Category Archives: War against Islamic Totalitarianism

ok, terrorism, if you prefer

John Lewis article at The Objective Standard

The John Lewis article, “No Substitute for Victory”
The Defeat of Islamic Totalitarianism
, from the Winter 2006-2007 issue of The Objective Standard is accessible to all.

Those wishing to know what the rationally best, and only possible,proper coarse of action is regarding the defeat of Islamic Totalitarianism should read this.

Anything else is going to turn this into a mess which may make the Cold War look like a Spring day picnic… and we may loose in the end.

I’m all for excercising our rational self-interest.


Report This Post

On targeting non-combatants in war

In answer to this question from a reader:

In precisely what way does rights theory imply the moral necessity to target non-combatants in war?

Craig Biddle explains at Principles in Practice, the blog of The Objective Standard, where he is editor, how the right to self-defense against aggression is contextual and what this means regarding the targeting of “non-combatants” in war – and, guess what, we’re in one:

This question assumes that a proper theory of rights implies the moral necessity of targeting non-combatants in war, but this is not necessarily so. It depends on the context. Objective rights theory, that is: rational egoism applied to the requirements of human coexistence, implies the moral necessity of protecting oneself and one’s rational interests from aggressors by whatever means necessary. In the context of a war, this means that the nation against which force has been initiated morally must use whatever retaliatory force is necessary to eliminate the aggressor as quickly and efficiently as possible with as little risk to the lives of its own citizens as possible. If targeting non-combatants is required to achieve that end, as it was in World War II, and as it is in the war against Islamism, then egoism demands it.

He concludes with this:

If we were to engage in a massive aerial bombing of Iranian military assets, Iranian government buildings, Iranian mosques and madrassahs (colleges in which students are trained to be Islamists), and the residencies of Iranian leaders, government officials, mullahs, imams, and teachers, and then explain to the world that, from now on, this is how America will respond to any and all threats to her citizens or allies, adherence to Islamism would suddenly lose its appeal worldwide. Muslims across the globe would either lose their religion altogether or opt for a watered-down, unserious version of it, as today’s Christians and Jews have done with their equally barbaric creeds.

The entire read can be found at Principles in Practice: Reply to a Question about Targeting Non-Combatants in War.

I hope I’ve given you enough enticement to read this in full.

It’s crucial to understand in this current war (and make no mistake, it is a war) against Islamic Totalitarianism, exactly what the root philosophical motives of the Islamists are; and it’s vitally important to understand what the morally proper response to these aggressors is.

Otherwise, we’ll all be facing East and praying five times a day… or dead.

It will take more than appeasement – interspersed with limited, halting, uncertain military actions – to defeat the Jihadists… it will take a moral certainty that can only come from a rational, pro-life, philosophy.

During the Cold War, Ayn’s Rand’s response to the often used expression, “Better Red (meaning communist) than dead” was, “Better to see the Reds dead”.

She was ‘right’, all the way to the root – as we’ll have to be ‘right’ – to defeat what’s afoot here.


Report This Post

What does hauling watermelons have to do with Iraq?

I was working on a post on Global Warming, when I got a ping on my Feed Reader… I’ll start with a watermelon joke…

Two big-rig trucker friends, Hammerhead and Mothertrucker, decided that a good way to make lots of money was to haul early-season watermelons out of Florida into New york. The key to the big money?… don’t hang around trying to get a return payload back to Florida. Instead, they would ‘deadhead’ (run empty w/o a payload),as quickly as possible, back to Florida for more melons.

After several grueling trips doing this, Hammmerhead got on the CB to Mothertrucker:

Hammerhead to Mothertrucker: “I’ve been doing some thinkin’ and calculatin’ in my head. I’ve come up with somethin’ we need to talk about”.

Mothertrucker to Hammerhead: “And what’s that partner”?

Hammerhead to Mothertrucker: “Well, we’ve made quite a few trips now and by my calculations, we’re loosing twenty-five cents a watermelon”.

Mothertrucker to Hammerhead:”OK, what do we need to do”?

Hammerhead to Mothertrucker: “We need to put on at least one more truck”.

To connect watermelons to Iraq, I give you this excerpt and link to a Craig Biddle post @ Principles in Practice:

“Just War Theory –  the theory driving U.S. military buffoonery in the absurdly named “War on Terrorism is, in fact, an utter inversion of justice, which sacrifices the lives and limbs of American soldiers for the sake of enemy civilians and mystical savages. The even worse news is that this wretched theory is becoming further and further entrenched, as indicated by this article in the New York Times. (Thanks to Robert LeChevalier for bringing the article to my attention.)

The excerpts below require no comment, but when you’re through reading them and lifting your jaw from the floor, please read “‘Just War Theory’ vs. American Self-Defense.” If you’ve already read it, send the link to every active-minded person you know.

If what you’re doing is a loosing proposition, you just aren’t doing enough of it.

I will later write much more on this, but right now… I have to get my jaw up from the floor.


Report This Post

The War on Terror is (still) not about poverty – They don’t think the same way we do!

Back on September 11, (2006), I entered a post titled, The War on Terror is not about poverty!, in which I included two links which support this, along with an included passage from Ayn Rand’s novel Atlas Shrugged for further enlightenment and understanding of the philosophy and psychology of Islamic extremism. (I just checked the links in that post to be sure they are still functioning properly should you wish to read, or re-read it, and follow the links.)

There is a post today at Jihad watch, Jihad seen in upward trend in Morocco, by Marisol, that offers corroborative evidence to the fact that poverty is not the cause of the Islamists’ venom. It begins:

Data emerging in Morocco puts another dent in the frequently encountered notion of poverty as the principal catalyst for turning seemingly “normal” people into jihadists. From AP: “Extremist Islam may be rising in Morocco”

I have recently made a better effort at trying to keep up with Robert Spencer and the crew at Jihad Watch by adding them to my Feed-Reader list (like I have time for another read). There insight and expertise regarding this subject is immense (and intense). I need to get them on the blog roll here too.

What is below covers the right side of my title, They don’t think the same way we do!

My HT to that ‘fount of things true and good’ gus van horn for leading me to this article by Stephen Browne @ Rants and Raves, titled, Observations on Arabs. You can also read a bit of bio there too on what seems an interesting life. To tease you into clicking over:

I went to live and work in Saudi Arabia in 1998, and I “made my year” as expats there put it. That phrase means that I actually stuck out the whole year, instead of “running” from my contract, an occurrence so common that you only have to say “he did a runner” to explain why someone isn’t showing up for work anymore. And while my experience wasn’t nearly as unpleasant as Jill Carroll’s, I could have told her a thing or two before she went to Iraq armed with her overflowing good will.

Although Stephen Browne’s experience is “Arab specific”, he does suspect at least a significant similarity in Iranian Islamic culture, although he makes the point that the two cultures’ histories are different:

So, with the caveat that one of the first things I learned was that the term “Arab” covers a lot of territory, here are some observations and some tentative conclusions about Arabs, more specifically about Arabs from the oil states about why we have misunderstood each other to the point that we are fighting a war with some of them and are pissing off the rest of them. I suspect that many of these also apply to Iranian Islamists, but I have never been there and note that Iranians are not Arabs and have a different cultural history.

Although it’s not experiencing it with your very own eyes (which I haven’t), I found his twelve points very insightful.

Hope you do too.

I’m off now for some lunch and at 3:30 EST to see if Georgia TECH, Reggie Ball and Calvin Johnson ‘show up’ in Blacksburg, Virginia to do battle with Virginia TECH, and at half-time, maybe I’ll ponder on my ability to sit there in my recliner and enjoy such things in the middle of all the turmoil in the world.

While the defeat of the Hokies may indeed require some luck, the ability to enjoy such things in this country does not… at least, not yet.


Report This Post

God & government, like oil & water, don’t mix

I have just added Dr. Michael J. Hurd’s website to my sidebar today. I read his Daily Dose of Reason faithfully (although I admit to having to play ‘catch-up’ more often than not).

Almost immediately, I see a link to Dr. Hurd in gus van horn’s Quick Round Up 101 – which BTW is most always a good condensation of current happenings from a pro-reason perspective. gvh tipped his hat to Carl Svanberg for the lead. So, HT w/link to both.

Dr. Hurd presents a concise and effective case for the separation of church and state in his Sunday, 9/24/06, Daily Dose of Reason – Why God and Government Do Not Mix. A teaser (and I won’t use gvh’s):

Survival and progress are by definition objective, secular concepts. You can be an atheist, an agnostic, or subscribe to whatever faith you choose, but if you value survival (in this life) and progress, you have to favor the separation of church and state.

Also, gvh links to this timely speech with the lead in:

Drop whatever you’re doing and read Senator James Inhofe’s spectacular speech against global warming hysteria.

Another HT to gvh, and I second the recommendation !!!

A lot of links, but I’ve checked them all – they work!


Report This Post

In Moral Defense of Israel

This is the title of a page at The Ayn Rand Institute’s website dedicated to a reasoned defense of Israel’s right to exist and to explain why it is in America’s best, rational self-interest to support her.

The explanation itself is a quick read, but contains numerous links to op-eds and press releases that ARI’s Objectivist team of scholars have developed, written and released over time addressing this theme.

If you’d like a better rational understanding of this important subject and have neither the time nor desire to research tons of materials, and the tedious task of separating fact from fiction, this is a great resource.

An early paragraph reads:

Israel and those who attack it are not moral equals. Israel is, like the United States, a “mixed economy,” which retains a significant respect for individual rights. Its citizens, whatever their race or religion, enjoy many freedoms, including freedom of thought and speech, and the right to own property. The purpose of Israel’s military is only self-defense: to protect its citizens from aggressors. Consequently, Israel has a moral right to exist.

For what its worth, I recommend it.


Report This Post

FrontPage Magazine interview

For those who “get” this, after awhile I suppose it begins to sound like beating a dead horse. But obviously there are many too many that don’t.

I’ll post just the prelude to the actual interview with this link to it at

Because They Hate

By Jamie Glazov | September 25, 2006 Frontpage Interview’s guest today is Brigitte Gabriel, a journalist and news producer who started her career as an anchor for World News, an evening Arabic news broadcast throughout the Middle East, for which she reported on critical events in the Middle East.As a terrorism expert and the founder of the non-profit organization, Brigitte travels widely and speaks regularly on topics related to the Middle East. She is the author of the new book Because They Hate: A Survivor of Islamic Terror Warns America.



Report This Post

All Credibility lost

This VENT by Michelle Malkin @ Hot Air TV encapsulates a push by Sen. John McCain and others to have captured terrorists treated “more humanely”. Even to the point of having their “Miranda rights” read to them. What rights – these are terrorists!

He’s also against any clarification as to what should be considered as “inhumane torture”, something GW is asking for; instead preferring to leave the Geneva Convention language vague. Presumably so that the enemy won’t know exactly how much torture they can inflict upon our troops before they exceed what the Geneva Convention allows – hence fear of overreaching GC boundaries will mean less torture. Oh yeah, that’ll work!

The motive for all this: So that our troops will be likewise treated more humanely if captured!

Does anyone really think that the Islamic Jihadists give a Tinker’s Damn about the Geneva Convention!

Will someone please fit that fool for a straight jacket!

Oops, I’ve derided… I was only going to report.


Report This Post

If you value your life, read this

Craig Biddle, Editor of The Objective Standard, posted this yesterday on TOS’s blog Principles in Practice. It lays out what must be done regarding Iran and why it must be done. For the record, I am in complete agreement.

I am cross-posting it here at ObjectivelySpeaking in it’s entirety for convenience. I don’t want anyone visiting here to miss it. I am “speaking out”, as Craig recommends, in the name of it’s contents and in the name of my life and happiness. I agree with it completely.


Tuesday, September 19, 2006

Why Our (Long-Overdue) Retaliation Against Iran Should Include Bombing Mosques and Madrassahs

America is not being attacked by bombs or hijacked airplanes or government buildings or military installations. We are being attacked by people, specifically, by Islamists: people who believe the Koran is true, take its precepts seriously, and thus actively seek the submission or destruction of non-believers. Where are Islamists being produced? Primarily in the mosques and madrassahs (colleges in which students are trained to be Islamists) of the states that sponsor terrorism, especially Iran and Saudi Arabia. Who is producing them? The imams and teachers are. Accordingly, we cannot put an end to this assault merely by taking out government buildings and military installations in enemy states. To put an end to it, we must eliminate those who preach or teach the idea that infidels must die. We must demonstrate that to spout such evil is to ensure personal destruction.

“But,” some will ask, “don’t people have a right to take their religion seriously?” No, they do not” not if taking their religion seriously means obeying “God’s” or “Allah’s” orders fully. People have a right to take their religion seriously only insofar as their religion does not call for murder or the violation of individual rights and, as the “holy” books make crystal clear, every religion calls for murder and the violation of individual rights. Here are a few representative passages:

If your brother, the son of your mother, or your son or your daughter or the wife you embrace or your friend who is as your own soul entices you secretly, saying, “Let us go and serve other gods”, you shall not yield to him or listen to him, nor shall your eye pity him, nor shall you spare him, nor shall you conceal him. But you shall kill him. [Deuteronomy 13:6,9]

If anyone does not abide in me he is thrown away like a branch and withers; and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire, and burned. [John 15:6]

Fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them, take them captive, harass them, lie in wait and ambush them using every stratagem of war. [Koran 9:5]

If a Christian college in the U.S. called for its students to take the Bible seriously, that is, if it taught them that they must actually obey all of God’s commandments, the teachers and administrators would be guilty of inciting the students to murder not only unbelievers, but also homosexuals, children who talk back to their parents, people who work on the Sabbath, and so on. Consequently, the teachers and administrators would rightly be thrown in jail. Christian colleges in America don’t do this, of course, because Christianity has been tempered by the Renaissance and the Enlightenment, and because American Christians are required by the U.S. Constitution to disobey their alleged God in this regard. Disgruntled though some may be about this, they begrudgingly obey U.S. law so as not to spend their “unimportant life” in jail.

People have a right to believe whatever nonsense they want to believe, but they do not have the right to act on their beliefs if doing so means committing murder or violating individual rights. The individual is greater than “God” and morally must be protected from those who “just believe” otherwise. The U.S. government has a moral responsibility to protect American citizens accordingly.

The basic principle of a proper American foreign policy is that the U.S. government must hold the life and rights of each and every American, whether civilian or soldier, as of greater value than the lives and rights of all non-Americans in the world combined. Our government’s sole responsibility is to protect Americans, and it morally must do so by whatever means necessary, with as little risk to the lives of our soldiers as possible.

A moral approach to the Islamist war against America does not consist in half-heartedly “engaging” one enemy tribe here, then another there, then another elsewhere, all the while sacrificing the lives and limbs of American soldiers. Nor does it consist in sending American soldiers into hostile territory when we have the means to destroy the enemy without risking the lives of our soldiers. Nor does it consist in retarding our operations or prolonging the war in order to avoid killing innocents or non-combatants in enemy territory. A moral approach to this god-awful problem consists in demonstrating, once and for all, the futility of taking Islam seriously, the futility of obeying the Koran, the futility of seeking the submission or destruction of disbelievers, the futility of attacking Americans. It consists in efficiently killing Islamists, especially those who make a “living” producing more Islamists.

In conjunction with the other elements in this 5-step plan, we should kill the Iranian preachers and teachers who chant and spout “Kill the disbelievers” and “Death to America.” We should aim to kill all of them. And the best way to do this is to bomb the Iranian mosques and madrassahs when they are most likely to be occupied. Were we to do so, the practice of taking the Koran seriously and warring with America would suddenly become unattractive, and most (if not all) of the remaining Islamists in the world would quickly become mere Muslims, akin to the mere Christians next door. (As always, the deaths of all innocents in such a campaign are the sole responsibility of those who necessitate such retaliatory measures, and those apologists who evade the facts, drop context, and attempt to muddy the waters on such issues, thus delaying justice and necessitating the deaths of even more innocents.)

Of course, the Bush administration will not take such egoistic action against Iran, and we will pay dearly for the compassionate half-battle it will wage there instead. But if egoists do not say loudly and clearly what needs to be done, America will never take such action. And that will mean the end of America.

Speak up.

Report This Post

No passes on 9/11

Here’s a link and a teaser back to a very good article/post @ The Charlotte Capitalist (TM)

9/11: Do You Need A Pass Or Do You Use Your Mind?

Slithering through the Internet is the nasty snake of an idea that everyone gets a pass on not being able to see that something like 9/11 could or would occur. (Here is one from Instapundit. I have seen [others] similar .) The pass is extended to all citizens and politicians including the Clinton Administration. The basis of the idea is that nobody could have foreseen that 2 plus 2 = 4.

I am aware of a relatively small group of people who could have and did foresee the potential growth in terrorism and its consequences.

I agree 100 percent. Just watching Path to 9/11 alone was enough to boil the blood of a rational individual.

At every turn, all the way back to the plane hijackings of the sixties, into the hostage crisis era of the peanut-farmer-turned-world-leader, occurrence-after-occurrence, on-and-on until now, I’ve had to shake my head in absolute disbelief and disgust – because those that could have, and should have acted, only re-acted (or worse yet, did nothing).

They get no pass – no one.

You don’t “see” these things thru the reading of tea leaves!

Read the article… see what you “think”, see where you stand.

Consider the Question that forms the title of the TCC post.

HT: TCC, wonderfully reasoned


Report This Post