Don’t Let It Go…Unheard #29, Hour 2

Hour 2: How does life today compare with what you predicted ten years ago? What do you think will happen in the next ten years? Thoughts on Obama’s and on other leaders’ speeches, and some recommended articles.

Don’t Let It Go…Unheard #29 Hour 2, September 11

(Sorry, but the iTunes feed requires I put this file in a separate post so that it will upload for subscribers.)

Advertisements

12 Comments

Filed under Don't Let It Go...Unheard

12 responses to “Don’t Let It Go…Unheard #29, Hour 2

  1. M.Stern

    You are wrong about the Seal team that was killed in Afghanistan. I have read the book ‘Lone Survivor’ which tells the tale of Marcus Latrell and the fate of ‘Operation Red Wing’. The Seal team of 4 where left in area of Poshtoon tribesman for the purpose of hunting down and killing a top Taliban general who was in command of 120 Taliban troops. They encountered 2 or 3 sheep herders one of which was 14 years old. They saw immediately that the sheep herders were of hostile temperament towards them.

    They faced two choices: let them off and risk being ratted out to the Taliban or kill them and risk being prosecuted under the Rules of Engagement. Marcus Latrell does mention that as a Christian he was uneasy about shooting unarmed men especially a teenager. I don’t think that makes him an altruist. Navy Seals are human and they have feelings too. But Latrell did not vote to let the sheep herders go because of Christian ethics. Latrell is clear why the team voted to let them go. There were three reasons:

    1) The ROEs. They were afraid of being prosecuted under restrictive ROEs that would classify the sheep herders as non-combatants.

    2) Washington Lawyers: ie vultures who would look to make a career off of destroying the lives of 4 soldiers.

    3) The Left-Liberal media. Latrell and his team feared that the liberal media would make them out to be the next Mailai massacre. They had as precedent the Abu Grahb fiasco and Teddy Kennedy’s disgusting statement of moral equivalence b/w Saddam and the US army.

    IMO, they maid a legitimate decision because in hindsight there have been over 15 similar cases where US soldiers have been sentenced to prison for similar circumstances. Google up the “Levanworth 10” as a truly disgusting example.

    The US government under the ruling paradigm of Left-liberalism (which includes most Conservatives) essentially has rigged the game against the American soldier. The choice many of them face is defend your life and risk wasting your youth in prison or don’t defend your life and risk death.

    It is an injustice to the Marcus Latrell and his team to accuse them of succumbing to altruism. They were all sacrificed on the alter of modern Left-Liberalism; a thought system more evil than Islam.

    • I read the book as well and I know that our soldiers have been placed in a terrible, self-defeating position by the ROE, and that Seal team did bring up what could happen to them if they were to do what they should have done, lawyers/media, etc….but I clearly remember Marcus Latrell citing his “Christian Soul” as the final reason he gave, to the reader, (and possibly to himself) to justify why He chose to place the lives of the sheep herders about the safety of him and his fellow Seals.

      P.234:

      “But my trouble [trouble?!] is, I have another soul. My Christian soul. And it was crowding in on me. Something kept whispering in the back of my mind, it would be wrong to execute these unarmed men in cold blood.”

      And *you’re* wrong for dismissing the altruistic nature of his choice and for pretending that modern Left/Liberalism is a thought system more evil than Islam. You’re reaching way too far with that one, but it’s natural to end up wrong if you start off that way.

      • M.Stern

        And *you’re* wrong for dismissing the altruistic nature of his choice and for pretending that modern Left/Liberalism is a thought system more evil than Islam.

        Let me ask you this. What is the greater evil, the evil that openly kills you from without or the evil that subtly and insidiously kills from within? Why can’t we fight back against Islam? How about: multicultrualism, egalitarianism, pacifism, moral relativism, moral agnosticism, skepticism, epistemological subjectivism, feminism’s war against men and masculinity, post modernism’s war against objectivity, Hollywood’s war against egoism and rational values, etc, etc, etc, ad nauseum.

        What do yo think is the fundamental cause of and expression of that laundry list that I gave? One word. LEFTISM. It is the Left that has unleashed the evil and the belligerence of Islam. Ask yourself, when does this Jihad revivalism date from? The end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th century; ie the rise of the *Progressive* movement. It is with the rise of the Left that Islam has come to view the West as weak and thus they no longer fear us as they did after the Battle of Vienna but instead they have contempt for us. That is what weakness always brings.

        Is the Left more evil than Islam? I say it is. Why? Because it is destroying a culture from within and that to me is a far greater sin than destroying a culture from without if for no other reason that Islam is OBVIOUS. Any non-Leftist can see its evil. They can’t see the evil of the Left so easily because the Left is camouflaged. Even many Objectivists can’t see the great evil of the Left, or they didn’t until Obama. They were still screaming there heads off against some imagined “Christian theocracy” which is a stupid an argument as I’ve heard.

        Regarding Latrell, yes, he was undermined by Christianity. But still, the fundamental reason that his team chose to let the sheep herders go was not Christian ethics. Mike Axelrod had told them that the militarily proper thing to do was kill the Sheep herders. They didn’t because they feared prosecution under the ROEs which are the result of altruism which today is primarily most consistently expressed by left-liberalism. Latrell’s team was more fearful of the Left than they were of being outnumbered 30 to 1 by Taliban warriors. Doesn’t that tell you something?

  2. M.Stern

    I have a request. For a future podcast could you raise the subject of who is our enemy in this war? “Radical Islam”? “Fundamentalist Islam”? “Islamic Totalitarianism”? “Islamists”? “Islamo-Fascists”? Al-Quada as Harry Binswanger just foolishly suggested? Or just plain “Islam”?

    I find this very depressing that 10 years later Objectivists can’t even bring themselves to say the “war against Islam”. Why cant Objectivists say this? What holds them back? Is there a peaceful Islam? Show it to me. There are peaceful Muslims but do they represent organized Islam? And if they do not actively seek to transform their religion – which next to none of them do – then of what relevance are they? I say none.

    What is Islam? I say that it is a warrior organization dedicated to the constant, perpetual, ceaseless solicitation of war against non-believers. It is a military organization dedicated to the conquest of the entire earth. I do not think that it deserves 1st amendment protections and I think this fact means that ALL mosques can be closes and that the practice of organized Islam can be prohibited. I say this based on criminal law theories of solicitation and conspiracy; ie the inchoate crimes which as a law professor you must know.

    I think that Objectivists are not applying Objectivist epistemology and Rand’s conceptual common denominator in identifying the essence of Islam. This pains me as it is such a massive failing that it it an embarrasement to the Objectivist community. Conservatives are offering more valuable contributions to the war against Islam (non NeoConservatives as they are just watered down leftists).

    Islam is pure evil and it has no place in a liberty oriented society as it is organization of war dedicated to destroying every non-muslim society it comes into contact with. Failure to grasp this is suicide. I expect that from liberals and NeoCons but not from Objectivists.

    /Rant off

    • Not sure if you heard my podcast interview with Robert Spencer, but I pressed him on the issue of whether there could be a moderate Islam. He was convincing in his argument that there could not be. This is a topic I’d be interested in doing in a future show, but as you know, the variety of terminology used by Objectivists suggests a range of both opinion and extent of knowledge about Islam and Muslims. How much do you have to know to lay the blame on Islam itself, vs. “Islamism” or any of the other variants with prefixes, suffixes, etc.

      • M.Stern

        How much do you have to know to lay the blame on Islam itself, vs. “Islamism” or any of the other variants with prefixes, suffixes, etc.

        Fine. But then why does Yaron Brook of all people keep using the term “Islamic totalitarianism”? And why does an ARI guy like Elan Juro keep using that idiotic term “Islamist”? “Islamist” is one of the weakest terms out there. An Objectivist should NEVER use it. What is an “Islamist”? An “Islamist” is a Muslim who takes his religion seriously. And what is the essence of that religion? That’s right – the conquest of infidels. “Islamist” is a fools term yet the ARI still uses it. That is inexcusable. At least Dr. Peikoff uses the term Muslims. I think he finally gets that the problem is Muslims and not “Islamists”.

        As for Objectivists on the subject of Islam. Overall I am not impressed. You get fools like Diana Hsieh that see no problem with Islamic immigration because somehow they will become American individualists. How? Magic? And even many of the callers to your show kept on making idiotic arguments about how Christian fundamentalism is as great a danger as Islam. That is just plain fu**ing moronic. If Objectivists can’t see the difference b/w Islam and today’s watered down Christianity, then Objectivism is lost. Ayn Rand would spit on today’s Objectivist movement. Hell, she was calling the Arabs savages back in the 70s. She saw what the Islamic world was all about and she didn’t even need to witness 9/11. I find it hard to believe that Ayn Rand would have been a champion of “open immigration” for Muslims post 9/11. Its better off that she is dead because the tepid response by Objectivists to 9/11 would have killed her.

        • I think the best thing to do would be to start a separate post on this topic. But be warned: the language you use here is unacceptable to me, because these are people I know and respect. So, regardless of the numerous valuable contributions you’ve made here, for which I’m grateful, if I see language like this again, I will have to block comments from you.

          Two arguments to consider, besides the issue of one’s own knowledge about Islam: Whether an ideological non-profit, with aims limited in scope, should be taking a position on something that is seen as an issue of religious interpretation? And second: is it proper to use alternative terminology, in order to be objective when communicating to an *audience* that does not share your level of knowledge about a subject. E.g., the term “individual rights” is redundant, so is “rational self-interest,” and yet Objectivists use those terms. So, consider those arguments, and, if you wish, weigh in on the discussion later.

    • Talal

      why do you keep ignoring the role of the cargo cultists (conservatives) in this whole ordeal? Theocracy is a serious long-term threat and not merely a stupid argument. You sound like a fat kid who hasn’t been served his chocolate cake.

  3. Talal

    that was addressed to M.stern who reminds me of another paleo-con whose name escapes me at present. Basically everything is the fault of the left, while downplaying altruism on the right and pretending that the conservatives are somehow peaceful liberty loving individuals and everything would be much better if not for those pesky leftists.

  4. M.Stern

    You sound like a fat kid who hasn’t been served his chocolate cake.

    This coming from a Muslim sympathizer. Better to be a fat kid than an apologist for Islam. Far more honor in being fat than what you are.

    that was addressed to M.stern who reminds me of another paleo-con whose name escapes me at present.

    No paleo-con am I. Although I will say this: they get the evil of both Islam and the Left better than Objectivists do. Sadly their own philosophy is quite repugnant also.

    why do you keep ignoring the role of the cargo cultists (conservatives) in this whole ordeal?

    The Conservatives are bad, no question. But there are degrees of evil. The Left is FAR further down the path to totalitarianism than the Conservatives. Conduct a thought experiment. If all the Conservatives were to suddenly disappear what would you get in this country? A socialist dictatorship that’s what. But if all the leftists were to disappear, what would you get? The country would be far freer economically and probably a little bit more social conservative. Maybe America in the 1940s. Far from a theocracy. There is no equivalence between the evil of the Left and the Right.

    But hey, I’m just a fat kid that didn’t get enough chocolate cake so what the hell do I know.

  5. Talal

    if all the leftists were to disappear, what would you get?

    very little, just like if the conservatives disappeared.

    But hey, I’m just a fat kid that didn’t get enough chocolate cake so what the hell do I know.

    Indeed

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s