, who is an environmentalist?

Even if Islam is more evil than those other belief-systems, that doesn't remove the fact that only state-sponsorship makes for terrorism.

I quote Leonard Peikoff again:

For over a decade, there was another guarantee of American impotence: the notion that a terrorist is alone responsible for his actions, and that each, therefore, must be tried as an individual before a court of law. This viewpoint, thankfully, is fading; most people now understand that terrorists exist only through the sanction and support of a government.

[Emphasis added.]

I invite you to review post 140 in this thread: Here.

I took a quick look at the statements listed by you there and tried to verify them by checking them against what I have observed when amongst my Muslim friends.

So, let me see...

- Do the Muslims you know condemn terrorism unequivocally? For instance, are they willing to state that suicide bombers are pure evil, without also offering some qualifier such as claiming they are misunderstood or provoked?

- What do they say about the portions of the Koran that exhort followers to kill or enslave infidels?

- What do they say about the various fatwas that have been issued reminding all Muslims of their responsibility to engage in jihad?

- Do they abide by the fatwas that declare the following:

Do the liberals you know condemn terrorism unequivocally?

What do these liberals say about the portions of the Western philosophical texts (such as Hegel's and Hobbes') which say that the individual must be submitted to the state by any and all means, including force?

Furthermore, what do the Christians say about the portions of the Bible that exhort the deaths of unbelievers?

I don't know my Muslim friend's [the one who got married] view of the fatwa, but I know he was for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, but when the latter started getting messy, he started to talk about how it was "arrrogant" of Americans to believe they could just walk into nations to change entire mindsets.

I chalked that up to his philosophical resistance to a superior force. But, had the US acted ruthlessly, I doubt that he would have dared voice his opinion. At most, he would have returned to his native country of his own volition.

1) Islam forbids unmarried men and women dancing together, even if there is no physical contact, in public or private.

Well, he and his wife have been perhaps my most dependable dancing partners for the past two years. And they love to dance, as I do - and not "innocently" either.

2) Unmarried men and women are not to be alone together late at night, not even in the same car on the way home from worshipping.

My now-married friends lived together for a year-and-a-half, unmarried. He confessed some guilt to me, but he knows my views, and that they are radical. I told him that his guilt owed to his religion and to his upbringing. He is slowly relinquishing some of his altruistic positions. But, it's not an easy task.

3) Girls and boys past the age of 12 cannot be educated in the same classrooms.

Not in all Muslim countries or communities. I went to school with many Muslims. My father, an agnostic who is seriously opposed to Islamic fundamentalism and quite pro-Bush, went to a Muslim elementary school. My grandmother (a wealthy businesswoman) died a Christian, but was born Muslim.

4) A sick woman may, for health reasons, break her fast during Ramadan provided she makes up those missed days and pays a fine(!).

I do not know enough to say either way.

5) A woman who discovers her husband is cheating on her must look at her own behavior to find out why.

Islam allows a man to have up to 4 wives, if I remember correctly. So, in a sense, technically, one cannot cheat on one's wives.

6) A woman may not have plastic surgery for mere "excessive beautification", for such would be changing Allah's creation. However, Islam grants an exception if the surgery will make the woman more acceptable to her husband.

See answer to #4.

7) Within the home, the man has the right to dictate virtually all of the woman's behavior, including how she dresses, who can visit her, etc.

This might be true in principle, but I have not observed this first-hand. I guess in the more fastidious Muslim societies, this is true. I have seen many women in purdah - but this is partially true of Mormons and fundamentalist Christians too.

8) You cannot be pen pals with a member of the opposite sex.

My friends met on the internet.

9) Doing business with a bank that charges interest on loans is forbidden.

When my friend was buying his car, I accompanied him to the car dealer myself, where he wilfully engaged in such business.

10) Women may not ride bicycles or motorcycles.

He, two weeks before his wedding, took motorcycling classes, got certified, and plans to soon buy a motorcycle which he and his wife will ride in bliss.

11) Men may not wear gold in public.

I don't know either way, but I have seen many Moslem men wear gold, even Arabs.

12) Wife beating is permitted, though only as a last resort and only if it does not inflict permanent damage.

This would be very hard to verify. Perhaps it is a principle, but I'm almost certain that Christianity contains such nonsense too.

13) Salmon Rushdie is to be killed on sight.

I have never bothered to ask this question; perhaps one day soon.

Wow, what an exhausting post! I'm sure it's riddled with errors, but I'll post it anyway.

Edited January 28, 2005 by Zeus

[Zeus]

Would someone please fix the quotes?

Thanks.