Law and order where there is neither?

And I'd like to believe that many government programs are less harmful than killing people and blowing stuff up.

I am sure that many government programs are less harmful to foreigners than killing people and blowing stuff up.

Muslims think they are at war with us - or rather a few of them think they are at war with us and the rest are too frightened to speak up and contradict them.  Which means they are at war with us, so blowing them up is self defense.

Absolute nonsense.  Most Muslims are opposed to Americans only because the US government has (and continues to) kill, main, torture, steal from, and destroy the lives of their families, friends, and neighbors.

 
Then why Islamic terrorism in Sweden, Switzerland, Denmark, and so forth? The Bali bombing preceded and provoked Australian involvement in Iraq, rather than being caused by Australian involvement in Iraq.

They may be at war with you (if you support the US government), but they are not at war with me.

Muslims are required to believe all of Dar al Harb is one people.  If they are at war with me, they are at war with you

Dar al Islam is weak enough that it might be better to ignore them, like a big dog ignores a small yappy dog, but blowing them up, whether or not is necessary, is a lot more legitimate than most forms of government expenditure.

First off, blowing up Moslims is objectively evil, unless done strictly in self-defense.

Muslims think they are at war with us - or rather a few of them think they are at war with us and the rest are too frightened to speak up and contradict them.  Which means they are at war with us, so blowing them up is self defense.

Absolute nonsense.  Most Muslims are opposed to Americans only because the US government's military continues to kill, main, torture, steal from, and destroy the lives of their families, friends, and neighbors.  They may be at war with you (if you support the US government's military), but they are not at war with me.

I guess I've drunk the Kool-Aid, but what I think is this:

We are at war with the Taliban and al-Qaeda. They aren't trying to kill Americans because we're killing some civilians in Afghanistan and Iraq by accident. Instead, al-Qaeda started killing Americans first, and the Taliban made an invasion of Afghanistan necessary by failing to extradite Osama bin Laden.

Osama originally attacked the United States because of his belief that in Sa'udi Arabia, Egypt, and several other countries, Muslims were languishing under corrupt governments that were put there thanks to the United States. U.S. support of Israel was also a motivator, but a secondary consideration.

If one accepts the statist paradigm that the moment one shows weakness, the vultures start hovering, then the U.S. had little choice but to respond, and it has little choice but to continue until al-Qaeda and other sources of the terrorist threat are wiped out.

Under the doctrine of the War on Terror as stated by George W. Bush, al-Shabaab has become a target in the War on Terror as well, as a "terrorist group of international reach", after the suicide bombing in Uganda.

Iran is a sponsor of terrorism, and it's about to acquire a nuclear weapons capability.

And then, of course, there's Pakistan.

Very few of the civilians getting killed in Iraq or Afghanistan are getting killed by American fire. The number is still too large, of course. But most of the civilians being killed there are being killed by the terrorists we're trying to stop.

Now, what about the statement that since the ordinary people are "too frightened to speak out", they're our enemy too? That doesn't apply to Iraq or Afghanistan now, because we have our own official governments there.

That doctrine does apply to the Gaza Strip - Israel was within its rights to treat it as though it were a nation at war against Israel - but I believe they have made a serious mistake in fully availing themselves of that right.

If the United States can bring massive forces to bear, it can protect the civilian populations of Iraq, Afghanistan, and any other countries (particularly Pakistan) which are or may be embroiled in this, and bring the conflict to a quick end.

If, however, Americans are sufficiently unwilling to go off and fight in the deserts of the Islamic world, just as their unwillingness to go off and fight in the jungles of Vietnam led to the tragedy of the boat people, then the war would have to be fought using clumsier means. Which would quickly end up making a sizable fraction of the world's Muslims enemies of the U.S..

I do not believe this is the case now. However, distressing news from places from Indonesia to Egypt does show a big fraction of the world's Muslims has one thing in common with the terrorists. They don't think that what's sauce for the Muslim is sauce for the non-Muslim.

This is evidenced by how non-Muslim minorities are treated in those countries.

Thus, the Palestinian refugee problem counts, while the previous attempts to drive Israel into the sea don't count.

This doesn't mean Islam is an "evil religion". Under Sharia law, they treat non-Muslims about like Americans treated black people under segregation. The problem is that people who are under intense scrutiny, and who need, for their own survival, to be easy for us to distinguish from terrorists... can't afford to behave like that.

If Africa had the atom bomb in 1920, it would have been pretty foolish of the United States to practice segregation, wouldn't it?

It isn't that we're making ourselves into their enemies. It's that they're making themselves into our enemies, and if they don't stop, there are terrible risks for them as this continuing conflict has the potential to expand.

Now, what about the statement that since the ordinary people are "too frightened to speak out", they're our enemy too? That doesn't apply to Iraq or Afghanistan now, because we have our own official governments there.

To have our own official governments there, we would need to do imperialism after the style of Lord Cromer - which is considered unthinkably reactionary, capitalistic, orientialist, racist, and oppressive.

Karzai has never won a fair and free election.  He needs to be killed and the reason we are not killing him is because his replacement would likely be even worse.

As for Iraq:  They did have a fair and free election.  The moderates won a plurality, not a majority.  They are still trying to find an extremist faction to go into coalition with, but each extremist faction wants to kill all the infidels, and thinks the moderates are infidels.  Most of those elected are extremists, but the extremists are split on the questions of who is an infidel and which infidels need killing first.  It is thus impossible to form a majority coalition, an unstable situation which will end with a minority ruling by terror.

The program of exporting democracy is premised on the idea that most Muslims are moderate.  Since moderation is dangerous to one's health, it is hard to tell if this idea is true or not, but whether it is true or not, exporting democracy at gunpoint has failed.   We don't have our own official governments there. 

That doctrine does apply to the Gaza Strip - Israel was within its rights to treat it as though it were a nation at war against Israel - but I believe they have made a serious mistake in fully availing themselves of that right.

The serious mistake was dragging the settlers out of Gaza.  As subsequent events proved, the Israeli government was not protecting the settlers, the settlers were protecting the Israeli government.  To fix the problem, let settlers back in, and kill as many Palestinians as required to make resettlement possible.  Since the present status quo is intolerable, the glaringly obvious solution is to return to the status quo ante, the imperialism of James Anthony Froude - which, like the imperialism of Lord Cromer, is today considered unthinkably reactionary.

If the United States can bring massive forces to bear, it can protect the civilian populations of Iraq, Afghanistan, and any other countries (particularly Pakistan) which are or may be embroiled in this, and bring the conflict to a quick end.

Obviously the US cannot protect Muslims from each other, no matter how massive our forces, except possibly by using the highly successful methods of Lord Cromer or Sir Stamford Raffles, which methods are today considered unthinkable, and were controversial even in the nineteenth century  Even back in the nineteenth century it was bit of a toss up whether Raffles was going to get knighted for services to the British empire, or hung as a pirate and brigand.

Which would quickly end up making a sizable fraction of the world's Muslims enemies of the U.S.

You seem to be under the impression that the majority of the world's Muslims are not already enemies of the U.S.  You also seem to imply that Americans should care whether Muslims are enemies or not.

The only times that Dar al Islam has not been making war on Dar al Harb was when we crushed them with overwhelming force, stole their land and resources, ravished their women, and treated their religion with contempt and repression - in particular the period from 1830 to 1960, which started with a near genocidal solution to the Barbary pirate problem.  As soon as the last Christian settlers were dragged off Muslim lands in 1960, Islamic terrorism resumed - analogous to what happened when Israel dragged the settlers out of Gaza.

One can reasonably argue that Muslims are weak enough to ignore - but they are hostile enough it is ludicrous to worry about offending them, and thirteen hundred years of history demonstrate this.  Doing bad things to Muslims always leads to less trouble, not more trouble.   Back when we really were doing all those dreadful things to Muslims that people allege we are doing today, everything was fine.  If Raffles had been in charge of the Iraq war, he would have put Baghdad to the sack for three days, would have ethnically cleansed Basra and brought in outside oil workers.  Lord Cromer would have stolen the oil.  And Raffle's dad would have thought Raffles and Cromer were politically correct softies.  And back when those guys were taking care of business, imperialism made a profit, and Muslims gave no trouble.

Perhaps we should refrain from such measures because they are immoral, but history shows it is the way to reduce trouble from Muslims, that being nice to Muslims is perceived as weakness, and weakness provokes attack.  The methods of the colonialists were successful, and not only profitable for the colonialists, but, like the Jewish settlers in Gaza, provided peace, safety, and prosperity for Muslims. Raffles did what we cannot do - protected Muslims and their property from each other.  Of course he did not protect them or their property from himself, but overall his depredations were considerably less serious than their depredations against each other.

This doesn't mean Islam is an "evil religion". Under Sharia law, they treat non-Muslims about like Americans treated black people under segregation. The problem is that people who are under intense scrutiny, and who need, for their own survival, to be easy for us to distinguish from terrorists... can't afford to behave like that.

If Sir Stamford Raffles was in charge of our military program, they would need for their own survival to be easy to distinguish from terrorists (and even that would not always help) but the way things are now, it is a lot safer to be indistinguishable from a terrorist.

If Africa had the atom bomb in 1920, it would have been pretty foolish of the United States to practice segregation, wouldn't it?  It isn't that we're making ourselves into their enemies. It's that they're making themselves into our enemies, and if they don't stop, there are terrible risks for them as this continuing conflict has the potential to expand.

Islam has always had a policy of chronic low level warfare, even when brief higher level warfare would have been more effective.  Westerners tend to escalate when the enemy escalates, Muslims tend to de-escalate, thus things are unlikely to blow up the way they have blown up from time to time in disputes within the west.

One can make a reasonable case that it would be a lot more cost effective to simply ignore them, but ignoring them will result them taking more forceful means to get our attention.  (Which would still probably end up cheaper)  However a policy of ignoring them would require the guts to ignore them - would require us to handle the fatwas and Motoons business, and similar events, more courageously than we did.

My recommended solution is to issue letters of Marque and reprisal - authorizing private enterprises to steal Muslim lands, Muslim oil, ravish the women, ethnically cleanse desirable lands, and so on and so forth - in short, legalize the likes of Benjamin Raffles who was doing such a good job in the late eighteenth century, the wholly private enterprise colonialism commended by James Anthony Froude.

The only times that Dar al Islam has not been making war on Dar al Harb was when we crushed them with overwhelming force, stole their land and resources, ravished their women,

No doubt my post has made me sound like the usual bleeding heart liberal.

However, despite my dedication to the principle that, whenever possible, we should minimize collateral damage, when dealing with Muslims or anyone else, it actually is true that I don't particularly like Muslims.

And there are three reasons for that. Their names are:

Saffiyah bint Huyeiy ibn Akhtab
Rayhana bint Zaid
Maria al-Qibtiyya

Remember those names.

They are those three, among the wives of Muhammad, who were women taken captive from groups of people he attacked. Two were Jews, who he directly chose; the third was a Coptic Christian, taken by another of his men, who gave her to him when he saw that he admired her great beauty.

If I could trust the government not to abuse the technology for other purposes (which, of course, no one can) I would welcome the day when every male child, shortly after birth, had a little chip installed in his brain so that any attempt on his part to have sexual intercourse with a woman without her full, freely given, and informed consent would result in immediate death.

It is not the women of the world who make the wars.

Any crime that can make the victim think that she is in some way less deserving of honor and respect is clearly a vile act of unnatural torture that deserves to be classed as a crime against humanity.

How about we do it this way, and condemn ALL government expenditures, and militarists can stop finding bizarre excuses to defend mass murder. Frankly, some of you folks couldn't find a conscience with both hands and a map.

just a quote to reply to the muslims are evil trend:

So they sent twelve thousand warriors to Jabesh-gilead with orders to kill everyone there, including women and children.  "This is what you are to do," they said. "Completely destroy all the males and every woman who is not a virgin."  Among the residents of Jabesh-gilead they found four hundred young virgins who had never slept with a man, and they brought them to the camp at Shiloh in the land of Canaan.

 

    The Israelite assembly sent a peace delegation to the little remnant of Benjamin who were living at the rock of Rimmon. Then the men of Benjamin returned to their homes, and the four hundred women of Jabesh-gilead who were spared were given to them as wives.  But there were not enough women for all of them.  The people felt sorry for Benjamin because the LORD had left this gap in the tribes of Israel.  So the Israelite leaders asked, "How can we find wives for the few who remain, since all the women of the tribe of Benjamin are dead?  There must be heirs for the survivors so that an entire tribe of Israel will not be lost forever.  But we cannot give them our own daughters in marriage because we have sworn with a solemn oath that anyone who does this will fall under God's curse."

 

    Then they thought of the annual festival of the LORD held in Shiloh, between Lebonah and Bethel, along the east side of the road that goes from Bethel to Shechem.  They told the men of Benjamin who still needed wives, "Go and hide in the vineyards.  When the women of Shiloh come out for their dances, rush out from the vineyards, and each of you can take one of them home to be your wife!  And when their fathers and brothers come to us in protest, we will tell them, 'Please be understanding.  Let them have your daughters, for we didn't find enough wives for them when we destroyed Jabesh-gilead. And you are not guilty of breaking the vow since you did not give your daughters in marriage to them.'"  So the men of Benjamin did as they were told.  They kidnapped the women who took part in the celebration and carried them off to the land of their own inheritance.  Then they rebuilt their towns and lived in them.  So the assembly of Israel departed by tribes and families, and they returned to their own homes

Judges 21:10-24 NLT

i think a list on names of captured, raped, and enslaved women in not exclusive to the Quran......

P.S.  i believe there is something about a mote in your neighbor's eye, and a beam in your own???

i think a list on names of captured, raped, and enslaved women in not exclusive to the Quran......

However, Jews really have stopped behaving like that these days.

In recent news, however, Coptic Christians in Egypt are being pressured to accept mediation, rather than criminal prosecution, for a Muslim schoolteacher accused of molesting a Christian child - while, elsewhere in Egypt, the result of a Coptic Christian being accused of raping a Muslim led to deadly riots.

This doesn't make Muslims more evil than white Americans. However, while Africa was militarily insignificant compared to the United States during the eras of slavery and segregation, and so the black people of the United States were defenseless, it is simply not true, in the present day, that the countries of the world where Christianity is widely professed are weaker, militarily or technologically, than the world's Muslim countries. Quite the reverse, in fact.

So it is surprising that this sort of thing is even tolerated.

Part of the reason is that, with World War II bringing an end to the previous colonial era, the realities of the Cold War made all the countries of the world, even small dictatorships, effectively sovereign - in whatever state they were in after the dust settled, so that didn't preclude Soviet rule of Eastern Europe, for example.

Because I don't think I can get the United States to stop collecting taxes or having a large military, I think the most effective way to prevent something very bad from happening to the Islamic world is for it to refrain from provoking the United States.

• Work out a means for the people of the West Bank and Gaza Strip - and the Palestinian refugees outside Israeli control - to lead normal lives that is consistent with Israel's security.
• Cooperate fully with American efforts to wipe out al-Qaeda, al-Shabaab, and any other terrorist group that is a threat to others.
• Ensure full equal rights for all non-Muslim minorities in Muslim-majority areas.

If the Islamic world follows these principles, it can ensure its own survival. If it doesn't, they're at risk, because the current situation can get worse in many ways.

Because I don't think I can get the United States to stop collecting taxes or having a large military, I think the most effective way to prevent something very bad from happening to the Islamic world is for it to refrain from provoking the United States.

Unfortunately your argument generalizes.

Imagine that somewhere in the world somebody creates an AnCap society.

Because I don't think I can get the United States to stop collecting taxes or having a large military, I think the most effective way to prevent something very bad from happening to the AnCap society is for it to refrain from provoking the United States by existing as an AnCap society.

Does your argument imply that before an AnCap society can survive the USA must cease to exist?

i think a list on names of captured, raped, and enslaved women in not exclusive to the Quran......

Verse 25: And in those days there was no king in Israel; every man did what was right in his own eyes.

A condemnation, though at first glance it might appear to be just a simple observation. In the original, the phrase translated as "every man did what was right in his own eyes" is a rather harsh critique of the fact that no man had any moral guidance. The entire book of judges is a description of how amoral and uncaring Israel had become, how they abused each other, stole from each other, without care for the property of the individual. The entire story of the last chapters of Judges is the story of how men of the tribe of Benjamin saw fit to ravish a poor woman to death, and men of the other tribes sought revenge; and how after slaking their blood-lust in random slaughter without justice they sought to try and redress the balance with equally immoral and random "recompense".

You can't read the book of Judges without seeing constant judgement of the people of Israel for their "sin" of ignoring the rights of their fellow men. That's why it's called Judges, as Israel was constantly being Judged for acts just like those described in the story of the wives of Benjamin.

As a libertarian you wouldn't do what is right "in your own eyes". You'd do what is right. Right doesn't mean killing random women, handing over other women to be "married" against their will, nor gang-rape of a woman just because she's from a different "tribe".

Don't make the mistake of assuming that descriptive is prescriptive. The koran prescribes the use of violence against the infidel. The bible simply describes the use of violence and often condemns it. The Koran prescribes constant war of conquest over the whole world. The bible describes set-piece wars, many of which carried subsequent  and often very negative consequences for the Israelites even though they were held up as the right thing to do at the time.

You can hold up and say that bible verse X is similar to that part in surah Y and claim that makes them the same but I only see one religion today who's scripture justifies the taking of prisoners for rape, murder and the conquest of the entire planet. Only one religion describes the methods by which others are justifiably conquered. Only one religion calls on its followers to "make war on the unbeliever" until all is dar al islam. This is often translated as "house of peace", but the very name ISLAM means "submission".

Look at it this way: Islam is the ultimate statist ideology. The state and Allah are inseparable. Every aspect of life under Islam is proscribed and limited by the words of the book. It is not merely a religion, as Shinto or Hinduism or Buddhsim are religions, but a political doctrine of conquest and domination. Its scriptures describe these things. No other religion describes the methods by which the entire world will be put to sword and conquered. Other religions may engage in "holy wars" but they are, if anything, going against their own tenants. Only Islam scripturally justifies war against unbelievers for the purpose of destroying or converting them.

The only other ideology that comes close to it is Marxism. The same disregard for individual property, the same disregard for life, the same demands that all opposition must be put to death or "subdued" until they accept the message. The same "glorious future" and the sane "new man" appear in both. And in both, the same central figure of  a self-entitled psychopathic oaf who managed to get a following.

i think a list on names of captured, raped, and enslaved women in not exclusive to the Quran......

Verse 25: And in those days there was no king in Israel; every man did what was right in his own eyes.

A condemnation, though at first glance it might appear to be just a simple observation. In the original, the phrase translated as "every man did what was right in his own eyes" is a rather harsh critique of the fact that no man had any moral guidance. The entire book of judges is a description of how amoral and uncaring Israel had become, how they abused each other, stole from each other, without care for the property of the individual.

So when they chose a king things got better? Oy.

Look at it this way: Islam is the ultimate statist ideology.

I'm sorry, but this is nonsense. Islam claims to tell people how to live, and then they're supposed to do that. There is essentially nothing in it about how to set up a government. There isn't even anything in it about how to set up a religious hierarchy to enforce the rules. It wouldn't be absurd to have muslim libertarians, who say that everybody has the right to live according to Islam on their own hook, without any state, and public opinion decides about observed crimes that have prescribed punishments. All that is lacking is a Koranic statement that forbids people from setting up governments, and you're there.

Does your argument imply that before an AnCap society can survive the USA must cease to exist?

All we have to do is wait, and the USA as we know it, will cease to exist, much as happened to the Soviet "superpower." 20 years ago, I was telling people that in 50 years, the United States, as we know it, would no longer exist. Today, it looks as though I was way too conservative.

one religion today who's scripture justifies the taking of prisoners for rape, murder and the conquest of the entire planet. ... Only one religion calls on its followers to "make war on the unbeliever"

You can whine about interpretations of "holy" books, but what matters about religions are the actions of followers.  Most religions have relatively few followers who commit or support atrocities.  If we had to choose a traditional religion whose followers have committed the most mass murder and mass maiming and mass torture and other mass terrorist acts in the past few decades, I'm pretty sure that that religion would be Christianity.  I won't condemn Christianity for that reason, since many Christians oppose the atrocities committed by some Christians (just as many Muslims oppose the atrocities committed by some Muslims).

Considering belief more generally, I'd say that the belief that is most responsible for atrocities is statism.  Some might say that collectivism is more fundamental, but I consider collectivism (for most people) to be more of an outlook than a belief.

But I got sidetracked--what matters in this context is actions, not beliefs.  I oppose murdering, maiming, torturing, and otherwise terrorizing innocent people, whether committed by agents of the US government or agents of other governments or people who aren't government agents, whether motivated by statism or some traditional religious belief or anything else.  I would prefer to have people who also oppose atrocities as neighbors, but people who approve of atrocities (for any reason) could be good neighbors if they don't commit any.  Heck, it's even possible that you or quadibloc could be a good neighbor.

As for Iraq:  They did have a fair and free election.  The moderates won a plurality, not a majority.  They are still trying to find an extremist faction to go into coalition with, but each extremist faction wants to kill all the infidels, and thinks the moderates are infidels.  Most of those elected are extremists, but the extremists are split on the questions of who is an infidel and which infidels need killing first.  It is thus impossible to form a majority coalition, an unstable situation which will end with a minority ruling by terror.

The program of exporting democracy is premised on the idea that most Muslims are moderate.  Since moderation is dangerous to one's health, it is hard to tell if this idea is true or not, but whether it is true or not, exporting democracy at gunpoint has failed.   We don't have our own official governments there. 

No wonder the U.S. administration wanted to export democracy--not because they think it works but because they know it doesn't work.  Democratic gridlock is restricting Islamic extremists--as long as they continue to "play by the rules".