Massacre... a consequence of US leaving Iraq...

[Peter]

What came first, the chicken or the egg? What will come first, a wider war with Iran or a strike against those enemies who are the closest? What will WE be like after the next 9/11?

Peter

From The Times of Israel, September 6, 2014:

Just 10 days after a ceasefire ended a 50-day Israel-Hamas conflict, the Israeli army is making plans and training for a very violent war against Hezbollah in south Lebanon, an Israeli TV report said Friday night, without specifying when this war might break out.

The report, for which the army gave Israels Channel 2 access to several of its positions along the border with Lebanon, featured an IDF brigade commander warning that such a conflict will be a whole different story from the Israel-Hamas conflict in which over 2,000 Gazans (half of them gunmen according to Israel) and 72 Israelis were killed. We will have to use considerable force to quickly prevail over the Iranian-backed Hezbollah, to act more decisively, more drastically, said Colonel Dan Goldfus, commander of the 769th Hiram Infantry Brigade.

The report said Hezbollah has an estimated 100,000 rockets 10 times as many as were in the Hamas arsenal and that its 5,000 long-range missiles, located in Beirut and other areas deep inside Lebanon, are capable of carrying large warheads (of up to 1 ton and more), with precision guidance systems, covering all of Israel.

Israels Iron Dome rocket defense system would not be able to cope with that kind of challenge, and thus the IDF would have to maneuver fast and act forcefully to prevail decisively in the conflict, Goldfus said.

IDF brigade commander Dan Goldfus (screen capture: Channel 2)

Goldfus said it might be necessary to evacuate the civilian residents of the area. Hezbollah will not conquer the Galilee (in northern Israel), the officer said, and I wont let it hurt our civilians. He said that anyone who thought Hezbollah was in difficulties because it has sustained losses fighting with President Bashar Assad in Syria is mistaken. The report noted, indeed, that Hezbollah has now accumulated three years of battlefield experience, and has greater military capabilities and considerable confidence as a consequence.

Channel 2 illustration of potential rocket fire on Israel from southern Lebanon (screen capture: Channel 2) The report said that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu warned UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon in 2012 that, in a future war against Hezbollah, Israel would have to hit homes in villages across southern Lebanon from which Hezbollah would seek to launch rockets into Israel.

As with Hamas in Gaza, the report said there were concerns that Hezbollah has also been tunneling under the Israeli border ahead of planned attacks. A deputy local council chief, Yossi Adoni of the Maaleh Yosef Council, said dozens of border-area residents have reported the sounds of tunneling under their homes since 2006 when Israel and Hezbollah fought a bitter conflict known as the Second Lebanon War. We are absolutely certain there are cross-border tunnels, Adoni said.

There could be, noted Goldfus, describing the tunnel threat as one more concern If in Gaza there were tunnels, it stands to reason that its possible here too. Israels launched a ground offensive in Gaza in mid-July to destroy some 30 Hamas tunnels dug under the border; 11 IDF soldiers were killed during the Israel-Hamas war by gunmen emerging from the tunnels inside Israel.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Bigotry against that religion is not the same as bigotry against any particular adherent of it, but against particular negative manifestations such as state religion, Jihad, pedophilia, slavery, forced conversion, conquest, death as a value, etc.

Brant,

I do not reject your list of negative manifestations, I agree with you about those things, but I do reject the form of argumentation that led to your list. I arrive at it through a different process.

Let me give an example of why I reject the epistemological process you just used. Let's replace religion with the black race and see how that sounds. Your statement could be rewritten as follows:

Bigotry against the black race is not the same as bigotry against any particular black person, but against particular negative manifestations such as...

You fill in the rest.

Bigotry is collectivist at root. All bigotry is. By definition.

My epistemological process for arriving at the negative manifestations is the same that I use for all religions--and all collectives for that matter. The culture I live in, with which I agree, does not condone "state religion, Jihad, pedophilia, slavery, forced conversion, conquest, death as a value, etc." The freedom values that these practices destroy have been hotly debated within my culture and we have fought wars to resolve and gain some of them.

We will defend our freedom values with arms. Anyone who tries to practice behavior that destroys freedom within my culture has to stop or go elsewhere. If not, we will stop such person by force.

That goes for radical Islamists, violent white power people, Weather Underground wannabes, radical communists, and so on. The standard is the same for all. On a fundamental level, it has nothing to do with singling out this group or that.

I agree that targeting a collective is useful as a temporary tactic against a direct threat when such a collective actively attacks freedom, but the targeting has to stop when the threat is squashed. Targeting a group for me can never, and that means never, replace using freedom as the fundamental concept. When targeting a group becomes a value in itself, when it becomes bigotry, that is nothing more than a form of attacking freedom.

(In this context, I am presuming "Jihad" is the violent form, and I realize we are still fighting for freedom, especially against an encroaching out-of-control government.)

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Michael, so, I should use "negative thoughts and feelings"? When I say "I am bigoted against bigots" I am not saying I am a bigot but using word power to slam the source then standing back and watch the host consume itself. When the bigot says, "Ah, you're a bigot too," he's only condemning himself, caught in my semantical trap. When I say "I am a bigot against" murder I am not really saying I am a bigot at all only that if there be murder, a murderer will not find moral refuge for being attacked by a bigot--either a real or a false one. Since it's epistemological it can't backwash on me unless it has a physical collective address such as blacks, Muslims, Jews, etc.

--Brant

am I stepping in it?

I did say against that religion plus qualifiers but I should have stated it differently for it wasn't the Muslim religion but those qualifiers, speaking of my "bigotry"

still stepping in it?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Brant,

Yup.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Brant,

Yup.

Michael

Obviously you are a bad person deserving of vicious ad hominem.

--Brant

anybody want to earn a buck?--I'm not up to it (St. Brant)

wait--that was two questions but only one "Yup"--but just to be safe, anybody want to earn two bucks?

three?--that's it!

[Richard Wiig]

What the west cannot do is wage war against the Muslim religion as such.

--Brant

That is the realm of the war of ideas. Unfortunately, Islamic law considers that to be acts of war against Islam, which is why so many people are murdered simply for speaking.

[Richard Wiig]

Its odd but since rebels took over the Syrian checkpoint leading to Israel, I have not heard of any conflicts there.

http://edition.cnn.com/2014/08/27/world/meast/syria-crisis/index.html

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

That is the realm of the war of ideas.

Bullshit.

There is a physical war being fought with some Muslims in the name of their version of the religion. That's where we need to fight Muslims and their toxic version of Islam with guns.

A war of ideas with other Muslims can only happen among peaceful folks.

And the only way to win that war is with ideas and the different conduits for them.

Not the garbage you preach.

Michael

[Richard Wiig]

Bigotry against that religion is not the same as bigotry against any particular adherent of it, but against particular negative manifestations such as state religion, Jihad, pedophilia, slavery, forced conversion, conquest, death as a value, etc.

Brant,

I do not reject your list of negative manifestations, I agree with you about those things, but I do reject the form of argumentation that led to your list. I arrive at it through a different process.

Let me give an example of why I reject the epistemological process you just used. Let's replace religion with the black race and see how that sounds. Your statement could be rewritten as follows:

Bigotry against the black race is not the same as bigotry against any particular black person, but against particular negative manifestations such as...

You fill in the rest.

Of course, it is a gross error to equate a system of ideas with a race of people. Also, it is not possible to be bigoted against a system of Ideas. It is non-sensical to say that opponents of a system of ideas are bigoted towards those ideas.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

... it is not possible to be bigoted against a system of Ideas.

Sure it is. Look at you.

It's funny how "system of ideas" get disassociated from humans when talking about your bigotry, but affixes itself to humans real fast when you go into hate-preaching mode.

Like I said, bigots do not understand what a double standard is when dealing with their own bigotry.

Michael

[Richard Wiig]

That is the realm of the war of ideas.

Bullshit.

There is a physical war being fought with some Muslims in the name of their version of the religion. That's where we need to fight Muslims and their toxic version of Islam with guns.

A war of ideas with other Muslims can only happen among peaceful folks.

And the only way to win that war is with ideas and the different conduits for them.

Not the garbage you preach.

Michael

I am peaceful. Criticising Islamic doctrines and practices is peaceful. Verbalising opposition to liberty and life destructive ideas, whether socialist, communist, Christian, Multiculturalist, or whatever else ideas, is peaceful. Take the guy who asked the questions about Muhammad, and raised the point that to fix the problems with Islam requires a rejection of a few Islamic doctrines. He raised questions that must be asked if Islam is to be reformed. He is also raising peoples awareness of Islamic doctrines. Doing so is peaceful. It is also necessary to achieve a free and peaceful world.

[Richard Wiig]

... it is not possible to be bigoted against a system of Ideas.

Sure it is. Look at you.

It's funny how "system of ideas" get disassociated from humans when talking about your bigotry, but affixes itself to humans real fast when you go into hate-preaching mode.

Like I said, bigots do not understand what a double standard is when dealing with their own bigotry.

Michael

It's funny how opposition to socialism is not treated by you as bigotry to Socialists, but opposition to Islam is treated by you as bigotry towards Muslims.

[BaalChatzaf]

It's funny how opposition to socialism is not treated by you as bigotry to Socialists, but opposition to Islam is treated by you as bigotry towards Muslims.

Socialism need not be malevolent. It is the correct way of managing a life boat with limited supplies of food and water and seeing to it that every one who can row or bail, rows and bails.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I am peaceful.

God help us if you ever got power.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

It's funny how opposition to socialism is not treated by you as bigotry to Socialists, but opposition to Islam is treated by you as bigotry towards Muslims.

This is the problem bigotry does to the human mind.

There are things right in front of a person and he just doesn't see them.

There are several socialists who are dear members of OL. I don't agree with them, but I don't think their views--in the way they are living them--are the main evil wrecking the earth.

Then there are progressives who lie, constantly resort to propaganda, engage in behavioral science manipulation (including neuroscience and psychology and even storytelling), use covert hypnosis, and any and all under-the-radar tactics to advance--by baby-steps--their agenda of dictatorship by technocrats. And, of course, they want to be on the group in power.

They call themselves socialists, too. But I put these in the same category of evil as the Islamist terrorists, with one fundamental difference. The progressives only resort to violence once they have power, not before.

The normal everyday socialists that I hold love for in my heart here on OL are good people who just want the best for everybody and don't like seeing others suffer. I relate to that.

Now this difference has been stated gazillions of times here on OL from gazillions of different angles. And not just by me.

This is not like what this poster does, boiling everything down to one scapegoat fits all and letting that serve as his eyes. In fact, my way is so not like him, he can't even see it.

Michael

[Richard Wiig]

I am peaceful.

God help us if you ever got power.

The last thing I ever want is power. I'm not a political person, and prefer just to get on with my life left alone and unmolested.

[Richard Wiig]

It's funny how opposition to socialism is not treated by you as bigotry to Socialists, but opposition to Islam is treated by you as bigotry towards Muslims.

Socialism need not be malevolent. It is the correct way of managing a life boat with limited supplies of food and water and seeing to it that every one who can row or bail, rows and bails.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Socialism is the first step towards Communism, and it certainly is malevolent. Just two days ago I was seeing comments from socialists about wishing some rich persons boat would sink simply because they did not like that he is wealthy. To my mind, that is a malevolence that arises from socialist ideas creating feelings of envy and resentment in the minds of its victim. Regardless, though, malevolent or not, Socialism does require combatting in the war of ideas. It is not bigotry to do so. In regards to Muslims, I am no bigot. I do not think all muslims are jihadists, just as I do not think that all Socialists are malevolent, nor do I treat them that way. I let each person reveal themselves on an individual basis and judge their character on an individual basis. I do treat Islam as a graver threat than most of the other isms though, and you can thank 9/11 and the ongoing war for that. Prior to 9/11 I knew nothing about Islam, nor did I care. I started when I saw all those people being murdered in the name of Islam. Are things better or worse now since 9/11? I think they are much worse. I think it's worse because people are largely ignorant of the ideology that is advancing. Ignorance will ensure that things get worse still.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Does anyone notice that when this poster is on the defensive about being a bigot, he gets semi-reasonable, but if left alone and he gets comfortable or goes into rapid-fire posting mode, he moves straight into bigotry?

Go back over his posts if you don't believe me.

This is an example of a mental cybernetic system governing his soul. You can blow him off course and he will move in a reasonable direction, but once left alone, his automatic system self-corrects to his true nature.

I believe this is an example of what Rand called a premise. Bigotry can be a premise.

Michael