Peikoff on the Ground Zero Mosque

[Philip Coates]

> Ayn Rand's public statements about foreign wars were inconsistent.

Robert, it's not an inconsistency to oppose one historical war and be in favor of another. That's like noticing I like carrots but not sauerkraut, then applying a negative, disapproving label: "Phil Coates is inconsistent about vegetables."

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

How about this?

Phil Coates is inconsistent about disapproval.

Michael

[blackhorse]

I am not for genocide - just strategic destruction of key towns and cities that pose very real threats. I can't see how winning muslims over with idea's could even work.-try explaining that one to someone who has a fatwa against him or her.

[9thdoctor]

I am not for genocide - just strategic destruction of key towns and cities that pose very real threats.

Name some.

[blackhorse]

Of course it makes sense to spread reason and the idea's of liberty to muslims, but like liberalism islam too is a mental disorder. How would one propose actually implementing an effective strategy at converting the muslim world to idea's that are at clear odds with its anti-life philosophy? I can maybe see the college kids (at least the few towns that have them) but other than that I can see know plausible effort even coming close to succeeding. It's easy to talk of non-aggresion measures, but try explaining that to a person who has a fatwa on their head.

Ninth Doctor, you know what areas are hot spots - I can name for you if not.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I am not for genocide - just strategic destruction of key towns and cities that pose very real threats. I can't see how winning muslims over with idea's could even work.-try explaining that one to someone who has a fatwa against him or her.

blackhorse,

You have obviously walked off the intellectual battlefield.

Call yourself anything you want, but doing that does not make you intellectual.

Some things need to be fought for. Fighting ain't easy when the matter is complicated. It never has been.

Man's mind is one such issue.

You keep your bombs and blow up the innocents (including their minds) you deem do not deserve to live.

I'll keep my mind and fight for the minds of others. It ain't easy and it's a long road, but I know of no more glorious road to follow with my life.

Michael

[9thdoctor]

I am not for genocide - just strategic destruction of key towns and cities that pose very real threats.

Name some.

Ninth Doctor, you know what areas are hot spots - I can name for you if not.

Please do. Assume I don’t. Enough foreplay.

To help you out, here’s the article the lepers thread addressed. You can save us a lot of back and forth by reading the linked material so we don’t repeat material that has already been offered. Unless you have fresh arguments or insights, of course.

I’m not going to reply to your claim that Tehran should be bombed until you make it.

[Jonathan]

Islam at its core is anti-life and I would say well nigh evil. If there is to be any freedom, liberty, and bright future for mankind then it will only happen WHEN islam is either wiped from the face of the earth or it denounces its murderous tenants.

Speaking of tenants, isn't it weird that Peikoff wants to target the building but not its tenants? Is Peikoff at war with people or with buildings? If Islam is a legitimate threat, one which the U.S. should declare war against, shouldn't Peikoff first be advocating killing the people he believes are trying to spread deadly Islam rather than preventing or destroying their proposed buildings? His current position is like saying that we're at war with Nazism, so we're going to burn down Hitler's Wolfsschanze after we make sure that he's not in it (if his cook happens to be in it, however, that's unfortunate collateral damage which is Hitler's fault). If we're at war, shouldn't Peikoff be advocating the idea that killing Imam Rauf is a much higher priority than attacking a building?

J

[Brant Gaede]

Back in the good ole fighting-the-communist-days it was easy to think you were on the side of the angels, but with the collapse of the Soviet Union Leviathan revealed itself even to someone as dense as myself with the Bushs' oil wars. While I didn't agree with Jeff R's response to 9-11 on the old Atlantis he was a lot more rational about the whole thing than our glorious leaders who didn't realize what bear-baiting was all about--or that man with the red cape.

As bad as he was, Eisenhower is still the best President since Harding. If not Harding, then Cleveland. If not Cleveland: ? Pretty thin soup, but at least it wasn't poison.

This country was put together wrong. The Bill of Rights was a band-aid. Now the Washington guys are trying to do to everybody what they're been doing to American Indians from the get-go: screw them with socialism and welfare and the economic destruction of those and warfare. The applied evil and irrationality is about as perfect as they can make it. At least they aren't throwing disease contaminated blankets over the walls.

--Brant

[blackhorse]

If pre-emption doesn't fit then what is the solution to islam's very real and present danger? One can rebute me all they want, but let's here the working alternatives.

[jriggenbach]

I am not for genocide - just strategic destruction of key towns and cities that pose very real threats. I can't see how winning muslims over with idea's could even work.-try explaining that one to someone who has a fatwa against him or her.

Try discussing ideas with an illiterate who forms plurals by adding an apostrophe.

JR

[9thdoctor]

If pre-emption doesn't fit then what is the solution to islam's very real and present danger? One can rebute me all they want, but let's here the working alternatives.

We didn’t bomb Tehran in 2001, and the threat from that quarter is arguably the same now as then. Oh wait, you still haven’t named any “key towns and cities”, and I’m not about to start putting words in your mouth. But please define “very real and present danger”, give us something to work with here.

[Brant Gaede]

If pre-emption doesn't fit then what is the solution to islam's very real and present danger? One can rebute me all they want, but let's here the working alternatives.

If you study English your thinking may improve. The working alternative is for you to go to Pakistan and cross the border into Afghanistan with a knife and a gun and go hunting whoever you think the bad guys are.

--Brant

whomever?--I could never get that rule quite right

Edited July 16, 2010 by Brant Gaede

[Alfonso Jones]

Now the Washington guys are trying to do to everybody what they're been doing to American Indians from the get-go: screw them with socialism and welfare and the economic destruction of those and warfare. The applied evil and irrationality is about as perfect as they can make it. At least they aren't throwing disease contaminated blankets over the walls.

--Brant

Sadly, an excellent analogy. (I'm not sad because you made a good analogy, but because of the treatment of the American Indians.)

Bill P

[9thdoctor]

According to Pamela Geller's "Atlas Shrugs" website (sorry, no link) Imam Rauf is being connected by State Department and US Treasury

Here’s a link. I’m automatically suspicious of the factual status of anything presented on that website.

Has anyone heard this news story yet? http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/ecline/2010/07/13/appeasement-doesnt-work-fatwa-issued-against-draw-mohammed-day-cartoonist/

The USA needs to drop MOPS http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massive_Ordnance_Penetrator on the major threat muslim cities and send in our Marine Corps snipers to dispose of any muslim who issues a fatwa or death threat against any American. This tyrannical cult will not be tolerated.

The same post went on OO yesterday. I suppose it should be no surprise that your real name isn’t Roark! Is your birthday really July 4, 1976?

I'm from Gallifrey, BTW. All Time Lords are.

[blackhorse]

Here is a reference map of app. target areas for bombing fanatic islamists before America rues the day we did nothing.-kind of like Nazi Germany, but 100 times more crazy.

Afghanistan;

http://www.geographictravels.com/2009/08/map-of-taliban-control-in-afghanistan.html

and for Pakistan; http://www.longwarjournal.org/maps/pakistan/NWFP-redmap-012320081.php

and Yemen; http://www.criticalthreats.org/yemen/yemen-conflict-map

in Iran (other than Tehran); Zahedan, Zabol and Mirjaveh.

Still waiting on your suggestions on what you would do about islam's ever rising danger and spread of their murderous theology Ninth Doctor. Islam and its mission from Allah to take over the world are not going away. Have you read Mark Steyn's "America Alone"? http://www.amazon.com/America-Alone-End-World-Know/dp/1596985275/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1279250692&sr=8-1

I highly recommend everyone read it.

[BaalChatzaf]

According to Pamela Geller's "Atlas Shrugs" website (sorry, no link) Imam Rauf is being connected by State Department and US Treasury

Here's a link. I'm automatically suspicious of the factual status of anything presented on that website.

Has anyone heard this news story yet? http://bighollywood....day-cartoonist/

The USA needs to drop MOPS http://en.wikipedia....ance_Penetrator on the major threat muslim cities and send in our Marine Corps snipers to dispose of any muslim who issues a fatwa or death threat against any American. This tyrannical cult will not be tolerated.

The same post went on OO yesterday. I suppose it should be no surprise that your real name isn't Roark! Is your birthday really July 4, 1976?

I'm from Gallifrey, BTW. All Time Lords are.

MOPem up!

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Xray]

Regarding Danneskjold's sinking of ships, these were government ships, carrying supplies paid for by the looted taxation of its subjects. As such, government had absolutely no legitimate property right in these looted goods.

Are you of the opinion that taxation is a form of 'looting' by "the state"?

Those not sharing the Randian ideal of "uncontrolled, unregulated laissez-faire capitalism" could as well call a capitalist a 'looter' who profits by from the exploitation of third-world workers by paying them only a pittance in wages.

Property rights apply to property that is obtained legitimately, not property looted from others.

From this premise it follows that a lot of the property illegally "obtained" by those who came to America ought to be given back to the Native Americans. Right?

Rand made it a point that Danneskjold never attacked private ships or even, for that matter, government ships involved in legitimate defense, since Rand regarded defense as a legitimate role of government. Your comment shows that you have absolutely no understanding of the libertarian theory of property rights.

The private entrepreneurs are the 'good guys' and the 'statists' are the 'bad guys'. Rand's world is painted in black and white like in a fairy tale.

But Rand did of course not see herself as a writer of fantasy tales. She herself pointed out that she 'meant it'. For Rand was an ideologist with a political message.

Regarding Roark's dynamiting of the building, I actually happen to agree with you about that. Even though the government was in breach of contract by altering the building without permission, the contract was signed with Keating, not Roark, so Roark had no standing. Furthermore, even if the contract had been signed with Roark, blowing up the building would not constitute a legitimate act of recourse for a breach of contract.

Have you read Jonathan's # 157 post where he mentions Timothy McVeigh?

(who [Timothy McVeigh] read and had cited Atlas Shrugged in his writings)

According to Pamela Geller's "Atlas Shrugs" website (sorry, no link) Imam Rauf is being connected by State Department and US Treasury

Here’s a link. I’m automatically suspicious of the factual status of anything presented on that website.

Why exactly are you suspicious, ND?

What do you think of the open letter Pamela Geller wrote to Imam Rauf and his wife?

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2010/06/dear-imama-rauf-and-daily-khan.html

Peikoff throws in a kitchen sink of "arguments" and never connects anything.

LP speaks of "metaphysical survival" being at stake. What is the difference between "metaphysical survival" and physical survival? Or the difference between being "metaphyscially helpless" and physically helpless?

I asked Ghs this question but got no reply (yet). TIA to others here who can explain the difference.

Edited July 16, 2010 by Xray

[bmacwilliam]

If pre-emption doesn't fit then what is the solution to islam's very real and present danger? One can rebute me all they want, but let's here the working alternatives.

That's a great question. I'll take a run at it.

Islam != Muslims, therefore attacking Islam is not attacking Muslims.

I think that the solution is that we(the western world) need to simply stop refraining from attacking Islam and have the courage to go on the offensive. We use the media to consistently and forcefully expose the stupidity that is Islam. We do not stand for the foolish gender nonsense. We dismiss and possibly even ridicule the Islamic components of sharia law and other nonsense.

We don't need to outlaw Islam to expose it's profound stupidity (although we MUST not allow Islamic law to take hold in any way in civilized country). We can drink ourselves to death legally, but we know that's something that we should discourage.

Worship of a mass-murdering mysogynistic warlord pedophile shouldn't be any different - legal but really really dumb. If we have the courage to do this, Islam will fail.

All religions have their share of stupidity of course, but Islam seems to be the clear front-runner.

Bob

[9thdoctor]

Still waiting on your suggestions on what you would do about islam's ever rising danger and spread of their murderous theology Ninth Doctor. Islam and its mission from Allah to take over the world are not going away.

You haven’t made a case for an “ever rising danger”, however if you want a quick answer, it’s respect the rights of Muslims as we do with every other religious group, and watch our culture assimilate them. If you really think a cultural war is going on, I say fight it with the appropriate weapons.

At some point I want to fully take on this notion that Muslims seek to “impose” sharia on the US. It sounds awfully scary, doesn’t it? Aren’t we meant to imagine a coup d’etat, followed by mass distribution of burqas, slaughter of all pigs, breaking of images, and every male to present himself (where?) for a penis examination (conducted by whom?), with circumcision to be performed as needed (yikes!!)? Are there any Muslims who want this to happen? There probably are, just as there are Christians who’d like to see their brand of theocracy imposed on the world.

However, does this correspond to reality? Does it represent a genuine threat, and does it represent the desires of a majority, or even a sizable minority of Muslims? According to this site, they represent just .5% of the US population. Do you know any Muslims, personally? I worked for a Muslim owned company, and the one's I've known were completely normal people. Hard drinking, skirt chasing, money making. They have a few holy days a year when they pay lip service, alongside their parents in at least one case, and that’s all the religion I ever saw. I find the call for violating the rights of these individuals horrifying. If their civil rights are void, why not take out those pedophile Catholics, or those denominations that preach death (sub rosa, mind you) for abortion doctors?

But back to Sharia. I don’t think you’ll find many observant, doctrinally educated Muslims who will dissociate themselves from Sharia. A world that lives by those rules is their goal. But how to get there? By imposing it at the point of a gun, or by persuasion? The notion that there may be no compulsion in religion is central to Islam. Granted you can cite history where this was not the case in practice, but consistency with the real world is not any religion’s strong suit. Is the goal of Islamic terrorism the spreading of Islam? I think not.

Not too unlike how many an Objectivist feels about Atlas Shrugged, observant Muslims believe if people would just read the Koran the message would do it’s magic and Islam would be voluntarily and universally accepted. Sharia wouldn’t have to be “imposed”, and no one would ever be stoned for adultery, the bad stuff just won’t happen. I refer you to my exchanges with Adonis on the stoning issue. It’s pretty loony, but that’s religion for you.

It’s time to draw a grim parallel. Objectivism upholds NIOF, and it’s (rightly) called a “philosophy of peace”. However, in its “founding documents” there are violent acts portrayed. Roark blows up a building, and Ragnar sinks government relief ships. Both cases are carefully depicted as non-lethal, however it wouldn’t take a long or sophisticated chain of reasoning to start justifying deaths by the Roark/Ragnar-inspired, as such deaths are the moral responsibility of the looters, Attilas and Witch-Doctors; hell, no need to call in Craig Biddle for an essay, I’ve just done it for him. Note that while Timothy McVeigh never said that he was inspired by Rand (apparently the Waco siege was what set him off), he did refer to Atlas Shrugged in one of his letters from prison. By denying Muslims the right to their religion, are we not tying the noose by which we’ll be hanged? That is, in the Peikovian fantasy world where we face an imminent Christian theocratic takeover. In the US, as it is now, Islam has to compete on our terms, and may the best worldview win.

Which leads to my view of what the threat from the “Islamic world” is: abrogation of rights. Here. The Salman Rushdie and Danish cartoon cases represent efforts by foreign politicians/clerics to deny freedom of speech in other countries. How precisely to stop that is, as Obama might say, above my pay grade. Our politicians and diplomats have been pretty useless (and arguably cowardly) on this score. However Iran (source of the Rushdie fatwa) is just about as isolated as can be, what further sanctions can we impose? Is it grounds for nuclear holocaust? Or perpetual war ala Orwell? Certainly not. An invasion that will cost American and innocent Iranian lives while probably making the problem worse (clerics can issue fatwas from caves, after all)? On the flip side, there’s the threat from within, which Leonard Peikoff now represents in spades. I’m not going to reiterate and belabor that here, this post has already gone long and it’s covered all over this thread.

Edited July 16, 2010 by Ninth Doctor

[blackhorse]

Sharia simply cannot be separated from islam - and therein lies its greatest threat. What's more the Koran itself commands infidels be converted or die. Until these and a legion other irrational beliefs are abandoned from islam completely then its on-going threat to liberty and peace will continue unabated. Christianity was able to move from the dark ages to reason because their is no edict of convert or be killed in christian doctrine even though the catholic church was tyrannical.-islam cannot rise above or ignore what are its written laws within scripture. Man cannot live with those who also wish him to submit to Allah or die. Muslims may not all be murderers, but unless they are nit picking muslim hypocrites, then they are murderers in their hearts.

[Mike11]

It is interesting to see the various Objectivist groups hash this out, and I have to say I'm surprised to see someone as high profile as Diana not call for the immediate extermination of all Muslim women and children, its an improvement from the norm, as that Objective Standard article illustrates.

That said, after months of following the forum, I have to step in out of sheer boredom.

Sharia simply cannot be separated from islam - and therein lies its greatest threat.

You know there is no such thing as Sharia right? It has evolved and is different from place to place. Take a look at this -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia#Modern_perspectives_on_Sharia

What's more the Koran itself commands infidels be converted or die.

Adonis has answered this and other issues over here - http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=8361&st=0

Until these and a legion other irrational beliefs are abandoned from islam completely then its on-going threat to liberty and peace will continue unabated.

Like what? Christianity, Orthodox Judaism, and Hinduism have boat loads of irrational and dangerous beliefs yet I don't see any major issues between "Us" and "Them". You Roids are so deliciously binary, it just has to be fattening.

their is no edict of convert or be killed in christian doctrine

I want you to know I literally ROFL'd at this. No seriously, I had to take my laptop off my lap.

islam cannot rise above or ignore what are its written laws within scripture.

How do you explain the vast differences between Muslim societies over time and space?

Muslims may not all be murderers

Yes, and all Jews may not drink gentile baby's blood and not all blacks need be gangstas....

but unless they are nit picking muslim hypocrites, then they are murderers in their hearts.

I get the sense you're a mod over at OO.net?

Edited July 17, 2010 by Joel Mac Donald

[blackhorse]

Joel Macdonald, I challenge you to give me one example of a muslim country or city that allows a man to live his own life free from the burdens and fetters of islamic dogma's and rules. Even Dubai, the most "westernized" muslim city still enforces barbaric laws. Joel, Instead of defending this anti-life religion why won't you stand for reason and freedom? Do you think the USA can retain its liberty and freedom and continue to allow muslim expansion? Islam knows no boundary between church and state - if you allow them come into power then you had better be very afraid for your life.

[9thdoctor]

Man cannot live with those who also wish him to submit to Allah or die. Muslims may not all be murderers, but unless they are nit picking muslim hypocrites, then they are murderers in their hearts.

I see no evidence that you’ll engage anything I’ve written previously, why should I bother replying to you again? Your statements about Islam are so unbelievably ignorant, they read like they were cribbed from Pat Robertson…that’s it, I’m not spending more time on you.

Edited July 17, 2010 by Ninth Doctor

[Philip Coates]

> Sharia simply cannot be separated from islam [bH]

> You know there is no such thing as Sharia right? [JM]

> I challenge you to give me one example of a muslim country or city that allows a man to live his own life free from the burdens and fetters of islamic dogma's and rules.[bH]

Three bad or imprecise or extreme statements on opposite sides. BH, Sharia is not advocated or practiced in every muslim country. Millions of muslims disagree with it...all you have to do is keep up with the news, read about muslim countries over the last decade. JM, how can you possibly say there is no such thing? It is a major theme and movement within Islam.

Just as many millions don't agree with it, many millions live under it.

Dudes: stop with the exaggerations and uninformed posting. Stick to the facts. Does Islam mix church and state in a way inconceivable in the West? Yes. Is Sharia bad and worse a practice than in any western religion? Of course. Is it inseparable form how Islam is practiced in countries like Turkey or Indonesia or many others outside the (barbaric) Middle Eastern center. Yes. Read a goddamn book or magazine article or newspaper on the underlying cultures!!!!