L W HALL

I also would like to see a corroboration for the statements. This has nothing to do with any belief that Barbara did not report it correctly, but more of a context situation and to make sure Barbara's friend recalled it exactly as it was spoken.

If true, and at this time I have no reason to believe it's not, then this is truly a despicable stance.

L W

In an attempt to do a little sorting out of the argument for the targeting of civilians, I will restate some things which have been posted in this thread:

First: In post #228 Dan was replying to Victor in this quote and it was his(Victor's) question which is in quotation marks:

"A question: what historical precedent would you cite where the mass killing of unarmed citizens—women and children included—would you call as being most “effective”?"

The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the firebombing of Dresden, and Sherman's march through the South during the Civil War are good examples that have been cited recently. But that's not even the point here. The question is not whether or not you believe targeting civilians (to any degree) is an effective tactic in this or that context. The question is whether or not you would support it if were demonstrated to you that it *is* effective in a particular context.

You still didn't answer the question

Second: I responded to the use of Sherman to uphold this theory in post #246 with this following quote:

One other point, and that is regarding the continual citing of Sherman's targeting of civilians. This is again taken out of context due to the fact that although I view Sherman's actions as illegal and find him reprehensible, nonetheless he did not directly target civilians, but instead his focus was on materials and the means for waging war. This leaves the argument in support of the targeting of civilians for death in regards to Sherman's actions as useless in these discussions.

My final point for this post is the following quote from Victor who has, I assume, read all of John Lewis' article making the same argument against the idea that Sherman intentionally targeted civilians in his war effort:

John Lewis's article in "The Objective Standard" [Craig Biddle’s publication] explains why Sherman's march was not projected to kill civilians --but rather to destroy infrastructure and supply, crippling the South's ability to wage war

This is all I have time for this morning, but what I am going to try and get done over the next couple of days is to look at whether the premise of targeting civilians in Japan and Germany during WWII carries as much strength of argument as what has been stated.

L W

There is little doubt that Ayn—like Kira--would have been more than willing to risk her life for a chance to live in freedom.

Is there any evidence that Rand participated in protests of an overt nature or was actively aligned with a resistance movement between the years 1917 and 1925?

L W

Dan,

I continue to see you and others put forth the assertion that the surrender of Japan was brought about due to the targeting of civilians. How much have you actually studied this? Are you simply taking the word of others such as those with ARI that this is indeed factual?

Was Japanese surrender due primarily to the loss if civilian life, or was it a combination of Russia's declaration of war coupled with the scenario of the awesome might of atomic weaponry. A weaponry which could reduce the war making ability of Japan to nothing. I would ask that you keep in mind that at Okinawa it was widely reported that men killed their mothers, wives, and children to keep them out of American hands; we also know that Kamikaze pilots killed their ownselves, so the argument for the targeting of civilians in order to bring a culture vastly different from our own may not hold as much water as had been stipulated.

I would make a suggestion, and a suggestion only that you do some further research into the Japanese militaries reaction to the two atomic bombs. Although there is no doubt that the loss of life was staggering and influenced the decision making, it was not this fact alone as some would like to indicate that brought Japan to the point of unconditional surrender.

One other point, and that is regarding the continual citing of Sherman's targeting of civilians. This is again taken out of context due to the fact that although I view Sherman's actions as illegal and find him reprehensible, nonetheless he did not directly target civilians, but instead his focus was on materials and the means for waging war. This leaves the argument in support of the targeting of civilians for death in regards to Sherman's actions as useless in these discussions.

L W

The best solution to today's War on (sincere) Islam is for Western states to openly declare war on Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and so on, plus Al Qaeda, the Taliban, Hezbollah, Hamas, Fatah, the Muslim Brotherhood, the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, and all other active jihadist organizations, and those who fund and shelter them. These are dedicated murderers and enslavers, and so we should kill them where we find them. Anyone captured and left alive should get a quick but fair military trial based on transparent rule of law, usually followed by perhaps public execution.

And while we are at it I think we might as well go ahead and get rid of all the commies, socialists, TAS members, Scientologists, and don't forget those pesky magazine salespeople who keep showing up at my front door.

L W

I mean, is he not saying do strikes when the churches and residences are full? Does this not mean peak occupation time for civilians? You know, there are these folks that are just civilian churchgoers and such. And women and children and elderly in the residences (albeit in this case including residences of a number of scumbags). We expect civilian casualties in war. But to try and optimize them? What the fuck?

Of course that's what he is saying Rich; when I made mention of this on SOLO those who aplogized for him made the Islamist/Muslim argument, but if anybody happened to read the exchange you would notice there was no reply when I asked how he planned on separating the two out. The reason I believe there was no answer is because he really makes no well thought out differentiation between them as evidenced by the very quote you provided.

Like many on here and other places I make no claim to military genius, but I find it hard to believe that it takes great intelligence to understand that the random killing of innocents makes for less than good strategy.

L W

"His actions provide a win-win scenario for himself, his family, his faith and his God," the document explains. "The bomber secures salvation and the pleasures of Paradise. He earns a degree of financial security and a place for his family in Paradise. He defends his faith and takes his place in a long line of martyrs to be memorialized as a valorous fighter.

"And finally, because of the manner of his death, he is assured that he will find favor with Allah," the briefing adds. "Against these considerations, the selfless sacrifice by the individual Muslim to destroy Islam's enemies becomes a suitable, feasible and acceptable course of action."

Here is a good example of why I believe it is erroneous to group Muslim countries where terrorism of a mystical origin exist, in with the likes of North Korea. You are dealing with two different types of motivation, and they should be viewed in the light of what their particular goals are in order to device the best response to each.

Of course if your solution to the whole problem is "nuke them all", then that doesn't take a whole lot of mental work.

L W

Victor,

You are mistaken, I do not dislike you. I wrote what I wrote for a specific reason, but that is in the past and I will not rehash it.

As far as who I was referring to on SOLO, it was in response to Linz's praise of Bill Visconti.

L W

Mick,

Thank you ,I appreciate what you said.

L W

Barbara,

As for the idea that the citizens of a statist country in some sense implicitly support their government, I consider this preposterous. Do you support our anti-trust laws? -- or universal health insurance? -- or the mess that is our public education? Should you be held responsible for them? And note that in Soviet Russia, Rand did not join the underground. Did that mean she supported the Communist regime? Did her family, who also did not rebel and who did not attempt to leave Russia, support it? I've never understood how she could say that the citizens of a country are responsible for their government, and should be held responsible for it. This seems to me to fly in the face of the reality of a dictatorship

Thanks for this statement, it was a great aid in helping me wrest with an idea I am trying to formulate in regards to what I would loosly term as a 'shifting of responsibilities'.

L W

(Tip of hat to LW Hall for noticing this quote on another forum. Incidentally, this is on a blog on The Objectivist Standard site, a publication ARI fully endorses.)

Thanks Michael, but I cannot take credit for noticing it first; that would go to Robert Campbell who made mention of it in post #4 of this thread.

L W

Michael,

I had no idea you sent my post to my E-Mail address, as I don't check it every two minutes.

In regards your policy of not allowing one poster to insult another I would remind you of the squabble Gary and Nick became involved in on the humor thread some time back. I do not remember your removing either of their comments to each other although I do know you removed Nick's thread on 'The bigot at the bar'.

However, as I am aware this is your and Kat's board, and from this point forward as far as I am concerned you are welcome to it as your position is quite clear.

L W

Michael,

I started to write a response to your deletion of my post and decided the act in itself was enough for anyone who wishes to see the truth.

L W

Due to what I perceived as the direction the thread was heading and because of what I had read on here by BB concerning O'Connor's alleged drinking I felt it was a good time to bring it up and try to get some input by James V and maybe others.

As I mentioned on the SOLO thread I was not trying to make a big issue out of it myself, but I did want to introduce Barbara's post on the subject into evidence so to speak.

I am hesitant to make judgements on other people's drinking problems when I am not totally armed with a lot of facts, but I am genuinely concerned with trying to discern the truth whenever these types of issues are being debated.

L W

It" good to see the site back up and running. I know Michael and Kat have put a lot of work into it and what was done was despicable.

L W

Welcome Alexxa! There are a lot of good people around here and I am sure you will find the conversation interesting.

L W

Kevin,

I like what you had to say and believe the idea behind judging and being judged by others would be worthy of a thread of it's own

L W

Roger,

Just to give you a little idea for getting a head start on next years entertainment, may I make a little suggestion for a solo by Dragonfly.

Kevin,

Excellent post.

L W

At the minimum, I would think Phil has had sex with Phil.  

That counts, or no?  

Don't know if Phil has followed up on it, but I do know that it has been suggested(strongly) that he have sex with himself. Reference #1 in Roger's first post.

L W

JIm,

The unchecked growth of government into what has all the appearances of a self-perpetuating entity should be a concern for all people who are producers rather than takers, regardless of political affiliation.

One of the very reasons I quit participating on political forums was because I see no real attempt by either major party to try and reign in what is obviously runaway goverrnment.

L W

As with a lot of people I read, I found myself both agreeing and disagreeing with Victor, but if someone believes they have made a mistake all they can do is admit to and rectify it as much as possible then move on.

Victor has a lot of good things to say and his artwork is super as far as I am concerned. If he chooses to post on here I would welcome his input even if I don't always agree with it.

L W

Objectivist rage is half the fun of being an Objectivist.  

The other half is figuring out what to be enraged about.  

Since he just accounted for 100% of the fun in being an Objectivist and by that I am going to *assume* he means an Objectivist of the ARI variety I am just beside myself with excitement at what the future holds.

NOT!

L W

Two which come to mind are:

The Last of the Mohicans(I love the soundtrack and have it on tape)

The African Queen

L W

And I agree with myself that it's kind of agreeable when something can be agreed upon!

Or something like that. 8-[

L W