One of the unfortunate consequences of ARI's (& Solo's) irrationally skewed hatred of subjectivism while tolerating intrinsicism is that it skews all the counterpart movements toward subjectivism--if you viciously ban or harass those with subjectivist tendencies but coddle budding intrinsicists, then there's an exodus of the former to fill up these counterpart movements. Which creates a vicious cycle, making the remaining intrinsicists foam all the more about the antics of the counterparts, but not without good cause in many instances. Which is to say that Brook's previous comments aren't completely wrong-headed. What he's reacting to is the pacifist mentality that says it's our duty to take grave risks preserve innocent life. His reaction relative to the status quo is right on a basic level; but his reasoning is all wrong. E.g., his attempt to paint a picture of all the innocents being guilty to some degree is collectivist and obviously wrong: there's children there. In fact it is not our duty to sacrifice ourselves to preserve the life of innocent children in the aggressor nation. ARI offers chillingly anti-life rationalizations precisely *why* this is so, but that doesn't make what they are arguing for completely wrong (on the other hand, there's no way one could trust them to make correct application in real life). As I have mentioned elsewhere, the real justification is along the same lines as we'd use to justify tragically killing innocents in a hostage scenario when that was the only reasonable way to protect everyone else (this isn't my argument, I'm just trying to give the basic idea for the right argument). These new quotes allegedly from Brook (I have serious doubts over their accuracy, I would be surprised if he actually said that) indicate the same sort of emotionalism interfering with proper arguments. It's certainly true that the creature who would wear a Bin Laden shirt is as low as you can get, but clearly, the fact that someone is a lowlife doesn't grant you the right to take his life (he allegedly says "moral right"--as against what? "Legal right"? That's a very odd and not Objectivist distinction to use in this context; it's rather the distinction a collectivist would make; if Brook didn't really say this, then the person fabricating the quote is probably a collectivist).