zantonavitch

I think the definitive answer on this is to be sworn in on a book of Aristotle. The bible is a book of lies and a book of pure evil. Using it for oaths of office or in court is like a license to lie and do evil. If I ever swore on that god-awful thing, that's how I would interpret it! :yes:

The key point -- which everyone seems to ignor or misunderstand -- is the evil, mass-murdering, jihadi Gazans used their own people as human shields(!). This is new. Using the enemy as your human shield or hostage is indeed a very old tactic -- and potentially a rational and moral one. An example of this might be the Americans in WWII protecting an ammunition depo in liberated France by placing a German POW camp right next to it to ward off German bombing. What makes no sense is the US protecting the ammo depo by using wounded American GIs or allied factory workers as "human shields." This wouldn't have deterred the Germans at all. Just the opposite, as is logical. But the current Palestinians are using their own genocide-loving women as shields. And both sides -- Jews and Arabs -- now call these folks "innocent civilians." But in what possible sense is this true? This absurdity is worse than Barbara's "sanction of the victim" description mentioned in Post #9. This is the defense and support of the enemy. What is so baffling in the Middle East this past year is why the Good is now so hugely sympathetic with the Evil. This is unprecedented. The Good is in love with, and in league with, the Evil which is mass-murdering it(!).

Michael notes: "They only need to be obliterated if, when and to the extent they are in the way on purpose as accomplices. That would stop this despicable practice in short order." But the sad and hateful reality is they are there on purpose, and as accomplices. I consider this phenomenon and tactic brand new. Somebody correct me if I'm wrong. A normal, rational use of human shields is when some bad guys capture some good guys -- especially helpless innocent children -- and then hide behind them in some kind of attack or defense. Basically these human shields are hostages. This is 'acceptable.' Saddam did this in 1990 with random visiting Westerners in Kuwait in order to forstall Operation Desert Storm. But this tactic is a war crime which is forbidden by Article Four of the Geneva Conventions. Still, it makes some sense and occasionally may be practical and/or moral. But the Palestinians are using their own guilty, murderous, jihadi-loving people! Where is the logic here? How can the Israelis be so over-intellectualized and messed up in their thinking as to fall for this? Did Germany or Japan use their own women in WWII to try to halt American and British bombing raids? It would have been absurd. Israel needs to obliterate these ridiculous human shields posthaste, and put a quick and rude end to this irrational pretension and bizarre pantomime.

Palestinian Human Shields by Andre Zantonavitch There's something new in the world. It comes courtesy of the Muslims. In their earnest and admirable struggle toward world domination, jihadi fighters now seem to openly embrace using their own people as "human shields." But maybe this development on the world scene isn't entirely "new." Does anyone remember all those passionately supportive "innocent civilians" in southern Lebanon in the recent Israeli war against Hezbollah and company? On November 8th, at a mosque in Beit Hanoun, Gaza, the Palestinians used about fifty heavily-shrouded women as "human shields" to provide cover for a few dozen or so jihadis trapped by the Israeli military. The Jewish army declined to fire very much at the fleeing terrorists, lest they kill "non-combatants." And all the jihadi fighters escaped -- most or all of them dressed as women. On November 19th, in Jabalya, Gaza, the Palestinians used several hundred women and children(!) as "human shields" to protect the house of newly-targeted Mohammedweil Baroud, leader of the jihadist Popular Resistance Committees. Baroud has recently been very active in firing Qassam rockets into Israel, successfully maiming and killing. The BBC News of November 20th took note of these two events, and this new Palestinian tactic, calling it "unprecedented." And they also observed it seems to work. After Israel phoned Baroud to give him thirty minutes to evacuate his doomed house(!), the Popular Resistance Committees used mosques and Gaza television to ask civilians to protect him, especially women. A spokesman for the Popular Resistance Committees issued a public statement: "We call upon all the fighters to reject evacuating their houses and we urge our people to rush into the threatened houses and make human shields." The Gazans did this by the hundreds. An Israeli military spokesman conceded the planned raid was aborted for this reason. This new phenomenon seems to have been invented by Jamila Shanti, a former philosophy professor and current Palestinian legislator who also founded the women's branch of Hamas. Shanti also led the successful human shield campaign in Beit Hanoun on November 8th. According to her shield theory: "We consider it a new kind of reistance, highly successful, one that will serve us well against the Israeli enemy." In the most recent event, the human shields at Baroud's house fired guns into the air and energetically chanted "Death to Israel!" and "Death to America!" One special shield at Baroud's house was Palestinian Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh. "We are so proud of this national stand. It's the first step toward protecting our homes, the homes of our children," he said while ascending to the roof. Israel seems alarmed by all this. Also confused. According to military spokeswoman Noa Meir: "What happened over the weekend is very worrisome to us. Not only are they using their civilians as human shields, they continue to endanger the lives of our own civilians with their rocket attacks. It presents us with a very difficult dilemma, because we want to do everything possible to keep civilians out of harm's way." Such is Israel's moral ignorance, weakness, and virtual bankruptcy. Humanity seems to have hit a new low with this. The Palestinians are using the Israelis' well-known dedication to high principles and moral ideals against them. As one military spokesman foolishly put it: "We differentiate between innocent people and terrorists." The problem is those innocent people are acting completely in concert with the jihadis and support them utterly. They're hardly innocent. Utlimately, the flawed moral beliefs of the Israelis need to be discarded and replaced with something far different. Then all those Palestinian civilian "human shields" need to be obliterated. And this new Muslim variation on hiding behind women and children should be universally excoriated. And the practitioners and supporters of this new tactic should be loathed by all.

Michael: Bull's-eye!

I'd love to read a copy of this, if anyone can provide it. Everyone needs to bear in mind that ARI is continually in the process of destroying evidence and rewriting history.

Barbara writes: Ouch! I think this falls under the category "The truth hurts."

Evidently Hezbollah did this -- and much else. Neither Reagan nor Israel ever decently paid them back.

So what do Peikoff, Binswanger, et al. say to you regarding your addendum? :question:

Ciro writes: "Julie Delpy as Dagny?" Very superior to Angelina. :thumbsup: Also try: Scarlett Johansson. :heart:

It's nice that she's a Rand fan and beautiful, but where's the intelligence and integrity? Brad Pitt's old flame would have been far superior.

In Post #40 Ted Keer wrote: "So-called objectivists refusing to walk on the same side of the street as other so-called objectivists reminds me of the behavior of middle-school cliques, trotskites vs leninist marxists, and certain messianic Jewish sects found in Brooklyn. I belong to all three lists, and annoy and am annoyed by, and enjoy and am enjoyed by just as many on each." This states it just about as well as you can. Having three similar-type discussion groups is rather sad, and something of a time waster. I favor unity and civility, combined with zero censorship and excommunications. This doesn't seem to be such a difficult recipe to whip up, but maybe I'm wrong... :geek:

What's going on with that #!%*#!% damn dot? Maybe we should bomb it -- just to be safe. :devil:

I like the idea that there's an Objectivist caricaturist out there hard at work. Of course, I don't much see the justice of the current one. Still, bring'em on! :devil: And when is it my turn?! I must've done something to piss off Victor.

Barbara makes many good points in Post 3. But not only might the current looney-tune dictatorship give these new weapons to Iran, but also maybe many different jihadi groups, and for a variety of evil reasons (which makes sense to them). This problem really needs to be nipped in the bud. As Hannah Arendt and Barbara note, dictators have all kinds of odd motivations and can not be counted on to behave rationally -- not even as rational fearful monsters. And this phenomenon is probably many times more true for an odd twit non-entity moron like Kim Jong-Il. But I don't think the suggested severe economic sanctions would work. Not unless we apply them to North Korea's lifeblood, South Korea. One idea that I've been thinking about for several years is a professional attempt at propaganda, similar to those experts, the Nazis. After all, it worked to promote evil(!). And maybe the half-ass propaganda of Radio Liberty et alia worked to help end the Cold War with victory for us. My idea here is bombard them with about four different radio and t'v' stations aimed at high-brows, low-brows, middle-brows, and just entertainment-seekers. Let everyone contribute to the shows -- even a tiny number of pro-Kim communists, in open and fair debate. Let exiles and anti-communist radicals and leftists and neo-cons and even religious nuts participate in the shows, but with a great emphasis on quality. Use comedy and thundering lectures and boring academic discussions and vulgar entertainment to relentlessly and limitlessly attack, mock, and insult communism and tyranny in general, and the current regime and leaders in particular. Also: inform the pathetic North Korean people that if they don't rather quickly overthrow/control their leaders -- and/or stay far away when we eventually decide to attack -- we fully reserve the right to slaughter them en masse. As for any electronic jamming: attack these devices within a few minutes and with great energy. If this alone precipitates a full scale war, so be it. We tried.

As of 24 hours ago, the communist, cult-of-personality, bizarre, unpredictable dictatorship of North Korea has evidently joined the atomic bomb club. This constitutes an intolerable threat to America's safety and security. We need to hit them militarily very soon and exceptionally hard. Because of previous extreme appeasement, weakness, and cowardice on the part of the West, the short-term results of this strike will possibly be quite bad -- especially for South Korea and Japan. But their appeasement, weakness, and cowardice was far worse than America's. So they seem to have it coming. In the long-run, it's probably far better for everyone if we deal with, and solve, this problem right away. The whole world is watching. Yet more American "paper tigerdom" -- as when the dictatorships of the Soviet Union, China, and Pakistan went nuclear -- isn't the answer. One of these days, all this passivity and incompetence in the face of dictatorial threats is really gonna cost us. And considering the grotesque way America props up, sanctions, and enables most of these hyper-criminal regimes -- and considering our indifference to the suffering of their citizen-slaves -- we won't have much right to complain when we finally pay the price.

I found Craig Biddle's August 31st article How to Solve Terrorism in 5 Easy Lessons absolutely thrilling to read. He really did get to the point and cut thru the nonsense with energy and vigor. That said, it was a blog entry, not a formal article, and thus, rather expectedly, somewhat loosely argued and worded. But on the whole, and after rereading it, I think Biddle only advocates killing state leaders, not passive followers, and active Islamicists, not passive Islamics. The most ambiguous sentence in the piece is the one everyone cites, about wanting full mosques and madrassas to bomb. But he still may just be aiming for the head guys. If not, these massman pious folk can still be seen as self-selected "innocent civilians" who aren't really innocent in any Total War senario. Especially if America formally and publically declares war, as is proper. In the 2 or 3 blog posts, Biddle does not call for bombing large apartment complexes, nor huge factories, nor restaurants and clubs -- and certainly not full soccer stadiums. I think this reveals his thinking. But if not, it doesn't really matter. What counts is: What is the morally correct position and the strategically wise one? And my interpretation of him seems to have it. 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. We need victory here and there is great glee -- to use a term condemned by earlier posts -- in getting it. Biddle's blog posts seem pretty darn good to me.

This is a monstrously long discussion, and I think there's something seriously wrong with people offering 10 or 20 comments on it, or on any subject, since no potential reader has the time or energy to really follow along. Nevertheless, I've skimmed a lot of this, and I have a few brief points which might be worth considering, even tho' I'm joining in in medias res, and thus can't near address all the various possibly worthwhile points. First, I think Craig Biddle's August 31st article advocated killing Iran's and Saudi Arabia's horrific leaders and not the general population. This policy certainly seems correct to me since the leaders of these dictatorships are morally black whereas the population is morally grey -- both victims of the dictatorship, and partial creators and sustainers of it. Second, Biddle advocates killing Islamists and not mere Muslims. This too seems correct for the above reason. Finally, I think that in the current War on (activist) Islam the West is in a state of war. And I think it's almost inarguable that sometimes in warfare "innocent civilians" have to be targeted and destroyed. Historical examples of this, as others have mentioned, are the dreadful fire-bombings of Dresden and Tokyo in WWII, as well as Sherman's merciless march thru Georgia in the US Civil War. The sooner victory is obtained and the war is stopped, the sooner the killing on all sides is stopped, which is true humanitarianism. Based on this logic, the first enemy civilians to be properly attacked and terminated in the War on Islam are the religious leaders in the mosques and madrassas since they are, in effect, giving military orders to the general populace. These men of god aren't merely practicing free speech and offering bad ideas which good people need to refute. These imams are advocating that their followers go out and wage jihad and establish sharia, while killing infidel Westerners. This strikes me as fighting a war and, as such, I think these evil holy rollers and activist Muslim enemies need to be eliminated from earthly existence. No one hates or opposes the ARIans more than I do, and I certainly don't accept their general advocacy of mindless genocide, but with all due respect, I think many of the comments in this hideously-long and unreadable thread are somewhat off the mark. They don't seem to attack what Craig Biddle actually wrote.