Kill or Be Killed

by

Dear Mr. Kalb and Fellow Readers,

Does philosophy help us decide what to do about Iran’s nuclear weapon’s program? Yes. Kill or be killed. This is not a philosophy we are used to hearing. We are used to hearing well-structured arguments against violence and war; these arguments are overwhelmingly liberal. For example, the liberal objection to the Vietnam War was not the death of Americans but the existence of Republicans, which liberals articulated in terms of interference in a civil war and the unnecessary death of the North and South Vietnamese peace-loving peoples.

Kill or be killed has served mankind well (although this is not a philosophy that must be, considering Jesus). Santa Ana, the Soviet Union, the Khmer Rouge, the Nazis, the Baathist Party, and the Moors, to name but a few, would have murdered anyone in America that in the slightest way displeased them. These entities were or are tyrannies, and we, as mankind’s endeavoring heirs, strive to defy and hopefully to destroy them.

Kill Christians and Israel is embraced as a divine purpose by Iran. Iran has on multiple occasions foolishly declared its purpose to obliterate Israel. It has nicely indicated it has no qualms about using nuclear weapons against Israel a/k/a infidels a/k/a Christians. Iran is led by lunatics: a country that threatens to use nuclear weapons against a country (Israel) allied with a country (the U.S.) that would, hopefully, destroy every vestige of Islam, soon, but not without warning. The U.S., therefore, should consider a pre-emptive nuclear strike against every Islamic controlled region.

I am more than willing to hear opposing views about this awful view.

Paul

17 thoughts on “Kill or Be Killed”

  1. More Killing
    Dear Mr. Kalb and Fellow Readers,

    This view is not merely an anti-Islamic prejudice, something that is, for liberal reasons, anathema to our lunatic liberals. Julius Caesar and Alexander took this view long before Islam. Genghis Khan took this view centuries later. The Khan was not a follower of Islam to say the least. The Khan and the Romans and the Vikings and others annihilated their opponents. Just ask the Carthaginian—oops they don’t exist. Yet mankind has survived and flourished.

    So we shall miss Muslims as much as we miss the Carthaginians, the Gauls, the Khan’s evilness, and the Vikings’ awful murders. Tragedies no doubt; but survival of oneself, the West, is paramount. Anyone dare to refute this?

    Paul

    • “Thou shalt not kill.”
      “Thou shalt not kill.”, to use 17th-century English. Plain and simple.

      It’s one of the Ten Commandments; the only exceptions are: to execute murderers (capital punishment), self-defense or protection of another, and Just War, which is a much misunderstood thing.

      Yes, we have a right to to defend ourselves, but pre-emptive genocide isn’t an option, because that’s murder. Period.

      What’s more, in committing mass murder, we’d betray our own code, and cease to be the West, now, wouldn’t we?

      One thing Nietzsche said, that was true and worth recalling:

      “Battle not with monsters, lest ye become a monster; gaze not into the abyss, lest the abyss will gaze into you.”

      • Dear Mr. Kalb and Fellow
        Dear Mr. Kalb and Fellow Readers,

        At first glance, Thou Shalt not Kill is a formidable principle (to say the least). But it is unclear how it applies to some unarticulated premises. Kill or be killed is an excellent principle (a premise), and most of we traditionalists will never become martyrs given the choice, another premise. Yet another premise is the Moslems believe in the principle of murder, which we Christians do not believe in.

        Other premises are we no doubt have heard from Mr. Kalb, either directly or through his links, and from Mr. Auster about the close relationship between the never-ending murders by Islam. In addition, we have heard from Islam with 9/11, the murderous Taliban, the Iraqi bombers, the reticence of Pakistan in assisting us, and the resistance of almost every Islamic country to helping us. Just two more facts that can serve as premises: the mostly ignored evil of Far Eastern Islam and the screaming sound of silence from the American “Muslim” community.

        I do not know the theological reasoning for pre-emptive war, so I rely on what seems to be common sense, traditional behavior.

        The taunting use of “I dare” is inappropriate among friends (except when clearly used in fun) as the above use was. No excuse; just I am sorry.

        Paul

        • Paul, what you do should
          Paul, what you do should have some sort of proportion to the dangers and the other possibilities. I just don’t see the proportion between a billion lives on the one hand and whatever benefit we’d get by killing that many people that would be so much better than the benefit we’d get by something much more moderate. The idea really seems absurd to me. As well as horrible. Where does it stop? Muslims, especially some Muslims, can be troublesome and create risks but the same be said of lawyers, New York Times editorialists, drunken drivers, tobacco farmers and teenage boys with no fathers. Do we kill all them too? People who talk about killing lots of other people for no very good reason can be a danger too. So maybe someone should assassinate us.

          Rem tene, verba sequentur.

          • Proportionate Response and Islam
            The proposition does not necessarily reflect strongly held beliefs of the proponent. It is a sloppy rhetorical proposition intended to spur discussion. (The proponent is trying to keep himself out of the discussion because he does not know what is best.) Most rational people—today—would agree the main proposal presents a morally and a practically disproportionate response to the immediate threat suffered by the West. To avoid being accused of being a nominalist, the proponent avers the words are as horrific and in need of moderation as Mr. Kalb says. The proponent’s further discussion must be postponed. Sorry.

          • Proportionate Response and Islam
            A billion people is an irrelevant fact insofar as the discussion of warfare is concerned historically. War is hell and always will be. War does not worry about numbers once it has begun. There are countless annihilations over time. Is such an idea unheard of? No. God perhaps did not let the innocents of Sodom and Gomorrah survive. He might have killed every last one of them. So to disregard the idea of annihilating aggressive Islamic countries is based on an assumption not in evidence: Islam is a peace-loving, God-fearing bunch who are best left to survive to maybe murder Chritians. Let someone oppose this if false and proprose an alternative that might actually work.

            Are words not ineffective against Islam?

          • Kill or Be Killed
            The commentator is vague because he does not explain how his assertion relates to anything asserted. One can only speculate.

          • Because you mentioned
            Because you mentioned God’s destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. This was done by GOD, not man. GOD alone has the foresight and understanding to destroy nations wholesale, not us. Notice the Israelites killed the pagan populations of the Promised Land under a direct order from Him. They did not take it upon themselves to slaughter entire nations, and neither should we. Leave that evil business to the Vikings and Muslims.

          • Kill or Be Killed
            The killing of entire populations is preferable to my death. This is the fundamental premise underlying the philosophy of kill or be killed. One can adhere to abstract principles based on faith, but this is simply not the way people have behaved or will behave, absent some wholesale embracement of martyrdom. Perhaps the persons proposing that killing to survive is immoral must think it is best to be a martyr. If this is the case, the proponent needs to expose himself so that others can consider the proposition rationally.

          • The Moral Law
            No one is saying that we cannot kill to save ourselves; that is completely irrational. No rational person is a pacifist.

            What we cannot do it engage in genocide- in the indiscriminate butchery of entire peoples. We kill to protect ourselves when we are ATTACKED. And then we kill those who attack us. We do not go around just hacking up evyerone in sight, no matter how primitive or savage.

            I’m not saying you believe this, I am just illustrating.

            Hell, no; these are not just some ‘abstract principles’ derived from faith; it’s called morality. We do not do evil; we do not justify evil to save our own sorry skins. Without these ‘abstract principles,’ we are animals, not men…

            Morality, is a matter of self-preservation. If morality goes out the window, so do we…

            If humanity can’t see the rationality in such a self-evident proposition, then God help us…

            I’m going no further with this.

          • Kill or Be Killed
            There seems to be fundamental agreement here. Just to clarify, it might be noted the word genocide specifically is inappropriate because Moslems represent no particular gene pool. But this is the kind of quibbling nominalists use to distract hapless conservatives/traditionalists. This site’s readers do not credit berserkers. So let us continue with the spirit of the proposition that Moslems are indeed a particular race. The kill or be killed idea is unaffected.

            Under perhaps every conceivable circumstance, it would be immoral today to try to annihilate an entire population/race that one is fighting with. Surely warnings must be given and a graded response to aggression are things that we must seek if we believe in Christ or in Judaism. The rubber hits the road when one must choose between sacrificing the lives of one’s family and countrymen to avoid killing many millions of aggressive aliens. The choice is an obvious one, which choice was the proposition originally intended (but ineffectively named).

            To clear up some more thinking, nuclear weapons must be a last resort. The impetus for the article was the specter of Iran, which is going to need conventional bombing at least. It was an attempt to discuss decisions that will need to be made. The media has ignored the issue for reasons that are no doubt related in part to money and to liberal denial. The blogs are the only public place the issue is being discussed outside of a sound bite. Bush cannot talk much sense about it because he is weak politically and has limited leadership abilities. He will never declare a national emergency, reinstate the draft, and resolve the issue with the use of nuclear weapons (which must be considered as tactical weapons if necessary to save thousands of unaggressive American men).

  2. Nihil nimis
    Paul, frying a billion people, the great majority of whom have only the most remote connection to anything likely to harm us, doesn’t seem a step toward a better world. Regardless of how bad you think Islam is there are things far short of that you could favor. You could say, for example, that good fences make good neighbors, so other countries should keep out any large number of Muslims. Or that no Muslim country should be allowed to develop nuclear weapons. Why wouldn’t measures like that be enough from your point of view?

    Rem tene, verba sequentur.

    • Frying
      Dear Mr. Kalb and Fellow Readers,

      The potentially burned are not only the instigators of burning but also the victims of my burning, which is far more acceptable to me and to my traditional existence than wishful ideas. This is the decisive end of an argument. Good neighbors make good fences is a wonderful idea, and it hopefully will be a major, major principle that we traditionalists can convince our fellow people of. Our fellow people, though, consist in lunatic liberals.

      Have we dealt with Mr. Kalb’s always-important ideas? Perhaps one might deal with Moslems with words such as “good fences.” This is an insufficient dealing, in my view. St. Joan of Arc is the particular argument in response. She did not refrain from aggression because of ideas such as good fences. Some Protestants and all Moslems hate any Christianity that opposes Moslems. I’ll bet St. Joan would have nothing to do with such ideas.

      We cannot conclude, though, we must annihilate the Moslems. We need much more convincing than we have received. There is much evidence, as has been set out previously, but the issue is unresolved.

      Paul

        • I note that Mr. Chirac is
          I note that Mr. Chirac is talking about response to acts of terrorism, not pre-emptive genocide. That’s not an option.

          Every nation has the right to respond to terrorist attacks on it. No nation has the right to commit pre-emptive genocide.

      • I’ll say it’s
        I’ll say it’s unresolved! We can’t do evil, that good may come of it. Such isn’t permitted. It’s not a Catholic or Orthodox or Protestant issue, it’s what Scripture teaches.

Comments are closed.