Tuesday, September 07, 2010

In Loving Memory of the Victims of 9/11



Don't burn the Koran. Burn the Muslims.

For every American killed by Muslims, 1,000 Muslims in the Middle East should be killed by America. I think this would quickly put a damper on holy warriors.

46 comments:

Anonymous said...

What happened to your thesis that atheists are the worst architects of mass murder? Here you are calling for the murder of innocents. Are you perhaps admitting your atheism? This post is nothing but hate-speech and bigotry.

Anonymous said...

This post is going to get you in trouble with blogspot.

jewish philosopher said...

"This post is nothing but hate-speech and bigotry."

I would prefer to call it a sane foreign policy for my nation, the United States.

The right of self defense is recognized by the United Nations Charter Article 51

Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations

http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter7.shtml

Garth Hamanus said...

Great idea JP! Since the men who hijacked the jets on September 11, 2001 were all Muslims, why not retaliate by indiscriminately murdering random Muslims en masse?

The only problem with your proposal is that we can't respond in kind. If you kill 1,000 Muslims for every victim of the September 11th attacks (do Muslim victims count?), that works out to over 3,000,000 Muslims! It can not be done by hijacking Islamic jet liners and crashing them into their buildings. That would be a logistical impossibility.

You need a better tactic, try thinking about the last time someone tried to exterminate people by the millions. Perhaps you want to build some Zyklon B gas chambers. But that begs the question of how you can get so many people to walk into a gas chamber. Perhaps disguising them as shower facilities would work. Also how are you going to dispose of the corpses? I suppose you can build factory-scale crematories. In the mean time you can build work camps around the kill sites so you can work those Muslim captives old enough to work but not too old to death. The concentration camp labor may help pay for the extermination effort. Also, you may need to set up a network of railroads and trains to transport the Muslims to the kill site, though I suppose cargo jets work just fine.

As a side note, have you considered a new look? Here's a suggestion: completely shave your beard, leaving just a square mustache below your nose. I am sure that would be a hit at your shul.

HEIL STEIN! (SIG HEIL!)

jewish philosopher said...

"why not retaliate by indiscriminately murdering random Muslims en masse?"

What was the reaction of Muslims to 9/11? And incidentally, to me, a Muslim is someone who actually observes the five pillars of Islam, not a secularized ethnic Muslim.

"that works out to over 3,000,000 Muslims! It can not be done by hijacking Islamic jet liners and crashing them into their buildings. That would be a logistical impossibility."

A nuclear bombing of Mecca and Medina would cover it I think.

Garth Hamanus said...

I suppose nuclear bombs would work, but even if you nuke Mecca and Medina, I am fairly sure that the total death toll would fall short of 3,000,000 but I may be mistaken. How do you make up for the rest of the quota? After the initial bombardment, you can expect Muslims to flee the metropolitan areas, after which populations would be spread so thin that nukes would be rendered inefficient and you will need to build the death camps.

jewish philosopher said...

"How do you make up for the rest of the quota?"

There are plenty of Muslim cities throughout the Middle East, however the might start vaporizing at a rapid clip.

Of course, long before that I think you would see Muslims themselves would hang the holy warriors from lamp posts.

Being a bully isn't fun any more when you get your bones broken as a result.

jewish philosopher said...

I think I know what you mean. I was getting the Mensa magazine mailed to my office at Group Health Inc headquarters where I worked until last October.

Muslim said...

"What was the reaction of Muslims to 9/11?"

I'm Muslim myself, and I can tell you that the vast majority of Muslims were outraged at what al-Qaida did.

From a shari'ah (Islamic legal) point of view, there has been a concensus (called an ijma' in Arabic) among Muslim jurists throughout history that killing of innocent people is forbidden. An ijma' is considered binding in Islam, and anyone who goes against an established ijma' is considered to be heretical. The idea of targeting civilians, hence, is considered heretical to most Muslims, like myself (who do practice the five pillars and aren't merely nominal Muslims).

The idea that the proper response to injustice is the indiscriminate killing of innocents (that you are advocating here) is exactly what led to 9/11 and other acts of terrorism.

jewish philosopher said...

"the vast majority of Muslims were outraged at what al-Qaida did."

I had the impression that in places like Pakistan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia or Iran there was no great outpouring of sympathy for the American victims and their loved ones. Correct me please if I'm wrong.

Muslim said...

The largest study on Muslims and their views (a gallup poll presented in the book "Who speaks for Islam? What a billion Muslims really think") shows that, indeed, the vast majority do feel that 9/11 was unjustified. My own personal experience (I regularly interact with Arab, Somali, Pakistani, Kurdish, Eritrean, Bosnian and other Muslims) confirms this. Those people (they tend to be teens with a romanticized view of revolution and war) that I've heard somehow justifying 9/11 try to qualify this view by saying that they don't feel that civilians should be targeted, but that America brought it on itself - exactly the type of reasoning that is coming from you in this blog post.

jewish philosopher said...

Two months ago the pastor of a small church in Florida threatened to burn copies of the Koran on September 11, 2010.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dove_World_Outreach_Center#.22International_Burn_a_Koran_Day.22

In retaliation for the Koran burning, Muslims throughout the world seemed to feel that it would be justified to murder American citizens.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/sep/10/quran-burning-nato-troops-shoot

As a result of this threat the American government persuaded the pastor to cancel his plan.

This gives me the impression that American life has very little value in the islamic world. I would like to see that change drastically. I would like to see a situation where Muslims will be terrified out of their wits regarding any attack on one of my countrymen.

Joseph said...

The last time a nation that was "the world's only superpower" encountered an ideology that was resistant to detoxification, the detox method was to kill off most of their top thinkers and only leave a childhood friend of the ruler's handpicked successor.

It seemed to work.

Anonymous said...

You know, the Old Testament principle of "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" means *only* an eye for an eye, *only* a tooth for a tooth.

yrichter said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Muslim said...

"In retaliation for the Koran burning, Muslims throughout the world seemed to feel that it would be justified to murder American citizens."

Not true. And the article you linked to doesn't even suggest such a thing. Yes, there have been threats in Afghanistan (a country that's been invaded by the US recently). But not all Muslims in Afghanistan issued these threats. And there are Muslims in Bosnia, Albania, Turkey, Morocco, Algeria, Senegal, Mauritania, Eritrea, Russia, China, etc. etc. To try to make it out as if Muslims from all of these places feel that it's okay to kill random Americans because you read an article about one Afghani cleric is foolish.

jewish philosopher said...

Mr Richter may I ask who you are and which rabbi approved your comment?

Muslim, can you cite any Islamic leader who vehemently condemned the shedding of American blood merely because one American burned a Koran?

Just for comparison's sake, can you imagine Christians throughout the world protesting one person in Pakistan who threatened to burn a New Testament and threatening to attack all Pakistanis in revenge to the point that the Pakistani government had to intervene, while the Pope and other leaders were at best silent?

bex said...

I was looking for Jewish blogs that would give me an insight into the Jewish religion, in the hope I could take wisdom and ideas from it. This is the first blog I stumble onto, and to find a post like this- you're really setting a great example for people new to various religions like me, yeah :(
Put religion aside, you can't just go around categorising people and wishing them as dead. How are you any different from these people (who, by the way, is what, 10 percent of the Muslim religious community?) you want to justify killing? Seriously, how are you any different? You both use the difference in your ideas as an excuse to isolate and then hate people. You both choose violence as an answer to a problem. You're both short sighted, angry idiots. Dont you get that the only reason they are getting angry is because of how YOU react to things, and in turn the reason you get angry is for the same reason. You both react the same, you pretty much create each other by choosing to be aggressive instead of reasonable. And then all these other poor people, such as 'Muslim' who is trying to take the reasonable path in his/her comments on here, have to pay for your actions.

jewish philosopher said...

In the second world what was the difference between the united states and japan? We both hated, both killed.

Muslim said...

"Muslim, can you cite any Islamic leader who vehemently condemned the shedding of American blood merely because one American burned a Koran?"

The religious establishment of every Muslim country has condemnded the killing of innocents. To cite one influental cleric, I can mention shaykh Salman al-Awdah. http://en.islamtoday.net/artshow-413-517.htm

As for comparisons, your blog post serves as a good one. You are calling for the genocide of an entire people based on what a dussin individuals from that group did. Sounds as crazy as al-Qaida to me.

jewish philosopher said...

Muslim, that's fantastic news! We can finally get rid of all those airline security scanners.

So tell me, based on this, in these past few weeks as massive protests regarding the threatened Koran burning filled Muslim cities, the Muslim clergy must have been shouting themselves hoarse reminding Muslims that it is absolutely forbidden to harm a single hair on an innocent american's head merely because one American (out of 300,000,0000!) is evil. Can you tell me more about that? The news media seems to have missed it.

Muslim said...

I'll turn the question around on you. If 1.5 billion Muslims are out to kill Americans because of Terry Jones, why haven't any Americans actually been killed (for the Qur'an issue, specifically)? Are all of these 1.5 billion people failing? I mean, at least a couple of those 1.5 billion should be able to succeed, right?

As for the news media, yes they do miss a great deal. That's why the myth that Muslims haven't spoken out against terrorism is still so prevalent.

jewish philosopher said...

"Are all of these 1.5 billion people failing?"

First of all let me reiterate, I define "Muslim" as meaning "someone who observes the five pillars of Islam". That includes perhaps 60% of so called Muslims.

http://www.danielpipes.org/comments/65537

And they didn't fail. They succeeded in stopping an American from exercising his constitutional right of freedom of expression by stopping him from burning the Koran.

So again, where was the chorus of protest from Muslim clergy reminding Muslims that it is absolutely forbidden to harm a single hair on an innocent American's head merely because one American burned a book?

The answer is that Muslims consider American life to have no value and this is something which must be remedied immediately.

Anonymous said...

The US dropping of the a-bomb killed 200,000 and devastated so many more. It is one of history's clearest terrorist attacks.

jewish philosopher said...

The right of self defense is recognized by the United Nations Charter Article 51

Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations

http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter7.shtml

Self defence is not a war crime. Therefore the stragic bombings of Germany and Japan (using conventional or nuclear explosives) were absolutely legal. The same argument of self defence should be applied to the war between the United States and Islam today.

Hamdo said...

First of all, the definition is too vague making it useless. If a person follows all of the pillars except that he/she hasn't had the means to perform the fifth one (pilgrimage to Makkah), then he/she isn't Muslim? Or if someone missed a couple of days of fasting out of negligence, then he stops being Muslim?

Second of all, your definition is still irrelevant since in your post you didn't say that only practising Muslims should be killed; you advocated a wholescale genocide against Muslim people indiscriminately (whether or not they practice the five pillars or not). Or are you saying that an investigation of who does and who doesn't perform the pillars should be done beforehand so that you may know who to kill and who to spare?

Thridly, of those who do practice the pillars, only a small percentage are terrorists out to kill innocents. And just because you personally aren't informed about it, that doesn't mean that there aren't Muslim clergy denouncing violence against innocents.

http://www.unc.edu/~kurzman/terror.htm

Anonymous said...

Arguments that the atomic bombings were terrorist acts. Don't be a moral relativist, please.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_and_state_terrorism#Atomic_bombings_of_Japan_.281945.29

jewish philosopher said...

"First of all, the definition is too vague making it useless."

It's a simple point. As of about 30 years ago religious Muslims declared war on America. I believe that large volumes of high explosives could correct this problem. Worked great in world war two.

"Arguments that the atomic bombings were terrorist acts."

I guess we should have just cowered in fear after Pearl Harbor and warned Americans not to offend the Japanese.

Anonymous said...

Pearl Harbor: 1941
Hiroshima: 1945

chinick hocker said...

Kill em all, let G-d sort 'em out?

jewish philosopher said...

"Hiroshima: 1945"

It took four years to build the bomb.

"kill em all"

That's war. After Pearl Harbor we didn't send police officers to Japan to arrest the people who planned it, put them on trial, have a jury decide, etc.

Anonymous said...

"It took four years to build the bomb."

Hence, terrorism.

jewish philosopher said...

The bombing of civilian areas is not a war crime if it is justified by military necessity in a war of self defence.

That was true in Hiroshima and it would be true today in the war against Islamic aggression.

Anonymous said...

"if it is justified by military necessity in a war of self defence."

No justified...not necessary...not self defense. This is all historical fact. Hence, terrorism.

Your god loves genocide and terror. I don't think it's a co-incidence that you do, too.

jewish philosopher said...

"This is all historical fact."

This is all left wing liberal nonsense.

Anonymous said...

"This is all left wing liberal nonsense."

As they say, reality has a liberal bias.

jewish philosopher said...

People who feel guilty about their own selfishness and cruelty try to compensate for it with a liberal bias.

You dump your wife and child because you're bored and then go out and march to Ban the Bomb or Save the Whales.

Anonymous said...

"People who feel guilty about their own selfishness and cruelty try to compensate for it with a liberal bias."

Ah, the jewish political psychologist speaks.

Maybe he can also talk about the kind of guy who converts to a kook religion and dumps his family?

jewish philosopher said...

Well, if you'd like I can tell you about someone who at age 16 was kicked out of his home by anti-Semitic child abusers. However that's a topic for a different blog.

jewish philosopher said...

I think the perfect liberal was John Lennon.

In public he was a peace activist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lennon#Anti-war_and_civil_rights_activities

In private, he was an extremely selfish and violent man.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lives_of_John_Lennon

Anonymous said...

"In private, he was an extremely selfish and violent man."

Even if true, religious and non-religious seem to share the trait of being/behaving differently in public and private.

Hiroshima's still terrorism. Your personal nonsense is every been as irrational as what you call "left wing liberal nonsense." Your god is still exactly as described by Richard Dawkins: “The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”

chinick hocker said...

"That's war. After Pearl Harbor we didn't send police officers to Japan to arrest the people who planned it, put them on trial, have a jury decide, etc"

Nor did we kill 1000 Japanese for every American killed. Nor was that ever a goal. In fact, the argument for dropping the big one was that it would end the war without having to invade Honshu, which would have meant having to fight every Japanese, even the ones who were ready to talk peace. Nor did we kill 1000 Asians for every one the Japanese killed. That is more analogous.

jewish philosopher said...

Even if true, religious and non-religious seem to share the trait of being/behaving differently in public and private."

Speak for yourself.

Liberals habitually support, or more often demand that others support, the weak in order to calm their own deep and appropriate feelings of guilt.

" Your god is still exactly as described by Richard Dawkins"

That probably describes Dawkins.

"Nor did we kill 1000 Japanese for every American killed."

We did anything we had to do to make them stop, at lowest cost to us.

Anonymous said...

"Liberals habitually support, or more often demand that others support, the weak...."

Yes, I see how it might offend someone like you that some people support the weaker and the poorer in society.

A question: Does Judaism "demand" that its adherents support the weak?

Next up: "We did anything we had to do to make them stop, at lowest cost to us."

I see. Introducing nuclear warfare has cost us very little. Yay!

You should read around some of the Jewish atheists and skeptic blogs. Maybe even comment on a few. You may learn lessons in how to apply reason consistently.

jewish philosopher said...

"Does Judaism "demand" that its adherents support the weak?"

No. Unlike liberals, who automatically support criminals condemned to death, Palestinians, blacks, etc I don't believe weakness is a virtue in and of itself.

I believe in the 1960's liberals supported Israel because Israelis were weak. Now, Israel is strong so it's evil.

marmccc said...

When "muslim leaders" work to turn in the "radicals" then they will get respect. But, since all they do is talk and very quietly BTW! We know the truth is they support terrorism.I would like to see the west policy be, you have one year to turn over the leaders of all these radical groups, after the one year, any terrorist act against innocent people in the west would result in muslims sacred site being blown to kingdom come, starting with the dome of the rock!!!No soldiers would have to die, just bomb their sites! If the so-called peaceful muslims want peace and respect, turn over the "radicals that have hijacked true islam". if not, after the rock, mecca, and a few others, maybe they would come around to 2010 societies and quit terrorizing the world over every little thing like cartoons or books and respect freedom of speech.