Monday, May 02, 2011


[he's dead]

I was in Manhattan that day. From my office window I personally saw the towers burning and I knew I was watching thousands of people dying while I stood by helplessly.

I only wish I could have danced on the carcass of that worthless pig.

President Obama, you have just made my day.

"So perish all Thine enemies, O LORD; but they that love Him be as the sun when he goeth forth in his might." Judges 5:31

[Incidentally, at this time, 5/10/2011, I feel that there is substantial evidence that bin Laden was killed on 5/1/2011 by American soldiers. However I am amazed by the bizarre decision to immediately bury bin Laden at sea. Logically, the remains should have been frozen for several months, allowing numerous experts to examine them and confirm their identity beyond doubt. After that they could have been cremated and the ashes dumped at sea. While deliberately mutilating the body might have been barbaric, bin Laden should not have been shown any more dignity or respect than was shown to Nazi war criminals.]


NC said...

Friggin YEA!

ksil said...

the jews did not celebrate when the egyptians were killed by god

jewish philosopher said...

I want to tell you, though, I'm a little nervous now. Why did we dispose of the body?

I understand that we are civilized people in the United States. We are not barbarians who are going to mount a criminal's head on a pole in front of the White House. That's disgusting.

But, would it have been so unethical, just to answer any future doubts, to preserve his body permanently in a freezer somewhere in the United States for examination by any qualified experts?

Having grown up in the Watergate era, I'm just a tad suspicious about this. But I very much hope he is dead. I frankly thought he probably died years ago.

jewish philosopher said...

"the jews did not celebrate when the egyptians were killed by god"

Of course we did, and still do. Heard of Passover?

See, the doubts are already starting.

NC said...

Bin Laden's killing is not so much a strategic victory, as it a psychological victory-- a moral boost to our side and a blow to the terrorists and those people that support them.

In an era of 4GW (4th generation assymetric warfare with non-state actors), psychological and moral victories are crucial. Symbols, perceptions, and moral victories are as important if not more important than classic victories in the battlefield, body counts or taking land. Discrediting your enemy helps gain support, but when you are discredited you lose support.

Israel deals with this all of the time. The IDF can kill 1000 terrorists and their commanders but some jihadist hiding in a UN school in Gaza can still fire off a rocket that lands in an open field-- in the jihadi's view-- they "won".

jewish philosopher said...

I think that killing bin Laden was necessary just out of fairness - he killed us, we kill him. An eye for an eye. Additionally, any show of force like this certainly makes potential holy warriors think twice - am I fanatic enough to really want to have American helicopters landing in my backyard and blowing my head off while I'm have a quiet Sunday night dinner with the family?

Nevertheless, I personally think that Islamic terrorism will only stop when the American response is so overwhelming that Muslims realize that terrorism is far too costly, from a profit/loss standpoint, to make it worthwhile. In other words, if America kills 1,000 Muslims in reprisal for each American killed by Muslims, the equation would probably tip in favor using peaceful means only (building schools, mosques, etc) to spread Islam rather than including violent means (jihad) was well. Jihad would just be more costly than profitable.

I don't think Americans actually grasp the Islamic mindset - they don't exactly hate us, they want to help us, by conquering the world for Islam, the true religion, by any means possible.

News flash: I'm not interested in any such "help".

NC said...

It sounds like you do not exactly subscribe to the 4GW model as I described it.

The problem with your approach is that it assumes a rational actor-state, with a responsibility for population, which can be deterred. While this may be true even for rogue states like Libya or Iran, groups like Al Qaida do not care about any population including Muslims who they are willing to sacrifice for jihad. They only want chaos, aren't interested in nation-states and only want to kill infidels and restore the Caliphate.

AQ in Pak, Afghanistan and Iraq has killed more Muslims than any other religious group. The biggest support for AQ comes from rich Saudia Arabians, to whose oil we are addicted. So what are we supposed to do, kill a bunch of innocent Saudi citizens or government officials? Do you think that that would deter AQ? They would celebrate.

IMHO we have to fight the terrorists, pressure the governments that allow them to operate, and discredit them in the eyes of the Muslim world. I think the jihadis have been doing a fairly good job of discrediting themselves.

Iran is another matter which must be dealt with sooner or later. I think that they are a modern pre-WW2 Germany and that eventually the West will have to fight them. Its only a question of doing it sooner, which will be nasty, or later, which will be catastrophic.

jewish philosopher said...

I think that basically Muslims are very rational. They don't want to die as an end in itself; they want to die if that will spread Islam. Prove to them that violence will destroy, not spread, Islam and I'm pretty sure you'll see Muslims become as gentle as Amish.

ksil said...

most muslims are not as you describe.

its too bad you think that way

youve been brainwashed by fox news

Joseph said...

It's far more agreeable to me knowing that Bin Laden will soon become a shark turd. If his body were preserved, it would incite "martyrdom."

jewish philosopher said...

Islam incites martyrdom; it doesn't have much to do with any one person. And whether he's in the ocean or a freezer his killing is angering devout Muslims.

NC said...

" they want to die if that will spread Islam."

"They"? I would remind you that there are about 5-6 million Muslims in the US. Most are peaceful and just want to go about their lives, and don't support bin Laden. US authorities need to be unforgiving to those who preach violence, as Britain is now learning.

Britain is waking up to the fallacy of multiculturalism, whereby Muslims claim "offense" to many aspects of liberal British culture, and Britain avoids "offending" its Muslims. In doing so it sacrifices its own values and interests. America is not quite there yet, perhaps because they are too few Muslims living there.

Also remember that most Muslims are not Arabs. Turks, many former Soviet republics, Thais and many other Asian countries are Muslim and have no aspirations like bin Laden. Indian Muslims are also moderate.

So in all fairness I think your sweeping generalization is incorrect. (But I know that you have a tendency towards over generalizations....) "they" are not monolithic, just as Jews are not. And all Muslims do not function as a single entity to be able to make decisions or take responsibility for other Muslims, just as we don't.

jewish philosopher said...

"Most are peaceful and just want to go about their lives"

Most American Muslims are about as Islamic as Michael Bloomberg or Barbra Streisand are Jewish. Islam may be the "fastest growing" religion in America, but it's also the fastest shrinking. The real, devout Muslims in the US are generally people who grew up in other countries. Their children just want to be regular Americans. It's similar to the situation of American Jews who arrived from Russia between 1880 and 1910. Where are their great-grandchildren today?

And this is a good thing.

However just take out a globe and mark off any area where Muslims share a land border with non-Muslims: Palestine of course, Cyprus, the Caucasus, Sudan, India, Serbia, etc. Even parts of the Philippines and Thailand. What do you notice? See any pattern? This isn't coincidence and it's not new, it began in Mohammed's lifetime. Whenever we fill up on gas, a little of that money is going to finance a holy war for Islam, along with peaceful means of spreading Islam (schools, books, mosques, etc).

ksil said...

Where are their great-grandchildren today?

And this is a good thing.

IT IS! Hate to raise children in a brainwashed, mysoginistic, racist, elitist relgion that is man-made and based on false beliefs.

What do you notice? See any pattern?

Give their women the right to vote, and reproductive rights over their own bodies and VIOLA, the muslim world will catch up VERY quickly to the modern west. B'ezras hashem

jewish philosopher said...

If you go back about 50 or 60 years ago, Islam was really dying out. Then western countries began pouring trillions of dollars into Saudi Arabia and Iran. Now we find mosques, korans and hijabs all over the place, plus global jihad. Not a good thing.

Nate said...

i don't know your email but u might want this as a separate post:

here's something u might find of interest:

from "The Hidden Hand-The Holocaust" by Yaakov Astor, p.85

"The Jewish people are not subject to the natural forces of history. If we were, we'd be no different than the Babylonians, Persians, Greeks, Romans, etc. There are no natural laws of history to explain our survival. How could a tiny nation without a homeland for 2,000 years, persecuted, hated and butchered again and again, be here today? It's not natural, it's a miracle. If our survival is a miracle, it's because there is a Miracle Worker pulling the strings. However, if the Miracle Worker decides not to intervene, for whatever reason, He allows the natural forces of history to operate."

NC said...

The argument you quote is one often made by non-scientists who have no clue about how probability and inference works.

The probability of something happening that has already occurred is 100%. It is therefore a meaningless statement. It is like me saying "what are the chances that a person named Nate would write on a blog called Jewish Philosopher on May 4, 2011?", then using that to prove something. Of course it proves nothing.

Probability relates to uncertain events or those that have not yet occurred. In reality, probability asks the question, what are the chances that some ASSERTION is TRUE given that some event has happened. For that you need prior probabilities (which are acquired from prior experience in other cases) and the use of Bayes Theorem.

People who don't apply reason and understand probability make arguments like yours. It occurs to me that they are like people who buy lottery tickets. They act irrationally and believe in something against all odds because of marketing. Imagine if the lottery advertised truthfully as follows: "Come donate 1 dollar so that somebody else can win 5 million dollars!" How many people do you think would buy tickets? But make them think they're special and inflate their expectations of winning-- then they'll gamble.

JP, I agree with you about petrodollars reviving Islam. The irony is that the Muslims constantly rag about how the west has kept them from progressing.

jewish philosopher said...

I go into this here a little bit.

Also, my email should be on my blogger profile.

jewish philosopher said...

"The probability of something happening that has already occurred is 100%."

But if so, then how is evidence ever admitted in court? What is the chance of John Doe's fingerprints being found on the victims throat if he didn't choke her? Well, since it happened the chance is 100%!

NC said...

Good question, but its a case of asking the wrong one.

The real question in your case is, "what are the chances of her being choked by John (the uncertainty), given the fingerprints. And the answer is based on (a) the prior probability that John choked her [unrelated to the fingerprint issue], and (b) the conditional probability of finding his fingerprints if he choked her.[called likelihood] (b), which is your question, is only known from prior experience and experiment. But it is only part of the equation. Bayes theorem would then calculate the answer. Read about Bayes theorem.

So, probabilistically speaking, the question is NOT, what are the chances of finding the fingerprints....(although this would be an oversimplified way of stating it), but rather, what are the chances that it is TRUE that John choked the woman, GIVEN the fingerprints.

In the theological argument, by analogy, one could ask, what is the chance that natural law applies (the uncertainty in this case) to the Jewish people, GIVEN that Jews exist. This would require several probability and likelihood numbers, and then a calculation. These likelihoods would have to be derived from experiment or induction from many prior data points. These conditional probabilities are simply unknown. Do you know of anybody who has made such calculations, including the probabilities of a nation surviving by natural law? I don't. Maybe their actually high!

I recognize that the argument has emotional appeal, but this really reflects the difficulty the human brain has dealing intuitively with uncertainty and probability. Thus my illustration about the lottery, or serendipity in general.

jewish philosopher said...

And where is the mathematics proving that chemicals can turn into people?

Clear circumstantial evidence is convincing because there is no other reasonable explanation for it.

Ksil said...

Chemicals into people???? LOL!!!

Talk about a straw man

jewish philosopher said...

Atheists believe it. Abiogenesis and evolution.

Nc said...

Ksil, in this context jp's comment is more of a red herring then a straw man. He's changing the subject. But then again, this thread is off the topic of the post.

natschuster said...


Unless i am very much mistaken, evolutionists rely on poorly determined estimates all the time. Things like selection coefficients and fixation rates that have little empirical basis are often sited as support for evolution.

NC said...


Glad you have an ID now.

I'm not sure I know what you're talking about. But in any case since you seem to be making very technical claims about evolution I suggest that you discuss it with an expert in the field, not me.

I was just making a point about serendipity and historical arguments that "prove" divine intervention, when, in fact, the person making such a claim has no idea how divine intervention works-- when, how, where. If supernatural intervention is claimed, I want to know why, for example, amputees prayers for regrowing their limbs are NEVER, NEVER answered. Not even orthodox Jewish amputees. Does god intervene in nature or not??? Does the lack of response to their prayers prove anything? There is a 0% response rate. I would conclude that either god does not answer prayers, there is no god, or that he hates amputees.

Ksil said...

Nat, just because someone does not believe in fairy tale religions, does not mean they "believe" in science or evolution.

Its not a belief system, no matter how many times jp says so.

We dont know how those presents get under the tree on chrismas morning, but we KNOW its not santa.....

jewish philosopher said...

And we know it's not evolution.

Nate said...

God answers ALL prayers. Sometimes He just says "no". Just because you don't like the response doesn't mean there is none.

ksil said...

fine. start at square one.

there still is no way, using a rational scientific method, you come up with the bullshit your holy snake oil rabbis sell to you

jewish philosopher said...

Go ahead, refute my proofs. Lol.

Anonymous said...


I have spoken with Nathan Schuster, the REAL Nathan Schuster. Yes he is a real person, in his early fifties, and he does live in Far Rockaway, New York. However, the anonymous commenter identifying himself as "Nathan" is not him. The real Nathan kindly asks for JP to kindly quit misappropriating his identity, or there will be serious consequences.

jewish philosopher said...

I have no idea who you, Nathan shuster or Nathan are.

NC said...


"God answers ALL prayers"

How can you know?

." Sometimes He just says "no"."

To amputees He apparently always says no, 100% of the time. Not sometimes. Never intervenes in nature. Never responds. Just silence. What does that say?

Another group that God apparently hates is brain dead people. God never answers the families prayers affirmatively, and makes their brain regenerate.

For the life of me I can't figure our what god has against these people. He supposedly grants other people's requests via divine intervention. But never amputees and brain dead people. Why are these people so undeserving to God's grace, and NEVER get what they pray for?

So, if you can't tell what he is answering in these cases, than how can you tell what he is saying about anything in history? How can you say any event was "god's intervention" for some imagined reason, and not just the natural course of events?

Nate said...

Some things are not for you to know, NC. The issue of tzadik v'ra lo was Moshe's question as well. God's reply was "Man can not see My face and live". There are equal amounts of prayers that are obviously answered as those that are not so obvious. BTW< what you call "nature", is God. You can even say that God was merciful during the Holocaust. How? Because He stopped at 6 million.

NC said...


You avoid that answer by saying its unknowable. Besides, if you say nature is God, fine. That's called pantheism.

When coin tossing is 50/50, is god intervening? No matter how hard I pray, it doesn't seem to change. Try it.

"There are equal amounts of prayers that are obviously answered as those that are not so obvious"

Again, how can you tell? If there are equal amounts of prayers answered (not supernatural) compared to those not answered, that seems like pure chance.

Your argument sounds like Russell's celestial teapot. Can't check it, prove it or disprove it because its like nailing Jell-O to a tree. "God answers prayers, except when he doesn't, and even when he does, you can't see it. " Then what the hell does it do, compared to NOT praying?

natschuster said...


I undestood you to be saying that, simce it is hard to qauntify exactly what the probabilities of a nation surviving is, then we can't use the concept. But evolutionists use concepts that are mathematically vague all the time.

And anonymous at 4:08. I am the Nathan Schuster that livesin Far Rockaway. JP has not stolen my identity. I have never met JP. I do not recall talking to anyone outside my family about my blogging. If you don'tt believe me, here is my email Email me a fax number, I'll fax yuo my ID.

natschuster said...

Here's an example of how evolutionsist have been using fuzzy math for a long time: