[extropy-chat] POLITICS: terrorism and strategies

[Gregory Propf]

Robert J. Bradbury wrote:

>Greg, you are of course correct.  I am mixing situations.  But you would
>need to take apart the differences between Iraq, Saudi Arabia and the
>Sudan (all of which seem to have Arab/Muslim orientations and sources
>of problems) to make a case that we are not dealing with either
>a Muslim "crusade" (as in: "a remedial enterprise undertaken with zeal
>and enthusiasm" or desire for a hegemony (as in: preponderant influence
>or authority over others; AKA "Domination").
>
More shifting of burden of proof.

>
>Furthermore you need to then explain why Islam (or any other organized
>religion for that matter) is not fundamentally opposed to extropian
>principles and/or transhumanism.
>
This is a strawman argument.  I make no such claim.  Like most on this 
list I suspect, I am an atheist.  It is one thing to be opposed to 
transhumanism.  It is quite another to be in need of nuking.  If mere 
religious extremism and opposition to TH/Ext ideals justifies mass 
murder I suggest we start by blowing up our own Bible Belt.


>  (If you claim the religions need
>to be modified so be it -- there is a very *long* history of this.
>But you should not be claiming that people acting on the faith of
>their religion and murdering or raping people should be tolerated.)
>  
>
Opposition to mass murder and apocalyptic violence does not equal 
toleration.


>The burden is on you to show
>how the preservation of "faith-based" humans rather than
>"reasoning-based" humans will be more extropic or transhumanistic
>than if we simply return them (perhaps prematurely) to the endless
>recycling of atoms (something they are going to be involved in anyway...)
>
Obviously if you killed every non-TH/Extropian you would have the 
solution.  Or would you.  Oh, damn, we needed some of those people to 
run the factories and keep the lights on in the nano-lab didn't we...