7 Explosions Hit Trains in Bombay, India

[luckydevil]

This is why you utterly destroy your enemy like WW II.

What the hell is the matter with you? Sick #@$%. Has it ever occurred to you that many in the region don't speak against these thugs, because of fear of death?

You just signed on for genocide. You disgust me. Man blood must taste good

[chiramu]

This is why you utterly destroy your enemy like WW II.

It is often lost just how often near-annihilation changes the enemy's mindset because often it is not the matter of a corrupt government simply commanding the people into war but of their own mass opinion backing the actions of evil men (Hitler, Hamas elected, etc)

You're scaring me here. Hope they're keeping the nuclear launches safely locked up somewhere.

And here's hoping the enemy doesn't agree with you about completely annihilating us.

[Ghost of]

What the hell is the matter with you? Sick #@$%. Has it ever occurred to you that many in the region don't speak against these thugs, because of fear of death?

You just signed on for genocide. You disgust me. Man blood must taste good

Way to overreact, which is sadly becoming typical for you.

Are there still Germans? Are there still Japanese?

Way to go on the genocide comments. BTW, if you don't speak out because of fear of death, perhaps your 'enemy' can help rid your society of those people. It will come at a cost, though.

Anyways, the point is you devastate your enemy because often that devastation causes a change in the culture and re-thinking of what led them to that point. Again, witness Germany and Japan. And though there are some holdouts, most of the people in those countries do not look at the era of the 30s/40s as a glorious time or a just enterprise.

[Ghost of]

And here's hoping the enemy doesn't agree with you about completely annihilating us.

Uh, hello, have you been watching recently? They want the utter destruction/subjugation of their enemy.

It seems like some of you think that 'nuanced' thinking somehow effectively deals with fanatics. Also, some of you have little historical perspective when it comes to war.

Battling your opponent to standstills or refusing to do what is necessary while your enemy mocks your resolve is not going to win you a final victory.

[DjTj]

This is why you utterly destroy your enemy like WW II.

Last time I checked, we never invaded Japan, and both West Germany and Japan developed robust economies within the decade. They weren't "utterly destroyed" by any measure.

The reason we achieved finality at the end of World War II was that the German and Japanese people were expressly complicit in the aggression and thus acceded in defeat. The Japanese and German people chose to attack other nations, and they took responsibility when they were defeated.

Also don't underestimate the fact that we poured substantial resources into helping Germany and Japan rebuild. That's the lesson we learned from World War I. It's not about destruction; it's about forcing people to take responsibility and giving them the help they need to live under conditions they can be happy with.

The problem with the Middle East today is that the people of Pakistan are not complicit in the aggressive acts of terrorist groups so they would feel very little responsibility for this. If you want to assign blame, it is only by omission rather than any explicit acts, and it would not register in their own hearts and minds. As you point out, Israel is moving in that direction with the Palestinian elections, but that is not the situation in Pakistan right now.

[luckydevil]

Way to overreact, which is sadly becoming typical for you.

Excuse me, I am sorry.............. you are not advocating "genocide"..........just "near annihilation"......

Why should innocent people pay for the sins of their government and/or leaders? For a guy who claims to be a libertarian, it's amazing how you can't understand that concept.

But lets be honest here, you are not a libertarian. You don't give a damn about liberty or freedom, you simply what to quench your thirst for blood.

[Ghost of]

Last time I checked, we never invaded Japan, and both West Germany and Japan developed robust economies within the decade.

The reason we achieved finality at the end of World War II was that the German and Japanese people were expressly complicit in the aggression and thus acceded in defeat; not because we "utterly destroyed" them. The Japanese and German people chose to attack other nations, and they took responsibility when they were defeated.

As you point out, Israel is moving in that direction with the Palestinian elections, but that is not the situation in Pakistan right now.

DJ, I've noticed a lot of times you either ignore or misunderstand what I'm addressing in my posts. Or that you perceive some minor error which does not alter a basic concept and then point out how I was 'wrong' when I never said anything about it in the first place. Please stop.

I'm not merely talking terrorists but the previous WARS that chimaru spoke of between Pakistan and India. Thus, what I said made complete sense in terms of nation-states, war and true victory. We've long known

And uh, as for Germany and Japan, it was the destruction all around them that forced them to acknowledge their defeat, no? I mean they didn't simply lose on the battlefield and say, "what the hell? We give up, good game guys."

You paint an entirely different picture than what really happened. They acceded to their defeat because their countries were in ruins and they couldn't even effectively 'hold serve' in terms of the integrity of their nation-states' territory and functionality.

We didn't invade Japan, but bombing the hell out of it and blockading it was damn near as effective. I'm not sure why you read into my post some minor 'error' which you then proceed to correct.

[Ghost of]

Why should innocent people pay for the sins of their government and/or leaders? For a guy who claims to be a libertarian, it's amazing how you can't understand that concept.

But lets be honest here, you are not a libertarian. You don't give a damn about liberty or freedom, you simply what to quench your thirst for blood.

:laugh: :doh:

There are a couple of problems with this post.

1) I just addressed what I meant by it in the response to DJ (annihilation, I mean.) The state is effectively over and the territorial integrity is compromised and within the power of another state.

2) You live in a fantasy world in which people don't bear responsibility for their government. The culture shapes the government, just as much as the government shapes the culture. This isn't totally true in every case. The US was founded by people who bore responsibility for their government and took some steps in the right direction. It wasn't perfect but the framework was there. To some extent, people cannot help the culture they are in, but a Japanese in the 20s/30s couldn't help it either. What makes 'innocence' or 'complicity'? There is not some easy distinction here and I include myself when I talk of our government, though it is less oppressive than others.

3) You refuse to confront basic questions of tactics, strategy, impact of total war vs. limited war, culture vs. artifice of government, etc. All you do is respond to a potential (not even actual) implication in my posts. Can you please act a bit more maturely?

Your responses to me are more personal attacks than they are substantive or intelligent responses. I'm talking military and historical perspectives and you whine and LIE ABOUT my character (or misapprehend what is being said, I'll just assume that.)

4) I'm just as libertarian as you, the problem is you live as if the world is already in a strict Hayekian harmony and it isn't. For someone who talked about DeSoto's book on culture and the roots of capitalism (IIRC,) you seem to ignore the fact that we can't just magically wish the libertarian order into existence or bring in EVERYONE as believers. There will always be enemies--be they Nazis or Communists or Jihadists. Even if you do not war with them, they war with you. And even if you evade attention, they will wage ideological war with you and they have adherents too! If 80 percent of the people in the US wanted a totalitarian state, lucky, what WOULD YOU DO? Simply continue to hope for von Mises to take root? Would you hope to win a lot of debates with Bastiat?

If the US withdrew from the world and pulled troops out of Iraq and advisors out of countries fighting jihadists themselves very little positive would happen. In fact, to some degree we did that after Vietnam and all that happened was that communism made strides. In the real world, people do bear SOME responsibility for their government. In the real world, governments that do not hold much of the people's loyalty often collapse when a crisis arises. Sometimes, evil people are elected and knowingly elected by a majority. What do you think kept the Islamists out of power in Algeria? It wasn't reading Hayek, my man.

For awhile it seemed like Somalia might be an interesting anarcho-capitalist experiement. Now look what happened to it. It wasn't me that killed teenagers for not going to prayer or for watching the World Cup, was it?

I'm bloodthirsty for wanting an end to jihadist rule and terrorism? If 5 people surrounded your mother and you had a gun but there were also bystanders. Would you shoot or not shoot to protect her? If capitalism and freedom were threatened and the threat could be destroyed by 10 innocent people stood between you and that threat--do you destroy it or not?

Superman isn't out there, if he was, we wouldn't have to make any of these choices and he could pretty much preserve all life and ONLY kill/hurt the bad guys. Unfortunately, I haven't seen any red capes in the sky lately. Have you?

[DjTj]

DJ, I've noticed a lot of times you either ignore or misunderstand what I'm addressing in my posts. Or that you perceive some minor error which does not alter a basic concept and then point out how I was 'wrong' when I never said anything about it in the first place. Please stop.

I suppose I often fixate on your use of language and miss your point. In this case, it was "utter destruction," but at least I didn't take it as far as lucky ... I apologize.

I'm not merely talking terrorists but the previous WARS that chimaru spoke of between Pakistan and India. Thus, what I said made complete sense in terms of nation-states, war and true victory.

However, I do think that you often try to take limited evidence and draw broad political conclusions that aren't quite correct, and that's generally what I'm trying to debate against when I respond.

In this context, I think you're still stretching the World War II analogy too far. In the prior wars, Pakistan never had goals similar to Germany or Japan. India and Pakistan were fighting wars over disputed territory rather than wars of conquest, so I don't think India would have prevented later action (or this terrorist attack) by marching its army through the streets of Islamabad. That simply would have incited more anger among the Pakistani people and left India with the same band of radical elements along its border.

And aren't we talking in this thread about what India should do now? In the present situation, a World War II-type response seems like it would be very innappropriate.

[Larry]

Last time I checked, we never invaded Japan, and both West Germany and Japan developed robust economies within the decade. They weren't "utterly destroyed" by any measure.

Um, you might want to talk, say, to a German or a Japanese about what life was like for them, even two years post-war. I'd bet that in at least some ways, their living conditions, say ony year post-surrender, were worse than in, say, Iraq today.

The impression I get is that those countries were about as close to "utterly destroyed" as could be achieved. (Or at least as close as could be accidentally achieved.)

I'll grant, when Germany surrendered, we didn't march people off to gas chambers. But I have no doubt that yeah, there were people who literally starved to death during the immediate aftermath.

Also don't underestimate the fact that we poured substantial resources into helping Germany and Japan rebuild. That's the lesson we learned from World War I. It's not about destruction; it's about forcing people to take responsibility and giving them the help they need to live under conditions they can be happy with.

Now that I'd likely agree with. It's tough to say whether Germany and Japan's "good guy" status today is more due to the war, or the Marshal Plan.

The problem with the Middle East today is that the people of Pakistan are not complicit in the aggressive acts of terrorist groups so they would feel very little responsibility for this. If you want to assign blame, it is only by omission rather than any explicit acts, and it would not register in their own hearts and minds. As you point out, Israel is moving in that direction with the Palestinian elections, but that is not the situation in Pakistan right now.

I do somewhat agree with you. To me, I think of it in terms of morality.

To me, you can't hold a country responsible for something, unless you can prove that the country is responsible. Unfortunately, a lot of countries nowdays have decided that terrorism is a form of "deniable warefare".

To pick a different example: I can't figure out recent Israli actions. To me, the kidnapped soldier could well be the work of just a few individuals, and it's not fair to hold a whole country responsible for it.

Whereas the rockets they've been taking hits from are military, crew-served weapons. And Israel would be perfectly justified in going straight to a military response after just one or two attacks. To me, a simple announcement that Israel's response to the next rocket attack will be an artilary barage leveling every building within one block of the firing point would make perfect sense.

(I haven't decided whether I'd think a military response to the train attacks would be justified. I'll admit, part of me is moving closer to the belief that if the Muslims don't clean up their own act, then maybe it's time for some genocide. To me, so long as it's the official position of the Muslim religion that terrorism is a legitimate way to achieve the point where a Muslim theocracy can be imposed, then I'm remembering the Kirk line someone else quoted: "I - have had - enough of - you.")

(For example, I'd find it easier to believe that Islam isn't a religion that spreads my imposing itself on others, if I could see, for example, a majority-Muslim country that doesn't have special taxes for non-Muslims. Or one where people can't get executed if they convert from Islam. Maybe there are things I haven't heard. But the impression I get is that Islam is kind-of like Communism: They believe in one man, one vote, once.)

[Ghost of]

Larry, you bloodthirsty anti-libertarian! (And I never went as far as you did in my comments.)

I was the one who quoted that Kirk line recently.

And to clarify, my initial post about destroying your enemy was about previous wars and how there had been MORE wars and MORE hostility as a result of limited engagements.

It wasn't about the train bombings in India. I wish people would learn to read and follow separate lines of thought in a thread, I did QUOTE what I was respond to as well. It should have been easy to follow EXACTLY what I meant.

Instead of talking about whether or not we invaded Japan (seriously, that is irrelevant to my point, what was the point of bringing that up as if I 'got something wrong') or whether THIS act should provoke war. It's about whether or not total or limited war is more preferable in achieving the DESIRED result.

I'd reiterate I was talking about a war between nation states. As for ideological wars that cross boundaries--different countries have different populations and cultures. Indonesia is not without jihadists but the overall attitudes there are different (generally) than say, the Sunni triangle. In fact, just look at Iraq. Besides Iranian Shi'a agents, the ones who really seek to impose theocratic totalitarianism there are Sunni Arabs. One must wonder if it would have been wiser to just make the Kurds a separate state because they've been fine under US Protection since 91. Of course, this would make Turkey mad, but the thing is--all those excess Kurds there could just go to Northern Iraq.

In any case, even in a nation one region may be stronger in its political attachments (or religious) than others. When speaking of destruction, I speak of ending the functionality of a state. It doesn't necessarily follow that you would be bombing villages out of existence. You'd also tailor your actions to the place in which you are engaged. Maybe the Israelis WOULD Be justified in bombing the hell out of any given area outside of their territory. But we would not be justified in nuking Indonesia. However, the Indonesians themselves may want to go into certain areas of their own country to clean it up. At SOME level of organization, you're talking about destroying the capacity of a state or shadow-state (rebellion, terrorist movement.)

[chiramu]

Ghost, help me understand something.

Suppose the KKK killed some French guys.

1) Would you advocate that the French hold the entire non-complicit population of the US collectively responsible, and immediately move to annihilate the US? If the answer is no, how can you advocate annihilating Pakistan because a rougue group of thugs that use religion as a cover to bomb people in buildings and trains?

2) Admittedly I don't know much about military history. But it seems that we live in an interconnected world that is unique in our history. A single malcontent can spread germs that kill millions, or possibily pollute large cities with radioactive material. So how does driving cavedwellers who are already poor and disillusioned further towards a hopeless and hapless life provide more security to us? Doesn't it just give them more motivation to sacrifice their life for revenge?

Just look at the middle east today. Their own government and monarchs treat them so badly, but most people either blame the US, Britain, Israel or India for their sorry lives. It's always other people's fault, not their own. It's revenge and hatred that motivates them. You're just given them a strong moral reason to hate you more. Might not have mattered in Carthage, but it matters now when one crazy terrorist can do a lot of damage.

[Ghost of]

Ghost, help me understand something.

Suppose the KKK killed some French guys.

And again, my initial post to you was about a war between two NATION-STATES. It wasn't about the train bombing nor was it about just lashing out any time a terrorist act occurs. It was about whether a total war(involving nation-states) is more effective than limited war when it comes to achieving the desired result with what might be fewer casualties. For instance, if the Nazis had achieved a foothold without going to war and eventually developed nukes then nuked the hell out of the Soviets and the Americans and the Brits--how many lives would have been lost then as opposed to if the Allies had went in before Hitler set one foot in Poland? See what I'm getting at? Or what if they used their possession of nukes to impose Nazi rule over the entire globe? By delaying war and conflict or trying to minimize 'costs' you risk endangering all of your ideals and all of your objectives.

Also, any country would have to reasonably assess what the actual popular sentiment is. I mean, if the KKK kills someone or if John Allen Muhammad kills someone, these are the acts of evil individuals or small groups. In no way does the US government or culture at large sanction these acts.

However, if the most popular book in America was an age-old fiction about how Frenchman drank the blood of American babies and there were millions of those sympathetic with the actions of the individual group and if many more attacks were being planned agains the French AND the US Government was complicit in the acts of private citizens----?????

And I'd point out that when I spoke of Rome's dealing with Carthage, I again speak of two nations warring. To put an end to Carthage the Romans did NOT exterminate the Carthaginians. They simply destroyed all means of resistance and all functionality of the Carthaginian Empire. Now, they took slaves but that's a Roman thing.

I appreciate your response to me, it was reasonable and restrained, though I think you erred in assessing my basic point.

[DjTj]

Instead of talking about whether or not we invaded Japan (seriously, that is irrelevant to my point, what was the point of bringing that up as if I 'got something wrong') or whether THIS act should provoke war. It's about whether or not total or limited war is more preferable in achieving the DESIRED result.

I already apologized for that; it was an emotional response to a hyperbolic statement ... However, you didn't really address my larger argument.

And to clarify, my initial post about destroying your enemy was about previous wars and how there had been MORE wars and MORE hostility as a result of limited engagements.

You were responding to a statement about previous wars between Pakistan and India. If your statement was merely hypothetical, I don't know why you would write it at all. It is true that SOME wars have been followed with more hostility because of limited engagement, but it's not true that ALL limited engagements have ended that way. There are such things as limited conflicts where limited engagement is proper, and the first two India-Pakistan wars certainly fall into that.

India wasn't exactly an overwhelming military force in the years just after World War II, and marching to Islamabad probably wasn't a realistic option. Their goals were simply to retain control of most of Kashmir, and neither side could have realistically pursued "total war" in the way you describe.

If we want an American example, perhaps we should consider the Spanish-American War or the Mexican-American War, where we were able to gain control of Puerto Rico, Guam, the Phillippines, Texas and California without completely destroying our enemies. India's subsequent actions in Kashmir are very similar to the U.S. actions following those wars: sign a cease-fire, settle the territory, and establish control over time.

[luckydevil]

Your responses to me are more personal attacks than they are substantive or intelligent responses. I'm talking military and historical perspectives and you whine and LIE ABOUT my character (or misapprehend what is being said, I'll just assume that.)

Lie about your character, interesting. I am not the one advocating for near annihilation. You can't spin that. I have never encountered a libertarian who shares your jingoism (including the pro war ones). And I will call you out on it. I hate to go Mass Skin Fan on you, but if you have an issue with it, ignore me. You talk about history, but you fail to learn from it.

4) I'm just as libertarian as you, the problem is you live as if the world is already in a strict Hayekian harmony and it isn't. If the US withdrew from the world and pulled troops out of Iraq and advisors out of countries fighting jihadists themselves very little positive would happen. In fact, to some degree we did that after Vietnam and all that happened was that communism made strides. In the real world, people do bear SOME responsibility for their government. In the real world, governments that do not hold much of the people's loyalty often collapse when a crisis arises. Sometimes, evil people are elected and knowingly elected by a majority. What do you think kept the Islamists out of power in Algeria? It wasn't reading Hayek, my man.

You have a tendency to think like a collectivist, the world isn't black and white. You see the world as evil vs. good, nuance means nothing to you. It's not a movie, it is real life. Arabic/Muslims culture is rich and diverse. Your willingness to dehumanize and categorize an entire race of people is disturbing. Calling for near annihilation solves nothing.

And of course people deserve to share some responsibility for their government. You like most war supporters suffer from amnesia. It amazing how you fail to hold our government accountable, ignoring how our government has fueled and encourage Islamic terrorism. Our government supported and funded these thugs and called them freedom fighters. Guess what, we stopped supporting them and they got pissed off. Shocker, I know.

It’s amazing how you can’t see that over excessive militarism, jingoism, and nationalism can undermine freedom at home. It is puzzling that you are skeptical of state activism at home, but not abroad. I believe that capitalism can defeat terrorism. Here is the thing, I actually believe in this stuff (all that liberty and freedom stuff). I believe in the power of the market, that economic activity, trade, person-to-person cultural contact can change even the most illiberal nation/culture. I am fine being linked with the likes of Hayek and Milton Friedman. That's a compliment, thank you.

For awhile it seemed like Somalia might be an interesting anarcho-capitalist experiement. Now look what happened to it. It wasn't me that killed teenagers for not going to prayer or for watching the World Cup, was it?

What exactly is your point? I am not sure what Somalia has to do with anything. The crazy thing is Somalia is better now than it was under communist rule.

I'm bloodthirsty for wanting an end to jihadist rule and terrorism?

Absolutely not. But to you every Arab is a terrorist that needs to be destroyed. Oh, I am sorry a few of them need to be saved (have to avoid genocide).

[Larry]

Ghost, help me understand something.

Suppose the KKK killed some French guys.

OK, now a counter-hypothetical.

Suppose the KKK has been killing a dozen French guys a month, for the last 30 years.

They've also been killing Japanese guys, German guys, Polish guys and Hindu guys.

In fact, for the last ten years, there hasn't been a single week when the KKK hasn't killed somebody, somewhere.

Suppose that there are now over 30 countries that are majority-white. And every single one of them has a "minority tax" that's assessed against all non-whites. And every single one of them has laws prohibiting non-whites from any government position.

Suppose every Sunday, Pat Robertson announces that he's not endorsing violence, but this bible right here specifically tells why those brave heroes who killed those kids in the Sudan are martyrs, bacause they died while attacking a country where being gay is legal.

Suppose that, after endorsing the KKK for 20 years, Pat Robertson is elected President of the US. On the KKK ticket.

At what point do the French decide that y'know what? There's a war going on here, and I'm getting tired of being on the side that isn't fighting?

[tizzod]

There are no Hindu terrorists. I'm Hindu and part Sikh and both religion are very non violent.

That may very well be true about the non-violence, but it was Hindu extremists that assassinated Gandhi, was it not?

Also, a few years ago, didn't a bunch of Hindu extremists torch a mosque that they determined to be on their holy territory and spark some pretty darn violent rioting and fighting between Hindus and Muslims? (I could be a little hazy on those facts)

Don't act like wackos don't exist in every religion.

Oh, and I really hope all of your family and friends are okay and safe.

[luckydevil]

4) I'm just as libertarian as you, the problem is you live as if the world is already in a strict Hayekian harmony and it isn't. For someone who talked about DeSoto's book on culture and the roots of capitalism (IIRC,) you seem to ignore the fact that we can't just magically wish the libertarian order into existence or bring in EVERYONE as believers. There will always be enemies--be they Nazis or Communists or Jihadists. Even if you do not war with them, they war with you. And even if you evade attention, they will wage ideological war with you and they have adherents too! If 80 percent of the people in the US wanted a totalitarian state, lucky, what WOULD YOU DO? Simply continue to hope for von Mises to take root? Would you hope to win a lot of debates with Bastiat?

I would defend myself Ghost.

It's pretty clear to me that your message is we have to force people to be free. How Orwellian. Talk about utopia. How is that working in South America? Smashing success, . I am tired of capitalism/the free market being associated with war; people like you only reinforce such misconceptions.

I am not sure where I read it, but it was a hell of a point........ people advance the cause of liberty every day not by government edict but out of self-interest (might have been in reason). So yes enlightenment must come on their terms. That doesn’t mean we just sit idly by. It's important we engage with that part of the world with trade, not guns. I hate to be repetitive here, but embrace the market.

[DjTj]

Um, you might want to talk, say, to a German or a Japanese about what life was like for them, even two years post-war. I'd bet that in at least some ways, their living conditions, say ony year post-surrender, were worse than in, say, Iraq today.

I'll give you East Germany, but the majority of Germans and Japanese at least lived in relative peace after surrender. There weren't terrorists trying to take over their country or violent struggles for power - it was pretty clear who was in charge then.

The impression I get is that those countries were about as close to "utterly destroyed" as could be achieved. (Or at least as close as could be accidentally achieved.)

As bad as it might have been, it was worse for China in that period, and also in Soviet bloc states ... in the grand scheme of things, I look at Japan and Germany on par with France, England, Korea, or the Phillippines during that period. Nobody was in great condition, but I just feel like "utterly destroyed" is too strong a phrase because they weren't even the worst of the lot (Hiroshima and Nagasaki, notwithstanding). That's all semantics though and not really worth debating.

Now that I'd likely agree with. It's tough to say whether Germany and Japan's "good guy" status today is more due to the war, or the Marshal Plan.

If there's a lesson to learn from World War II, it's this one, and it's certainly something we're applying in Iraq right now. You have to help rebuild a country if you want long-term stability ... perhaps this was the important lesson of World War I.

I do somewhat agree with you. To me, I think of it in terms of morality.

To me, you can't hold a country responsible for something, unless you can prove that the country is responsible. Unfortunately, a lot of countries nowdays have decided that terrorism is a form of "deniable warefare".

Trying to think in terms of morality on a government level is a trap IMO. There is a sense of fairness that governs international affairs, but morality really operates at the individual level. When dealing with entire countries, I think it makes much more sense to be pragmatic and place and to consider the moral questions on the level of the populace. The issue isn't whether we want to hold a country responsible; it's whether holding that country responsible will actually prevent later aggression. And that depends largely on what peoples' sense of morality tells them; not our morality about their government.

In the case of World War II, there were easy lines to draw because the people did feel that kind of nationalistic responsibility for their actions. However, in the case of Islam, although countries may be practicing "deniable warfare," I don't think you're going to get the same effect on the populace.

I think religion operates on a different level than nationalism. I can't think of a single example where declaring war on a religion was actually successful in either eradicating that religion or changing its behavior. The Crusades were repeated failures, the persecution of the Jews never seemed to accomplish much, and they don't seem to be making much progress in Ireland.

Though we may feel that Islam is to blame, from a pragmatic standpoint, I don't think a declared war on Islam would accomplish our goals. The last thing we want to do is give Muslims a reason to all band together against us. I think we've done a pretty good job of naming this the "War on Terror" in an attempt to separate violent Islam from an aspirational "religion of peace" ...

The next step really is Iraq - if we can prove that a secular capitalist democracy can work and generate wealth for its people, we can do for the Middle East what the Marshall Plan accomplished for Europe a half-century ago and what we accomplished in Asia at a somewhat slower rate. We're not going to convince anyone that their religion is wrong, but we can certainly offer them an alternative form of government.

[Ghost of]

Lie about your character, interesting. I am not the one advocating for near annihilation. You can't spin that. I have never encountered a libertarian who shares your jingoism (including the pro war ones)

Yes, lie (though I did give you and out and say misinterpret.) Actually, that's exactly what you do. For one, you call me speaking about India and Pakistan's wars as jingoistic. Um, please let me know how that works. I'm an Indian jingoist now? Two, I defined thoroughly what i meant by annihilation. I even CLARIFIED when I FIRST POSTED by saying "like WW II." You chose to take it as genocide merely because you can't connect the dots between 'total and final war' vs. limited wars that actually stir up MORE hostility and cause a greater loss of life in the end because the enemy can possibly gather more resources, more organization and more ideological purity with which to destroy or extort you down the line. Again, from my FIRST POST I said "WW II" to clarify what I meant. It's also quite well-known that while the story is that the Romans salted the earth where Carthage stood, that the Carthaginians were not killed in a genocide. The empire they knew was gone from that point onwards, but they still existed.

Jingoism:

Extreme nationalism characterized especially by a belligerent foreign policy; chauvinistic patriotism.

Yes, I can see how someone who supports the Dutch, the French, the Australians, Indians, the vast majority of Persians, the Israelis, et al would be extremely nationalistic and chauvinistic. huh? I've only been pro-Western and pro-civilized world, lucky. How the hell does that qualify as nationalism?

I'm going to call you on your repeated failures to even look at what I posted, follow the line of thought and the arguments I'm actually making, refrain from going 'nuclear' with emotion and insults and that you aren't even using words properly.

You have a tendency to think like a collectivist, the world isn't black and white. You see the world as evil vs. good, nuance means nothing to you. Arabic/Muslims culture is rich and diverse. Your willingness to dehumanize and categorize an entire race of people is disturbing. Calling for near annihilation solves nothing.

where in this thread did I dehumanize anything? That's like saying that because a majority, a vast majority of white Southerners had a particular point of view regarding blacks that I want to dehumanize and murder them all.

How is my world black and white but yours isn't? You speak as if the solution to all conflict will JUST be capitalism and commerce when there are nations that made the choice NOT to trade with you or to only trade with you to build up their own ability to wage war in the future with you or extort you. You speak as if my speaking in generalizations (not absolute categorization) is somehow an affront to truth, as if speaking in generalizations about the US or regions of the US or Europe or Latin American culture are somehow calls for genocide or dehumanization. That's foolish and simply untrue.

You engage in the same when you categorize posts on a conflict between two states as a call for genocide or as jingoism. Anything that does not hold with your doctrinaire view of the workings of libertarian philosophy in the wider world is held by you to be evil, not merely a different way of achieving a similar end. The US started as a commercial republic and that didn't stop them from having to wage war against the Barbary Pirates, who I might add, had a similar view of infidels as our enemy today.

What would your response have been, and what had the US (THE US, mind you) done to 'earn' that hostility. You think that blaming jihadism partly on the US (us 'withdrawing support' had nothing to do with them hating us, the plan by some of them was to turn on the US all along) or Western actions is going to solve something? What about blaming Western actions (it was other Europeans who finally brought the Barbary Pirate nations to heel) on previous attempts to conquer Europe and bring it under the green flag? That reasoning smacks of Harry Browne who believed that all national security questions could simply be solved by blaming previous US policy. That's as dumb as thinking that your ******* neighbor who plays his music too loud and pisses on your lawn is that way because of something you did. Evil will exist, buttheads will exist in this world. No amount of commerce or ideological exchange or demonstration of the superiority of your view will change that. When the bully puts a knife to your throat you don't simply hope that your ideological purity will resolve the issue.

It is puzzling that you are skeptical of state activism at home, but not abroad. I believe that capitalism can defeat terrorism. Here is the thing, I actually believe in this stuff (all that liberty and freedom stuff). I believe in the power of the market, that economic activity, trade, person-to-person cultural contact can change even the most illiberal nation/culture. I am fine being linked with the likes of Hayek and Milton Friedman. That's a compliment, thank you.

Yes, capitalism CAN change the most illiberal nation and culture, though sometimes there has to be pressure on the government to set up a semi-impartial system that will protect property rights and the culture has to see that property rights and wealth are not to be the targets of demagoguery motivated by envy and fear. But in the meantime, there are conflcits. Generations of human beings need not be sacrificed while we 'wait out' the change that is supposed to happen. Muslims are in places where capitalism is practiced on SOME level but rather than join in they are attempting various forms of separatism and secession.

And I never implied anything negative about Hayek, Friedman, Rothbard or the other members of the pantheon. You know how I feel about them. Your remark is worthless and serves no purpose. I used them to illustrate how things will not merely change with YOUR acceptance of these ideas. Perhaps you missed out on the fact I have not discussed other conflicts which are not global in nature and which do not pose any threat to capitalism or freedom.

It is not excessive militarism (and again, how is talking about India or Israel's issues jingoism or nationalism on my part?) to defend the globe from a global threat. It is excessive reliance on ideology to think that the threat will dissipate by pretending it doesn't exist. Just look at Britain, they assimilate better than France and there are still a host of issues.

And again I say that you or your family should not have to be sacrificed via explosion or mass murder or theocratic/ethnic tyranny in the hopes that the ideals which we hold sacred will win out.

What exactly is your point? I am not sure what Somalia has to do with anything. The crazy thing is Somalia is better now than it was under communist rule.

The point is that Somalia was becoming an interesting historical laboratory for a quasi-anarcho capitalism. And some aspects were VERY interesting, considering how poor and debilitated civil society had been (and still is.) THEN, Islamists took control. THAT WAS MY POINT. The warlords failed to fend off the Islamists and now the Islamists will impose a Taliban-like rule on the people. Will they resist or acquiesce, I don't know. But if that government becomes embedded and the people begin to follow it and believe in it, the lines will be blurred, no?

ANd of course, they WERE better off without a real government than with Communists. :laugh:

Absolutely not. But to you every Arab is a terrorist that needs to be destroyed. Oh, I am sorry a few of them need to be saved (have to avoid genocide).

What the ____? :doh: Are you kidding me? Where the hell did I say that? Where did I even say "a few" need to be saved? That is not in anything I have written today or recently. Do you honestly think it strengthens your viewpoint to imply that saying that many Muslims (not all Arabs are Muslim) sympathize with terrorism and responding to SHF's post about able-bodied men flooding to support fellow Muslims, regardless of justness of cause is the equivalent of calling them all terrorists that need to be destroyed?

Honestly, where are you reading that and why don't you deal with what I say rather than leaping like Superman over facts and truth to your own wild-eyed conclusions.

You're doing far more ad hominem now than actual responding.

[Ghost of]

It's pretty clear to me that your message is we have to force people to be free. How Orwellian. Talk about utopia. How is that working in South America? Smashing success, . I am tired of capitalism/the free market being associated with war; people like you only reinforce such misconceptions.

You would defend yourself but would you ever defend your ideals with violence? If it got bad enough? Would you defend your city? Your nation? Western civilization, with all its warts? And if you did, is it acceptable to do via private armies only? Another thing that came to me--do you have less problem killing agents of the State (or some state-like institution) than with one state warring with another state and consequently killing civilians (be it deliberate or no?)

And to further address you, how the hell are you getting the idea that because I said there are enemies in this world who seek to destroy any society based on your ideals as 'forcing people to be free?' How so? Defense is not forcing anyone. In any given nation, it could be a determined MINORITY that is trying to impose tyranny of some sort. If they are given ideological support or material support, even, how is that 'forcing freedom on people.'

This is not the first time that you took a straightforward post and extrapolated to some bizarre conclusion. The Nazis AND Communists were both aggressors. How is defense, even if your land is not directly (at that moment) threatened, 'forcing people to be free?' Are the enemies of freedom not 'forcing people to be unfree?' Is the proper response merely hope and patience or do you kill your enemy and hope that the people he enslaved are capable of forming the right society?

I fully embrace the market, but there are nations that don't or don't have much of a market to stand on. If a corrupt elite keep all to themselves, in time, people may associate trade with the US with corruption and oppression. IN fact, this is the view of many in the world. Now, there are illiberal methods and institutions that I think we should be rid of, but that doesn't mean those who oppose the market will not demonize the hell out of it. Do enough of that and 'trading' may or may not have the desired effect. It depends on the circumstances of that country/region/etc.

Hell, the US has alternately embraced and rejected parts of the 'market' and capitalism. If there are huge segments of our people that reject basic capitalstic concepts and the corresponding values of personal sovereignty and freedom, how long will we have to wait for these other societies?

Now who is not seeing nuance?

[luckydevil]

Yes, lie (though I did give you and out and say misinterpret.) Actually, that's exactly what you do. For one, you call me speaking about India and Pakistan's wars as jingoistic. Um, please let me know how that works. I'm an Indian jingoist now? Two, I defined thoroughhly what i meant by annihilation. I even CLARIFIED when I FIRST POSTED by saying "like WW II."

Alright, I guess.

Horrible atrocities were committed by both sides in WW II ( jus ad bellum separated us). Why anybody would want to return to such tactics is beyond me. Innocents were deliberately targeted in WW2. Thank God people with power don't want to return to such a state (not yet anyway).

Yeah you are right, jingoism was incorrect. How about warmonger?

How is my world black and white but yours isn't? You speak as if the solution to all conflict will JUST be capitalism and commerce when there are nations that made the choice NOT to trade with you or to only trade with you to build up their own ability to wage war in the future with you or extort you. You speak as if my speaking in generalizations (not absolute categorization) is somehow an affront to truth, as if speaking in generalizations about the US or regions of the US or Europe or Latin American culture are somehow calls for genocide or dehumanization. That's foolish and simply untrue.

Yes, liberty is the solution. I believe in the market, it’s really that simple. I favor the libertarian approach.

This is a sensitive topic; I wish you would realize that. Speaking in generalizations turns off a lot of people when it comes to issue. I am not the only one who has said so. SHF has pointed it out as well many times on this board. I recently met a couple of conservative Iranian Muslim who support the war (yes they do exist), but reluctantly because of the language that surrounds the debate. There are posters on this board who believe that Muslims should be wiped out. I am not going to name anybody (if you want the name/s I will pm you it). There rhetoric was a lot like yours.

You engage in the same when you categorize posts on a conflict between two states as a call for genocide or as jingoism. Anything that does not hold with your doctrinaire view of the workings of libertarian philosophy in the wider world is held by you to be evil, not merely a different way of achieving a similar end.

I am not doctrinaire libertarian. I am just calling you out, because you have called out others. I am not into purges. The thing is you know that. I have in the past told you that libertarians should reach out to folks on the left. I like SkinVegas a great deal and he is a pro-war conservative libertarian. I respect people like Randy Barnett, (who is an anarcho-capitalist) he supports the war, a great deal. My beef with you is your level of militarism disturbs me. At times, your rhetoric goes overboard. Often it is devoid of context, mostly emotional fluff (I am guilty of that as well......obviously). I respect you a great deal, so I expect more from you. It amazes me how you fail to see that excessive militarism destroys culture and decreases freedom (and yes I believe your WW2 solution is excessive). Government thrives during times of crisis. I come from the school of Jefferson, militarism is the greatest threat to freedom and liberty.

With all that said, your position isn't remotely libertarian. Some honesty would be nice.

What would your response have been, and what had the US (THE US, mind you) done to 'earn' that hostility. You think that blaming jihadism partly on the US (us 'withdrawing support' had nothing to do with them hating us, the plan by some of them was to turn on the US all along) or Western actions is going to solve something? What about blaming Western actions (it was other Europeans who finally brought the Barbary Pirate nations to heel) on previous attempts to conquer Europe and bring it under the green flag? That reasoning smacks of Harry Browne who believed that all national security questions could simply be solved by blaming previous US policy. That's as dumb as thinking that your ******* neighbor who plays his music too loud and pisses on your lawn is that way because of something you did. Evil will exist, buttheads will exist in this world. No amount of commerce or ideological exchange or demonstration of the superiority of your view will change that. When the bully puts a knife to your throat you don't simply hope that your ideological purity will resolve the issue.

I don't know what to tell you Ghost. Harry Browne was right a great deal of time and that includes foreign policy. Blowback is real. That isn't to say that Islamic terrorism wouldn’t exist, it just wouldn't be near the threat it is today (oh and currently I believe our government is over blowing the threat-- from an American standpoint). I guess you have more faith in our government than I do. I read history and one common theme is politicians/the political class often over blow threats for power and increased control over the people.

The point is that Somalia was becoming an interesting historical laboratory for a quasi-anarcho capitalism. And some aspects were VERY interesting, considering how poor and debilitated civil society had been (and still is.) THEN, Islamists took control. THAT WAS MY POINT. The warlords failed to fend off the Islamists and now the Islamists will impose a Taliban-like rule on the people. Will they resist or acquiesce, I don't know. But if that government becomes embedded and the people begin to follow it and believe in it, the lines will be blurred, no?

Islamists have always been in control (when the government collapsed). Somalia is a completely different subject that deserves another thread. It's an interesting subject. I have mixed feelings about the whole thing (was it really a laboratory anarcho-capitalist society?)

[luckydevil]

You would defend yourself but would you ever defend your ideals with violence? If it got bad enough? Would you defend your city? Your nation? Western civilization, with all its warts?

I have said this in the past, yes western civilization/culture is worth dieing for. I would not fight for my government, however. Don’t make the mistake of confusing the two.

Another thing that came to me--do you have less problem killing agents of the State (or some state-like institution) than with one state warring with another state and consequently killing civilians (be it deliberate or no?)

Yes.

This is not the first time that you took a straightforward post and extrapolated to some bizarre conclusion.

Amusing, coming from you. You do a terrible job of making your points. Why bring up Desoto? You first brought him up in the context of private property rights and then libertarian order. You are essentially implying that sometimes order has to come from a foreign presence or outside force.

The Nazis AND Communists were both aggressors

Ok, agreed...................eh, the cold war is a bit more complex.

Are the enemies of freedom not 'forcing people to be unfree?' Is the proper response merely hope and patience or do you kill your enemy and hope that the people he enslaved are capable of forming the right society?

I just wanted to add( have to put this somewhere)....I believe most opposition and anti-Americanism that comes out of the Middle East is due to foreign policy, not on ideology (polls show that).

It's not our struggle. Enlightenment has to come on their terms. Our presence in the region merely exacerbates existing problems and strengthens Islamic terrorism.

I fully embrace the market, but there are nations that don't or don't have much of a market to stand on. If a corrupt elite keep all to themselves, in time, people may associate trade with the US with corruption and oppression. IN fact, this is the view of many in the world. Now, there are illiberal methods and institutions that I think we should be rid of, but that doesn't mean those who oppose the market will not demonize the hell out of it. Do enough of that and 'trading' may or may not have the desired effect. It depends on the circumstances of that country/region/etc.

It's not going to be easy. Utopia is not on the table. It would be struggle, no doubt. I hate to go all Bastiat on you but

“When goods do not cross borders, soldiers will.”

Hell, the US has alternately embraced and rejected parts of the 'market' and capitalism. If there are huge segments of our people that reject basic capitalstic concepts and the corresponding values of personal sovereignty and freedom, how long will we have to wait for these other societies?

Right, and the warfare state is a big reason why

[chiramu]

The cost-benefit of war requires a discussion on the costs. IMO, India is better off enduring a few hundred casualties now and then due to headline-grabbing terrorist incidents than suffer :

1) Loss/displacement of hundreds of thousands of lives due to internal rioting (against over 150 million Indian-Muslims) and/or military conflict

2) escalating military costs that rob money from building schools, roads, bridges

3) a recession as critical foreign investments pull out of India

4) Loss of trade and income flows from Indian expatriates that currently live and work in the Middle East and send back money that millions live off of (esp. in states like Kerala)

It's not all about the money. It's about preserving a way of life. India is *finally* just starting to get its economic house together. A war would destroy any chance of a modern economic miracle. We're not talking about an economic powerhouse taking over the world. We're talking simply of providing water and 3 balanced meals to over 700m people who currently just get by day to day.

The larger impact and benefit of patience and endurance far overweighs the benefits of taking out an already decrepit terrorist infrastructure. India's growth is a problem for jihadists. It means in another 10-15 year's time, India's example will make it impossible for madrassas to recruit because most will believe they too can get of their caves if they adopt some simple free-market, democratic ideals that separate religion and government.

[Air Force Cane]

www.time.com/world

Who's Behind the India Bombings?

Suspicion falls on Islamic terrorists — but not al-Qaeda — in the country's worst terrorist attack in more than a decade

By ALEX PERRY/NEW DELHI

• Background: A New Terror Threat?
  Even as the dead are still being counted in India's worst terrorist attack in more than a decade, suspicion has already fallen on Islamic terrorists — though not al-Qaeda. India is home to a Muslim insurgency in Kashmir, and earlier in the day militants killed eight people and injured 30 in five separate bomb attacks in the capital, Srinagar. And while no one said those same insurgents carried out Tuesday's rush-hour train attacks in Bombay — which police said killed at least 130 people and injured 260 — security sources told TIME they suspected a shadowy alliance of the Pakistan-based Lashkar-e-Toiba (LeT) working with indigenous Indian Muslims from the banned Student Islamic Movemement of India (SIMI).
  

SIMI detonated a total of nine bombs in Bombay during the course of 2003, killing close to 80 people and injuring hundreds more. The same loose grouping of Islamic radicals are also suspected of being behind a series of attacks in India in the last year that included three blasts in New Delhi last October that killed 60 and three more in the holy Hindu city of Varanasi in March this year, which killed 20, as well as smaller attacks in Bangalore and Hyderabad.

Ajay Sahni of the Institute for Conflict Management in New Delhi said it was unlikely that there had been any trigger for the attacks. Rather this was an "ongoing war" against Hindu-majority India by South Asian Muslims. "It is a continuous process of preparing for attacks and carrying them out," he said. "When these people are able to bring something to fruition, they do it. The act itself is the objective. It says: 'We're here. And this is what we are going to do to you.'" In a paper published Monday, Institute research fellow Bibhu Prasad Routray warned that SIMI had been stepping up its operations in Bombay and the surrounding state of Maharashtra. He described several "SIMI strongholds" in the state, adding that the "seizure of 30 kilograms of RDX, 17 AK-47s and 50 hand grenades from Aurangabad and Malegaon [two Maharashtran towns] between May 9 and 12 and subsequent arrests of 11 LeT terrorists pointed to linkages between SIMI and the LeT." India is home to the second largest Muslim population in the world, around 150 million people. But in a nation of more than a billion people, Muslims are often a disadvantaged minority. In the eyes of many Hindus, no Muslim can ever truly belong in India. The origins of this antagonism are centuries old. In essence, hardline Hindus regard as a national humiliation the Islamic influence that pervades India's history, starting with the Mughal Renaissance in the 16th century, continuing with the birth of Islamic fundamentalism in Asia in northern India in the 1860s (the same creed followed by the Taliban) and enduring even today in India's national symbol, the Mughal mausoleum of the Taj Mahal. This distrust of Islam has only increased since independence in 1947: modern India was founded in the Muslim-Hindu bloodletting of Partition from Pakistan, in which a million people died, and since then three wars against Islamic neighbor Pakistan have killed millions more. Today, much of this tension stems from India's rule over Muslim-dominated Kashmir in the face of strident Pakistani opposition. The war on terror and the 1998-2004 rule of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) on a Hindu nationalist agenda — which also stoked a Hindu pogrom in Gujarat in 2002 in which 2,000 Muslims died — has lent further legitimacy to India's lurking anti-Muslim prejudice. In 2003, just before twin bomb blasts in August that killed more than 50, TIME spoke to "Umar," a SIMI operative, or Ansar ("guide"), who said his men were carrying out the attacks. The 44-year-old said: "This country doesn't work for Muslims any more. You can't get a proper education, you can't get a job. You're not even safe." He said he and his men had no intention of ever ending their murderous campaign. "We will continue," he told TIME. "There is no limits on our actions... Even to kill children is good — you stop the generation there, at the beginning." The numbers in Tuesday's attacks are likely to rise. All the bombs were detonated between 6 p.m. and 7 p.m. on the Western line, which runs from Bombay's central station, Churchgate, through which a million commuters pass every day. Typically, a Bombay train carries around 4,500 people — three times its official capacity — and at rush hour, each carriage would have been stuffed, with passengers hanging onto doors and sitting on roofs. For terrorists looking to maximize carnage, it was an all too tempting target.