Paul's Here

Brook: We are loosing the War on Islamic Totalitarianism

16 posts in this topic

Excellent interview. (starts at ~ 3:40)

Yaron Brook on Islamic Totalitarianism

He has appeared frequently on PJTV recently, being now a regular on Fridays. I am glad to see that he is appearing on PJTV's other shows as well. Hopefully this will help spread good ideas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Excellent interview. (starts at ~ 3:40)

Yaron Brook on Islamic Totalitarianism

Have to disagree, this is a flawed analysis.

Haven't we heard this stuff about middle-eastern madmen who are really, gosh-darn honestly this time, developing WMD's (no this time we are right, honestly). Can you fall for this stuff twice?

Brook is advocating a declaration of war.

9/11 was of course NOTHING to do with Shia Iran so you see how confused his analysis is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Brook is advocating a declaration of war.

Rather, he is pointing out that they have already declared war on us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Brook is advocating a declaration of war.

Rather, he is pointing out that they have already declared war on us.

Has the US declared war on Cuba?

No.

There is a massive difference in scale between supporting militia/terror groups and formal declaration of war, as you surely see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Brook is advocating a declaration of war.

Rather, he is pointing out that they have already declared war on us.

Has the US declared war on Cuba?

No.

There is a massive difference in scale between supporting militia/terror groups and formal declaration of war, as you surely see.

Has Cuba attacked the US? Has Cuba stated they would attack and had the resources to back up that statement in the last 40 years?

One group does not need a written statement declaring war from another group before coming to the conclusion that they are at war.

Have you fallen for retired British General Rupert Smith's premise on war? If so, do you also agree with his premise about war and "the utility of force?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There is a massive difference in scale between supporting militia/terror groups and formal declaration of war, as you surely see.

There is a legal difference (in countries that formalize such things, such as free countries acting in self-defense which ought to), but there is not an essential difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Brook is advocating a declaration of war.

Rather, he is pointing out that they have already declared war on us.

Has the US declared war on Cuba?

No.

There is a massive difference in scale between supporting militia/terror groups and formal declaration of war, as you surely see.

Has Cuba attacked the US? Has Cuba stated they would attack and had the resources to back up that statement in the last 40 years?

One group does not need a written statement declaring war from another group before coming to the conclusion that they are at war.

Have you fallen for retired British General Rupert Smith's premise on war? If so, do you also agree with his premise about war and "the utility of force?"

I don't know of General Smith's work, I will try to find it.

Um, Yes, this Cuban government was massively threatening to the US when the nukes were present. Same government, but that's not really my point.

I was asking if, by supporting militia/terror groups, this is a declaration of war? I think it is not. Whilst a hostile act, it is not, all out war. So, if you believe that by supporting groups in Iraq and Lebanon, as well as knocking off political rivals in Europe, Iran declared war of the US, then you must surely concede that the US has declared war on any number of countries by supporting anti-government groups.

This is more than a mere technical point.

Brook's later analysis is little more than "pub-bore" simplistic stuff about bombing and regime change, conflating 9/11 with Iran and hoping for the best with no clue how to achieve it.

The stuff about the regime giving a nuke to a terror group is ludicrous paranoia. How long would Iran exist, if a terror group nuked a western city with an Iranian nuke? About 10 minutes. They know this. They send others to their deaths, but for example, the Iranian president did not suicide bomb the UN and kill loads of world leaders. Does anyone think he was searched on the way in? They themselves don't want to die, albeit they are evil mystics.

The "threat to Israel" stuff is comic. Israel has around 100 nukes, Iran has none. Who is threatening who? And before anyone starts with the "wipe Israel of the map" quote, look at the accurate translation of the remark. You might also want to ponder which state in the area HAS actually been wiped of the map and by whom?

I honestly don't think the Israelis and their cheer-leaders are capable of rational thought on this issue. Brook normally makes a lot of sense, but I think emotion has got the better of him here.

I'm not saying the Iranians aren't a problem, they are, but just sending in the bombers is not the way. We have several trump cards such as oil refining technology that they would love to get but sanctions deny them. Their civil airliners are falling apart due to lack of spares, so a good, strong negotiator could get what we want and not make nonsense sabre rattling remarks, which we don't have the infantry to back-up (bombing alone would never do it) and ban Iranians from Facebook (no seriously). This just cements the clerics in position.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Brook normally makes a lot of sense, but I think emotion has got the better of him here.

Has emotion gotten the best of Brook, or has whim-worship gotten the best of islamic totalitarianism? I think the attitude of many is that the single most important fact of the matter is that they want us dead or converted, period. That idea of theirs is not up for negotiation and such endeavours only enable and embolden their jihad to wipe liberty from the face of the earth forever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stussy88,

If your mention of nukes that the Cubans had is what I am thinking of then that happened during the early 1960's which was more than 40 years ago. And even then Cuba was not and never has been a "massive" military threat to America. The country that was backing Cuba with the nukes, which was Russia, was a threat.

I will go over the remainder of your post when I have the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not saying the Iranians aren't a problem, they are, but just sending in the bombers is not the way. We have several trump cards such as oil refining technology that they would love to get but sanctions deny them. Their civil airliners are falling apart due to lack of spares, so a good, strong negotiator could get what we want and not make nonsense sabre rattling remarks, which we don't have the infantry to back-up (bombing alone would never do it) and ban Iranians from Facebook (no seriously). This just cements the clerics in position.

Can you explain how you have come to these and other conclusions? How much research on military and intelligence tactics have you done and have you used it in a real world situation? Do you know for certain that bombing does not work? Did not the bombing of Japan during WWII work well?

I am left with the question of who really knows that which they are talking about and who does not. And after reading your post it seems you know very little about the larger picture of what is going on in this battle/war.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...

The "threat to Israel" stuff is comic. Israel has around 100 nukes, Iran has none. Who is threatening who? And before anyone starts with the "wipe Israel of the map" quote, look at the accurate translation of the remark. You might also want to ponder which state in the area HAS actually been wiped of the map and by whom?

I honestly don't think the Israelis and their cheer-leaders are capable of rational thought on this issue. Brook normally makes a lot of sense, but I think emotion has got the better of him here.

...

"The world powers established this filthy bacteria, the Zionist regime, which is lashing out at the nations in the region like a wild beast," the Iranian president told supporters at a rally in southern Iran.

"You should know that the criminal and terrorist Zionist regime which has 60 years of plundering, aggression and crimes in its file has reached the end of its work and will soon disappear off the geographical scene."

..."Although the main solution is for the elimination of the Zionist regime, at this stage an immediate cease-fire must be implemented," [Ahmadinejad] said.

---------------------------------------------------

Nah, I am sure that he did not mean that, it was simply lost in translation. He meant nothing with those sayings. It is just talk! that's all! After all, he doesn't have to mean those words, does he? Hitler didn't mean his words, after all!

I am also certain that Iran does not support Hezbollah with weapons and funds to attack Israel and kidnap Israeli soldiers.Iran most certainly does not support the peace-loving Hamas with rockets and mortar, and is not developing nuclear weapons - it is only for peaceful purposes! The Mossad, CIA and all those other intelligence agencies are lying through their teeth.These are all lies perpetrated by the "Little Satan" Zionist regime and his "Cheer-leaders" with the help of the "Great Satan" USA in order to gain control of the oil in the Middle East.

Oh, and I forgot those Jewish-Zionist lies about the Holocaust. Of course, it never happened! Those are blatant lies to foment the Zionist regime! Those 6 million Jew were not killed at all, it is not possible physically! And Hitler really did not mean his words in "Mein Kampf", therefore he couldn't have done that!

Many cases also come to mind in which Israel threatened other countries and declared they will be wiped out and disappear from the map. I remember how the Israeli PM always threaten Iran with their offensive Nuclear warheads they itch to launch. Many many threats, indeed. Of course, how could I forget??

You are right, Stussy88. Yaron Brook is simply emotional, and those irrational Israelis and their Cheer-Leaders are simply idiots that can't see what's right in front of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Brook is advocating a declaration of war.

Rather, he is pointing out that they have already declared war on us.

A freer government may properly and morally go to war with any government that violates rights as much as Iran does whether or not they have declared war on us. The only considerations are how much American lives and property are being threatened and whether the costs of war are worth it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Brook's later analysis is little more than "pub-bore" simplistic stuff about bombing and regime change, conflating 9/11 with Iran and hoping for the best with no clue how to achieve it.

The stuff about the regime giving a nuke to a terror group is ludicrous paranoia.

[...]

I honestly don't think the Israelis and their cheer-leaders are capable of rational thought on this issue. Brook normally makes a lot of sense, but I think emotion has got the better of him here.

As moderator, I would have deleted this post if others had not already responded to the substantive points in the post. This is "mind-reading" and psychologizing and an unwarranted and unjust ad hominem attack on Brook and on anyone who agrees with his position.

As such, it is a violation of FORUM rules and unacceptable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I was asking if, by supporting militia/terror groups, this is a declaration of war? I think it is not. Whilst a hostile act, it is not, all out war.

I'll let this be an aside before I address your question I quoted, but the Iranians have declared war and continue to do so. Just go to the website of the Middle East Media Research Institute and look at the public broadcasts of government meetings. They frequently start off with a prayer that goes, "Death to America, death to Israel, and death to those who deny His Jurisprudence." Their goal is the complete destruction (or conversion) of all these countries, they're just not capable of a complete victory right now. However, that doesn't stop them from beginning the war, which began a long time ago.

I consider "hostile" acts such as the murder of Americans, acts of war. It seems like there are two potential ways of evaluating this, through utilitarianism or through principles. If we use utilitarianism. how many Americans have to die before we are considered at war? Obviously, the Beirut barracks bombings are not enough, nor was their involvement in 9/11, the Kobar Towers, nor the US naval ship off the coast of Yemen, nor all the dead American soldiers in Iraq. Those are just a series of "hostile acts" if I am understanding you correctly. If that is the case, then when is self-defense justified? At what stage is it appropriate to take military action against their regime and end their murders of American citizens? Is a few thousand enough? At what arbitrary number can one decide, once one has dispensed with principles?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites