humanities.philosophy.objectivism

On Mar 7, 3:23 pm, Bill C
wrote:

> So you're on an Objectivist forum claiming Peikoff promoted nuclear genocide
> of Muslims in a 6 year old essay http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID&35.

Yes. Even though the word "nuclear" or "all muslim countries" didn't
enter the article "mass deaths", "nation(S)" and talk of "culture
clash" strongly suggest it. I don't think anything has changed
considering ARI is also on record advocating the use of nuclear
weapons. (at the general's discretion.... but mentions why risk
American lives right?)

http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5407

> Well, since we're supposedly devoted to the resolution of disagreements
> though reason, which Rand called "the art of non-contradictory
> identification", lets see what is consistent with your extraordinary claim
> in order to determine if it is reasonable.
>
> Peikoff says that:
> - Many nations [not many Muslims] fill our body bags, but identifies Iran is
> the most aggressive.
> - Criticizes Clinton's pathetic response to al-Qaeda bombing our African
> Embassy [by non-Iranians].
> - Dismisses potential criticism of the death of innocents in Iran from the
> "most effective" weapons at our disposal, not ruling out nukes, as the
> responsibility of "their government" [but not the responsibility of Muslims]
> for inviting it through their continued terrorist aggression against us.
> - Says, "The choice today is mass death in the United States or mass death
> in the terrorist nations. Our Commander-In-Chief must decide whether it is
> his duty to save Americans or "the governments" [not the Muslims] who
> conspire to kill them."
> - Quotes Wolfowitz that, "We must end 'states'[not Muslim ideologies] that
> support terrorism.
> - Promotes war involving "mass deaths' (a property of all wars) with at
> least the potential to involve more than one foreign nation. (But notice
> that Afghanistan and Iran make two.)
>
> That's as much support for your claim as I can find. Even if that were the
> totality of Peikoff's essay, it's not enough to indicate his support of
> genocide.

Just to be clear about definitions "genocide" in my context it
doesn't mean "every single last person" Not ever Jewish person was
killed during WW2. Not every Armenian was killed by the Turks. Ditto
for Rwanda, etc... The US military dictionary defines it as "the
deliberate killing of a large group of people, especially those of a
particular ethnic group or nation". Mass killings + a fetish with
muslims = genocide. It's not that hard to connect the dots.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide_definitions

?But it's not the totality of his essay. You lifted those
> statements from the context of an essay exclusively calling for overthrowing
> the Iranian regime.

Exclusively Iran? Absolutely not.. He said nation(S). Plural. The Ayn
website has many articles about Muslim nations other than Iran that it
sees as supporting terrorism. I imagine those nations are on their
death list.

> - Claims Afghanistan's support of terrorism is insignificant relative to
> Iran's.
> - Identifies Iran's leadership in nationalizing Western oil companies,
> leading the Middle East "dictators" (not Muslims) into wealth confiscation.
> - Criticizes Bush's pacifism to Iran's fatwa against Rushdie
> - Criticizes Carter's minimal response to the Iranian hostage crisis.
> - Criticizes Clintons' pacifism to Iran's role in the Saudi Barracks
> bombing.
> - Criticizes Reagan's to Iranian support for the Beirut barracks bombing
> - Blames support from "a government" [not an Ideology] for a terrorist
> actions rather than just a lone terrorist.
> - Claims even if all terrorist were destroyed, more would rise up because of
> "the regimes" [not the Muslims] that make them possible
> - Claims that Iran is the only terrorist nation dedicated to the triumph of
> Islamic fundamentalism by any means and that others' ruled by
> "range-of-the-moment thugs" would be paralyzed if the Iranian regime fell.
> - Claims 9-11 was an attack on our freedoms by "religious fundamentalists
> (and not only Muslim fundament)" because it was accompanied by "no demands,
> no ultimatums", and is therefore represents a struggle of ideas". [That is
> the "clash of cultures" you mentioned while you left out his non-Muslim
> qualifier in order to misrepresent him.]

Oh come on. Don't be absurd. You think he was talking about "mass
deaths" other than the Muslim religion?

> That, Iranian Regime change, is the context of the words you lifted in order
> to promote your claim. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary poof.
> You have zero. You emotionally and repeatedly rant that "he has had 6 years
> to clarify those remarks", implying that there is a hidden meaning, but you
> haven't said if you or else asked for one?

> Has anyone other than one newsgroup troll (promoting himself as former Israeli intelligence

Read better. Not me.... Yaron Brooke (head of ARI) used to be former
Israeli military intelligence.

> refusing requests for elaboration) claimed that Peikoff is promoting nuclear
> genocide against Muslims? Why should the fact that Peikoff has not refuting
> such a wildly unreasonable interpretation of his essay (that he may be
> unaware of) be evidence that it's true?

"Mass deaths". Still fully supportive of it as far as I know (nothing
you have shown me indicates otherwise). I fail to see what's so hard
to grasp here. Iran had nothing to do with 9/11 and yet he included
them in his article. Obviously he had an agenda against Muslims prior
to 9/11. Peikoff has no interest in just-wars. Just slaughtering
anyone in the way of Israel.

http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=13661
http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=10125
http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=10477


> > I mean cite where I apologize for terrorism. Show me even one post. I
> > literally have hundreds to choose between. You are extrapolating
> > incorrectly based on your own world view. I've said on many times I
> > don't approve of them either. You just think I have to choose sides.
> > Not interested in killing anyone even if some in ARI and Hamas dude
> > might be interested in killing me. Killing ain't my way even if its
> > yours.
>
> I don't think it's possible that a reasonable educated adult could make such
> a mistake honestly. What kind of person tolls on an Objectivist newsgroup
> promoting such an absurd accusation?

What absurd accusation? If one advocates wars... one advocates killing
human beings. You think if five people all agree to kill you it
absolves them of the death? What's different if a hundred million
agree? Makes you feel better about killing your own species?

> - An idiot? Well you may be challenged in making a reasonable claim and
> supporting it with evidence, and in believing that you'd get away with that
> here to influence someone, but you can at least string words into clear
> sentences.
> - A kid? Maybe, but there's at least you claim to be former Israeli
> intelligence so if true you'd at least be 19.
> - Someone just clowning around? Maybe, but you haven't shown much of a sense
> of humor.
> - Someone just testing out his ideas? No, because you evade responding to
> evidence presented against them in a reasonable way.
> - A borderline psycho? That seems to fit, spending your free time alone in
> your room irrationally arguing with members of a group that you resent in a
> way that's only going to lower your opinions of each other.
>
> I'm not interested in slamming on your personal problems (God knows I have
> enough of my own), but beyond just exhibiting mentally disturbed behavior
> with whatever bothers you, (be it war, inequality, poverty or whatever) you
> are supporting terrorism, intentionally or not.

I ask you to cite me.....you say you are not interested in slamming
personal problems... and then you insult fifty different ways without
CITING ME. I'll avoid the ad hominems but I'll note your continued use
of them to someone not swearing at you shows a bit about you.

> You claim that you are not taking sides, but there must be several empowered
> Islamists explicitly promoting Jewish genocide for every marginally
> influential Westerner doing the same, but you deflect every bit of criticism
> of them with more charges against the West.

No I don't. I just criticize America and Israel because it's what
needs to be done to get the Pali and Iraq situation fixed.. My bet is
you were singing "support the troops" when invading Iraq... while I
was saying it was a really really dumb idea.

A trillion dollars later who was doing America the favour? Are you
feeling safe now?

> After repeatedly accusing you of supporting terrorists, you denied it and
> claiming that you just, "see things as individuals with violent assholes all
> over the globe". But absent your denials, your posts are much more
> consistent with supporting terrorists than criticizing individuals:
> - Criticizing American militarism rather than just "individual" militarism.
> - Criticizing "the ARI Gestapo" rather than just individuals.
> - Criticizing Israelis rather than just individuals.
> - Criticizing the American media's Muslim bias rather than just individual
> reporters.
> - Exclusively calling for the US to end military support for Israel while
> defecting criticism of Iran support of Palestinian terrorists.
> - Not even acknowledging Iranian attacks on US troops promoting a democratic
> Iraq.
> - Implying that the morality of a military attack/response is determined by
> the numbers killed rather than the it being the degree to which those
> targeted are responsible for aggression.
> - Implying that Iranian/Palestinian terrorist attacks shouldn't stop by
> reiterating one very disputed side of their territorial claim whenever their
> continued aggression is brought up.
> - Evading claims that rewarding terrorism with land absent a cease fire
> treaty leads to more terrorism and terrorist demands by changing the subject
> to historical Israeli aggression.
> All of that on its own would just demonstrate a bias for one side, but when
> that side is the only side refusing to stop the violence, responding to a 10
> years old peace plan with all the aggression and terrorism they can muster
> as their method of getting a better deal, all that makes you a terrorist
> apologist. Deny supporting terrorism? Even the terrorist claim not to be
> terrorists apologists, and many probably believe it.

A. Half your claims are bullshit and exaggerations that aren't
CITATIONS. Again you are extrapolating incorrectly
B. You mean ARI is interested in criticizing individuals as opposed to
entire countries and "culture clashes"? I'm just writing exactly how I
see the ARIans write at HPO write about others.

fyi - Oists at HPO were talking about nuking Iran PRIOR to 9/11 Bill.
Do a search. Oist Jim Klein will confirm.

> Regarding your questions.
>
> A "moderate" is a relative term. I think that a moderate Muslim in the US
> would need to aggressively denounce Muslims promoting terrorism

Why aggressively? Why not as much as other Americans? Are you saying
all Muslims are potential terrorists? I think this is a perfect
example of you showing your own bigotry here. This is the sort of
trouble the Germans got into when describing Jewish people.

> not just
> denounce terrorism. But in Iran or Gaza he'd be shot. A moderate there
> would just be one willing to accept an immediate cease fire, and not just
> use it as a rearming period, and be willing to negotiate a two state
> solution from their position right now that ensures Israel's survival, not
> from what they think they can get if they fight a few more years.

I support a two state solution but I'm not an Oist. Why should an
American concerned with self-interest alone be concerned about
Israel's interests? Altruism? If anything blindly supporting Israel
creates all sorts of enemies for American interests.

> A moderate Muslim government is probably any one that's more moderate than
> its citizens in supporting that.
>
> The UN refuses to define terrorism. The US State Department and FBI
> definitions vary slightly. My opinion is that terrorism is a focused
> campaign of unlawful violence targeting civilians or property in order to
> achieve a political end.
> A terrorist nation is not one that has some
> terrorism, like I presume you imagine could apply to the US, but one which
> the government materially supports terrorism (or is at least complaisant to
> its citizens doing so)
>
> Although the US receives extensive support from many Muslim governments in
> our WOT, I don't know if any share our values enough and are dependable
> enough to be called "good friends". I suppose you could make a relative
> argument for Jordan, Iraq and the Gulf States less Saudi Arabia, but even
> their governments have to straddle a big divide between the liberties they
> may believe are right and what their society is ready for. Most others
> could be called "moderates", with Iran standing out as the only Islamic
> state in which the rulers are far more fundamentalist and militant than the
> society, at least following the fall of Saddam's government.

Well...at least you've tried to narrow down your target as opposed to
Peikofff's clash of civilizations.

> FWIW, I think Piekoff's essay was morally solid, but both politically and
> militarily naïve. Without going into details, assembling support for
> overthrowing the Iranian regimes was (and still would be) many times more
> difficult than overthrowing Saddam. Logistical support for an Iranian
> attack would have been extremely difficult without Iraqi passage from
> Kuwaiti ports, and a WMD armed Saddam at our backs would make it too high a
> risk to attempt.

But....Saddam never had WMDs. Nor did Iran. (at least according to the
NIE... but some people were openly talking about attacking it too.

> Evan now, even assuming Iraq is stabilized enough to redeploy our forces,
> we're
> in a better position politically to let the EU, Russia and China take the
> lead, to let their opposition to our war motivate them to prove that their
> diplomatic alternative to our militarism is viable.
> We've militarily boxed
> the Iranian regime in from all sides:http://www.sott.net/signs/images/Iran_surrounded.jpg. And as long as someone
> doesn't encourage their mullahs by signaling that we won't defend Iraq,
> Israel or Lebanon's democracy from their proxies, they may be forced to
> reform. It's up to the UN to manage that now, with or without Iran
> attaining nuclear weapons and effective long range delivery capabilities.
> Our leadership in anything other than the defense of regional democracies
> would arguably be counter productive.

Thank you for talking the long time to respond. Although I have
focused on the differences I agree with some of your points Nothing
you have presented here has changed my mind that ARI isn't looking for
an all-out war tjpigj... which I, and my guess is most of the rest of
the world label label genocide if Bush had listened to ARI types.
Reducing terrorist will only work if Pali issue is resolved. The only
way that going to happen is if US politicians can show some courage
to stand up to Aipac.

.................

Hermann Goring in Nuremberg prison cell: "Voice or no voice, the
people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is
easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and
denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country
to danger. It works the same in any country. "

ARI: "Those of us who are committed to facing the facts should condemn
these peaceniks for what they really are: warmongers for our
enemies."

http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=7458