[MD] sq social - sq intellectual

[Gene M]

I feel like I should make a point before I begun my rebuttal. You have
started making near constant references to WWII. This is NOT WWII. The two
are not even comparable in my mind. WWII was a social level conflict, it was
to stop fascism and the biological atrocities allowed by that social
pattern. It was opposed with social and biological patterns of it's own.
This was just and right. I am down with it.

This is not about social patterns anymore. This a whole new breed of
conlfict. This is intellectual patterns that we are fighting. We shouldn't
want to destroy their culture and society, those things aren't at fault!
This an intelletual pattern we are at war with. It has no home country, it
has no bases, it has leaders, but they are replaceable and martyr-able.

Fighting this war as if it is were WWII is probably what is hurting us! It's
a new conflict, in a new world, against an entirely new kind of ennemy, and
using old tactics, strategies and expectations is gonna get alot of people
killed, and eventually lead to defeat likely.

[Gene]
> > It is completely correct! If someone attempts a terrorist action, shoot
> > him. Biological vs. biological. But terrorism isn't purely biological.
> > Like I said previously, it is an Idea. A belief system. And to fight
> > against that, we need to undermine and attack those Ideas.
>
> I don't know how you undermine or attack the idea of "Death to Israel"
> and "Death to America" without defeating those who are willing to act
> on that idea, just as in WW II those dedicated to killing us were
> forced to accept unconditional surrender.


The thing is, the more people we kill in those countries, the more people
are gonna Want to kill us. Unconditional surrender is never gonna happen,
because we're not fighting a country. We're not fighting a coherent entitity
even! It's like expecting an unconditional surrender in the war on drugs.
It'll never happen. This old thinking, on a new situation. Static applied to
dynamic, and it's hurting us.

> Destroying people's homes and communities does not help us win their
> > minds.
>
> In WW II we destroyed homes and communities in both Germany and Japan.
> Have we not won their minds? Seems to me we have. Today they are
> allies.


In WWII those were the homes and communities of your ennemies. But when you
bomb lebanon because Hezbollah is there, you're not attacking ennemies,
you're attacking non-partisans! You're pointing at innocent people and
telling them they are guilty of things they have no interest in, then
punishing them. We are literally Creating ennemies for ourselves at this
point.

[ Platt:]
> > >I would submit that Islamic Fascism does not support dominance of
> social
> > > values  over biological values, nor does Islam support dominance of
> > > intellectual  values over social values. Thus, by terms of the MOQ
> > > moral hierarchy, Western cultures are morally superior to Islamic
> > > cultures. Islamic cultures are changeable as witness the effort by
> > > many in Iraq to establish a democracy where the intellectual  values
> > > of free speech and freedom of religion from state interference  would
> > > guaranteed by law.
>
> > And I am here to say that they do Precisely that! In fact islam has a
> > much stronger control over the biological than western society does!
> > They restrict their diet, don't drink, don't have wanton sex, and fast
> > for societal reasons. Sure, to us many of these things seem repressive.
> > But they Are societal values subordinating and dominating biological
> > values. Islam does a much better job of this than we do.
>
> Islam does, yes. But not Islam Fascism. It aggressively uses biological
> terrorism against the innocent, the attack of 9/11 being a case in
> point not to mention attacks in England, Spain and other countries.


But it societally uses them, destroying your own biological self for
intellectual and biological values, is of very high societal Quality. If two
societies are at war, then laying down your life for your side is considered
a great honour! The only difference here is people aren't laying down their
lives for a society, but for an idea. It's a whole new Breed of warrior, and
we don't understand them, thus cannot even begin to combat them. As long as
we remain blinded by what we expect war to be, we will continue to fail.

I will say this though: I do Not agree with the agressive killing of
civilians on Either side! Suicide bombers that target civilians are horrible
people, and I hope that if there Is an afterlife they find it unpleasant.
Same goes for israle and the US though. Any side that is killing
non-combatants in this war are in the wrong.

> You're pretty much spot on about the intellectual values over societal
> > values being lacking there. And that's where we should come in. We
> > should be giving them Ideas. If you can't fight biological forces with
> > intellectual values, then what the hell makes you think we should fight
> > intellectual forces with biological values?!
>
> You admitted biological vs. biological is moral. And you admitted
> intellectual values are lacking in Fascist Islam.


I misspoke. This stuff isn't 100%, I'm just talking as I go. Terrorists
definately have intellectual values, they are simply very low Quality ideas,
mostly shackled to Societal values. So we need to cut them loose, and defeat
them there I think.

> It makes no sense I tell you. Biological force from us only strengthens
> > the societal and existing intellectual powers that be, because that is
> > how they are constructed.
> >
> > The harder we punch, the harder they will punch back. One of us is gonna
> > have to stop, and I don't think they're capable of it.
>
> If this were true, we would be under the heel of the Nazi boot or the
> Imperial Japanese sword today.


As I said, this is NOT WWII! This is a conflict completely unlike it. And
treating it as the same is the absolute worst mistake we can make.

-Gene