We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
Samizdata quote of the day – Hezbollah and Lebanon are not Hamas and Gaza Striking Hezbollah is a very low-risk proposition compared to striking targets in Gaza or Iran.
Every single Gaza strike brought the possibility of mass casualties, but in Gaza, this was a feature, not a bug for HAMAS. HAMAS needs civilian casualties because they cannot win a fight against Israel. The world must be so horrified that they end the conflict with a cease-fire and a cease-fire means a HAMAS win.
However, civilians in southern Lebanon can flee north, which is something that cannot be done by residents of Gaza. This makes Hezbollah a much more attractive target and reduces the amount of propaganda that can be released by Hezbollah.
Hezbollah is in a bad situation and they are starting to realize that Iran is not coming to help them.
– Ryan McBeth
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
How can Hamas expect a ceasefire when they still hold hostages?
They don’t & have rejected several ceasefire offers.
I argued many years ago that the civilian population be removed from the Gaza Salient (and it is a salient – look at a map) – but the Economist magazine (and others) promptly removed my comments. These “compassionate” “liberals” were totally uninterested in saving the lives of Muslim civilians.
“Hamas” or some other group or groups would always use the Gaza Salient for attacks and Israel would always, eventually, strike back – and so Muslim civilians would die, but (as already mentioned) the “compassionate” Western establishment was (and is) totally against removing the civilian population from the Salient.
It is not just Hamas who wants (yes wants) a large civilian Islamic population to be in a battlespace – the “international community” (government and corporate) also want this.
As for Lebanon – demographic change leading to Civil War that started in mid 1970s.
Some people have suggested that Lebanon is the, long term, future of Europe (at least Western Europe), but it is unlikely that the “Christian” leadership of Western Europe would fight, on the contrary they are more likely to punish people for “Islamophobia” which they consider to be a form of “racism”.
It must be stressed that this is not just the political and corporate leadership (governments and corporations being joined at the hip – via such things as the Credit Money system) that are like this, so is the religious leadership – as listening to such people as the Archbishop of Canterbury and Pope Francis, makes clear.
By the way – Hezbollah is Shia and Hamas is Sunni, it is clear this makes no difference in terms of their relations with infidels – be those infidels be Jewish or Christian (let alone atheist). There are indeed important differences between Sunni and Shia (for example Winston Churchill attacked Islam for its philosophical Determinism – but Shia Islam is not formally Determinist) – but not on relations with infidels.
There are no “civilians” in Gaza, have not been for years. Not sure if there are any left in Southern Lebanon, but I guess we’ll find out soon enough.
Alisa has a point.
In theory in Islam “everyone fights”, fights for the faith, this is, supposedly, the mark of someone who is a true Muslim – as opposed to a “hypocrite” (someone who claims to be a Muslim but does not fight for the faith – Muhammed held that such people should be executed) – this was the great strength of Islam, unlike the Byzantine (if I am still allowed to say “Byzantine” rather than “East Roman”) and Persian Empires – where most people were unfree, unarmed (up to modern times “unfree” and “unarmed” meant the same thing – in Classical Greek city states, or Rome in times of utter desperation, “arming the slaves” was the final move – as it meant that one was freeing them, in order to defend the city, but one could hardly treat them as slaves after arming them), under Islam the believers were free – armed, and that is why they conquered such a vast empire in such a short period of time. It was an incredibly impressive Islamic achievement – and it was based on early Muslims all being armed and fighting for the faith – and prepared to die to expand the rule of Islam (and facing populations were most people were unarmed, unfree, and had been for centuries).
However, this is theology, legal theory and history – in practice there are many people in Gaza too old or too young to fight.
By the way – in various Islamic societies, much later than Muhammed (this is nothing to do with him) special forces of slave-soldiers were formed – originally people taken (often as children) from non Islamic societies – these forces were not thought to be a threat to the rulers, as local Muslim free men might be.
However, the rise of “Slave Kings” in some parts of the Islamic world (i.e. slave warriors who became the rulers) shows that things did not go as the old rulers expected – and so does the influence on politics of such elite forces as the Janissaries – who made and broke so many Turkish Sultans.
As Classical Greece and Rome understood – you can arm slaves and invite them to defend the city, and then expect them to still be slaves.
An armed man tends to be a free man, only people who are unarmed can reliably kept as the slaves of despotic regimes.
Before anyone points it out – I am aware that the Emperor Majorian in the West repealed the law of “Augustus” (Octavian) against civilians having military weapons, but it was centuries too late – the population of most the West had been culturally reduced to a servile mentality – willing to obey the orders of any barbarian waving a sword at them (regardless of how much the Roman “citizens” outnumbered the barbarian warbands).
And in the Eastern Roman Empire I do not believe the Imperial laws, making the population de facto unarmed serfs, were repealed till the rise of the “Theme” system in response to the Islamic conquests, where far from being banned from owning military weapons, ordinary farmers were required to own and train with military weapons and to serve in the Byzantine (East Roman) army.
I meant to write “you can NOT arm slaves and invite them to defend the city – and then expect them still to be slaves” this the Ancient Greek city states knew (for example when the slaves of Argos were freed to help defend the city from the Spartans – they could not be returned to slavery afterwards, and no one tried to do that to them), and the Romans also knew. Among the Germanic peoples, and everyone else, being armed was also the sign of being a free man.
As George Orwell put it – the rifle on the wall of the ordinary working man is the sign of English freedom.
“George Orwell” (Eric Blair) was a supporter of the Labour Party – now if even a Conservative said what George Orwell said, that Conservative would be treated as an evil “far right extremist”.
This shows how utterly British culture has changed.
Things that were considered core principles, even by members of the Labour Party, such as Freedom of Speech and the Right to Keep and Bear Arms – are now considered evil “far right extremism”.
I doubt it. Too old? Anyone who remembered life before Hamas took over two decades ago and wasn’t already indoctrinated with antisemitism by Arafat’s regime, either left Gaza while he could or is long dead (not necessarily a “natural” death). Too young? Well, not for long and not too many – and how young is ‘too young’ anyway over there?
All this was “theory” and semi-educated guesswork, before the IDF soldiers finally went in almost a year ago and saw with their own eyes that there was literally no household with no weapons and explosives in it, often next to Arabic translations of Mein Kampf and The Elders of Zion.
Is Southern Lebanon any different? I’d like to think so, since Lebanon as a whole is very different from Gaza – culturally, religiously and geographically. But like I said, we’ll probably find out soon enough.
One chink of light, I read a report a few days ago that refered to “information received from the anti-Hamas resistance”. So, finanally, the *people* are seperating themselves from the Nazis. They have finally, *FINALLY*, realised the answer to their cries of “HOW DO WE STOP THIS (Israel bombing them)?????!!!!” is “rise up and overthrow Hamas, you bloody morons!” If you don’t kill Hitler, you are supporting Hitler, and *YOU* along with Hitler will be crushed.
Alisa – I meant physically too old or too young to fight.
But I also suspect that there are people in Gaza who do not really believe in the Koran and the Hadiths, that they really believe that Muhammed was not telling the truth when he claimed to have got his commands from God – although they would not dare so so, for if they did say so their throat might be slit by their neighbours.
The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is, as you know, an obvious forgery – even Nicholas II (not an admirer of Jews) rightly thought it was fake.
Mein Kampf is popular because it is filled with hatred of Jews – although it does NOT say that trees and rocks will call out “there is a Jew hiding behind me – come and kill them”.
jgh – sadly you misunderstand the situation.
“Hamas” is just a name – one of many names for many groups.
We are not dealing with “the Nazis” who took over Germany for 12 years.
This is a culture, and system of thought, that goes back 14 centuries – it is one of the great systems of thought, and great cultures, in the world.
And it does not really change, not in its basic doctrines (for example that Allah created the world and that the world should be ruled by the followers of the last prophet of Allah – the followers of Muhammed) with geographical location.
It really does make much theological or legal difference, not on the basics, if someone is in Gaza or in Wakefield, or in Minneapolis.
One would have hoped that 23 years after President Bush declared his “war on terror” people would not still be pushing this absurd idea that we are dealing with a few “Nazis” who are totally different from Islam and have “twisted” and “perverted” it.
Sorry – but the “Neo Cons” were mistaken, this is NOT a World War II type conflict, or even a Cold War type conflict.
People such as Prime Minister Gladstone and Prime Minister Winston Churchill understood these matters rather better than the “Neo Cons” – but if I explained further I, like Gladstone and Churchill if they were still alive, would be sent to prison (and NOT by Muslims).
I meant that as well.
At this point it is no longer about Islam, but about whether one cooperates with the regime or not. Cooperation does not necessarily mean active fighting – for example, it can mean hiding hostages, policing one’s neighbors, making sure humanitarian aid first reaches Hamas operatives, so that those can sell it to the rest of the population, and many other functions familiar from other totalitarian regimes. Good luck defining “civilians” there.
Even if we cannot assign moral culpability to some of the people – the kids, for instance – when a man advances on me firing his gun at me while holding his own child up as a shield, I would perhaps feel a moral need to retreat rather than fire the first five or ten times it happens, but by the eleventh time, no.
Allowing such a tactic to work merely places many more children at future risk.
Golda had it right. They hate Jews more than they love their own children. Tragic for the children, but their parents lose the right to complain.