A Comment

On an Objectivist Mailing list Bill Keogh published a review of the movie Lone Survivor.  In the review he stated:

It is clear from the movie that the Rules of Engagement are like the 10 Commandments, handed down from on high and not to be questioned. Because discussing the ROE is taboo at briefings before a battle they end of being debated on the battlefield. Thus options to self-sacrifice by releasing prisoners, like tying them to a tree, drugging them, taking them captive until rescue or killing them in the direst extreme are never discussed. 

 Why is this?

I posted a reply on the list:

The Rules of Engagement as followed by armed forces in the civilized nations of the West are based on a series of assumptions.  That a war between civilized nations is a temporary state of affairs.  That the state of peace will be restored.  And that the new state of peace should be permanent.  From this view it is assumed that the killing of civilians would provide moral grounds to start another war. 

A resumption of the war is clearly seen as a condition to be avoided if possible.

In the war between Islam and Rational Man the concept of innocence simply does not apply.   Everyone regardless of their status must use or is subject to the use of force.  There are no exceptions granted in the Koran.  This war is presented in the Koran as a fight to the death.  And the goal of Mohammed was to absolutely extinguish all opposition.

The basic goal of Rational Man is to live a human life.  The goal of the founder of Islam was to live as an animal without regard to the consequences.

What are your questions on this block of instruction?