Sam Harris on Trump - The Most Powerful Clown

by cofty 103 Replies latest social current

• 

  slimboyfat

  Yes that's the game Harris plays. He says using nuclear bombs on Arab civilians may be necessary, but because he also says it's horrible you are not allowed to criticise him for arguing it is necessary. Somehow this makes sense to him.

  Two devout Christians, Bush and Blair, launched war on Iraq (that Bush described as a crusade) which killed hundreds of thousands or perhaps millions of civilians. Both cited their Christians faith. Is there any good reason this shouldn't count? And doesn't it dwarf all the smaller terror attacks combined?
• 

  cofty

  He says using nuclear bombs on Arab civilians may be necessary,

  Harris explored the hypothetical situation where an Islamic state obtained long-range nuclear weapons.

  "What will we do if an Islamist regime, which grows dewy-eyed at the mere mention of paradise, ever acquires long-range nuclear weaponry? ... the only thing likely to ensure our survival may be a nuclear first strike of our own. Needless to say, this would be an unthinkable crime—as it would kill tens of millions of innocent civilians in a single day—but it may be the only course of action available to us, given what Islamists believe."

  The terrifying logic is flawless. ISIS with an ICBM would have to be eliminated with a first strike. The consequences are appalling. That is the fault of Islam. It is an evil ideology.
• 

  Village Idiot

  Cofty,
  

  Harris explored the hypothetical situation where an Islamic state obtained long-range nuclear weapons.

  You cannot eliminate ISIS with a nuclear bomb. Eliminate the bomb perhaps but not the organization. Also, they would have to experiment dozens of times in order to get a reliable ICBM with a functioning nuke. That can be dealt with by non-nuclear means long before it's completed.

  North Korea, which continues to develop its short range missile technology has yet to miniaturize its nukes so that they can fit into a missile of any size or range.
• 

  cofty

  VI - Read the source. Harris is not discussing the practical details of international warfare. He is commenting on the dreadful fact that Mutually Assured Destruction is worthless if your enemy longs for paradise.
• 

  Finkelstein

  Harris was hypothetical creating a situation with the intent of trying to show just how dangerous radicalized Muslims could possibly be given the right circumstances.

  Hitchens did so as well.
  

  I'll make another hypothetical suggestion on the topic........

  Lets say ISIl was able to acquire a nuclear bomb and they were able to boat it across the Atlantic close to New York. They also acquired a few men and woman who were willing to sacrifice their own life for Allah by going to New York with this Nuke in a truck and setting it off themselves.
  

  Kaboom, instantly 10 million people are killed and there is no evidence to who or how they did this.
  

  The following day there is dancing and celebration in the streets of many Muslim based communities in the Middle East after the event, just like what happened after the 9/11 attacks.

  ummmm would this scenario be too far out of a possibility ??.
  
• 

  Village Idiot

  Finkelstein, your hypothetical situation has several flaws. Through no fault of your own since you don't seem familiar with nuclear weapons.

  First, any bomb that ISIS might get would be in the kiloton range (1 kiloton = 1,000 toms of tnt). That would not be able to kill 10 million people; it would not even be able to destroy all of Manhattan with a population of 1.6 million. Hundreds of thousands maybe.

  You also underestimate our ability to find out a lot through forensics as to the origin of said devices. They can be traced back to its country of origin because the radioactive residues of Uranium have their own particular radioisotope "fingerprint" depending on who produced it.

  There are much easier ways of wreaking havoc, which I won't detail, that can kill thousands without any explosion. It would be a ridiculously small weapon whose raw material is easily available. It's a good thing that these terrorists have little imagination; they'd be much more effective if they did.
  
• 

  Brokeback Watchtower

  It's a good thing that these terrorists have little imagination; they'd be much more effective if they did.

  Brain shrinkage is a given for highly indoctrinated persons due to all the stress they face,,it's kind of a natural. and we all know what faulty programs can do to one's computer.

  Anyway I think we need to wish the best for Trump's presidency for the next four years and I'm hoping that he gets the best advisers on his team to get some good things done for the country.
  
  
• 

  Simon

  You cannot eliminate ISIS with a nuclear bomb. Eliminate the bomb perhaps but not the organization.

  I think ISIS is just like Nazism or the religious devotion the Japanese had to their emperor. Although you cannot kill all followers with a single bomb, a crushing defeat could well be what is required as a "reset event".

  Their entire ethos is based on fighting a war at a certain level. Ideally, for them, directly with western troops which gives them an advantage and levels the playing field.

  But they cannot fight using the weapons of state. They don't have them (yet, at least).

  When the Nazis and Japanese were defeated in WWII, the followers were not immediately destroyed or converted. It needed years of education and deprogramming BUT the reset event was fundamental in shaking their world to such an extent that they were in shock and so could be de-programmed from the death cult they were in.

  The reason it isn't appropriate with ISIS is that they have not convinced a majority to fallow them or fight with them. They hold the populace hostage and terrorize them as much as anyone else externally. So bombing indiscriminately (nuclear war is the ultimate carpet-bombing) would accomplish nothing.
• 

  Simon

  Two devout Christians, Bush and Blair, launched war on Iraq (that Bush described as a crusade) which killed hundreds of thousands or perhaps millions of civilians. Both cited their Christians faith. Is there any good reason this shouldn't count? And doesn't it dwarf all the smaller terror attacks combined?

  It's a significant failure of the west not to hold both of them accountable.

  They should both rot in a prison for the criminally stupid, criminally negligent and criminally dishonest acts.

  Forget 30k deleted emails on a private server and a few people killed in Benghazi. What about the 20m+ emails deleted from the Iraq war period by Bush / Cheney and the hundreds of thousands dead due to their "righteous crusade" and all the subsequent fallout?
• 

  Finkelstein

  Good information VI I looked it up thanks.
  

  I think what Harris's point is that with D Trump in office the world particularly in the Middle East could get really messy, you never know what a sociopath at the helm of the White house could do, to note a sociopath with no governmental experience.
  

  I hope Pence has the same control and influence over Trump just like how Dick Cheney had over Dubya.