Since I don't have a Twitter account

Someone should translate Atlas Shrugged into Pashto so that all these Afghans can realize how it's a moral imperative for the US military to kill them. Also works for Arabic / Palestinians / Israel.

Share this

What are you talking about

What are you talking about Randall? What does Atlas Shrugged have to do with Bush or with Obama? Are you having some obscure argument with some Objectivist somewhere on the innertubes? Meanwhile, Obama, a Chicago Democrat, is continuing a war started by Bush, a Texas Republican, and neither of these guys have any connection to Objectivism that I am aware of. Maybe you know better.

Dude, having obscure

Dude, having obscure arguments with Objectivists is what the innertubes were created for. And porn.

Other way round

Too, late someone translated the Qur'an and it actually claims that it is a moral imperative (set down by an infallible deity not a bad fiction writer) for them to kill non-Muslims.

Explain?

I guess I haven't gotten to that part in Atlas Shrugged, or maybe this is sarcasm that I'm not getting. Since this isn't twitter, and we can actually explain things, is there actually something in Atlas Shrugged where Ayn Rand was justifying invading other countries and killing them?

Brian, If they do it, that

Brian,

If they do it, that means we can do it?

(Not to mention that Afghans traditionally keep their battles limited to...Afghanistan.)

We?

What's this "we" shit paleface?

I don't know anyone who is claiming that it is a "moral imperative" for anyone to kill Afghans.

Afghans broke that tradition when they sheltered Osama and Al Queda.

Other two, In fact, no,

Other two,

In fact, no, nothing that I could get out of Atlas Shrugged justifies the aggressive American Empire, but try telling that to the Ayn Rand Institute folks.

Ayn Rand Institute?

Sorry, I don't follow the Ayn Rand Institute, besides you complained about Atlas Shrugged and never mentioned the ARI. A mention and a link would have helped. The article was confusing without it. In fact I'm still unsure what you are complaining about. I did some cursory research and the Ayn Rand institute seems to be advocating dealing with Iran, not some moral imperative to kill Afghan citizens.

It's as if you claimed the Beatles had advocated race war out of the blue, without any mention of Charles Manson. Manson is famous for his misinterpretation of the Beatles. Can't blame the beatles because Helter Skelter doesn't advocate race war but analogizes a love relationship to playing on a playground slide.

Manson did however at least advocate a race war. I don't know where ARI advocated killing Afghans as a moral imperative.

WikipediaFu

Be amazed by my WikipediaFu:

Peikoff claims that Palestinian people prior to the establishment of the State of Israel consisted solely of "nomadic tribes meandering across the terrain," and that "the Arabs" today have no concept of property rights; indeed, that their "primitivist" antagonism to such rights is the root cause of Arab terrorism. He argues that Israel is a moral beacon which should not return any territory to Arabs or even negotiate with them. Peikoff further argues that all Middle Eastern oil reserves are the rightful property of the West, "whose science, technology, and capital made its discovery and use possible." He advocates the outright destruction of "terrorist states," especially Iran, "as quickly as possible and with the fewest U.S. casualties, regardless of the countless innocents caught in the line of fire," not ruling out the use of nuclear weapons, arguing that moral responsibility for innocent deaths would lie with their governments rather than the United States.

Or see Yaron Brook:

Brook has done a fair amount of work to formulate a unique morality of war (but a morality originated by Ayn Rand and also advocated by other Objectivists like Leonard Peikoff, Onkar Ghate, and Craig Biddle).

Brook claims that when America goes to war, it should only be to protect the rights of its people, and the government must do everything in its power to end the threat to its citizens, as soon as possible, by using overwhelming military force (or the threat of force). If torturing enemy POWs and purposely targeting civilian population centers will end a war against American citizens, Brook is for it. The specific goal of this total war would be to crush the will of the people who started the war against the United States. After the government of the enemy country is destroyed, the United States should leave unless there is a special circumstance in which the people of the defeated country are realistically willing to adopt Western-style governments.

[...]

Brook further argues that these Islamic states must be severely attacked in order to crush their will to engage in and support terrorism.

The US has been attacked first thus it has the moral right to fight Islamism. The sole moral duty of the United States is to defend its citizens against its enemies by all means, even with the use of the atom bomb if necessary.

What specific military actions would have been required post-9/11 to end state support of Islamic Totalitarianism is a question for specialists in military strategy, but even a cursory look at history can tell us one thing for sure: It would have required the willingness to take devastating military action against enemy regimes—to oust their leaders and prominent supporters, to make examples of certain regimes or cities in order to win the surrender of others, and to inflict suffering on complicit civilian populations, who enable terrorist-supporting regimes to remain in power.

From the beginning of the War on Terrorism, Brook has argued that Iran should be the primary target of U.S. retaliation for Sept. 11, secondary targets being Saudi Arabia and Syria.

[...]

On December 17, 2004 Yaron Brook appeared on O’Reilly Factor, Impact Segment, "Aftermath of Fallujah activities", the context was that an embedded journalist had reported about the shooting of previously disarmed Iraqi soldiers in Fallujah. During this interview he said:

I'm suggesting that we start bringing this war to the civilians, the consequences of this war, to the civilians who are harboring and helping and supporting the insurgents in Fallujah and other places. ... I would like to see the United States turn Fallujah into dust, and tell the Iraqis: If you’re going to continue to support the insurgents you will not have homes, you will not have schools, you will not have mosques ...

TL;DR version: Objectivists of the ARIan variety are crazy war-mongering blood-thirsty savages who must be nuked immediately lest their evil ways successfully spread and garner influence, thereby putting all Americans' lives in danger. America first, buddy! Objectivists last. Ayn Rand wrote it, I believe it, that's the end of it.

A Wiki Wizard ...

... and yet still no mention of a moral imperative to kill Afghans.

The Peikoff article talks about property rights in oil and Arabs. Well Afghans aren't Arabs, and I'm pretty sure they didn't nationalize any oil fields.

The claims about Brook seem to be some kind of just war theory based on self defense. No mention of a moral imperative to kill Afghans because of their nationality, or race.

The implication of the original McElroy article was that there was some moral imperative to commit genocide on Afghanis, or kill them based on race, or national origin.

Is it this?