2007-05-26
Arabs an Endangered Species
I'd like to draw your attention to two comments by ableiter here and here
Paul, how about a modified carpet bombing? The best Radar in the World is the SPY-1 that is used on Ageis ships (SPY-1b is the latest version, IIRC). It cannot detect a B2 above 45,000 feet. So we send over B2's at 60,000 feet and use the new bomb racks to drop 108 200lb JDAM's on 200 Prominent Islamofascists. It will get the job done without indiscriminate killing, which is what gets Americans upset.
Paul, you cannot make religous fanatics cower. You cannot intimedate them. You don't reason with them. you cannot bribe them or negoiate in any way. All you can do is kill them. While the Montefort solution DOES work. It is not a viable option umder current political conditions. Eventually those conditions will change to the point where it is not only acceptable, but mandantory. Ay which point Arabs will become exitinct. The whole idea behind OIF is starting off a chain of events that doesn't end with Pika Dans in Muslim Cities. Electing Kerry will be a big step toward Nuclear war in the ME. It doesn't look good for Bush right now. 'course Dukakis was ahead 57 to 39 at this point in his election campaign and we ALL know what happened there.
This is exactly right. The Arabs actually don't realise what danger they are in. After 9/11, the proper response to this was "Ok, set up the nukes, but BEFORE unleashing them, how about we go and knock on a few doors and ask "WHY did you do this?"". And that is effectively what has been done. I've always wanted to know why Arabs burnt American flags instead of pictures of Saddam. Saddam killed hundreds of thousands of Arabs, making him an Arab hero. WHY? Please answer this, and then we'll let the slaughter begin. But we'd really like an answer to this, as it will aid our knowledge of psychology. It could come in useful for some internal problems we have.
And guess what? That's EXACTLY what happened. The answers that the Iraqis were able to provide gave us the knowledge we required to fix problems at home. To turn criminals into police. What made some people criminals and some anti-criminals? The answers were in Iraq. Theoretically some sort of psychoanalysis could have been done within Australia to find out what was causing Australian criminals to harm others instead of protect others. I basically did try to do this myself. But I never knew the distinction between philosophy and religion. Or even psychology.
I concentrated on religion, and noticed that these people were often Christians who seemed to have gotten the idea that "Jesus died for our sins, let's get our money's worth". They had their ticket to Heaven simply by saying "I'm a Christian". So I basically identified religion as the problem and sought to eradicate it. I used to debate people trying to get them to be atheists, or at least, non-Christians. I thought atheism was the answer based on the fact that I wanted to protect rather than harm innocent people. I thought that Christianity was harming society. But other than conversion to atheism and stringing up criminals, I didn't have any other solutions to the problem.
Until the Iraq war. Then I could see that identifying what was causing some people to want to liberate others (and they were clearly visible in the comments section of the Iraqi blogs), while others were trying to keep a dictator in power, would likely provide a solution to the longstanding problem of Australian criminals. Australians who are happy to liberate Iraqis should be equally happy to protect ordinary Australians. ie me. I could solve the problem of criminals wanted to violate MY human rights if I could find out what was causing people to back a sadistic dictator like Saddam. But it was easier to identify what was causing ME to want to protect the Iraqi people from Saddam. I couldn't put it in words other than to say "it's bloody obvious - just do it - how can you NOT want to do it?!". The pot of gold at the end of the rainbow was that I was an anti-subjugator, and while it is debatable how I became one, the reason others apparently aren't is that either they grew up in the free world without authoritarian parents so have never experienced subjugation, or grew up under dictators so never experienced not being subjugated - and you need to have experienced BOTH in order to become an anti-subjugator. That's "thinker"'s theory, anyway.
Anyway, let's hope the "chain of events" continues before the Arabs all die because Americans cop a nuke, get fed up, and instead of realising that it's their own stupid fault for not continuing the conventional war when they had a chance, start nuking people instead. When the nukes hit America, I'll be the one saying "don't nuke them - liberate them and fix them", but no-one's going to listen to me. They prefer to call me names now, when it's actually me that's trying to save both the Americans and the Arabs, Muslims et al. In fact, I've done everything I can think of to save as many people on both sides as possible. But when it comes to the crunch, there's a limited amount of hurt to the free world that I'm willing to withstand in order to spare those still in the enemy camp. I do indeed have "love thy enemy", more than anyone else in the world in fact, but I'm not going to allow the innocent to be harmed by them. This is the correct moral equation. It took me 37 years to find it, but there it is.
|
Paul, how about a modified carpet bombing? The best Radar in the World is the SPY-1 that is used on Ageis ships (SPY-1b is the latest version, IIRC). It cannot detect a B2 above 45,000 feet. So we send over B2's at 60,000 feet and use the new bomb racks to drop 108 200lb JDAM's on 200 Prominent Islamofascists. It will get the job done without indiscriminate killing, which is what gets Americans upset.
Paul, you cannot make religous fanatics cower. You cannot intimedate them. You don't reason with them. you cannot bribe them or negoiate in any way. All you can do is kill them. While the Montefort solution DOES work. It is not a viable option umder current political conditions. Eventually those conditions will change to the point where it is not only acceptable, but mandantory. Ay which point Arabs will become exitinct. The whole idea behind OIF is starting off a chain of events that doesn't end with Pika Dans in Muslim Cities. Electing Kerry will be a big step toward Nuclear war in the ME. It doesn't look good for Bush right now. 'course Dukakis was ahead 57 to 39 at this point in his election campaign and we ALL know what happened there.
This is exactly right. The Arabs actually don't realise what danger they are in. After 9/11, the proper response to this was "Ok, set up the nukes, but BEFORE unleashing them, how about we go and knock on a few doors and ask "WHY did you do this?"". And that is effectively what has been done. I've always wanted to know why Arabs burnt American flags instead of pictures of Saddam. Saddam killed hundreds of thousands of Arabs, making him an Arab hero. WHY? Please answer this, and then we'll let the slaughter begin. But we'd really like an answer to this, as it will aid our knowledge of psychology. It could come in useful for some internal problems we have.
And guess what? That's EXACTLY what happened. The answers that the Iraqis were able to provide gave us the knowledge we required to fix problems at home. To turn criminals into police. What made some people criminals and some anti-criminals? The answers were in Iraq. Theoretically some sort of psychoanalysis could have been done within Australia to find out what was causing Australian criminals to harm others instead of protect others. I basically did try to do this myself. But I never knew the distinction between philosophy and religion. Or even psychology.
I concentrated on religion, and noticed that these people were often Christians who seemed to have gotten the idea that "Jesus died for our sins, let's get our money's worth". They had their ticket to Heaven simply by saying "I'm a Christian". So I basically identified religion as the problem and sought to eradicate it. I used to debate people trying to get them to be atheists, or at least, non-Christians. I thought atheism was the answer based on the fact that I wanted to protect rather than harm innocent people. I thought that Christianity was harming society. But other than conversion to atheism and stringing up criminals, I didn't have any other solutions to the problem.
Until the Iraq war. Then I could see that identifying what was causing some people to want to liberate others (and they were clearly visible in the comments section of the Iraqi blogs), while others were trying to keep a dictator in power, would likely provide a solution to the longstanding problem of Australian criminals. Australians who are happy to liberate Iraqis should be equally happy to protect ordinary Australians. ie me. I could solve the problem of criminals wanted to violate MY human rights if I could find out what was causing people to back a sadistic dictator like Saddam. But it was easier to identify what was causing ME to want to protect the Iraqi people from Saddam. I couldn't put it in words other than to say "it's bloody obvious - just do it - how can you NOT want to do it?!". The pot of gold at the end of the rainbow was that I was an anti-subjugator, and while it is debatable how I became one, the reason others apparently aren't is that either they grew up in the free world without authoritarian parents so have never experienced subjugation, or grew up under dictators so never experienced not being subjugated - and you need to have experienced BOTH in order to become an anti-subjugator. That's "thinker"'s theory, anyway.
Anyway, let's hope the "chain of events" continues before the Arabs all die because Americans cop a nuke, get fed up, and instead of realising that it's their own stupid fault for not continuing the conventional war when they had a chance, start nuking people instead. When the nukes hit America, I'll be the one saying "don't nuke them - liberate them and fix them", but no-one's going to listen to me. They prefer to call me names now, when it's actually me that's trying to save both the Americans and the Arabs, Muslims et al. In fact, I've done everything I can think of to save as many people on both sides as possible. But when it comes to the crunch, there's a limited amount of hurt to the free world that I'm willing to withstand in order to spare those still in the enemy camp. I do indeed have "love thy enemy", more than anyone else in the world in fact, but I'm not going to allow the innocent to be harmed by them. This is the correct moral equation. It took me 37 years to find it, but there it is.
# posted by Paul Edwards @ 21:42 
