Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Gold Price Monitor -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: The Barracuda™ who wrote (76542)	9/15/2001 9:59:43 AM
From: IngotWeTrust	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 116752

Where can this worth its weight in gold bullion tome be found? Do you have a copy I could buy/borrow? You know what gets me this morning is this: Here I am catching up with news overnight to see if any NY'ers/or VA-ites were rescued during the night, and here is this parade of Islamic apologists tromping across my color TV, some with turbans, some westernized in appearance for their 15 minutes of Warholian fame. And this one jerk utters: "Those fanatics took some of the Koran (meaning a tenet here and a tenet there) and combined (note he did not say twisted but "combined") them to carry out their blind jihad for Allah." Now, here's my worth its weight in gold reply: IFFFFFFFF the tenets were NOT there to begin with[ in the Koran,] then they couldn't be combined. DUH! Every faith system's "holy writ" is a fence-post and strung wire architectural structure if you please. Tenet upon tenet, each is carefully constructed to instruct in how to achieve a goal, some kind of heaven, here or "there." What amazes me is that in their attempt to jihad us/USA via NY,VA, PA, these last 96 hours in particular, these self-same Islamic terriorists/zealots have plunged deep within their centuries old, carefully laid facade, a fatal bayonet thrust. Their Aristotlean rejecting hollowness and subsequent stripped of facade and niceties threat has been revealed to the globe. Islam is now shuddering, weaving, and crumbling just as our WTC complex crumbled. HALLELUJAH! And the global village, rallied behind the USA military and our commander in chief, we NOW have to show up and clean up the mess, just as surely as the IRON and STEEL WORKERS, firefighters, police, medical, and other personnel have gathered at ground zero to remove 450,000 TONS of debris from their mess in our sandbox! And you want to know something else, ole "Sarge" is missing? Those involved in digging out their loved ones and the men & women who are doing the actually clean up in NY,VA,PA haven't even begun to add their voices and anger to the growing groundswell of call to action and eradication of the enemy. They're just to busy to even feel their numbed toes/aching backs/cut and bruised fingers. But I doubt a single one of the doers right now is going to come home--yes, exhausted, stressed, shocked and nightmarish for years to come--- and are going to want to "play nice to these wonderful Islamic peoples with or without turbans! SELAH!

To: The Barracuda™ who wrote (76542)	9/15/2001 11:35:46 AM
From: The Barracuda™	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 116752

Q & A with Ayn Rand on the Death of Innocents in War (Lightly Edited by Robert Mayhew) Ford Hall Forum 1972: "A Nation's Unity" Q: What should be done about the killing of innocent people in war? AR: This is a major reason people should be concerned about the nature of their government. Certainly, the majority in any country at war is innocent. But if by neglect, ignorance, or helplessness, they couldn't overthrow their bad government and establish a better one, then they must pay the price for the sins of their government—as we are all paying for the sins of ours. If some people put up with dictatorship—as some of them do in Soviet Russia, and some of them did in Nazi Germany—then they deserve what their government deserves. There are no innocent people in war. Our only concern should be: who started that war? If you can establish that a given country did it, then there is no need to consider the rights of that country, because it has initiated the use of force, and therefore stepped outside the principle of right. I've covered this in Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, where I explain why nations as such do not have any rights, only individuals do. Ford Hall Forum 1976: "The Moral Factor" Q: Assume a war of aggression was started by the Soviet Union; assume also that within the Soviet Union, there were individuals opposed to the Soviet system. How would you handle that? AR: I'll pretend I'm taking the question seriously, because this question is blatantly wrong. I cannot understand how anyone could entertain the question. My guess is that the problem is context-dropping. The question assumes that an individual inside a country can and should be made secure from the social system under which he lives and which he accepts, willingly or unwillingly (even if he is fighting it he still accepts it because he hasn't left the country), and that others should respect his rights—and collapse to aggression themselves. This is the position of the goddamned pacifists, who wouldn't fight, even when attacked, because they might kill innocent people. If this were so, nobody would have to be concerned about his country's political system. But we should care about having the right social system, because our lives are dependent on it—because a political system, good or bad, is established in our name, and we bear the responsibility for it. So if we fight a war, I hope the "innocent" are destroyed along with the guilty. There aren't many innocent ones; those that exist are not in the big cities, but mainly in concentration camps. But nobody should put up with aggression, and surrender his right of self-defense, for fear of hurting somebody else, guilty or innocent. When someone comes at you with a gun, if you have an ounce of self-esteem, you will answer him with force, never mind who he is or who stands behind him. If he's out to destroy you, you owe it to your own life to defend yourself. aynrand.org

To: The Barracuda™ who wrote (76542)	9/15/2001 12:24:25 PM
From: Richnorth	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 116752

With all due respects, did you know that the English philosopher, Bertrand Russell, O.M., called Aristotle, ".....a tragedy of the human race"? Why? Partly because early Renaissance Europe put such blind faith in Aristotle that whenever his assertions did not pan out by scientific investigations, it was believed Aristotle had meant something else. So, instead of accelerating progress, Ari was an impediment.

To: The Barracuda™ who wrote (76542)	9/15/2001 1:23:09 PM
From: E. Charters	Respond to of 116752

The reasons the Arabs are part of a degraded civilization is manifold. They are imitated in part by the west in places where conquest has left the people with no social structure and will to build a civilization based on merit and learning and industry. Instead the social skein is based on tribal associations entirely or ruling class nepotism and tyranny. Rebellion agains this is hard to foster if weapons cannot easily be built and living off the land and hiding is not an option. Only by co-operation could the Arab survive. Like the Mongols, they expanded east and west, to control a vast empire through their very potently simple and enduring religion. Their decline started after the crusades when the Arabics of Suleiman where beaten and subjugated by a less civilized but more fecund, resource rich and vigorous Europe. In that gap came hill tribes, a group very warlike and limited in social development who displaced the crusaders and the enlightened Arabic ruling classes. After that the Turks invaded and subjugated large parts of eastern Europe and the Arabic empire. This cut off the eastern parts from trade and so their wealth and influence declined. This occupation, destruction of learning and resistance continued up until modern times where the religions was used as a cruel and despotic means of social control. The Turks were a poor empire in later years and were weak in comparison to the combined might of Europe. This is because they never developed their infrastructure except to influence military control. They desired to keep the subject nations poor and this became a great expense. So the Arabic world became frozen behind the Turkish curtain of ignorance and feudal values. When they were thrust into the a developed modern world, they were little better than slaves of the middle ages. The thing hampering all the Arabic world is that the only source of their wealth was the sea trade or the silk road. Once the Europeans had found a route to spices by the sea, the silk road died and the Arab wealth waned. Resource and technology poor, they could not sustain an infrastructure in such a hostile land environment. They had little wood, water, and not much fertile land. In the greater part, the Arabic world of Mohammed had expanded to seek these resources. Religion is a great rallying cry, but there is no use subjugating dirt poor tribemen when the Mogul emperors have more gold and souls too. The Europeans lived in a relative paradise in comparison, and the resultant degree of conflict over land led to their greater continual development in order to support large armies. The Arab, in his world of sand and rock could not compete. Only those in coastal areas enjoyed wealth but without hostile invaders threatening they did not develop a great defense and were easily pushed out by the Spanish and Portugese who came later with highly developed war technology. Once the oil boom came the Arabic wealth magnified immensely. Naturally they sought to control this wealth and the US hampered them at every turn. The Greeks tried to control its flow with Onassis and they too were beat back. It's the people with the biggest guns who won. The empire builders in this case with the hereditary wealth of trade by slavery, Britain, were the ones who did that. The Greek empire had waned 1900 year before, and their navy was non existent except as merchants. Again war machines won the day, and no doubt the war machines had God on their side that time. God seems to favour large armies with good equipment. With few resources and what he had being stolen by the west while his leaders were assassinated or deposed, the Arab has little choice but to co operate to win again. Hence much later came consolidations of power, burying of old animosities and national movements. Nasser, Mossadegh, taking the canal, and revolt in Algeria. Independence that oil would afford him was the inspiration, not Mohammed. No sense riding camels to die against oppressors when he can ride jeeps and tow artillery. The latter is just as suicidal but more successful. His flag may be Islam but his guide is eminent practicality. Thus it is no surprise that the Arab is pointed to the west. His tenuous hold on civilization is bound by crude oil. Without it he is lost. With it he has enough means to strike at his oppressors. His perceived oppressors are even more dependent on the Arab's oil. It is a strange conflict, like two stags with locked horns. Only if they stop fighting can they eat the grass they stand on. The one way to stop the conflict is to stop the flow of wealth. Like the dying of the silk road the conflict would die. Without money to sustain it, the flow of weapons would stop and the inherent support that allows the exporting of conflict would crumble too. The best strategy the US and Europe has is to develop their own sources of energy. More oil exists in The tar sands of Australia, Venezuala, Canada and Russia than in ten Arabias. Then there are sea bed hydrocarbons with 100 times more energy still. There is no reason to fight over flowing crude. Without a money source the Arab is doomed to return to the status of survival as he has little else to offer the world. This will happen in time anyway so if he looks ahead the Arab will see he has to concentrate his resources to build an infrastructure that is sustainable in his environment. EC<:-}