TTI Forums

musashi wrote:The book takes on a tough subject, I appreciate that ambition. If this dyslexia didn’t slow me down so much I’d pick it up. It is a tough subject. I’ll out line some of the areas that I think add complexity. . . .

These are good questions, however, the only good way to respond would be quote half of the book here. So I can only point it to you once you have time/desire to read it.

Okay so the book just arrived and I've read about 7 pages so far and I was going to read further before I started asking but I forget easily

Here's my issues thus far with the book:
Page 1- I won't be going page by page just here's where it starts - the first anecdotal story of the SEALS is a false dichotomy. Maybe it's just my naivety but I can think of several alternatives than just "kill" the men or "let them go". a) They could have tied them up and left one man to guard them until the mission was complete b) Obviously they had communications to others (they called for back up when they were “overrun”) and could have asked them to come guard the detainees until that excursion was complete c) They could have scrapped the mission and returned at a later date to complete or d) shoot the men and never tell anyone about it (if no one knows you killed possible terrorist or informants then there are no legal consequences, the emotional/psychological inference of killing on innocent would be another topic.) etc...

Whether the false dichotomy was just what the soldiers thought or the assumption by the author, it was not the only two options and the premise of the book is not starting off well. The argument that the men would have had a better chance of survival given the opportunity to be “selfish” does not guarantee that the excursion would have gone better. I refer you back to the psychological effects of killing an innocent person. Would they have been alive? Yes. Could they live with the decision they made? Unknown.

At the moment I’m sensing a lot of bias on the part of the author and I’m getting the sneaky suspicion that this is entirely anecdotal with little actual objectivism thus far. But like I said only 7 pages in.

redhotrebel wrote:I refer you back to the psychological effects of killing an innocent person. Would they have been alive? Yes. Could they live with the decision they made? Unknown.

Did they die? Olek wouldn’t tell me

As far as living with killing a person, these men could have easily coped with it. Special Forces (Marine Recon, Duvdevan, Spetsnaz, it is a long list) solders are selected in part upon “flexible” moral perspective. Not that they are amoral mind you. Some of the nicest guys I know are Navy Seals (I lived near their main training base in Coronado, CA). The thing is they don’t dwell on it. Sure slipping the knife in - that was a bad thing; it sucks to be them - better to be me.

These units are commonly intended to be assigned behind enemy lines or engaged in independent operations. In those trying circumstances they need to be able to keep their heads in the midst of carnage, it helps to have a short memory about your emotions and feelings. I believe that much of their training centers around paying close attention and remembering key information because of this selection criteria. They select these ultra-fit soldiers that have the psych profiles to not crack under pressure or become shell shocked in those circumstances memory is a liability. And then the Command expects them to win at “Simon Says” while they are cold, hurt, wet, tired and sandy. So they actually train to improve their memories in specific areas. Remember the orders, remember the slightest detail of intelligence data; forget the pain, forget the rationalization.

If those goat herders stayed alive it was because the Seals were operating under constraining rules of engagement, not because of any philanthropy on the Seal’s part. Soldiers are frequently put in harms way by the rules of engagement. That is just how it goes. They have job to do just like that punching bag standing guard duty on a street corner in Kabul. When your number is up it is up.

musashi wrote:Did they die? Olek wouldn’t tell me

Just read the link he sent along with it- it's literally only a few paragraphs... But if you use logical deduction if "someone" is telling the story of what transpired wouldn't you conclude that at least one, if not more, of them lived?...

redhotrebel wrote:But if you use logical deduction if "someone" is telling the story of what transpired wouldn't you conclude that at least one, if not more, of them lived?...

No fair This is answering my question with a question and telling me to guess.

I already guessed that it was the mountain-top shoot down of the helicopter a few years back. Was that the situation?

redhotrebel wrote:At the moment I’m sensing a lot of bias on the part of the author and I’m getting the sneaky suspicion that this is entirely anecdotal with little actual objectivism thus far. But like I said only 7 pages in.

I guess you are a complete newb here. One of the guys who wrote the book is Yaron Brook who is CEO of ARI - Ayn Rand Institute, which was created by Leonard Peikoff and who assigned Yaron Brook as CEO of ARI, and finally, Dr. Peikoff was assigned as the intellectual heir by Ayn Rand herself.

This _is_ the Objectivist word on the matter of war and national self-defense.

------------------

Just to get this started with some context. Let's say some nation was the source of the attack on US, and marines/seals/etc. are sent on a mission to kill the bastards before they plan and execute the next attack.

Let's see what your "options" will mean in this context:

redhotrebel wrote:a) They could have tied them up and left one man to guard them until the mission was complete

OK, so this is a small group in the middle of a hostile nation, and they leave one guy behind. What does that do to the chance of sucess of that mission, and thus defending our country? What happens to that single dude when somebody goes looking for those tied up missing arabs? So anytime somebody sees them, they are supposed to give up one guys so he can watch over the idiots? How many men will actually make it to the final destination?

Meanwhile, while soliders dance around with the tied up dudes, the bastards are moving on with their plans to kill more innocent American lives.

Fail.

Self-defense mission - 0; enemy - 1.

redhotrebel wrote:b) Obviously they had communications to others (they called for back up when they were “overrun”) and could have asked them to come guard the detainees until that excursion was complete

Seals were dropped in the middle of nowhere under cover. Bringing more soldiers means risking the exposure, attracting real threat and real guns to the location, and thus even more risk to the mission. There are things such as radars, you know.

Self-defense mission - 0; enemy - 2.

redhotrebel wrote:c) They could have scrapped the mission and returned at a later date to complete or

Giving the bastards even more time to plan their next devastating attack. Brilliant. Do I really have to make this personal and ask what if you knew that their next attack was on the town/city/place where your friends live? "Oh, yeah, let's come back next month, I'm sure my friends will still be alive by then."

Self-defense mission - 0; enemy - 3.

redhotrebel wrote:d) shoot the men and never tell anyone about it . . .

Umm, given the level of intelligence from both US army and those arab freaks this is not an option. Even if US army doesn't find out, the enemy coutry will. I can easily imagine a big story on CNN on how the secret plot of US soliders killing civilans discovered, and a big media mess all over it.


-----

The principle here is very simple: every time you pull your punches in, you put more risk on yourself. Do you live in a big city? Do you have friends in New York City? Do any of your friends/relatives every fly by plane? The more road blocks and delays you put on soldiers to prevent them from taking out the enemy, the more danger you place on the heads of innocent American lives (that includes soldiers, too).

musashi wrote:If those goat herders stayed alive it was because the Seals were operating under constraining rules of engagement, not because of any philanthropy on the Seal’s part. Soldiers are frequently put in harms way by the rules of engagement. That is just how it goes.

You need to change "frequent" to "all the time" - it is done so on principle. (The principle is: a life of an American soldier is always worth less than a civilian in a country that produced 9/11 or plans to nuke us, etc.) The free article I linked in the first post analyzes the book that every soldier studies before he graduates and goes to battle.

Just a quote:

. . .
Consider the following passage from the book Just and Unjust Wars by Michael Walzer:

A soldier must take careful aim at his military target and away fromnonmilitary targets. He can only shoot if he has a reasonably clear shot; he can only attack if a direct attack is possible . . . he cannot kill civilians simply because he finds them between himself and his enemies.

Simply not to intend the deaths of civilians is too easy. . . . What we look for . . .is some sign of a positive commitment to save civilian lives . . . if saving civilian lives means risking soldiers’ lives the risk must be accepted. . . .

Just and Unjust Wars serves as the major textbook in the ethics classes taught at West Point and dozens of others colleges and military schools. More broadly, Just War Theory—for which Just and Unjust Wars is the most popular modern text—is the sole moral theory of war taught today. . .

http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/iss ... theory.asp


This book cites tons of such examples. Did you know that during "tough era" of Reagan (the mighty hero of today's Conservatists) soldiers weren't even allowed to carry live bullets in their guns, and had to ask their superious for permission to use real bullets?

Don't wonder why Arab countries think they can defeat us and blows up every year or so without any consequence; there is no reason for them to be afraird of us given these policies.

Okay- that does make sense. Thanks.

musashi wrote:

redhotrebel wrote:But if you use logical deduction if "someone" is telling the story of what transpired wouldn't you conclude that at least one, if not more, of them lived?...

No fair This is answering my question with a question and telling me to guess.

I already guessed that it was the mountain-top shoot down of the helicopter a few years back. Was that the situation?

I have not read this book, but I have read the book by the Navy SEAL who returned from that mission:
http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/19173935/

If the account is 100% accurate, it is one feat of heroism and a true testament of the bravery of the Navy SEALs.

Oleksandr wrote:Self-defense mission - 0; enemy - 3.

I concur with Olek on the alternate options. Everything I’ve ever read about long range patrols is radio silence and defined extraction points at set times that can only be moved up in the most extreme emergency (ie complete capture is imminent). I’ve even read stories of Army LERPS in Vietnam carrying dead squad mates for days prior to extraction, rather than pull the plug.

And I have NEVER heard of intentionally leaving a man behind. Generally they go to great lengths to stay together dead or alive. Most patrols are point to point affairs that follow an unpredictable path to avoid ambush. There is no option of "meet you later by the big tree", oh wait there's no tree either... And they often go to great lengths to cover any signs of their presence or track. So taking the herders for the ride (and leaving the flocks) really was not an option either. The herders could have rapidly blown Seals’ cover, even if the flocks were not found.

A chance discovery by the goat herders was a bit of bad of luck for the team. At that point even dispatching the herders would have revealed the Seals presence. We do not know how close Charlie was and telling the enemy that a patrol is currently in the area(with some DBs) is 9/10ths of the battle. The enemy could have scrambled look outs to high spots around the area and observed wide areas. The Navajo used to be expert at this type of passive-aggressive surveillance from mountainous desert terrain. If you can observe quietly from cover and the other guy has to move and expose his position, your odds of victory just went up. The Navajo never lost a battle in the mountains, not to the Mexicans, not to the US Army. One of the few indigenous groups of people to fight and win against the colonizing armies (the Seminoles did pretty good too). The Seals must have known the Taliban had this type of terrain advantage, they use the tactic themselves. It is the way war is fought on that type of ground.

Yeah- I realized how ridiculous my "alternatives" sounded once it was pointed out

I'll post more in depth when I wake up from my upcoming 36 hours of study/work induced coma but I wanted to say this before I started debunking popular mythologies.

As a student of affairs in the Mideast I can tell you with great certainty that the myth of monolithic Islam is precisely the same as the myth of monolithic Communism which brought the war to the brink of nuclear holocaust the last time around. These are intensely complex, historical societies which North Americans (and our woeful lack of historical perspective) ascribe mythologies of belief to, without seeking deeper understandings. Even the 'middle-east' as a concept is so deeply flawed, I don't know where to begin. There is no regional conglomeration of anti-american or anti-western interests. There is no plot to destroy the nation of Israel or initiate apocalyptic jihad warfare on the citizens of the free world. However, if we keep eating these mythologies and ascribing to the unknown the 'turban wearing, camel riding, draconian and militaristic' stereotypes which we were patiently fed through the media at every available opportunity, those horrific outcomes become more and more likely.

I will elaborate more on this, in succinct form when I awaken from my coma.

I am not sure who you will be talking to, Michael, but I will not be interested in anything unless you disagree with some facts that are mentioned in the book.

This just got more interesting for me

Michael Cerularius wrote:As a student of affairs in the Mideast I can tell you with great certainty that the myth of monolithic Islam is precisely the same as the myth of monolithic Communism.

The same? No I see many differences. Similarities? Sure both seem rather totalitarian.

Michael Cerularius wrote:There is no regional conglomeration of anti-American or anti-western interests.

This is a good one! Where to start…

• How about the UN General Assembly with a rather large group of relatively small nations that routinely vote as a block against US and Western interests.
• Then there is OPEC. Eight of the twelve countries in OPEC are Islamic, 9 if you count Indonesia as the 13th Beatle.
• Then there is the Arab League at face value the concept of this league seems so innocent. Is there a West league? Well arguably the EU might be considered as the West league, but the US, Canada, Meso and South American countries, Russia and China aren’t invited. And the EU probably has too much Islamic influence for its own good – try and draw a cartoon and see what I mean.
• There are probably many more regional conglomerations, but I’ll rest with the NGOs. Sure Hamas, Hezbollah, Fatah, the PLO, Abu Sayyef all might be considered “local” phenomenon. But the truth is that they receive sustenance from a broad region of faithful Idio… er Islamists. These NGOs become the tip of the spear for many, many different regional conglomerations of anti western interests.

Michael Cerularius wrote:There is no plot to destroy the nation of Israel.

How many times does Mahmoud Ahma-dictator-ijad have to say the Zionists should be wiped from the face of the earth before you believe him? Let’s look at history… Did the 1948 war for independence not happen? Did the six day war not happen? Did Lebanon not happen… twice? So Israel was not a target during G1 and G2? I think if they are actually doing the fighting, it is only fair to consider that they might also be doing some plotting before lead starts to fly.

Michael Cerularius wrote:There is no plot to …. initiate apocalyptic jihad warfare on the citizens of the free world.

No offence intended but do you read the news much? Iraq was trying to build a nuke, where their stuff went who knows (only the Syrians know - buhahaha!). Iran can build a nuke right this minute. Pakistan has nukes. And nuclear weapons are only a single aspect of apocalyptic jihad. In our world of asymmetric warfare how many ways can you attack an enemy? To me the alternatives seem to be limited only by the imagination of the attacker.

Michael Cerularius wrote:However, if we keep eating these mythologies and ascribing to the unknown the 'turban wearing, camel riding, draconian and militaristic' stereotypes which we were patiently fed through the media at every available opportunity, those horrific outcomes become more and more likely.

So they put that turban on KSM’s head during his trail?
Does Brian Williams have a fetish for Hijabs that I don’t know about?
Does Katie Couric compel women to wear a burka? Well let’s be honest… Its Islam… Katie can’t compel the burka, but if she finds a women not wearing a burka then Sharia law permits Katie to rape or stone the women. Oh wait Katie is a woman too… Girl on girl rape would be gay, so both women should die, or better yet since we have socially shamed them both past the point of forgiveness let’s just fit them for a backpack.

You. You I can deal with.

musashi wrote:This just got more interesting for me

Michael Cerularius wrote:As a student of affairs in the Mideast I can tell you with great certainty that the myth of monolithic Islam is precisely the same as the myth of monolithic Communism.

The same? No I see many differences. Similarities? Sure both seem rather totalitarian.

To begin because I sense that you are not familiar with my usage of the terminology 'monolithic'. A monolith is a singular, large and symbolic object (usually a rock) but used historically refers to the conceptualization (incorrectly) that the communism(s) that spread in the world as the cold-war unfolded were somehow related. In reality there was no 'communism'. There was Vietnamese communism, there was Chinese communism, there was Russian communism. Regardless of what political system the bureaucrats or generals force on the poor farming folk, it does not change the realities of who they really are or the history of their nation.

I would suggest to you that the parallel can be made as there are two predominant forms of Islam (Sunni and Shia) with which I hope you are familiar. They are dramatically different and as diametrically opposed to each other as Catholicism and Protestantism. To put it simply, they share the same histories and heroes but disagree on the circumstances, interpretations and facts. There are also uniquely national forms of Islam with the Islamic 'Theocracy' of Iran differing highly from the deeply traditional Islamic monarchy in Saudia Arabia or the progressive secular military government of a deeply religious nation like Egypt. You also forget that within these areas are ethnic subgroups which are not in any way united. In the western mideast are the Arab states, which border on the old Persian empire (Iran) but the ethnic dispersion from Iran runs in every direction, including Iraq where in a city like Karbala, 90% of the population can claim Persian ancestry. In the central-asian states like Afghanistan and Pakistan, it gets even more complicated on the tribal level, with Pashtun, Tajik and other sub-tribes which are NON ARAB but Islamic rallying around warlords, sheiks and other leaders. The only thing any of these national, subnational or tribal actors has in common is a deep understanding of history and a desire to be achieve their goals independently without external interference. Of course, if it were a perfect world they might be able to do so, but geopolitics and history (largely starting with the invasion of Iran in World War 2) have dictated that the region will be central to western and eastern interests and will act as the stage for the clash of civilizations.

musashi wrote:

Michael Cerularius wrote:There is no regional conglomeration of anti-American or anti-western interests.

This is a good one! Where to start…

• How about the UN General Assembly with a rather large group of relatively small nations that routinely vote as a block against US and Western interests.

They do this because they fall under the proxies of other powerful nations, obviously. Do you really think the UN as an institution is anti-American or Anti-Western? Given that it is headquartered almost exclusively in western nations, and despite back-room politics which may have previously influenced your opinion, I'd suggest that the United Nations is very much Western. And for every incident where Western interests were thwarted, how about identifying some where western interests were served to the fullest (Rwanda?)

musashi wrote: [*]Then there is OPEC. Eight of the twelve countries in OPEC are Islamic, 9 if you count Indonesia as the 13th Beatle.

You operate under the assumption that Islam is somehow anti-American. This is not so. Islam is deeply traditional and is disapproving of the excesses and vices which western morality has proliferated in western societies. These arguments are mostly about human rights which in traditional societies are not seen to be absolute. Backwards, yes but enemy... no. Resistant to change for the most part. Follow this thought in the next response.

musashi wrote: [*]Then there is the Arab League at face value the concept of this league seems so innocent. Is there a West league? Well arguably the EU might be considered as the West league, but the US, Canada, Meso and South American countries, Russia and China aren’t invited. And the EU probably has too much Islamic influence for its own good – try and draw a cartoon and see what I mean.

The Arab states, members in the 'Arab League' are absolutely not organizing or facilitating attacks on western targets with the intent of wounding us in any great fashion. I assure you it is in their best interest (specifically Saudi Arabia, but others as well) that we -remain- within the region as long as possible. The big threat, (I direct you to the thesis of my argument which I have drawn from Robert Baer and the writings of other CIA analysts/researchers/journalists) is the strong desire for regional hegemony and restoration of historical power by the Islamic Republic of Iran. Iran is an oxymoron as an Islamic Republic. Their faith is skin deep I assure you, but the urban-rural dichotomy forces the politicians like Ahmadinejad to use strong rhetoric in order to galvanize the population into supporting his policy. In the cities there is prosperity and a desire among the middle and upper classes for stability, peace and good government. Women allow the hijab to fall, men can obtain government-sponsored sex-change surgery (of which the Islamic Republic is the second biggest sponsor in the world, close behind Thailand.) Women and Men can obtain a writ of marriage lasting from a few hours to a few days, signed off by a mullah. Take all of the logical fallacies you have been fed by the media and throw them out the window. These are complex societies of which westerners have little concept.

The Arab League -resents- the presence of the state of Israel but are willing to seek peaceful relations with them, as the only thing which terrifies the league more than war with Israel and a full-scale American intervention in their holiest places, is a war between Israel and Iran that could turn apocalyptic (of course) but would also result in Iran making a huge play for hegemony by seizing oil-rich regions and cities of religious significance across the subcontinent.

So the Americans are the likely protectors. Bear in mind also that the majority of the 'league' are Sunni who share different values (but also no overarching internal religious authority). The suicide bombers you hear about on the news are almost entirely Sunni. Shia proxies like Hezbollah, Hizbollah in Iraq and others also use suicide bombing but do so as a -tactic- to accomplish an aim, (prominent occurrences like the Marine Barracks bombing in Beirut or the US Embassy Bombing). You are as deceived as the average 'terrorist' if you think that the war we are fighting has anything to do with Islam or Islamic values. These politicians or clerics use the faith when it is convenient, to convince young men to do things that money could not.

I will concede that the Arab league has a history of resistance against western interference and a history of being 'fucked around' by western powers, even after successfully uniting to assist against the Ottoman menace in the First World War. The honest truth is that as much as they dislike western authority interfering in their nations and will independently act against it or its representations whenever convenient, they very badly need for America to stay in the world and not withdraw into policies of isolationism which will empower our -mutual- enemies. This is why your secretaries of state still visit the 'Arab' league but why your government has had no diplomatic relations with the Islamic Republic since Ruollah Khomeni's revolution.

musashi wrote: [*]There are probably many more regional conglomerations, but I’ll rest with the NGOs. Sure Hamas, Hezbollah, Fatah, the PLO, Abu Sayyef all might be considered “local” phenomenon. But the truth is that they receive sustenance from a broad region of faithful Idio… er Islamists. These NGOs become the tip of the spear for many, many different regional conglomerations of anti western interests.[/list]

As someone who works for NGOs I can tell you that you needn't worry and we have many, many organizations fighting the good fight and spreading the light of capitalism to the despondent desert wastes and camel breeding grounds.

These organizations are certainly not united. Hamas and Fatah are at war, the PLO died with Arrafat. Hezbollah is a Shia political party and does not cooperate with terrorists (Ironically). As I said, no monolithic organization, no driving passion. The only unifying factor is a deep desire to be left the hell alone, given true stability and an economic alternative (I call this the pension effect). Of course, there is a high degree of interference by regional powers who are pursuing their own interests, but that my friends is just good capitalism.

musashi wrote:

Michael Cerularius wrote:There is no plot to destroy the nation of Israel.

How many times does Mahmoud Ahma-dictator-ijad have to say the Zionists should be wiped from the face of the earth before you believe him? Let’s look at history… Did the 1948 war for independence not happen? Did the six day war not happen? Did Lebanon not happen… twice? So Israel was not a target during G1 and G2? I think if they are actually doing the fighting, it is only fair to consider that they might also be doing some plotting before lead starts to fly.

Your logic is schizophrenic in that you seek associations and symbolism where there is none. Yes, those historical circumstances occurred, and yes the state of Israel has every right to exist in its current incarnation. I will not contest that. Ironically, I am a non-Jewish zionist. However, the situation as it was in 1948 and as it is now are totally different. The Arab league has moved from confrontation to diplomatic engagement with Israel, seeking only a resolution to land-disputes (arbitrated by international courts) and a resolution to the Palestinian problem. I won't get in to the viability of a one or two state solution here, it's irrelevant to this discussion. Remember that the leaders of the Arab league are beholden to the same urban/rural dichotomies that plague the rest of the region. They have to please their populations at home while making their nations legitimate on the international stage. This means a fine balance between hateful rhetoric and diplomatic concession.

I find it amusing that you cannot bring yourself to type the name of Ahmadinejad, whose qualities of dictatorship are notable but who was elected through free and fair elections prior to the most recent occurrences. Your argument starts to sound a little more like Glenn Beck and a little less like a rational objectivist perspective when you so thoroughly divorce yourself from historical reality.

musashi wrote:

Michael Cerularius wrote:There is no plot to …. initiate apocalyptic jihad warfare on the citizens of the free world.

No offence intended but do you read the news much? Iraq was trying to build a nuke, where their stuff went who knows (only the Syrians know - buhahaha!). Iran can build a nuke right this minute. Pakistan has nukes. And nuclear weapons are only a single aspect of apocalyptic jihad. In our world of asymmetric warfare how many ways can you attack an enemy? To me the alternatives seem to be limited only by the imagination of the attacker.

As to the Iranian Nuclear Program, I had the opportunity to sit in on a lecture given by a foreign advisor of Israel's Netenyahu. What he said struck me as the most rational and truthful of answers. Iran is not suicidal. They are not a suicide-bombing nation. What they are seeking is to tip the balance of power, which developing a nuclear program will do. Israel has powerful American backing which has hitherto permitted the unmitigated use of force against Iran's proxy armies (of which Hamas is -NOT- one). If Iran developed a bomb, Israel's capabilities to respond conventionally to militancy along its borders would be greatly curtailed and the resulting rebalancing of power across the region would force all states into serious diplomatic negotiations. It is still a threat to western interests, I will concede, and to the territorial sovereignty of Israel but there is not a scrap of will in the Iranian people or in their seemingly 'deranged' (but miraculously composed and calculated) leader to employ a Nuclear device.

Assymetrical warfare is part of the fourth-generation warfare paradigm which has been developed by the use of proxy forces to fight conventional armies amongst civilian populations. It's a natural progression and as technologies, values and necessities change, is likely to transform into something altogether new. Idea-driven warfare (like the September 11th attacks, but also including the recent attack on Google by Chinese hackers) is rapidly becoming the means of proving a point, and actually evolved from the carpet bombing (or shock and awe) techniques from the second world war, vietnam and most recently Iraq. September 11th was quite succinctly shock and awe on a massive scale. Wrong? Yes. Criminal? Absolutely. A perfect extension of idea-driven warfare into the heart of America? 100%

Your big concerns in life ought to be the possibilities of Iranian hegemony over oil, the emergence of China as a military and economic power (correlated to the former), the turmoil and corruption in Russia and the rise of democratic socialism in the west. The Arab states, Israel, their politics, populations and perspectives are totally irrelevant to what is really transpiring in the world. Everybody wants us to think they're important, everyone wants us to stay... but at some point, NATO and the Western Coalition have got to accept publicly that there are bigger fish to fry.

musashi wrote:

Michael Cerularius wrote:However, if we keep eating these mythologies and ascribing to the unknown the 'turban wearing, camel riding, draconian and militaristic' stereotypes which we were patiently fed through the media at every available opportunity, those horrific outcomes become more and more likely.

So they put that turban on KSM’s head during his trail?
Does Brian Williams have a fetish for Hijabs that I don’t know about?
Does Katie Couric compel women to wear a burka? Well let’s be honest… Its Islam… Katie can’t compel the burka, but if she finds a women not wearing a burka then Sharia law permits Katie to rape or stone the women. Oh wait Katie is a woman too… Girl on girl rape would be gay, so both women should die, or better yet since we have socially shamed them both past the point of forgiveness let’s just fit them for a backpack.

Again, you derail yourself with blind rhetorical hatred. How difficult is it to accept that other nations do things differently? Doesn't an Objectivist focus exclusively on their own interest in a situation without giving regard to the conditions of life for other human beings, especially those who willingly subject themselves to privation? What is possibly to be gained by judging cultures for their values (which I have already established are inconsistent -at best). Women's rights, homosexuality... these are all moral principles which in our own not-so-distant past (speaking historically) were totally ignored or outright violated and in some places still are. The argument that 'they are somehow inferior because they have different and alien traditions and practices' is probably the weakest, so I find it relieving that you ended the tirade on that note.

It would be ideal if the rest of the world would conform to western morality and values all of the time. I mean, everything would be so familiar everywhere we went. And there would always be a place to find a good American-style strip club, some beer and a basket of french fries... but this is the root of the whole problem. Everybody has a flag to wave, everybody has a cause to die for and at the end of the day, they will.

Here's a video link I would -strongly- encourage you to check out, before responding. It's an interview for 'Conversations with History' done at Berkeley with Robert Baer, author of several award wining books and the basis for George Clooney's character in the award winning film 'Syriana.'

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=paS1-ee-5cU

Seriously. Watch the interview.
(And I will read the book).

Sorry its taken time to get back to this, RL has been busy.

Michael Cerularius wrote:As a student of affairs in the Mideast I can tell you with great certainty that the myth of monolithic Islam is precisely the same as the myth of monolithic Communism.

There is an other really big difference that I didn't touch on – GOD.

As a country falls into socialistic dictatorship, there may be a degree of romanticism and misunderstanding. But once you're living in that nightmare, the failings become obvious. I would guess there is a high degree of disenfranchisement.

When Islam takes over - standing apart is an abomination. You can't quit Islam. You can't question Islam. Dissenters are not only going to hell, but the faithful have a responsibility to hasten the departure whether they are Sunni or Shia.

As you pointed out there are a wide variety of perspectives within Islam, but these distinct groups can be transformed by the influence of “experts” - what should we call them Profits, Mullahs, Imams, Con Men. Some joker goes on the Hajj, learns how to read Arabic, and then travels to far flung communities and preaches the way the Koran should “really” be interpreted. In a sense, the expert becomes the mouthpiece of GOD. And to remain faithful to GOD, the followers must submit to the will and whim of these leaders.

That is not the case with Communism.

Michael Cerularius wrote:Doesn't an Objectivist focus exclusively on their own interest in a situation without giving regard to the conditions of life for other human beings?

To me this seems very close to the mark, but not completely on point. Sure self-interest should be the focus. But if the other human beings have a divergent world view and are actively striving to establish their religion as the governance of your world, then I would say your self interests are threatened.

Some of my questions center around preemptive attack. I think Objectivists are in conflict with hegemonic structures like Socialism or Islam. Both of those systems depend upon control of the populous and killing the opposition (Objectivists). At what point should the Objectivist act in self defense?

Is it time when gas prices go up due to interruptions in supply casued by Islamic warfare? or
Is it time when they raise your taxes to rebuild an embassy blown up by Islamist? or
Is it time when you have to start paying a Jizya tax for being a non-Muslim? or
Is it time when you get arrested for holding your cock with your right hand while urinating (yeah it is in the Hadith)? or
Is it time when you get thrown in jail for kissing your wife in a public place? or
Is it time when one of your family members is killed by a homicide bomber? or
Is it time when they blow up a building down the street and you could have been in it? or
is it time when they force you to your knees at the point of a gun?

The situation is a progressive and slippery slope. Just where do you draw the line and decide your self interests are in jepordy?

Michael Cerularius wrote:The honest truth is that as much as they dislike western authority interfering in their nations and will independently act against it or its representations whenever convenient, they very badly need for America to stay in the world and not withdraw into policies of isolationism which will empower our -mutual- enemies.

Who would our mutual enemies be? I've been trying to sort this out and struggle.

So far this thread focuses on the Non-Islamic world’s difficulty in confronting Islamic hegemony.

But the truth is that Non-Islamic culture represents an even more insoluble dilemma to the Talibans of the world. How are you gonna keep ‘em in a 14th century Bedouin lifestyle once they’ve seen MTV and Baywatch? Yes Abdullah there really is a Pamela Anderson.

By Sayed Salahuddin Sayed Salahuddin, 3/19/10 wrote:
LOSING THE BATTLE TO KEEP FEMALE FLESH OFF AFGHAN TV

KABUL (Reuters) – Eight years after the fall of the Taliban, who banned television and barred women from appearing in public without an all-enveloping burqa, the Afghan government is fighting a losing battle to keep female flesh off TV.

In a country that remains deeply conservative and male-dominated, the government has the power to impose fines or shut down broadcasters for showing images of women deemed racy. Yet the guidelines seem to be observed largely in the breach.

Urban Afghans are now spoiled for choice with a remarkably vibrant array of TV stations. At any given moment, viewers can flip between news, cooking shows, cartoons, Turkish soap operas, Iranian dramas and hugely popular Indian films, with their gyrating sari-clad heroines.

To get around government restrictions on showing female flesh, TV stations employ full-time pixilators, charged with adding blurry blotches over bare arms, legs, necklines and midriffs. But if you watch long enough, you can easily spot a swaying elbow, a naked ankle or even an exposed strip of waist.

The new information and culture minister, Sayed Makhdoom Raheen, summoned the heads of some 20 private broadcasters and cable operators last month, demanding they revise their programs and follow government restrictions.

"I told them that in addition to your personal interests ... you should not forget your social and Islamic obligations and act responsibly with regard to the morals of the new generation," Raheen told Reuters in an interview.

"There were lots of complaints from the public, especially among families, that some of the TV stations were not observing Islamic cultural traditions, which they called harmful for the young generation.

"It is a serious matter for us. The ministry believes in raising and discussing the issue through understanding, and if that does not succeed, then steps will be taken under the law."

IGNORING RESTRICTIONS

Some TV stations appear to have abided by such restrictions only for a few days. Cable operators, which reach a small share of households, seem to pay the guidelines little heed at all.

Female lawmaker Fawzia Kufi caused a hush followed by laughter among a group of parliamentarians last month when she interrupted a debate on banning female dancing on TV with the suggestion that authorities also ban racy images of men.
(I love the hypocracy )

Still, the work of the pixilators goes on. Saad Mohseni, Director of Tolo TV, Afghanistan's biggest private TV network which mixes original programing and popular imported fare, said his station has an entire pixilation department.

"They pixilate many things, including 'too much flesh' and any thing (that) may contravene our religious, cultural and social norms," he said in an e-mailed response to questions.

"It naturally makes things a bit more complicated, but we accept that we need to have this procedure in place for Afghanistan."

...

I agree that the objective of war is to kill and destroy until the other side is gone or capitulates. El Sid thought that way too.

Ozeeba wrote:Now to apply that to Radical Islam, because there are less operating costs associated with running a guerrilla, make-shift, low-budget military (which is essentially what they are)...

To me the radical Islam is only the tip of the spear. I believe they are radical due to a number of reasons, and the corrupting influence of non-Islamic decadence being a big factor.

The Islam's main battle is not being conducted with IEDs. I think they attempt to achieve control of the world by exploiting the progressive policies of each country. They use the systems both to create their protests and also shelter the expansion of the “cult of intolerance”. For every zealot who rapes a woman in order to shame her into becoming a homicide bomber I think there are thousands more in the army of Islam-izsation.

The skirmishes are in the news everyday, here are a few from just the last week
Libya suspending oil exports to Switzerland due to a building code banning new minarets.
Switzerland paying reparations for briefly detaining Hannibal the maid-beater (hey its OK in Libya? What are you Swiss guys getting so up set about?)
The President of the United States transforming into a genocide denouncer (Turkey).
The imprisonment of a man and woman for sexting each other (Dubai).

Toss a Quran in a gutter in any major city throughout the world and watch how long it takes the real army of Islam to show up.

Taking what I know happened and putting it aside, I would have still killed them. Even with the RoE in place if my mission was top secret it wouldn't matter who was in the way. (I was in Afghanistan and Supported the CSAR team) Moving on to "Winning the Unwinnable War"...

I believe this war is winnable in a non-conventional sense. The only way we can possibly come out on top is if we eliminate the current and any potential opposition. However, the structure of these terrorists is so that when one leader dies it is replaced by another. With the local populace being forcibly recruited into this war by Taliban subjugation, the only logical way to achieve total victory would be to eliminate everyone or become the subjugators ourselves.

The US is taking the approach of "Teach a man to fish" and trying to apply it to the country. This takes time and is hindered by the afforementioned Taliban subjugation. How we are doing this is building infrastructure the country could not afford to purchase or have the technical expertise to build. (Afghanistan is one of if not the poorest country in the world) We are also trying to create a government much like the US where the local nationals can defend what has been built. This is hindered by the fact that the Taliban can purchase them for very little money.

So what we have is an area that largely desires to change. The "Few bad apples" are what is at the root of the problem and is an appropriate term in this case. The only problem is finding the bad apples before they ruin everything we're doing.

So again this war is winnable. But only if we use non-conventional means to achieve it. Which we are by taking the path of benevolence and teaching them how to take care of themselves by building and improving the quality of life in the area. This takes time that the world does not have the patience for.

Aldrai wrote:So again this war is winnable. But only if we use non-conventional means to achieve it.

I guess you have not read the book. The point of the book is that the war can easily be won if we began to use conventional methods again.

By conventional methods I mean what US used to have moral conviction to do: crush the spirit of the enemy by whatever means necessary, such as nukes, targeting cities that support the enemy, etc.

Today, conventional means searching one hole at a time, dropping food packages, never attacking mosques, apologizing to the enemy, doing nothing about captured or killed Americans, etc.

Another quote from the book.

Several infantrymen have also said that the rules are so restrictive that pilots are often not allowed to attack fixed targets — say, a building or tree line from which troops are taking fire — unless they can personally see the insurgents doing the firing.

This has lead to situations many soldiers describe as absurd, including decisions by patrol leaders to have fellow soldiers move briefly out into the open to draw fire once aircraft arrive, so the pilots might be cleared to participate in the fight.

Yep, when you are morally afraid to fire at your enemy and enemie's civilians to protect yourself and defend the country, you have to use your buddies as meat shields.

It sure sucks to be the one to assign such duties, huh?

I guess what it boils down to is, if we are going to engage in this kind of activity it's all or nothing. Go big or stay at home. That is the only way to end a war and I guess if you are going to go to war, a quick and decisive action would cost less in the long run, in both lives and resources. My problem is that I agree with the assertion that most of the middle eastern civilians are victims of desperation and lack of control in their lives. Too many times people forget that the persons/civilians just want to live their lives the same way we wish to live ours. They live in fear, not just of the US but the power groups involved there already. They either cheer at the death of Americans or they are considered empathizers and if they go along with the zealots they live with they are considered war targets of the occupying forces. Most of the people there are, just what was in the book, goat herders and farmers caught in the midst of a conflict they could care less to be involved in. They are worried about feeding themselves more then picking sides but what choice are they given? So how do you declare war? Most of the civilians could care less about politics or who is doing what.

Yeshmiel wrote:I guess what it boils down to is, if we are going to engage in this kind of activity it's all or nothing. Go big or stay at home.

I'll just point out that is how you have already lost the argument but slowly spounging modern approach to this.

Calling defending your life as "this kind of activity" or "go big or stay at home" is already denegrating yourself and your life to almost zero, just as some minor practical consideration. This is a common approach in today's politics. "Hey, we have this small game to win, should we win it? Well, I guess, maybe . . ."

It is not a game where you win points by having less Germans offended by you calling them Nazis in 1940s.

Once you put the sitution into the proper principle: defending your life, it becomes pretty clear what and how it needs to be done. Who the hell cares if they get offended or hurt? Our life is under threat from their country and culture. It doesn't matter if 98.25% of the population there wouldn't stand up and cheer openly. Their country/group/whatever is attacking your life.


Best real example of declaring and fighting the war is US vs Japan.

Sometimes those who live in a verbose and articulate world can approach conversations with a degree of superfluous grammatical and syntax driven criticism looking for a way to twist the way something that was written to leverage it to make their point but, I digress. You read too much into the terminology I used and failed to see the point of the statement. The sad reality is I agree with you, but I offer the other side of the dilemma. I fully comprehend the fact that this isn't a game. I served my country, a Marine I may add, and I have lost friends and family both to the conflict(s) over there. I trained men at Camp Pendleton in the mid 90s as a rifle instructor. I had the heavy responsibility of training men to be able to handle themselves in combat, so I understand the seriousness of this as anyone.

And about the latter part of your statement, there is a very small group of people over there threatening my life and the way I live it. They can barely feed themselves, they die from lack of medical care, they don't have televisions, radios, gaming consoles and they are most of them caught between regimes and power groups all vying for power. They wake in the morning and work all day in an effort and out of hope to do what your country has made easy for you to do, feed yourself, speak your mind, practice whatever belief(s) you have and live another day in peace. Almost all of the issues over there are precipitated in mans need to control the other. I also know that a large portion of the people in the middle east that have taken up arms against the "westerners" have done so because of the same opinions of us as we have of them. Those who have engaged have been convinced by peer pressure, propaganda, pathos driven media coverage of the atrocities of all Americans as our media has of the middle eastern world.

I find that dialogue best serves me, and I learn more, when I enter it willing to validate the other as drawing from a pool of one perspective means I don't see the other and lose a chance to learn something new. And as stated by one other person on these boards, "Even if I don't agree I can use their insight and perspective to my advantage."(pretty sure Kushan said that somewhere).