Kolker is right
Frank Rank
1993). The subject of my message pretty much sums up my intended
point: I have come to the conclusion that Bob Kolker is right about
the need to exterminate Muslims.
I just finished watching United 93 for the first time. I knew it would
have an impact on me, as I live in the shadow of the Pentagon (since
before 2001).
We can debate whether the threat from the followers of Islam is "worth"
the effort to fight them. Of one thing, however, I have become
convinced: nothing less than the nearly total annihilation of all
Muslims could possibly end that threat. Before people start howling
the charge of "racism" against me, be advised I feel the same way about
all followers of different manifestations of irrrationalism, especially
religious fundamentalism of any flavor. Thus, I am open to the
extermination of all religious "true believers," regardless of race,
nationality, or denomination, when those believers threaten rational
values and murder "infidels." Kill them all and let their imagined
gods sort out the bodies. As Mr. Kolker has correctly pointed out,
there is no practical way to distinguish the malignant from the benign
among those infected with religious fervor, provided such a distinction
even exists.
What I find even more frightening, however, than the threat from the
Islamic fundies, is that anyone who states the obvious facts I have
written here is derided as a lunatic, a monster, or both. If the
barbarism of Islam ever achieves any significant victory over
civilization, it won't be without the help of all these appeasers,
because that is a victory the brainwashed, idiot thugs could never have
won on their own.
Acar
"Frank Rank" <Frank...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1164863008.1...@j72g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> What I find even more frightening, however, than the threat from the
> Islamic fundies, is that anyone who states the obvious facts I have
> written here is derided as a lunatic, a monster, or both.
Both. And not bright.
> If the
> barbarism of Islam ever achieves any significant victory over
> civilization, it won't be without the help of all these appeasers,
> because that is a victory the brainwashed, idiot thugs could never have
> won on their own.
Bully for you.
PS - Kolker is speechless and terrified. "Do I sound that stupid? Mirror
mirror on the wall say that it isn't so!", he mumbles is a state of
disorientation.
.
.
.
.
Atlas Bugged
news:1164863008.1...@j72g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> 1993). The subject of my message pretty much sums up my intended
> point: I have come to the conclusion that Bob Kolker is right about
> the need to exterminate Muslims.
> What I find even more frightening, however, than the threat from the
> Islamic fundies, is that anyone who states the obvious facts I have
> written here is derided as a lunatic, a monster, or both.
Well, not by me. Just sounds like bad tactics, an inefficient, or even
ineffective way to get from point A to point B.
You might *need* to kill a lot, or even all the Muslims. But as "plan A,"
that's a ridiculous idea.
You live in the shadow of the Pentagon, and this has sensibly shaped your
view. What makes you think people living near the ashes of what used to be
called "Teheran" wouldn't be similarly influenced?
The error in Bob's thinking is his implicit rejection of the idea that
people have free will. He talks about the "Jihad meme" like it's the AIDS
virus, and there's just no cure, you got it, well then you got it.
This is philosophy, however. Self-help is available, especially when aided
by persuasive tactics. Kolker himself loves to parrot the bit about how he
could make a child into anything he wants. That propensity diminishes in
adults, but never disappears.
In the new James Bond film (highly recommended, by the way, though if you
thought the last 20 Bond films were great, then probably not,) the bad guys
try to "persuade" Bond with torture. It doesn't go well for them. But
that's because he's James Bond. Jihadists are just a bunch of frightened
children with adult weapons.
>If the
> barbarism of Islam ever achieves any significant victory over
> civilization, it won't be without the help of all these appeasers,
> because that is a victory the brainwashed, idiot thugs could never have
> won on their own.
Well, sure, welcome to the sanction of the victim, Objectivism, and Ayn
Rand....oh, right, you've been around long before me, sorry, I'll shut-up.
But if the good-guys are digging their own grave, as you correctly suggest,
then how can putting Islam in the grave be the answer? If we're bent on
digging our own grave, it will just happen anyway, post Islam-holocaust,
with the on-deck batters. My guess is that those guys will be called
"environmentalists."
Robert J. Kolker
> Bully for you.
>
> PS - Kolker is speechless and terrified. "Do I sound that stupid? Mirror
> mirror on the wall say that it isn't so!", he mumbles is a state of
> disorientation.
Not so. I am not terrified. I am rather cold and implacable when it
comes to the Muslim Problem. Islam is a blotch that needs to be removed.
It can best be done by destroying Muslims.
Revenge is a dish best eaten cold -- Old Klingon Proverb
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
>
> Well, not by me. Just sounds like bad tactics, an inefficient, or even
> ineffective way to get from point A to point B.
>
> You might *need* to kill a lot, or even all the Muslims. But as "plan A,"
> that's a ridiculous idea.
>
> You live in the shadow of the Pentagon, and this has sensibly shaped your
> view. What makes you think people living near the ashes of what used to be
> called "Teheran" wouldn't be similarly influenced?
Not if you are a fanatic. Death and destruction did not stop the Jap
Kamizes. It was the Emporer's orders.
>
> The error in Bob's thinking is his implicit rejection of the idea that
> people have free will. He talks about the "Jihad meme" like it's the AIDS
> virus, and there's just no cure, you got it, well then you got it.
We are out of time for a long range cure. It would take generations. It
is a matter of days, weeks, months and years before Muslim fanatics
carry weapons of mass destruction into our home.
Fifty years ago we might have considered a long term solution to the
Muslim Problem. We are now out of time. Killing the lot, or puting them
in a controlled isolated environment (North American Muslims) is our
only chance of survival as a civilization.
>
> This is philosophy, however. Self-help is available, especially when aided
> by persuasive tactics. Kolker himself loves to parrot the bit about how he
> could make a child into anything he wants. That propensity diminishes in
> adults, but never disappears.
When did I do that?
Bob Kolker
Frank Rank
Atlas Bugged wrote:
> "Frank Rank" <Frank...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1164863008.1...@j72g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > Islamic fundies, is that anyone who states the obvious facts I have
> > written here is derided as a lunatic, a monster, or both.
>
> Well, not by me. Just sounds like bad tactics, an inefficient, or even
> ineffective way to get from point A to point B.
So, what do you suggest?
> You live in the shadow of the Pentagon, and this has sensibly shaped your
> view. What makes you think people living near the ashes of what used to be
> called "Teheran" wouldn't be similarly influenced?
Too late, most of those living in Tehran are *already* religious
fanatics who want to kill us. The Japs who survived WWII didn't seem
to give us too much trouble.
> This is philosophy, however. Self-help is available, especially when aided
> by persuasive tactics.
What's more "persuasive" than the prospect of utter destruction?
Actually, I'm open to the idea of first completely pulling out of the
Middle East and every other country (militarily), and ending all
foreign aid (including to Israel). Then tell the Islamic theocracies:
"We don't care what you do, we only want to buy oil. If, however,
there is another attack upon the United States, you will be completely
exterminated to the last person."
> But if the good-guys are digging their own grave, as you correctly suggest,
> then how can putting Islam in the grave be the answer? If we're bent on
> digging our own grave, it will just happen anyway, post Islam-holocaust,
> with the on-deck batters. My guess is that those guys will be called
> "environmentalists."
Unfortunately, I admit you have a point here. The void may very well
be filled by another type of irrational fanaticism. Islam has been
developing a seething hatred for rational values of the civilized West
for a long time. Perhaps it wouldn't be too late to use more subtle
tactics, as you suggest, against those other and more recent types of
irrationalism.
Or maybe I'm just pissing in the wind.
Mark_S...@yahoo.com
> > news:1164863008.1...@j72g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > > What I find even more frightening, however, than the threat from the
> > > Islamic fundies, is that anyone who states the obvious facts I have
> > > written here is derided as a lunatic, a monster, or both.
What you have written is neither obvious nor factual. You have expressed an
opinion, which if you took to its rational conclusion, would lead you to
support the extermination of about 90% of the human race.
> Atlas Bugged wrote:
> > You live in the shadow of the Pentagon, and this has sensibly shaped your
> > view. What makes you think people living near the ashes of what used to
> > be called "Teheran" wouldn't be similarly influenced?
What makes *you* think they wouldn't be similarly influenced? In other
words, why don't you believe that they would be filled with rage and a
desire for revenge against the irrational fanatics who murdered thousands,
if not millions, of innocent people?
Frank Rank <Frank...@gmail.com> writes:
> Unfortunately, I admit you have a point here. The void may very well
> be filled by another type of irrational fanaticism.
The most dangerous form of fanaticism that I'm seeing lately is the lust for
genocide that permeates this newsgroup. Optimistically though, I doubt that
anyone with the capability to carry out your fantasies is anywhere near
stupid enough to do it.
--
Mark Sieving
John Shafto
news:guest.20061130143945$1b...@news.killfile.org...
> The most dangerous form of fanaticism that I'm seeing lately
> is the lust for genocide that permeates this newsgroup.
I'm inclined to agree with your point of view Mark,
but your notion of religion, and/or other forms of
irrationalism, as genetic (genocide) makes you
a very poor spokesman for this point of view.
(I like Bugged's "denial of free-will" argument much better)
cr113
> We can debate whether the threat from the followers of Islam is "worth"
> the effort to fight them. Of one thing, however, I have become
> convinced: nothing less than the nearly total annihilation of all
> Muslims could possibly end that threat.
I'm curious what your plan is. Nuclear weapons? Which countries would
you start on? Only ones with muslim percentages that are higher than
50%? How will you deal with the countries with smaller percentages?
Conquer them and then selectively exterminate the muslims? What about
the larger countries like Russia and China? If you use nukes what about
the non-muslims that are killed? If you don't use nukes how will you
fund this operation?
"Uuuuuuuuuuuhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh"
-Lurch-
-
-
-
-
-
TC
> "Uuuuuuuuuuuhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh"
Not even nukes will do it.
The surface areas of Iran, Egypt and Iraq total 3 million km^2.
The US has created some 70,000 warheads. If each can
totally destroy 40 km^2, the US arsenal can do Iran,
Egypt and Iraq.
But then the US is out of nukes and Libya, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia,
Indonesia have not been touched.
The world is a big place.
Tom
Robert J. Kolker
>
>
> What you have written is neither obvious nor factual. You have expressed an
> opinion, which if you took to its rational conclusion, would lead you to
> support the extermination of about 90% of the human race.
Over nintety percent of terror activities are carried out by Muslims. If
what you said were true, there would be a much broader representation
among the terrorists.
Bob Kolker
Ken Gardner
>What you have written is neither obvious nor factual. You have expressed an
>opinion, which if you took to its rational conclusion, would lead you to
>support the extermination of about 90% of the human race.
Based on his entire post, I doubt that Mr. Rank has thought it through
that far. And he certainly hasn't thought it through very well.
[...]
>The most dangerous form of fanaticism that I'm seeing lately is the lust for
>genocide that permeates this newsgroup.
This is determinism rearing its ugly head. The Bugman is right about
this.
>Optimistically though, I doubt that
>anyone with the capability to carry out your fantasies is anywhere near
>stupid enough to do it.
Liberals, leftists, libertarians, and other losers do not exhaust the
universe of people to whom sane people do not entrust national
security.
Ken
cr113
> Too late, most of those living in Tehran are *already* religious
> fanatics who want to kill us.
Your assumption appears to be that Muslims are a unified force, bent on
destroying the US.
If so then explain the following:
Why are Muslims at war WITH EACH OTHER?
Why haven't there been any more "beltway sniper" like attacks by
Muslims in the US? There are at least 2 million Muslims living in the
US. If even a small percentage of them were fanatical terrorists, why
aren't they attacking us?
Robert J. Kolker
> Frank Rank wrote:
>
>
>>Too late, most of those living in Tehran are *already* religious
>>fanatics who want to kill us.
>
>
> Your assumption appears to be that Muslims are a unified force, bent on
> destroying the US.
I am assuming that Muslim Culture (particularly the religion) encourages
fanatics to do terrible things. Unity is not necessary for those. Only
madness and fanaticism.
>
> If so then explain the following:
>
> Why are Muslims at war WITH EACH OTHER?
Because Muslim A thinks he is doing the Will of Allah and Muslim B is a
backslider. At the same time Muslim B thinks he is doing the Will of
Allah and Muslim A is a backlsider. They both agree that backsliders and
Jews should be killed. They are both playing by the same rules and
appling them differently.
>
> Why haven't there been any more "beltway sniper" like attacks by
> Muslims in the US? There are at least 2 million Muslims living in the
> US. If even a small percentage of them were fanatical terrorists, why
> aren't they attacking us?
Perhaps they are afraid to. Perhaps they will only go so far as giving
the Islamic charities which fund the active terrorists. But they will
all cheer when American targets are hit. Just like the Palestineans
residing in New York sang and danced when the WTC went down.
Those people are providing the cover and safety for active terrorists.
They are accomplices. They give aid and comfort to enemies of the united
states which makes them (by constitutional definition) traitors.
The worst of these (other than the active terrorists) are the
Yes....But... Muslims.
Bob Kolker
cr113
Robert J. Kolker wrote:
> cr113 wrote:
> > Your assumption appears to be that Muslims are a unified force, bent on
> > destroying the US.
>
> I am assuming that Muslim Culture (particularly the religion) encourages
> fanatics to do terrible things. Unity is not necessary for those. Only
> madness and fanaticism.
> >
> > If so then explain the following:
> >
> > Why are Muslims at war WITH EACH OTHER?
>
> Because Muslim A thinks he is doing the Will of Allah and Muslim B is a
> backslider. At the same time Muslim B thinks he is doing the Will of
> Allah and Muslim A is a backlsider. They both agree that backsliders and
> Jews should be killed. They are both playing by the same rules and
> appling them differently.
My point is that if they are at war with each other they are unlikely
to become a serious threat to us. It's a Freebie. We leave them alone
and they kill each other off. And it doesn't cost us a dime.
John Alway
Frank Rank wrote:
> Atlas Bugged wrote:
> > "Frank Rank" <Frank...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:1164863008.1...@j72g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > > What I find even more frightening, however, than the threat from the
> > > Islamic fundies, is that anyone who states the obvious facts I have
> > > written here is derided as a lunatic, a monster, or both.
> > Well, not by me. Just sounds like bad tactics, an inefficient, or even
> > ineffective way to get from point A to point B.
> So, what do you suggest?
What has been suggested by Peikoff and others, annihilate states
that sponsor terrorism, especially Iran. These are the enablers who
are using terrorists as one tactic to fight us. They train them, they
finance them, they harbor them, and they teach the Islamic meme. Once
these states are vanquished, this will reduce the power of the enemy
immeasurably. They will be infinitely weaker. At this point, dealing
with fanatics such as these can become a police job. Leave the
military to deal with states, then the police to deal with the various
sundry rouge thugs that may pop up.
Frankly, these war should be *easy* to fight, in relative terms, but
Bush is a moral weakling and so will not fight. He wants to spread
freedom to Iraq, not fight the bad guys. The sad part is that he's
really spreading Islamic fundamentalism in Iraq.
> > You live in the shadow of the Pentagon, and this has sensibly shaped your
> > view. What makes you think people living near the ashes of what used to be
> > called "Teheran" wouldn't be similarly influenced?
> Too late, most of those living in Tehran are *already* religious
> fanatics who want to kill us. The Japs who survived WWII didn't seem
> to give us too much trouble.
It may seem that way, but in fact, the Japanese gave us much more
trouble. That war was horrific and costs lots of American lives. We
had to kill lots of them to finally get them to submit. We've not
even touched Iran or Syria or Saudi Arabia, the big terrorist states.
They're just sitting there untouched, which shows you how serious Bush
is about fighting terrorism.
Bob Kolker's idea is on the table, but that's only if all bets
are off and we can't vanquish the foe by lesser means.
...John
Frank Rank
cr113 wrote:
> Frank Rank wrote:
>
> > We can debate whether the threat from the followers of Islam is "worth"
> > the effort to fight them. Of one thing, however, I have become
> > convinced: nothing less than the nearly total annihilation of all
> > Muslims could possibly end that threat.
>
> I'm curious what your plan is. Nuclear weapons? Which countries would
> you start on? Only ones with muslim percentages that are higher than
> 50%? How will you deal with the countries with smaller percentages?
[...]
I didn't mean to propose a "plan." I merely claim that to stop the
Islamic threat, most Muslims would need to be killed. It may very well
be that such a goal is infeasible.
Acar
<lhca...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1164891936....@j72g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Acar wrote:
>> "Frank Rank" <Frank...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1164863008.1...@j72g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> > What I find even more frightening, however, than the threat from the
>> > Islamic fundies, is that anyone who states the obvious facts I have
>> > written here is derided as a lunatic, a monster, or both.
>>
>> Both. And not bright.
>
> ethics and intellectual prowess.
This article is called "The Virtue of Genocide"
Openly advocating genocide in a newsgroup that is dedicated to the analysis
of morality and rationality; and getting polite responses such as "it's not
practical" and "he hasn't thought it through." Wow!
Argument #1 - Let's bomb that idea out of existence.
Argument #2 - There is good genocide and bad genocide. We must condemn bad
genocide and practice good genocide.
Argument #3 - "I am calm, very calm, goddamn it. And by the way I'm getting
sick of your white uniforms."
Bob Vogel
cr113 wrote:
>
> My point is that if they are at war with each other they are unlikely
> to become a serious threat to us. It's a Freebie. We leave them alone
> and they kill each other off. And it doesn't cost us a dime.
>
Not really. We'd have remove all the authoritarian regimes *keeping*
them from killing each other. Then, when complete anarchy sets in, we
can say simply that "They just don't want freedom bad enough, do they?"
The secret to this plan is not letting on that we're ... oops! Almost
said too much, didn't I?
Robert J. Kolker
>
> My point is that if they are at war with each other they are unlikely
> to become a serious threat to us. It's a Freebie. We leave them alone
> and they kill each other off. And it doesn't cost us a dime.
They see Americans as being allied to the Jews, hence we (Americans) are
enemies by extension. Apparently you have been asleep while the fanatics
yell anti-American diatribes in their Mosques.
Bob Kolker
John Alway
Frank Rank wrote:
[...]
> I didn't mean to propose a "plan." I merely claim that to stop the
> Islamic threat, most Muslims would need to be killed. It may very well
> be that such a goal is infeasible.
Maybe you're not noticing, but you don't have to kill them all. The
*states* are what you have to get, because they are the big sources of
power.
...John
John Alway
cr113 wrote:
[...]
> Why are Muslims at war WITH EACH OTHER?
Because they are religious fanatics who believe in a weird sort of
religious purity, and judging what that is is not based on anything
objective, so they kill each other if they find what they consider
(somewhat arbitrarily) to be heretical behavior. It's what religious
fanatics have always done.
The point you have to understand is that being a muslim is a bad
idea, because your fellow muslims will not be your friends. It's just
a bad ideology for life.
> Why haven't there been any more "beltway sniper" like attacks by
> Muslims in the US? There are at least 2 million Muslims living in the
> US. If even a small percentage of them were fanatical terrorists, why
> aren't they attacking us?
That's a good point. Some muslims are relatively innocuous. I'm
sure the American ones have the American sense of life unavoidably in
them, although most don't speak out against the zealots.
...John
TC
John Alway wrote:
> Maybe you're not noticing, but you don't have to kill them all. The
> *states* are what you have to get, because they are the big sources of
> power.
Yes, Saudi Arabia was the source of Mohammed Atta's power./
Tom
Mark_S...@yahoo.com
> <Mark_S...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:guest.20061130143945$1b...@news.killfile.org...
>
> > The most dangerous form of fanaticism that I'm seeing lately
> > is the lust for genocide that permeates this newsgroup.
>
> I'm inclined to agree with your point of view Mark,
> but your notion of religion, and/or other forms of
> irrationalism, as genetic (genocide) makes you
> a very poor spokesman for this point of view.
I have no such notion. Genocide does not refer only to biological groups.
Merriam-Webster defines genocide as "the deliberate and systematic
destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group." Religion comes
under the category of a cultural group.
--
Mark Sieving
John Alway
Ken Gardner wrote:
[...]
> Based on his entire post, I doubt that Mr. Rank has thought it through
> that far. And he certainly hasn't thought it through very well.
No, but I give him credit for thinking it through.
[...]
> >Optimistically though, I doubt that
> >anyone with the capability to carry out your fantasies is anywhere near
> >stupid enough to do it.
> Liberals, leftists, libertarians, and other losers do not exhaust the
> universe of people to whom sane people do not entrust national
> security.
Also, Bush.
Have you listened to Peikoff's DIM course on aynrand.org? If you
haven't, and you don't want to go through all 15 sessions, then I think
the ones to listen to are sessions 1, 2 and 15. You'll need 1 and 2
to better understand 15, but 15 is where he critiques Bush.
I just finished the whole course last night, and am still thinking it
through. In session 15 he gives a very compelling argument against
Bush. I don't know why he offered such a weak argument on his website.
...John
John Alway
Yes, and Iran and Syria.
...John
cr113
No, just out fishing.
TC
Are we talking about the same Mohammed Atta?
So do you think we should have attacked Saudi Arabia instead
of Iraq? [I think we should have, given the need to attack
some muslim country other than Afghanistan.]
Tom
cr113
> I didn't mean to propose a "plan." I merely claim that to stop the
> Islamic threat, most Muslims would need to be killed. It may very well
> be that such a goal is infeasible.
No shit it's "infeasible". Which means we have to live with the threat.
I can live with it. I'm more worried about getting run over by a
redneck driving a big red truck then getting attacked by a terrorist (I
live in Alabama).
Robert J. Kolker
>
> Maybe you're not noticing, but you don't have to kill them all. The
> *states* are what you have to get, because they are the big sources of
> power.
Al Queda is not a State.
Wog War III is not just a war between States (that is part of it) it is
also a war between fanatical non-State religious groups and our country.
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
>
> That's a good point. Some muslims are relatively innocuous. I'm
> sure the American ones have the American sense of life unavoidably in
> them, although most don't speak out against the zealots.
Any non native born Yes-But Muslim should be shown the door.
The native borns should be shipped to holding camps where they can be
watched carefully. Arrangements can be made for the Muslims who wish to
sign a loyalty oath or publically renounce their religion. And even then
they should continued to be watched.
The ultimate objective is to eliminate Islam root and branch.
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
It was Saudi money, not the State. Al Queda is not a State based
organization. It is centered around the Wahabi cult.
Bob Kolker
Atlas Bugged
>> Maybe you're not noticing, but you don't have to kill them all. The
>> *states* are what you have to get, because they are the big sources of
>> power.
Robert J. Kolker" <now...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:eknd5g$1lf$1...@victor.killfile.org...
> Al Queda is not a State.
Doesn't matter. Al Queda has to be hunted down and destroyed. This can be
done - but only by Muslims.
Alway has this perfectly right; keep your eye on the states.
Top Cat is telling us that Mohammed Atta wasn't on any state payroll; I
worry about that boy, it's like he's eating bag spinach or something.....
Now, Bush almost got this right didn't he? He implied there would be two
kinds of Muslim states, to wit (1) those reduced to ashes and (2) those who
choose life and agree to keep all the free-lancers in line.
Too bad Bush was just complete, utter hot air. But the fact that Bushie-boy
botched it doesn't mean the formula was unsound.
You know, I actually am not worried about whether Kolker is right or the
colorfully named CR113 or whomever. I just ask that somebody fight an
actual war in response to the military grade attack that was made upon the
USA. It doesn't have to be nuclear, it doesn't have to be anything, it just
has to fit the definition of "war."
That definition is simple. "Hi. Pleased to meet you. There's been a
serious, top-level problem, and we need you to do as we say,
unconditionally. If you don't we are going to kill you. No one has to get
hurt at all, and if you die, it's you're own fault, attacking us militarily
is unacceptable. Please e-mail your response to
surrendero...@usa.com. Thank you in advance for your anticipated
cooperation."
That's war.
>
> Wog War III is not just a war between States (that is part of it) it is
> also a war between fanatical non-State religious groups and our country.
Wog War III is horseshit. The United States was victimized, it just needs
to say such stuff will absolutely, positively not be tolerated, full stop.
I believe the outcome (if it did so) will be the loss of one less city than
Truman destroyed, no need for nukes, and precisely the same outcome: Peace.
And I lost my encyclopedia. What products, exactly, does Teheran produce?
We'll do without for a bit, I'm sure, no problem.
Bob Vogel
Robert J. Kolker wrote:
>
> The native borns should be shipped to holding camps where they can be
> watched carefully. Arrangements can be made for the Muslims who wish to
> sign a loyalty oath or publically renounce their religion. And even then
> they should continued to be watched.
And we'll call the places that we hold these muslims "boncentration
bamps", and force them to wear "bostikas" so they can be easily
identified.
Robert, you are so-o-o-o easily dismissed.
Did something happen to you as a kid? Or do you have relatives that
dies in Treblinka or something? Or are you advocating Jews give like
they got?
John Shafto
news:guest.20061130190156$01...@news.killfile.org...
> John Shafto <gro.o...@nhoj.rev> writes:
>
> > your notion of religion, and/or other forms of
> > irrationalism, as genetic (genocide)
>
> Merriam-Webster defines genocide as "the deliberate and systematic
> destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group." Religion comes
> under the category of a cultural group.
Okay, I guess I should have allowed for that
vague and fuzzyheaded concept of 'culture' in
your clean-cut Merriam-Webster usage.
'Culture', however vaguely, still reeks of
determinism though, which is why it can
be muddled into the definition of genocide.
John Shafto
news:1164908348.1...@h54g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> Bob Kolker's idea is on the table, but that's only if all bets
> are off and we can't vanquish the foe by lesser means.
I hope Kolker's idea is not on any table as a serious
idea. The real problem with it is it's lack of simple
distinctions between thought and action (and more
specifically between individuals). Kolker proposes a
war against thought crimes rather than actors
(including conspiratorial actors). Freedom of
thought is crucial for reason based actors.
No throwing the baby out with the bath water.
Whatever my disgust with irrational ideologies,
superstitions, and religions, using force nominally
against them is also one of the best ways to
empower those ideas.
I am all for speaking out against the ideas, and also
using other choice based peer pressure against them
(hiring, education, etc.) though. I disagree with the silly
leftist notions that the root of their violence is poverty
and/or powerlessness, that's just an excuse for more
ponzi redistribution schemes and statist empowerment.
It's the (short-term) gains in power and wealth that they
achieve by their violent ideas and actions that encourage
them, not powerlessness and/or poverty.
Charles Bell
> Robert, you are so-o-o-o easily dismissed.
Why don't you tell us how, then?
Robert J. Kolker
> Robert, you are so-o-o-o easily dismissed.
>
> Did something happen to you as a kid? Or do you have relatives that
> dies in Treblinka or something? Or are you advocating Jews give like
> they got?
9/11
and Yes.
It is get even and payback time.
Do unto others as they do unto you.
And when Muslim fanatics set of a nuke or "dirty" bomb in Manhattan
(where the Jews are) you may not find it is easy to dismiss what I say.
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
>
>
> I hope Kolker's idea is not on any table as a serious
> idea. The real problem with it is it's lack of simple
> distinctions between thought and action (and more
> specifically between individuals). Kolker proposes a
We have run out of time to make fine, just distinctions. Fifty years ago
or even thirty years ago we might have find a way of separating the
chaff from the grain.
Time's up!
Bob Kolker
John Alway
John Shafto wrote:
> "John Alway" <jal...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1164908348.1...@h54g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > Bob Kolker's idea is on the table, but that's only if all bets
> > are off and we can't vanquish the foe by lesser means.
> I hope Kolker's idea is not on any table as a serious
> idea. The real problem with it is it's lack of simple
> distinctions between thought and action (and more
> specifically between individuals). Kolker proposes a
> war against thought crimes rather than actors
> (including conspiratorial actors). Freedom of
> thought is crucial for reason based actors.
> No throwing the baby out with the bath water.
Think about the Nazis. They had to be dealt with that way.
Let me put it this way, if it gets that far, it will be a war against
all Muslims who are not with us. This is if things get *really* bad
for us.
I do hate muslims, and more hate these stupid postmodernists who
enable them. Damned Europeans are apparently really caving into them,
and it might not be long before Europe is Islamic and primitive and
dead.
...John
cr113
Atlas Bugged wrote:
> You know, I actually am not worried about whether Kolker is right or the
> colorfully named CR113 or whomever. I just ask that somebody fight an
> actual war in response to the military grade attack that was made upon the
> USA. It doesn't have to be nuclear, it doesn't have to be anything, it just
> has to fit the definition of "war."
Didn't we light up Afghanistan pretty well after 9-11? I think the
Taliban got a pretty clear message about what happens after an attack.
I like the idea of a clear objective policy. Attack us and we will bomb
the shit out of you, and then we will leave you alone. The attack on
Afganistan was widely supported by the rest of the world. Why does that
matter you ask? It matters because very few new terrorists, that want
to attack the US, were created.
I'll admit that an isolationist policy becomes tricky when nukes are
involved because the cost of taking a hit is so high. That's the only
time I think pre-emption should be considered. Even then I think it
would be much better if we went in with the sole purpose of disabling
the nuclear capability. Leave the rebuilding welfare programs to
someone else.
potr...@gmail.com
them, and it might not be long before Europe is Islamic and primitive
and dead. "
Damned? Primitive and dead? Lol.... so how's Waxahachie coming
along these days?
Albeit I am not a patriotic type I certainly don't appreciate being
insulted... nor do I think the hundreds of millions of other people you
insult feel different. However if you are more concerned with your
emotional flatulence than solving problems then I suppose you should
just continue shooting off your mouth. No bad feelings and if you
provide me your mailing address I'll try and send you some humanitarian
aid when New York, Washington, LA, Tel Aviv, etc.. one day disappear
into radioactive plumes. If you manage to survive the multiple blasts I
promise I won't even mention how you once suggested "Europe's" demise
was imminent.
Sooooo...... my guess is arrogance and insults aren't pretty when
your the one taking it in the ass eh? Oh I jest but just a thought
Kissinger, you may wish to tone down your pointless unprovoked rhetoric
at some point. You certainly aren't helping American or Israeli
interests with your bigoted insults.
In a nutshell,
the America media seems to be painting a distorted picture to
Americans that Europe is being plagued by Muslim problems... whereas in
Europe local Muslim issues are mostly a blip on the radar. Simply put
most Europeans don't view this as their problem because America/Israel
are the generally the ones running around unilaterally blasting things
into kingdom come. Unsurprisingly... this somewhat tends to upset
people. The truth is while Europeans have far more in common with
America/Israel they generally have no beef with the Muslim world either
(or anyone for that matter). Unfortunately we are literally caught in
the middle..
Anyhow, putting aside you clearly can't get most Americans to agree
with your hawkish outlook... I think its the height of irrationality
continuing to goad Europeans into helping you. I don't think it is
stretch to suggest a continent with greater economic output than the US
is also capable of becoming the world's most powerful military power.
Do you honestly think it wise they should begin behaving with the same
patriotic xenophobia currently gripping America? Do you think Europe's
track record regarding "racial issues" lends itself well to this?
It took enough time but I think Europeans finally learned to be
happy without the need for violent melodrama. I really can't see of
what possible benefit trying to awaken a long dormant European
militarism would serve globally. Therefore IMHO I would suggest Europe
is far better suited as a conduit for discussion than war.
Robert J. Kolker
> It took enough time but I think Europeans finally learned to be
> happy without the need for violent melodrama. I really can't see of
> what possible benefit trying to awaken a long dormant European
> militarism would serve globally. Therefore IMHO I would suggest Europe
> is far better suited as a conduit for discussion than war.
I am reminded of the discussion that Neville Chamberlain had with von
Ribbentrop.
Bob Kolker
potr...@gmail.com
Ribbentrop."
I see. So then please explain why did America take a year LONGER to
join the war if it was so obvious?
Where do you find the productiveness in such conversations Bob? Do
you think others couldn't find a million and one insults and facts to
belittle you and place themselves on some alter? And how does this help
solve the situation at hand?
Sometimes I'd swear your goal is to have non-jews hate you so you
can indulge in your self fulfilling prophesy of being the victim. (and
thereby justify any injustice to others)
Well I refuse to hate you despite your efforts. :)
------------------------------------------
Robert J. Kolker
> " I am reminded of the discussion that Neville Chamberlain had with von
> Ribbentrop."
>
> I see. So then please explain why did America take a year LONGER to
> join the war if it was so obvious?
A childish belief in the width of the oceans. The Japs cured us of that
delusion. America's ox was not gored until Dec 7, 1941.
Bob Kolker
potr...@gmail.com
>"A childish belief in the width of the oceans. The Japs cured us of that d
>elusion. America's > ox was not gored until Dec 7, 1941."
Transatlantic travel had been around a long time so the most precise
reply would be that America simply didn't want get involved in
"Europes" war. This is quite understandable since war is a horrific
business with no winners only degrees of losers. Americans were seeking
American interests.... not Europes.
Personally I am committed to the idea of "global" interests because
technology makes it certain there is no longer a safe patch of land on
this earth. I have come to believe the safest long term strategy is
working to improve foreign relations and raising the standards of
living around the world. Poverty/totalitarianism and wealth/democracies
simply don't mix well. Whether we call it "national security" or
"altruism" really doesn't matter.
As for the middle east, while war may eventually happen the WW2
analogy is not accurate. WW2 did not begin with the prospect of secret
nuclear attacks by an opponent that doesn't have a healthy fear of
death. The rules are clearly different today and require a different
outlook.
Your solution is proactive genocide right?
Fine go ahead. Do it. Israel already has plenty of nukes and you don't
need anyones moral support right?.
one onethousand
two onethousand
three onethousand
...
OK then. What's the delay? Why are hundreds of Israeli nukes unspent?
Why does Israel continue to be measured in its response? From whom are
you waiting for permission?
The answer of course is that as much as some people in this forum
like to play pretend they are masters of the universe the reality is
they simply don't have the clout. Don't take this personal (as I'm no
one special) but the real elites obviously don't share your viewpoint
on this particular issue or the dirty deed would have been done
already. Who could have stopped it?
In the meantime though, many of the not-so-elites seem to be trying
their best to make a bad situation worse. They spend their time
slandering nearly every day. (not only you.. Muslims are doing exactly
the same) Do you honestly think that will change our sitting duck
situation? Will insults provide launch codes? Will insults sooth
tensions or win over friends/allies? Continuing down this road is
completely irrational which is somewhat surprising considering most
people at this forum seem intelligent. My theory for this irrational
behavior is that when individuals are emotionally invested in a
particular issue they tend to dismiss objective thought processes in
favor of more primitive cravings.
Any how... as much as some Arabs hate us the the funny thing is they
don't seem to appreciate how much we've jeopardized our own safety with
the enormous restraint we have shown. All the firepower of every war in
human history COMBINED doesn't even come close to what we could have
done to the place. We are indeed giving them the benefit of the doubt
and do value their lives... they just don't pay attention to this.
Instead they focus on the rants of a few extremists as evidence we all
hate them and are all out to get them. (Reminds me of you with
antisemitism sometimes. :)
I think to a large extent the "never again" meme that was pounded into
our heads from childhood is the greatest factor for this. For you it
may represent only the sanctity of Jewish lives however to the vast
majority (including most other Jews) it applies to all of humanity. IMO
what is required in the middle east is to forget who has moral high
ground and just focus on fixing the essentials. Israelis/Palestinians
need to come to grips with their the religious notions that God somehow
wanted them to annihilate each other over land.
Or you can continue with past tactics....like bombing nuclear
facilities or invading Lebanon. Have those tactics made you safer
today? How many times do you need to repeat history before the Arabs
finally polish you off? Crying about antisemitism won't help you
anymore than than it did before WW2. Plenty of other people on this
earth are suffering more than Jewish people.
Bob, I'm not putting myself or Europe on some moral pedestal here.
Heck Europeans are the pricks responsible for the biggest massacres in
human history and dividing up the middle east in the first place (and
why I say let sleeping dogs lay) However we can only help if you commit
to working with us authentically and set aside your extremist agenda.
We are fellow human beings divided by arbitrary lines in the sand and
yet you pointlessly undermine international relations in what seems to
be some grandiose pursuit of world dominance. While the American
military is formidable these goals are completely absurd through the
use of force. You obviously can't even control some of the weakest
nations on earth... much less Europeans, Russians, and the Chinese that
could also bomb you right back into the stone age.
During the cold war you worked with us why is this any different?
Isn't it obvious no nation can go it alone anymore? The UN is the only
united front here and you've been doing the opposite of what you should
have been doing. You've been undermining it like the League of Nations
(and you know how that worked out). I can already see the path you and
the Muslims are currently pursuing has a significant probability of
ending in both your massacres. It doesn't make you special.... only
dead.
(I'm being pretty blunt here so if I sound like I'm trying to offend
you anywhere in this post... it is unintentional and I apologize in
advance)
.............................
Robert J. Kolker
> Robert J. Kolker wrote:
>
>>"A childish belief in the width of the oceans. The Japs cured us of that d
>>elusion. America's > ox was not gored until Dec 7, 1941."
>
>
> Transatlantic travel had been around a long time so the most precise
> reply would be that America simply didn't want get involved in
> "Europes" war. This is quite understandable since war is a horrific
> business with no winners only degrees of losers. Americans were seeking
> American interests.... not Europes.
>
> Personally I am committed to the idea of "global" interests because
> technology makes it certain there is no longer a safe patch of land on
> this earth. I have come to believe the safest long term strategy is
> working to improve foreign relations and raising the standards of
> living around the world. Poverty/totalitarianism and wealth/democracies
> simply don't mix well. Whether we call it "national security" or
> "altruism" really doesn't matter.
>
> As for the middle east, while war may eventually happen the WW2
> analogy is not accurate. WW2 did not begin with the prospect of secret
> nuclear attacks by an opponent that doesn't have a healthy fear of
> death. The rules are clearly different today and require a different
> outlook.
>
> Your solution is proactive genocide right?
Pre-emptive genocide.
>
> Fine go ahead. Do it. Israel already has plenty of nukes and you don't
> need anyones moral support right?.
Not nearly enough.
>
> one onethousand
> two onethousand
> three onethousand
> ...
>
> OK then. What's the delay? Why are hundreds of Israeli nukes unspent?
> Why does Israel continue to be measured in its response? From whom are
> you waiting for permission?
Only the U.S. has the power. However for the genocide to be successful
it must be done fully, completely and in a co-ordinate fashion. The U.S.
must be prepared to destroy 1.2 billion people in a few months.
>
> The answer of course is that as much as some people in this forum
> like to play pretend they are masters of the universe the reality is
> they simply don't have the clout. Don't take this personal (as I'm no
> one special) but the real elites obviously don't share your viewpoint
> on this particular issue or the dirty deed would have been done
> already. Who could have stopped it?
No one. The reason why it hasn't been done is because our leaders have
not the heart or stomach for the thing. We have the material, but not
the will.
>
> In the meantime though, many of the not-so-elites seem to be trying
> their best to make a bad situation worse. They spend their time
> slandering nearly every day. (not only you.. Muslims are doing exactly
> the same) Do you honestly think that will change our sitting duck
> situation? Will insults provide launch codes? Will insults sooth
> tensions or win over friends/allies? Continuing down this road is
> completely irrational which is somewhat surprising considering most
> people at this forum seem intelligent. My theory for this irrational
> behavior is that when individuals are emotionally invested in a
> particular issue they tend to dismiss objective thought processes in
> favor of more primitive cravings.
What will energize us is another Muslim attack on the U.S. at home with
a weapon of mass destruction. That will be our Pearl Harbor. 9/11 should
have been but our leaders did not seize the opportunity to declare our
"Jihad". An opportunity lost.
>
> Any how... as much as some Arabs hate us the the funny thing is they
> don't seem to appreciate how much we've jeopardized our own safety with
> the enormous restraint we have shown. All the firepower of every war in
> human history COMBINED doesn't even come close to what we could have
> done to the place. We are indeed giving them the benefit of the doubt
> and do value their lives... they just don't pay attention to this.
> Instead they focus on the rants of a few extremists as evidence we all
> hate them and are all out to get them. (Reminds me of you with
> antisemitism sometimes. :)
>
> I think to a large extent the "never again" meme that was pounded into
> our heads from childhood is the greatest factor for this. For you it
> may represent only the sanctity of Jewish lives however to the vast
> majority (including most other Jews) it applies to all of humanity. IMO
> what is required in the middle east is to forget who has moral high
> ground and just focus on fixing the essentials. Israelis/Palestinians
> need to come to grips with their the religious notions that God somehow
> wanted them to annihilate each other over land.
The essential is the elimination of Islam.
>
> Or you can continue with past tactics....like bombing nuclear
> facilities or invading Lebanon. Have those tactics made you safer
> today? How many times do you need to repeat history before the Arabs
> finally polish you off? Crying about antisemitism won't help you
> anymore than than it did before WW2. Plenty of other people on this
> earth are suffering more than Jewish people.
We have not undertaken a full bore attack on the problem. It is a
military axiom that when one attacks he attacks with overwhelming force.
He attacks with all he has at his disposal. That is how one wins wars.
Little attacks simply stiffen resistance. There is an old Klingon
Proverb: Any blow that does not kill me, makes me stronger.
>
> Bob, I'm not putting myself or Europe on some moral pedestal here.
> Heck Europeans are the pricks responsible for the biggest massacres in
> human history and dividing up the middle east in the first place (and
> why I say let sleeping dogs lay) However we can only help if you commit
> to working with us authentically and set aside your extremist agenda.
> We are fellow human beings divided by arbitrary lines in the sand and
> yet you pointlessly undermine international relations in what seems to
> be some grandiose pursuit of world dominance. While the American
> military is formidable these goals are completely absurd through the
> use of force. You obviously can't even control some of the weakest
> nations on earth... much less Europeans, Russians, and the Chinese that
> could also bomb you right back into the stone age.
>
> During the cold war you worked with us why is this any different?
> Isn't it obvious no nation can go it alone anymore? The UN is the only
> united front here and you've been doing the opposite of what you should
> have been doing. You've been undermining it like the League of Nations
> (and you know how that worked out). I can already see the path you and
> the Muslims are currently pursuing has a significant probability of
> ending in both your massacres. It doesn't make you special.... only
> dead.
>
> (I'm being pretty blunt here so if I sound like I'm trying to offend
> you anywhere in this post... it is unintentional and I apologize in
> advance)
I am being blunt also. If we want to have done with our enemies we have
to kill them with overwhelming force. It is as simple as that. If we do
not, they will baloney slice us until we fold. We must destroy Islam or
it will wear us down.
The way we beat the Germans and the Japs was to attack with the greatest
force we could muster at the time of the attack. We bombed Germany into
ruination. And we burned Japan to the ground even before the nukes.
That wan't enough for the Japs so we nuked them. Finally! Sucess. The
rest is history from which we apparently do not learn very well.
The choice is simple. We either destroy our enemies and live. Or we
don't and we will eventually perish.
Bob Kolker
potr...@gmail.com
"The reason why it hasn't been done is because our leaders have not
the heart or stomach for the thing. We have the material, but not the
will."
Exactly, And that's the way the situation is going to stay. If
America got nuked... they'd be flattened. That would have happened on
9/11 if nukes were involved. Your or my opinion on the matter is
completely irrelevant in that regard..
Have you really finally accepted this? And if so can you see why I
suggest we need to move on from this issue into more constructive
territory? No one is going to unilaterally start nuking Muslims
therefore in the meantime doesn't it make sense to work to avoid the
whole situation through compromise?
If I'm wrong about this where is the harm? You think they'll replace
all the Cruise missiles with Acme rockets?
.
................
"What will energize us is another Muslim attack on the U.S. at home
with a weapon of mass destruction."
................
It won't "energize you". Quite the opposite.
They think big and glorious. If they decided to go nuclear they'll go
large with multiple hits.
Some Americans seem obsessed with the prospect of Iranian nukes but as
far as I can tell its already way too late. If America had tried a
nuke-lite with Iran it would only open the justification for a nuclear
response later. Pakistan already has nukes and almost certainly has
contingency plans in place. I mentioned this before but I don't think
it quite gelled. Since they are lacking in adequate delivery systems
its quite possible nukes are already primed on US soil (like the
Russians did in their embassy). It's really not that hard for someone
with the resources of a nation to bring in numerous devices piece by
piece (I would)
Kiss New York, Washington, LA, Tel Aviv and quite a few other cities
goodbye since they already know they'll only get one shot at this. They
don't seem to care that they are going to kill everyone/everything they
ever knew in the process as they'll see them soon in heaven.
Your "win" will come at the cost of countless million of your
citizens. The survivors will be plagued with the after effects of
radiation and you'll be instantly demoted to third world status. (or
worse)
................
The essential is the elimination of Islam.
................
No. The essential thing is security and thats why we keep going in
circles on this issue. Your goal has become killing Muslims instead of
trying to solve the problem at hand. You need to start widening the
scope of your thoughts. If you don't help your own interests I sure
can't help much.
Bob, Greeks have dealt for THOUSANDS of years with the middle east
and.we're still here. One thing I think we've learned is all that they
really expect from us is that we treat them in a polite manner.
Respectful dialog is an important feature of their culture, This is
obviously a problem between you and them as you bark rhetoric at each
other.
Greece is still 95+% Christian (a higher stat than in America
actually) so while some around this forum make arguments about forced
Muslim conversions overrunning America/Europe it won't wash with
someone who actually knows firsthand the reality. Nor will the argument
"they hate democracy". You'd think they'd have killed us all ages ago
no?
The issue seems to be mostly that you just don't want to compromise
with Palestinians and they don't want to compromise with you.
................
"We have not undertaken a full bore attack on the problem. It is a
military axiom that when one attacks he attacks with overwhelming
force. He attacks with all he has at his disposal. That is how one
wins wars. Little attacks simply stiffen resistance."
................
Again correct. So if you've really accepted that we won't put up a
serious attack without being nuked first and also accepted the idea
that we only stiffen resistance with puny attacks.... follow the
thought through. Doesn't it seem reasonable given current trends
eventually the resistance will reach a level where you will face
annihilation? What then?
You may as well authentically commit to the peace process. If it
doesn't work.. it doesn't work.
Our current attitudes of insufficient military excursions point to
the dawn of a united Islamic block in the middle east. Israel has 5-10
more years tops to come to an agreement with Palestinians or their
neighbours will inevitably try to fix it for them.
................
I am being blunt also. If we want to have done with our enemies we have
to kill them with overwhelming force. It is as simple as that. If we
do not, they will baloney slice us until we fold. We must destroy
Islam or it will wear us down.
................
"The reason why it hasn't been done is because our leaders have not
the heart or stomach for the thing. We have the material, but not the
will."
Do you honestly think you personally can change this reality?
Robert J. Kolker
>
> Your "win" will come at the cost of countless million of your
> citizens. The survivors will be plagued with the after effects of
> radiation and you'll be instantly demoted to third world status. (or
> worse)
And billions of them. The last one standing is the winner.
Bob Kolker
potr...@gmail.com
>"And billions of them. The last one standing is the winner."
And if it's your family and you that ares killed... is that tolerable
losses for you?
Robert J. Kolker
It is not tolerable but it may just come about. The idea is for us to
strike first and hard. That way our casualties will be minimized. I
cannot allow sentiment for myself and family stand in the way of doing
that which is required for a civilized order to remain. If we do nothing
my children and my children's children and onward are doomed. The
Muslims are coming after our pale Jewish asses.
Non-Jewish Americans will also share the same fate. The goal and
objective of Islam is the conquest of the dar al Harb and the supremacy
of the Umah. Islam is NOT the religion of Peace. It is the religion of
Submission.
Bob Kolker
John Alway
potr...@gmail.com wrote:
> John Alway wrote: "Damed Europeans are apparently really caving into
> them, and it might not be long before Europe is Islamic and primitive
> and dead. "
> Damned? Primitive and dead? Lol.... so how's Waxahachie coming
> along these days?
Seem anything about the riots going on in France? The buses burned?
The cars burned daily? The sections taken over by muslim freaks?
France is sinking into the abyss.
...John
potr...@gmail.com
Interesting. You would risk sacrificing your life for what you
perceive as the greater good. As far I understand that is the opposite
of Objectivist thought. Why do you spend time here?
Even though I don't agree with your solution it's heroic that you
would risk such a great personal sacrifice for a cause you believe in.
Putting aside you're Jewish and I'm from a Greek background I think our
main difference lays in that we each drew from our wholly inadequate
personal repositories of information.... to argue for different
solutions to the same issue.
I actually feel much the same about securing man but I'm less
liberal with consciously sacrificing the lives of others for my cause.
To me half the definition of civilized behavior requires one minimize
the use of coercion. Albeit we beat the Nazis we still used coercion to
so. If the Nazis had won clearly their descendants would have argued we
were the ones uncivilized. I just don't see man as civilized yet. The
existence of war and crime tell me we are still a work in progress. I
believe our very survival REQUIRES we be civilized or eventually our
technology will wipe us out. (I sometimes wonder if this is why we
haven't been contacted by any alien super -races.)
My life is mine to use or sacrifice as I please... others lives are
their own to do as they please. If a conflict occurs...they choose
their actions... I choose my actions. If they choose to use coercion
against me... they placed a vote for coercion. If I respond with
coercion... I placed a vote for coercion. I feel if I vote for coercion
by my actions I am ultimately placing a vote for the destruction of
mankind.
..................
"The idea is for us to strike first and hard."
..................
Strategically speaking this is undeniable logic.... when in a state
of war. However no such state exists. In practice the "war on terror"
is no more than an expensive "war on drugs" (at least so far)
The problem with ruthless preemptive wars its how fascists thought
as well. The fascists couldn't make the emotional association between
their strategizing and the immense human suffering they would cause.
Killing a human being was akin to killing livestock in their minds.
After years of debate on various forums I am beginning to believe
there is a neurological explanation for this detached view of violence
as opposed to a philosophical one. Perhaps one day it will become
curable with proper diagnosis and therapy.
.........
"If we do nothing my children and my children's children and onward are
doomed. The Muslims are coming after our pale Jewish asses.""
.........
I don't believe this is true. I believe both groups of people are
feeding off each others hysteria but in practice will end up killing
each other in mostly limited wars. If humanity did ever open up the
genocide can-o-worms again I think it far more likely you would get
flattened by the actions of CHRISTIAN fundies.
This may seem absurd at the moment but keep in mind times change. You
are still on the hook for officially killing their messiah and they
seemed to have no trouble killing you over and over again the last
couple of thousand years (or anyone else that got in their way for that
matter). As far as I can tell many Conservative fundies only support
Israel because they see it as a sign of the coming Armageddon. They are
essentially putting all the pieces in place so they can one day destroy
the world.
This is exactly the sort of reasons why I've completely distanced
myself from any religion. Most religious types are usually very decent
people but when you put them in packs they end up promoting some sort
of giant death wish for humanity. I respect peoples right to believe in
whatever but I still view them as having some sort of as-yet-diagnosed
mental illness (possibly related to schizophrenia).
potr...@gmail.com
"Seem anything about the riots going on in France? The buses burned?
The cars burned daily? The sections taken over by muslim freaks?
France is sinking into the abyss."
Putting aside France is not all of Europe... the French are very
passionate people and very engaged in the goings on of their society.
They would riot if the the price of bread rose dramatically.
The current problems were from mostly disenfranchised young men from
poor neighborhoods but because some of them just happened to be Arab
(there were also blacks and whites involved) some elements in the US
media picked up on this as being "muslims destroying France". It had
absolutely ZERO to do with religion.
Seriously John.....a piece of constructive criticism because I can
see you are having difficulties and I really don't want to turn this
into yet another Internet pissing match..
There is nothing wrong with criticizing Europe (heck I do that all
the time). However you may wish to narrow it down rather than to say
sweeping statements like "europe is dead" or "france is sinking into
the abyss" If you're not sure replace "Europe" with "America" to see
how it might sound to others. Think of this as trying to work of
foreign relations. If you can't do it on personal level... how do you
expect your government to do it?
9//11 was terrible but honestly five years later this is no longer
an excuse for bad manners. No one has a right to talk to me or any
other number of people I love like an asshole. If you do... you will be
talked about as an asshole capeche? (not all Americans John... just
you)
There is enough fricken chaos on this planet without us adding
xenophobic fuel to the fire. If Bob and I can manage to speak politely
even though he's pro-genocide and I'm a fricken pacifist surely the two
of us can manage.
potr...@gmail.com
Just want to add something John.
I'm not trying to be offensive or one-up you here. I'm just looking
for a route to improve the lines of communication which seeme
horrendous these days. If we act in a xenophobic fashion...it doesn't
help anyone.
-----------------------------
Robert J. Kolker
> @Bob
>
> Interesting. You would risk sacrificing your life for what you
> perceive as the greater good. As far I understand that is the opposite
> of Objectivist thought. Why do you spend time here?
We all risk our lives. Everyday one drives to work he risks his life to
acquire a value, to wit, an income. There are other reasons to go into
harms way. One reason is to protect the culture and society one wishes
his children and his children's children to grow up in.
And then there is Get Even. Under certain circumstances one might walk
into harm's way to get even. After the Japs attack the U.S., American
men with children signed up to fight.
The prospect of one's great grandchildren growing up in The Shadow of
the Mosque and paying the Dhimmi tax just not to stick their asses up in
the air five times a day is sufficient motivation for some. For me, for
example.
Islam is at war with the West. It has been at war with the West ever
since the Crusades. Islam has been at war with the Jews even longer.
Most Westerners, especially Americans who are fat dumb and happy could
evade this unpleasant fact, that is until 9/11. That -should- have been
the Pearl Harbor wake up, but our foolish leaders missed the
opportunity. Now we will have to wait for WMD's to be exploded or
deployed in NYC (where the Jews are) or in Washington which is the de
facto capitol of Western civillization. When that happen, then (I hope)
we will go on the rampage and do the necessary genocide.
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
> .............
> "Seem anything about the riots going on in France? The buses burned?
> The cars burned daily? The sections taken over by muslim freaks?
> France is sinking into the abyss."
> .............
>
> Putting aside France is not all of Europe... the French are very
> passionate people and very engaged in the goings on of their society.
> They would riot if the the price of bread rose dramatically.
>
> The current problems were from mostly disenfranchised young men from
> poor neighborhoods but because some of them just happened to be Arab
> (there were also blacks and whites involved) some elements in the US
> media picked up on this as being "muslims destroying France". It had
> absolutely ZERO to do with religion.
Disenfranchised -Muslim- men. And it has everything to do with their
miserable evil religion.
Even in a country like the U.S.A. where Muslims have assemilated into
society, the young men are only one Immam away from stapping on the bomb
or providing cover for those who would. The U.S.A is the home of the
Yes...But Muslim. Yes, terrorism and suicided bomb is a terrible thing,
but....
Where was the million Muslim march against Terrorism? Why were Jordanian
immigrants dancing in the strees after the 9/11 outrange? I get it. You
don't.
Bob Kolker
Matt Barrow
>> Damned? Primitive and dead? Lol.... so how's Waxahachie coming
>> along these days?
>
> Seem anything about the riots going on in France? The buses burned?
> The cars burned daily? The sections taken over by muslim freaks?
> France is sinking into the abyss.
>
--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO (MTJ)
Bob Vogel
How, what? Apparently you missed my point, which Bob made crystal-clear
in his response.
.
.
.
.
Bob Vogel
Robert J. Kolker wrote:
>
>
> It is get even and payback time.
That's just hubris.
You're also adding to the notion that the Israelis are treating the
Palestinians like the Jews were treated by the Germans, or that
somehow, punishing muslims will erase past Jewish suffering at the
hands of the Nazis.
>
> And when Muslim fanatics set of a nuke or "dirty" bomb in Manhattan
> (where the Jews are) you may not find it is easy to dismiss what I say.
That's not going to happen.
If Hezbollah had in it's possession a nuke, why would they bother
sending it across the atlantic?
One chance is all they will get. If there's a nuke terrorist attack
*anywhere*, in the world, well, Bob, you just might get your wish. But
it's no good freaking out in anticipation.
Keep in mind that the only weapons used on 9-11 were /box cutters/.
Atlas Bugged
news:1165256381.0...@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
> Keep in mind that the only weapons used on 9-11 were /box cutters/.
Oh, c'mon Bob, yer killin' me!
So if I run you over with my car - then back up - the only weapon I used was
a car-key?
Bob Vogel
Atlas Bugged wrote:
>
> So if I run you over with my car - then back up - the only weapon I used was
> a car-key?
No, you didn't use a *weapon*.
Thanks, folks I'll be here every night this week!
potr...@gmail.com
" Where was the million Muslim march against Terrorism? Why were
Jordanian immigrants dancing in the strees after the 9/11 outrange? I
get it. You don't."
I'm not saying they don't hate you.. heck many of you hate them.
However, as the cold war showed, hating and killing each other
wholesale are two entirely different issues. We keep going in circles
on this topic though. Let's see if perhaps we can find some common
ground elsewhere .
There are a great many competing interests in this world.
Conservatives seem to have gone for all of them at the same time rather
than stay focused. In so doing they've caused a great deal of damage to
themselves internationally. Even the allies supported Stalin during the
war and Europeans are hardly communists.
I don't think GWB entirely grasps how isolated he's made Americans
today. Poll after poll suggests that the common sentiment is
anti-American in most of the world right now. I read one poll that
CANADIANS ranked GWB as next to Korean Elvis as a threat to world
peace. That should set some alarm bells off in the heads of Americans.
Hate has a tendency to grow if left unchecked. American has never NEVER
been this unpopular in the world.
Some Americans still like to lament on the German and French because
they refused to help in Iraq. GWB tried arm twisting because he was
were soooo sure he was right. In practice we was dead wrong and they
were right. It was in fact counter productive.
(Keep in mind I'm not French when I say this next bit)
Instead of apologizing though.....the French get to read articles
about fricken "freedom fries"? Even today they are still listening to
many conservative shoot down their culture day in day out. This is
unproductive. It essentially opened another front in Europe... your
traditional allies. No one likes terrorists but no one likes to hear
their home insulted by hate mongers either. Fine forget morals... just
ask yourself of what possible strategic value is there in having this
attitude linger?
So what I'm trying to say here?
OK maybe I can't convince you to start loving Muslims but maybe we
can agree having Americans bashing Europeans isn't healthy. I don't
give a fuck if the person is black, white, jewish, christian, muslim,
atheist just shut up these asswipes destroying international relations.
Pass hate and "inciting violence" laws against them it if necessary
(like Europe already has against antisemitism)
The French can be overbearing pricks sometimes (like all of us) but
ultimately it's indisputable they are a great people. They have given a
great deal to this world and they are undeserving of such disrespect.
Robert J. Kolker
>
> Keep in mind that the only weapons used on 9-11 were /box cutters/.
And several heavy airplaines loaded with fuel, fool.
Bob Kolker
potr...@gmail.com
> "You're also adding to the notion that the Israelis are treating the Pale
> stinians like the Jews were treated by the Germans, or that somehow, puni
> shing muslims will erase past Jewish suffering at the hands of the Nazis.
The Nazis were paid back in spades mostly by brave Americans and
Russian soldiers..
I'm not Jewish nor American but I generally like both cultures. I
feel I had to say this because what I'm going to say next may offend
some but my intention is not to offend... just be honest.
Most of the world looks at Israel as using security as cover so they
can just expropriate all the Palestinian lands as part of their own
religious crusade. Personally when I hear the word antisemitism
liberally blurted around by some in this forum I view it as an pathetic
EXCUSE to feel sorry for themselves and act like wankers to others. I
really wish those around here could make the connection between how
they feel when Muslims get so touchy with criticism...and how they
react when someone says one word of constructive criticism about Israel
(suddenly one is supporter of another fricken holocaust).
Both Israel and America are great countries but at least on this
particular issue its kinda hard to look at them as victims when there
is still no Palestinian state and we read these kinds of stories.......
Obviously the majority of people aren't like this. Unfortunately
enough exist to act as encouragement for the jihadists.. and enough
jihadists exist to encourage a response. Its sixty years of refined
hate that culminated in 9/11 and the Iraq war. Every time an event
occurs.. one side gains a few more extremists which is a set up for the
next event. It's a vicious circle. Over the years the UN tried to fix
his but the US decided to veto this over and over again. GWB
conservatives even went on a crusade against the UN.
I think its clear it's time to stop "staying the course" and start
changing direction.
If you want to start winning back some friends (instead of pushing
away all your traditional friends/allies) I believe it's going to
require a viable Palestinian state that is agreed upon multilaterally
(UN and Arab nations as well). It must be a 100% authentic attempt at
peace not some halfhearted attempt like Oslo that ends at the hands of
the Yigal Amir's of the world.
I know Europe would be FAR more receptive to Israel and American
interests if this happened
Jihadists would no longer have this crutch to work with. If their
escapades continued there would be a united front. I believe its even
possible many moderate Muslims would begin distancing themselves from
the extremists. The plight of the Palestinians has always been the
biggest PR disaster for Americans/Israelis and until its fixed it will
continue to be so. (and not only in the Arab world)
Robert J. Kolker
>
> Both Israel and America are great countries but at least on this
> particular issue its kinda hard to look at them as victims when there
> is still no Palestinian state and we read these kinds of stories.......
There is no Palestinean State because there is no Palestinean people.
The notion of a Pali State was cooked up in 1964 by Yassir Arrafat's
thug organization.
If a Palestinean state were established it would make unremitting war on
Israel. In the utmost instance it would bide its time and let the birth
rate win the war without firing a shot. The Palestinean breed like rabbits.
In any case the Palestineans have no intention whatsoever to live in
peace side beside Israelis.
As for how terrible Isreal treas the Palestineans, note that the
Israelis could have wiped them out and have chosen not to. The Israelis
have put up with rocket attacks and suicided bombs without doing what
they should have done in 1973, to wit erase the Palestineans. No matter
what concessions were made they are not enough. What is enough is for
Israel to be wiped out or its people driven from the region. Which is
not going to happen.
Bob Kolker
Bob Kolker
potr...@gmail.com
.........
"There is no Palestinean State because there is no Palestinean people.
The notion of a Pali State was cooked up in 1964 by Yassir Arrafat's
thug organization."
.........
The point about Europe's position is not subject to a debate that's
been argued fruitlessly countless times over. Give me a little credit
here. I've seem enough examples of both ends of this....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ETrjbPWxyS8
http://sabbah.biz/mt/archives/2006/07/17/photo-of-the-day-israeli-kids-send
s-gifts-of-love-to-arab-
This isn't a negotiation. I'm just stating the facts as I see them
today. If Palestine is not created... Israel will not enjoy European
support. If a sovereign Palestine is created Israel will enjoy
European support. It's not Europe's decision to make... it's entirely
Israels. Respect is a two way street.
BTW I was serious about starting to shut up all the hatemongers in
the US. I think its about time the US pass a few rigid hate laws like
Europe already has in place. I may be against lethal force but I'm
still flexible with non-lethal (I figure they can sue me later if I
f~ck up with something :)
.........
"If a Palestinean state were established it would make unremitting war
on Israel. In the utmost instance it would bide its time and let the
birth rate win the war without firing a shot."
.........
That's exactly why you need to exchange populations and stick some
UN troops in the middle (like the Greeks and Turks did in Cyprus).
However to do that requires you negotiate a viable sovereign Palestine
to exist in the first place. These can't be unilaterally drawn lines
either or they will indeed come after you. No one but the US will take
such a situation seriously.
Arguing security is not observing the facts Bob. Palestinians
murder you now don't they? Aren't you under constant threat of being
vaporized by Muslim neighbors anyhow? What did invading Lebanon
achieve? Maybe it was a patriotic rush but militarily it had about the
same effect of the Iraq invasion... zilch. Wasted dollars and lives.
You didn't "teach them a lesson" other than to hate you some more....
exactly like you do with Palestinians.
Why the fuck am I saying all this to you? Why do I spend hours
typing this stuff up? Is this part of my master plan to destroy "the
Jews"? (mu-haa-haa). I'm don't like to shoot you down on this issue
but I'll continue to do so until you start being an advocate for peace.
I don't hate Jews... I fucking love Jews (well most of you :). What's
not to love? You're great scientists, great healers, you even make
good jokes. Everything you touch turns into gold. You do have an
Achilles heal though....worrying too much about whether someone likes
you. When the issue of antisemitism comes up some of you get fat
fucking heads and don't listen to a word of sound advice.
One thing I've slowly digesting about the issue of politics is that
there is another living breathing human being at the other end of a
conversation. Its important to listen sometimes.
I'm trying to give you my honest perspective here and I think that
most people in the world share my view on what its going take to solve
this mess We can't know for sure if it'll work... all we can do is
give it an honest shot. If Israel is 100% authentic in its attempt for
peace... I'm 100% percent behind Israel. If I keep hearing excuses...
my guess is I probably end up watching you guys get whacked... again.
Truth is in the 1930's there was no Israel. There was just a bunch of
people living in an area with a long proud history. It was occupied by
the British who took over from the Ottomans. Two distinct people that
lived in that area both wanted/needed a homeland. Neither of you
authentically wanted peace or to negotiate..
It is in neither of your interests to be like this though.The two
state solution seems the only logical option to pursue (other than the
ugly WW3 option of course :)
This can't go on for much longer Bob. The Arab world is going
nuclear within 10 years tops and as I noted before Pakistan already has
then. If you keep bombing your neighbours you are only setting
yourselves up for the most brutal response imaginable later. It's
better to take the small hits and garner international sympathy. As I
see things at the your current pace they'll probably scope you out
throughly first then sneak in a bunch of nukes piece by piece. They'll
then take a gamble they can take you out entirely before you can
provide a full response. And even if you manage one.... they're all be
happy to go to Allah if it means getting you.
...........
"As for how terrible Israel treas the Palestineans, note that the
Israelis could have wiped them out and have chosen not to. The Israelis
have put up with rocket attacks and suicided bombs without doing what
they should have done in 1973, to wit erase the Palestineans. "
...........
True you could have killed them but it would not have brought Israel
any safety. The hundreds of millions of Muslims around Israel would say
"never forget" not to mention it would have fueled enormous
antisemitism around the rest of the globe.
I don't believe Palestine is a choice for you here Bob. Israel
either does it or again it seems likely it will eventually be leveled.
You have to help yourselves by learning to compromise with your
neighbors.
I'm emotionally spent so I'm going to take a long break after this
post but before I sign off let me put my tribal hat on again and speak
for the Greeks and Greek pride.
A strong personal characteristic of modern Greeks (even in the
diaspora) is that they involve themselves in endless ethical debates
over anything imaginable with anyone that cares to discuss an issue
(lol....and usually not much else unfortunately :). We all seem to
understand one another well enough but it sometimes seems to me we no
longer coherently explain our thoughts to the outside world. (a story
for another day perhaps)
I've come to believe the reason for this callous disconnect is our
legacy. As insane as it is many Greeks already believe they run
place!!! Of course I'm not talking about the details of day to day
decision making, policy, military, money, technology...... just high
level container "memes" (I love that word) like freedom, democracy,
republics, logic, ethics, science, etc. Philosophy is a Greek word for
a reason... we invented the concept. Rightfully/wrongfully Greeks have
a habit of seeing the rest of the civilized world as just an extension
of their own attitudes and culture. Anyone that followed our lead
became our relatives. (in other words everyone :)
Some might disagree with this view. To those I would say think about
this way.
Imagine a christian who went faithfully to bible class later trying
to explain the finer intricacies of the Torah to you.... even though
you are a derivative of FIVE THOUSAND YEARS of your culture. "no no
no.. this is what Moses really meant and the real savior is Jesus"
Now replace Torah with the term philosophy.
Welcome my Greek friend.
Philosophy isn't some stale idea that is outside of us to be learned
only from a book... it is woven within oneself by ones family and
relatives and friends. The only time I personally feel clunky around
the subject is when I talk with non-Greeks than seem to be antiseptic
or overly dogmatic on the issue. (Hearing the term "philosophy"
regurgitated at me can be quite the head trip at times :)
The moral of this story?
No. I'm not better than you. (I'm not even sure what that word means
other than an emotional pick-me-up.) The moral is Greeks have no
shortage of pride. And yet even with so much pride Constantinople is
still part of Turkey and Ayia Sophia is even a Mosque. There are even
Slavs in the southern part of Yugoslavia who decided to call themselves
"Macedonians" and seem intent on plagiarizing our history because they
have very little of their own.
You think all this doesn't make our blood boil sometimes? You think
we couldn't build nukes in short in order to try and rectify some of
these lingering issues? However towards what ends? Our pride? Is it
more rational that our pride should be put ahead of the happiness and
safety of our children?
Greeks have learned to live with compromise. It may not be as
glorious as throwing our children off cliffs in an attempt to build
perfect soldiers but that chapter has already been spoken for and we
enjoy reading the new chapters being written by others today. We
already have what matters most... no wars, long lives, very little
crime and unjustly happy lives with our loving families.
If the Greeks went through this, I suspect so did the Italians, the
French, the English, the Germans. I think Jewish people are at a much
the same crossroads today. You have proved yourselves. Your
achievements have been stellar this last century and everyone knows it.
IMHO what really matters now is your family's security and
happiness... no more self-destructive pride.
I know Europeans would help facilitate the peace but this can only
happen once both parties work to finally conclude the Balfour
Declaration. Again my advice is exchange populations... give them some
of their land back... and work with getting the UN /Arab nations
involved. If after an agreement one side shoots through UN peacekeepers
to get to the other.. they'll quickly lose political points and end up
isolating themselves. (and please no more Unit 131s)
If the UN is not involved any peace reached will just be another
empty document. It will fall apart once uncompromising elements on one
side or another starts ignoring terms. (Like Oslo did)
It's late....I have said enough... I better say good night before my
wife yells at me for not cuddling with her.
Robert J. Kolker
>
> This can't go on for much longer Bob. The Arab world is going
> nuclear within 10 years tops and as I noted before Pakistan already has
> then. If you keep bombing your neighbours you are only setting
That is why we must eliminate Islam before then.
It is them or us. Which shall it be?
Genocide is a solution.
Bob Kolker
potr...@gmail.com
Dragging me in with that one liner again eh? I already know you want
genocide there is no point repeating it for the umpteenth time. All I'm
asking here is just to explore (not commit) to other trains of thought.
Think of it as a discussion of hypotheticals.
As it stands now, I really believe it's going to eventually be BOTH
of your asses if there is no compromise. Not America.. not Europe..
not the UN... not even Israel can save itself if you don't
authentically work towards it. If they go fully nuclear on you.. it
means they will carefully prepare to wipe YOU out entirely first (even
if you take them out in the process). If they decide to go for nukes,
it won't be a one or two hits on you.... they'll go Bob on you.
Israel in many respects controls its own fate. Threats and attacks
only fuel Muslim rage because it interferes with their dignity Does
your pride mean more to you then your life and that of your children's
lives too?
The cold facts (not trying to belittle.. just deal with reality
here). You can't even hold a weak country like Iraq and yet you
continue to behave like Rumsfeld carrying a royal flush. You simply
don't hold all the cards here Bob No country alone has the definitive
hand and no amount of wishing, rhetoric or threats will change.
Your big guns? Ouuuu scary. Surely every other nation is far too
stupid to build and distribute nukes up the ying yang to flatten anyone
many times over. You can only run with MAD and that route is risky
proposition against people willing to blow themselves up. It's this
pride that's really killing you.... like when you said Washington is
"the capital of the free world". These are empty words that...
A. make you sound like arrogant
B annoy non-Americans which further alienates you
C. are primarily designed to give your own brain dopamine hits..
America is the country with the most nukes and most money yes.
However Athens is the defacto capital of the free world. We invented
pretty well most of the highlevel concepts the world uses to run itself
by. America is just our big Japanese competitor that ships us back
refined versions of our own ideas. You are all just second tier worker
bees to our genius.
So how does that sound like to you?
In actuality there is no capital of the free world. (although I
really wish there was) I've said this many times here, not wealth, not
guns, but ideology is what matters.... especially in todays world. Your
"weapon" of choice should be your incredible media that thus far has
been wasted by putting a bunch of ranting xenophobic hatemongers on
television every night.
America once had good allies but these whiners have worked their
best to isolate you because their egos couldn't deal with facing the
fallacy of their own mythology that the US didn't actually own people
in the rest of the world. As I said to John... some Americans got
into the bad habit of talking to the world like assholes... and some in
the world eventually started talking back to them like assholes
(btw- I'm not saying you do this to me anymore and I hope I don't come
across too loudmouthed myself..... written text makes it difficult to
gather tone. This is just my perspective maybe I'm wrong.)
Today even the citizens of many non-Arab nations view you as a
threat to global peace because This unrelenting global pressure
won't stop until you commit to working with other people to take a
crack at this. Conservatives refused to listen to anyone and pranced
around like no one else's interests mattered. That was their
prerogative but it only led to their own further alienation and
hundreds of billions of wasted dollars.
You need to clue in to the idea that Americans will go reluctantly
to war it necessary but they aren't Nazis. American demographics are
already far too mixed for that Even talking like that puts a big
bullseye on Jewish interests Bob. The Iraq debacle and this tough talk
seems like it may even lead to your fellow Americans eventually giving
Israel a dose of tough love.
Once the troops are out of Iraq... long forgotten Palestinians start
making the news daily. I know first hand there are Jewish people that
have never approved of the treatment of Palestinians and I suspect they
are going to be getting lots of attention eventually.. It's hard to use
antisemitism as a shield when the person in question is Jewish.
What this equation comes down to this.
If you fuck hard enough with Arab/Muslim pride... they will fuck with
you. You of course can say the same back but if you play chicken YOU
WILL crash head on. They have nothing to lose... you have everything to
lose.
They might be a little behind right now but there are reasons why
they've had empires in the past, They aren't stupid and even 9/11 was
well thought out. They took a calculated risk (based on having already
defeating one nuclear superpower in Afghanistan) that the US would not
retaliate with a nuclear attack.
Do you think they thought the US would instantly buckle and run away?
They knew based on your pattern of behavior that there would be a
military response. In fact my guess in retrospect is they were actually
baiting you and that was their entire strategy. They knew you would be
overzealous because the attack was a slight on your national symbols
and pride. Militarily there were more far disruptive targets they could
have chosen right? Nuclear power plants. Poison the water supply. Key
Internet root servers. etc....
As smart as some people arguing "nuke this.. nuke that" thought they
were ... who in reality had a more objective grip on how things would
play out? In practice....Iraq invasion, empty Iran rhetoric,
Lebanon.... played right into their hands by uniting them and isolating
yourselves politically.
Your continued tough talk isn't help YOUR cause Bob... it's helping
Osama's cause.
Robert J. Kolker
>
> Your continued tough talk isn't help YOUR cause Bob... it's helping
> Osama's cause.
Not if we kill him and his.
The idea is convert talk into action.
Bob Kolker
John Alway
> Dragging me in with that one liner again eh? I already know you want
> genocide there is no point repeating it for the umpteenth time. All I'm
> asking here is just to explore (not commit) to other trains of thought.
> Think of it as a discussion of hypotheticals.
> As it stands now, I really believe it's going to eventually be BOTH
> of your asses if there is no compromise. Not America.. not Europe..
> not the UN... not even Israel can save itself if you don't
You do not compromise with your mortal enemies, you kill them.
We've already discussed the issue of compromise, and you seemed to
grasp in then, now it's as if you forgotten the lesson. The proud,
*uncompromising* warrior is much better than the wimpy appeaser.
Your posts are overly long and verbose, because clearly you like
talk more than action, but, unlike you, I understand that talk (the
communication of ideas) although it is important most of the time, only
goes so far. At some time you have to act. You can talk about your
dreams and goals, but so long as you never act, they will never
materialize. You can talk about defeating Islamic killers, or
convincing them not to kill you, but since they are not open to your
arguments, and want power, and an Islamic world, they will just kill
you if and when the get the opportunity.
The moral thing to do is kill your mortal enemies, so that you can
then live a prosperous and free life, as it ought be. The immoral
thing to do is compromise with your enemies, because that will mean the
enslavement, maiming or murder of you, and of those around you --
including those you allegedly love -- It will mean hell on earth, or
no-life at all. This is what your compromising will bring, and that,
sir, is logic speaking.
As an example, France is under duress today because of such
compromisers (postmodernists, usually). The killers are there and
nobody is stopping them. You have made excuses for them, which is why
you are a compromiser with your killers. You have no pride or honor.
You will not fight for your life and freedom.
The only thing I can think is that you don't understand the value of
freedom. You don't know what it really means, and you don't understand
how precious it is in the history of mankind, or, worse, much worse,
you do not care. I care.
...John
potr...@gmail.com
= bad PR
001 no Palestine = Angry Palestinians.
002 Angry Palestinians = Angry Israeli troops
003 troops killing Palestinians = bad PR
004 bad PR makes terrorists heroes = successful terrorist recruitment
process
005 successful terrorist recruitment process > your military success
at killing old recruits
006 military success at killing recruits will remain < the definitive
attack to defeat them without adequate attack first
007 they will not provide an adequate attack until >= your complete
annihilation o
(repeat lines 000 to 007 for 50 years then continue to next line
line)
008 RESULT = 9/11.
009 9/11 = troops in Iraq + Afghanistan
010 troops killing Palestinians + Iraqis + Afghans + Lebanese = bad PR
010 bad PR makes terrorists heroes = successful terrorist recruitment
process
011 successful terrorist recruitment process > your military success
at killing old recruits
012 your military success at killing recruits will remain < the
definitive attack to defeat them with out an adequate attack first
013 they will not provide an adequate attack until >= your complete
annihilation
014 RESULT: Iraq + no victory = exit Iraq
015 exit Iraq = terrorists focus on Afghanistan
016 troops killing Palestinians + Afghans = bad PR
017 bad PR makes terrorists heroes = successful terrorist recruitment
process
018 successful terrorist recruitment process > your military success
at killing old recruits
019 your military success at killing recruits will remain < the
definitive attack to defeat them with out an adequate attack first
020 they will not provide an adequate attack until >= your complete
annihilation
021 RESULT: Afghan + no victory = exit Afghanistan
022 exit afghan = terrorists focus on Palestine
023 troops killing Palestinians = bad PR
024 bad PR makes terrorists heroes = successful terrorist recruitment
process
025 successful terrorist recruitment process > your military success
at killing old recruits
026 your military success at killing recruits will remain < the
definitive attack to defeat them with out an adequate attack first
027 they will not provide an adequate attack until >= your complete
annihilation
....
This isn't "endless violence" like some argue. Its a countdown.
The longer you wait to start the peace process the greater the
chance they may even overthrow several regimes in the region that are
moderate to the US. (and threaten oil supplies) Eventually they will
control both oil and have nukes. Trying to unilaterally attack nuke
facilities doesn't accomplish anything other than it did in Iraq years
ago. It only repeats the observable pattern above You can flatten them
a zillion times over and they'll still come back stronger each time
until we all get Kolkered. (I'm sure the Christian fundies will
rejoice)
Trying to round up the peaceful types or insulting foreigners will
only generate you more bad PR. We'll have peace rallies and sing
"kumbaya" while we call you Nazis to save you, ourselves and our mutual
threats lives.
And don't blame us.... never again... we listened.
Bob Vogel
Used *as* weapons. They could not have taken the airplanes without the
knives and an open cabin door.
Fool.
Bob Vogel
John Alway wrote:
>
> You do not compromise with your mortal enemies, you kill them.
> We've already discussed the issue of compromise, and you seemed to
> grasp in then, now it's as if you forgotten the lesson. The proud,
> *uncompromising* warrior is much better than the wimpy appeaser.
John Galt wasn't a warrior.
.
.
.
.
potr...@gmail.com
>the wimpy appeaser. "
According to that logic then every conflict or dispute must end in
someone's death.
Bob Vogel
John Alway wrote:
>
> You do not compromise with your mortal enemies, you kill them.
> We've already discussed the issue of compromise, and you seemed to
> grasp in then, now it's as if you forgotten the lesson. The proud,
> *uncompromising* warrior is much better than the wimpy appeaser.
Further:
"The most effective form of counterterrorism fights not the terrorists
but the ideas that motivate them. This strategy involves two main
steps. First, defeat the Islamist movement just as the fascist and
communist movements were defeated - on every level and in every way,
making use of every institution, public and private. This task falls
mainly on non-Muslims, Muslim communities being generally incapable or
unwilling to purge their own."
http://www.meforum.org/article/pipes/4174
Surely the idea of a philosophic battle appeals to you, no?
John Alway
Dagny shot the guard. This is what you do when your values are
threatened to that degree.
...John
John Alway
Bob Vogel wrote:
[...]
> Surely the idea of a philosophic battle appeals to you, no?
Of course and I do engage in said battle, but in some contexts that
does not work, because it takes decades and longer to spread a
philosophy. The immediate threat of a war is one such context. In
this war we are dealing with minds that are set in their ways. It's
virtually impossible to change such a mind even if you have dialogue
with one of them for years. Now, extrapolate that to a million or 100
million.
It will simply not work. For the most part you have to get people
young to change their philosophy. It's always been so.
...John
John Alway
No, only mortal conflict, where life and death are at stake. Lots
of conflicts are low level conflicts.
...John
Atlas Bugged
> Surely the idea of a philosophic battle appeals to you, no?
With violent thugs? It doesn't appeal to me in the slightest. The
underlying values and bases of Islam don't really ever reach the level where
there can be any philosophical "debate" in any academic or intellectual
sense. Nor can there be any compromise at all.
It is just like the Japanese cultures circa post-WWII; like the Japanese of
that day, Islam is nothing but a pit bull which must either be beaten down,
or killed. But humans sure don't like to be killed, and all are blessed
with free will. So the Kolker Remedy is as unnecessary now as it was in
1945. Instead, just think Plan Bugged. What is Plan Bugged? Why, it's
nothing more than saying "no" and meaning it.
Worst of them all is Plan Reagan (1982) and Plan Bush (current) where you
say no and you virtually never mean it.
Robert J. Kolker
> Trying to round up the peaceful types or insulting foreigners will
> only generate you more bad PR. We'll have peace rallies and sing
> "kumbaya" while we call you Nazis to save you, ourselves and our mutual
> threats lives.
>
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
> Used *as* weapons. They could not have taken the airplanes without the
> knives and an open cabin door.
They could not have wrecked WTC with just box cutters either. A heavy
plane used *as* as weapon *is* a weapon. Just as a steak knife becomes a
weapon when used on a person
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
>
> According to that logic then every conflict or dispute must end in
> someone's death.
If it is a sufficiently serious conflict and one of the parties is
intractable. Yes, someone will die.
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
> Further:
>
> "The most effective form of counterterrorism fights not the terrorists
> but the ideas that motivate them. This strategy involves two main
> steps. First, defeat the Islamist movement just as the fascist and
> communist movements were defeated - on every level and in every way,
> making use of every institution, public and private. This task falls
> mainly on non-Muslims, Muslim communities being generally incapable or
> unwilling to purge their own."
Nice approach and 30-50 years too late. We have run out of time.
Bob Kolker
potr...@gmail.com
..................
Your posts are overly long and verbose,
..................
Perhaps but it's my style (or lack thereof) If you find it
inadequate or don't enjoy it some manner it seems rational to me you
should stop reading them (as a few others here have chosen). If I
respond to one of yours no one has pistol whipped me to do so.
..................
because clearly you like talk more than action, but, unlike you, I
understand that talk (the
communication of ideas) although it is important most of the time, only
goes so far At some time you have to act.
..................
True that. I've always been more the thinker type. I constantly get
sidetracked from earning a better living by spending time on various
forums and websites hours on end reading facts and figures that are
probably absolutely useless in immediately practical matters.
For example. earlier I just happened to be reading a magazine on the
toilet. Apparently there exists an ecosystem of bacteria in our colons.
If it becomes depleted of certain types of bacteria the intestine
cannot fully digest carbohydrates. Unabsorbed sugars result in the
runs. It was a pretty fascination look into shit but I really have no
idea how this relates to the rest of the universe.
In my defense of my impulsiveness, if you say my ultimate goal is
my own happiness (and I seem to be), if I own my business, pay my own
bills, don't harm anyone (defining that one is always the tricky part
isn't it), where is the world's problem with that?
Do you feel that the rules that run me... must be exactly the same
ones that run some one else? Is the universe too small for the both of
us to coexist and pursue unique interests? Or perhaps you have a
specific metric for what amount of "you" qualifies another for their
right to existence? Or is it just a thumbs up or thumbs down according
to how one answers particular questions? I'm not kidding here. I'm
always curious how people who wish for the freedom to view things from
their own perspective....respect the rights of others to see things
from their own different perspective.
It's not really a philosophy my view (if you can call it that) nor
am I saying I am advocating it for anyone. Its just the way I seem to
be operate these days. I sometimes advocate singular ideas but not any
particular philosophical/religious system. Maybe one day I will or
maybe even make up my own. Hard to say at this time as I have never
encountered persuasive enough evidence to say "eureka"
..................
You can talk about defeating Islamic killers, or convincing them not
to kill you, but since they are not open to your arguments, and want
power, and an Islamic world, they will just kill you if and when the
get the opportunity.
..................
My focus is not "defeating" anyone. My interest is in keeping the
peace.
I recognize I'm speaking to an intelligent audience (and one reason
I occasionally loiter here) but some that I believe have spent so long
hating because of their personal emotional involvements that they've
lost touch with their objectivity (on certain issues) I don't mean
this as an insult. This is just the way I see it until someone around
here somehow changes my views.
Obviously I don't disagree with everything you guys say but I find
no value in expending effort debating a consensuses.
..................
The moral thing to do is kill your mortal enemies, so that you can
then live a prosperous and free life, as it ought be. The immoral
thing to do is compromise with your enemies, because that will mean the
enslavement, maiming or murder of you, and of those around you --
including those you allegedly love -- It will mean hell on earth, or
no-life at all. This is what your compromising will bring, and that,
sir, is logic speaking.
..................
It seems unlikely you instantly kill everyone you have a
disagreement with so you'll need to qualify that. What is the criteria
for death? Demerit points? A particular crime? Orders from authority?
Agreement from some collective of people? What if you make a mistake in
judgment? How do you make amends?
..................
As an example, France is under duress today because of such
compromisers (postmodernists, usually). The killers are there and
nobody is stopping them. You have made excuses for them
..................
Excuses? I just stated the facts. Those riots in France had
nothing to do with religion. I don't say that about the riots over the
Mohammad cartoons did I? The reason for that was because those were
over religion.
From my perspective it appears you have an agenda and are trying to
make the same shoe fit on everything you dislike. Better to kill two
birds with one stone and this fits nicely with Oists hatred of
postmodernists and even France for bucking you over Iraq.
Getting stressed out over mostly dead philosophers seems a bit much
to me however seeing as you already have a philosophy I can see how
another ones might present a threat as a sort of "false god".
..................
"You have no pride or honor. You will not fight for your life and
freedom." comment.
..................
Sure I have pride. However pride has nothing to do with objectivity.
It's an emotion. It says absolutely nothing about the accuracy of one's
arguments. I find this sort of attack more of a meaningless cliche than
anything. It's meant to invoke an emotional reaction in someone to
cajole them to behave in some manner.
As for honour. If you define honour as some sort of "code of ethics"
you're right. In theory I don't have honour.... but I seem to have it
in spades in practice. What I mean by this is that besides the things
we learn as we get older, many of my ethics are still around since I
was a child.and will probably be around until I am dead. However, I
try to remain open minded to new evidence. If I am presented with
irrefutable evidence or a convincing argument I am liable to change my
opinions. I view this as sensible since my views have evolved over
time.
.
--------
The only thing I can think is that you don't understand the value off
freedom. You don't know what it really means, and you don't understand
how precious it is in the history of mankind, or, worse, much worse,
--------
There are multiple issues here.
First you have your own definitions/preferences of what "freedom"
actually represents. You lean towards a laissez-faire state whereas I
personally I am more towards Rousseau's social contract. However I am
not inflexible I am only comfortable. I grew up in a a mixed economy
why should I risk change to another system?
"you don't understand how precious it is in the history"
Functional Western tradition...
- Universal voting rights (20th century)
- US takes first modern plunge in (1776)
- Republican Rome pre-Caesar (50ish BCE )
- Athens (500ish BCE)
(maybe throw in Magna Carta and some minor odds and ends)
"you do not care" (about freedom)
Sure I do. Its just my solutions focus on suggesting ways where (I
think) less blood is spilled where you seem to have already accepted
WW3 as the only solution. No offense but my guess is you also probably
supported the Iraq war while I was arguing it would devolve into
terrorist warfare like Palestine. (I thought this painfully obvious
actually) I think I've done a pretty good assessment of predicting how
events would unfold in this regard over last decade However the past
does not write the future and only fools believe they are oracles. I
might be wrong tomorrow.
I should be clear on something. I'm not giving solutions I don't
think would work. Or making points against ww3 arguments that aren't
potentially true. I've considered my thoughts carefully. There is no
way to be sure without trying though. However you want to go straight
to WW3 without trying peaceful avenues first. Even without my approach
this is not going to happen unless a terrorist attack is proportionate.
Therefore I have to assume there may be another agenda at work here
(e.g. you really don't want peace) All you need say is "yes I want a
peaceful two state solution but I'm skeptical it would work" (this
would be a reasonable reply in my eyes)
Any how no one need adopt my ideas. In a free society I see no great
crime bringing all ideas to the table. Most confident people would
appreciate the input and not feel threatened by the presentation of
ideas... much less peaceful one.
" I care."
Isn't caring about freedom sort of altruistic? If you care how do you
demonstrate this with action rather than only talk? (since you
previously said this to me right?) Are you joining the military to
actually fight?
potr...@gmail.com
>And that is why we have to kill ALL of them or damned near.
"kill ALL of them"
Are we back to killing pacifists or are you talking about nuking
European nations now or or you talking about Genocide? (or all of the
above?)
potr...@gmail.com
>ble. Yes, someone will die.
If you fill a world with pacifists... this will never occur other than
perhaps crimes of passion or cases of insanity. You represent your own
threat Bob. Eventually two Bobs are going to disagree. Eventually a Bob
will be put in a position of power and the same thing is going to
happen. We'll be set back a thousand years (or even possibly make
ourselves extinct)
Anyone this is violent is a threat to mankind over the long haul.
The pacifists problem has always been they can only talk to others
about it or use non-lethal force whereas violent types have the luxury
of trying to kill them with nuke tipped cruise missles.
Robert J. Kolker
> Robert J. Kolker wrote:
>
>>And that is why we have to kill ALL of them or damned near.
>
>
> "kill ALL of them"
>
> Are we back to killing pacifists or are you talking about nuking
> European nations now or or you talking about Genocide? (or all of the
> above?)
We will let our allies in Europe know that it is in their interest to
deport their Muslims to a killing field. Particularly the French. We
will make them an offer they cannot refuse. Either they rid their
country of Muslims or we will.
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
>
>
> If you fill a world with pacifists... this will never occur other than
> perhaps crimes of passion or cases of insanity. You represent your own
> threat Bob. Eventually two Bobs are going to disagree. Eventually a Bob
> will be put in a position of power and the same thing is going to
> happen. We'll be set back a thousand years (or even possibly make
> ourselves extinct)
The world will never be filled with pacifists. The world is full of evil
people who really need to be killed.
The human race has had war ever since land became a commodity. Around
ten thousand years.
Bob Kolker
Bob Vogel
John Alway wrote:
>
> Dagny shot the guard. This is what you do when your values are
> threatened to that degree.
Dagny was not the one who "stopped the motor of the world" by shooting
the recalcitrant guard. Besides, the shooting of the guard is a
no-brainer: Rescue those held against their will and withouth just
cause (Although, one wonders why an unarmed guard would not move aside
for Dagny, who obviously had the upper hand. After all, he's just a
lackey taking orders. Oh well, so much for realism.).
potr...@gmail.com
> a commodity. Around ten thousand years. he world will never be filled wi
> th pacifists. The world is full of evil people who really need to be killed.
It's true we've always been like this but so what? If we had listened
to all the fatalists of the world where would we be now?...
"man has never been able to harness electricity and never will"
"man has always had smallpox and always will"
"man has never flown and never will"
etc....
I sometimes think that because I use the word "pacifist" you
visualize that as a bunch of hippies standing around smoking pot going
"ummmm". I only use this word for lack of a more coherent term. The
granule points of my view of what "pacifism" should represent are still
being formulated (god is in the details right?) but here is the
skeleton.
The ideal is a state that would never sanction the use lethal
force. No executions... no cops or military with lethal weapons. A
program would also be devised to actively discourage the use of
violence by the general population.
The first part of such an endeavor would be the gradual
transformation to purely non-lethal technology for use against
criminals. This will not be enough for the larger issue of war and
crime though. I think tests will eventually be devised that can detect
people with violent tendencies and we can monitor/treat them prior.
(similar to perhaps to the use of anti-psychotics today). Care and
safeguards would also need to be in place first to prevent some new
form of despotism when inevitably someone in the state tries to abuse
this power for self-interest.
There is a great deal of scientific evidence to support the case
violent tendencies are neurologically based. If you really think about
it, unless it's some instinctive reaction for survival what else could
it be? Some people still manage to remain completely civilized even
when surrounded by the most barbaric of circumstances.
The funding for all this would come from a gradual transformation
away from the moralistic hysteria of the age old cottage industries of
"crime/punishment/witch burning" to a more levelheaded medical
testing/monitoring/therapy. Of course this can only happen if the
technology and will are both present and cost effective. This would
also require small scale trials first. (We obviously want to make sure
its workable before diving head first into it)
The military transformation would take far longer of course because
of threats from foreign jurisdictions. However if such a system worked
it seems reasonable every nation on earth would eventually adopt these
practices for their own populations and a slow gradual demilitarization
would occur naturally. Force will still be around but it would take
just a strictly non-lethal form (and again there will still be people
that slip through the cracks like everything else).
I sometimes toy with the idea of the complete elimination of any
force but it seems to be beyond my ability to fathom (although I think
the definition of "force" and our outlook towards language is part of
the problem)
To summarize...it's not utopia...it's just a far safer world. We
can't potentially have billions of people running around with the
technical knowledge of how to build super weapons that aren't all
essentially pacifists. If we want technology to progress much further
this really isn't a choice in my eyes.
I would do it all myself but this is obviously unachievable. So I
just focus on practicing what I preach and continue to refine/revise
the idea (a hobby since no one would pay me for such an absurd pastime)
What is the world but the sum of its people Bob? I think every great
idea starts with the odds and ends of humanity taking personal
responsibility and tinkering with it. Many people wish peace but there
is no coherent and objectively scrutinized strategy for this. If there
was "pacifists" could reach critical mass (in terms of numbers) and it
WOULD happen.
Bottom line:
I see no reason why not to shift to non-lethal technology if
non-lethal force becomes a workable cost-effective alternative. It's a
desperately needed moral upgrade for civilization.
Puppet_Sock
[snip]
> One chance is all they will get. If there's a nuke terrorist attack
> *anywhere*, in the world, well, Bob, you just might get your wish. But
> it's no good freaking out in anticipation.
I'm not so sure. We now have a dhimmi pope. The heir to the throne
in the UK is a dhimmi prince. It's not clear we won't cut-n-run from
Iraq, and maybe even Afghanistan. Nearly the only people standing
up to the Islamists are the fundies from the US south, and they
are getting inverted morality thrown at them. Islamophobes they
are called, and thus it is claimed they caused all the Islamic
terrorism. Even *calling* it Islamic terrorism is labeled racism.
Socks
Jerry Story
> And that is why we have to kill ALL of them or damned near.
Starting with Bush. Bush said Islam is a peaceful religion. That puts
him on the side of Islam.
potr...@gmail.com
>ill."
Nonsense. Americans can no more force Europeans to do their bidding
than we can force them The only tool we have available is negotiation.
Don't look at a pacifist as a vision of the standard European. Most
Europeans are less militaristic than Americans but they are certainly
far from being pacifists. Europe already has nukes (and could get many
more in short order). I hear Russia was "a few" of these
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsar_Bomba) laying around too.
Unless Bob's ultimate goal is to also be vaporized that sort of comment
is just bluster.
This is certainly not a way to speak to your traditional allies and
this is actually a good example of how I say you sometimes let pride
interfere with your objectivity. Even the majority of own countryman
hate this sort of ubermensche attitude Bob. Are you going to threaten
to kill them too? How about fellow Jews that are pacifists? Who
exactly is going to be left after the slaughter? Even O-ists are smart
enough to keep the G-word out of their conversations. (although if
another WW happened I suspect it would quickly resurface into their
vocabulary)
IMHO some Americans really need to put conscious effort into
deprogramming Hollywood derived mythologies of themselves as "the
master race of alien asskickers". Hasn't the human race already heard
this talk before and already learned how it turns out? Europeans have
accepted they are indeed just a member of a community of nations. Words
do matter. Just because one believes in "freedom of speech" doesn't
mean they should intentionally poison dialog in lew of a two second
masturbatory endorphin rush.
I know I slip up too. I try my best though and its up to you to let
me know where I go wrong so I can make adjustments.
potr...@gmail.com
> him on the side of Islam.
Jerry,
Did I just hear that right? Did an Objectivist just advocate the murder
of the President of the United States of America?
Methinks some red lighbulb on top of an NSA mainframe just exploded.
Jerry Story
I am not an Objectivist. I was kicked out of every Objectivist
discussion group I was ever in, except APO and HPO, which are not
really Objectivist discussion groups.
Bush said Islam is a peaceful religion. That is a very serious offense.
Obviously it calls for the death penalty.
BTW, Craig Winn's book "Prophet of Doom" is a nuke in the war against
Islam.
http://www.prophetofdoom.net/
Post a link to it on your website.
potr...@gmail.com
discussion group I was ever in"
Why do you keep participating in Oist forums if you keep getting kicked
out of them? Do you find some allure in Objectvism?
I've been sort of plugging this idea around here the last few days but
please only consider this friendly advice.
You need to watch how you speak. There is real monitoring occuring.
And people do take those sorts of comments seriously. I'm sure it
takes the NSA 5 seconds to trace our IPs and examine our dossiers.
Saying provocative things like that will only one day lead to the
secret service knocking on your door or you being harassed at customs..
America chose to exchange freedom for security.... and the truth is
you didn't even get your security. Those wise words of warning from Ben
Franklin were ignored in favor of conveniences of the moment and
hubris.
Jerry Story
> " I am not an Objectivist. I was kicked out of every Objectivist
> discussion group I was ever in"
>
> Why do you keep participating in Oist forums if you keep getting kicked
> out of them? Do you find some allure in Objectvism?
I don't. Once I'm kicked out, I'm out.
I never tried Binswanger's group, but I'm sure I would be kicked out of
there as quick as hell.
Speaking of hell, I was kicked out of hell too. Satan the Devil said:
"We have enough trouble here already. We don't need you!"
Satan didn't appreciate my offer to take over the godamn place. I
figured Satan was doing a piss-poor job of promoting himself and his
place. He has kinduv a poor public image and his place has a poor
reputation. He gets some bad publicity in the press. Some of the
passages in the Bible about Satan are outright character assassination.
Robert J. Kolker
>
> What is the world but the sum of its people Bob? I think every great
> idea starts with the odds and ends of humanity taking personal
> responsibility and tinkering with it. Many people wish peace but there
> is no coherent and objectively scrutinized strategy for this. If there
> was "pacifists" could reach critical mass (in terms of numbers) and it
> WOULD happen.
Here is the strategy: kill your enemies, cherish and protect your
friends and be polite to the neutrals.
By an enemy I mean one that initiates force or threatens to initiate
force to which a counterstrike reactive or pre-emptive is a proper
response. If someone attacks you are threatens to attack you, anihilate
him and his. The threat is thus eliminated.
Bob Kolker