Well technically it should be getting downvoted for being wrong.
Here he is stating that he is taking an extremely America centric stance, and focused on the shortest path solution.
Its the obvious answer most people come up with, and its dissection and discovery of weak spots is valuable for those who would usually come up with a similar shortest path answer.
At the same time, he has accepted that he doesn't hold the moral high ground.
That should be repeated very clearly - this is a solution which doesn't hold to any high moral values.
So its NOT a good answer - anyone who wants to eschew morality and discuss pragmatism as the greater morality will do well to see its edge and failure cases.
His words should be heard because we can learn from others discussing it. The essence of free speech.
Of course his right to say hateful things must be protected. But as a member of a community that values insightful comments, I feel obliged to point out that his opinion is based mostly on his personal hate and ignorance.
Asking for a limit on immigration from islamic countries to or developing alternative energy sources still is pretty objective to me. But adding the " the Arabs will just go back to what they were before - a bunch of desert nomads with no real power" makes it obvious where he is coming from.
Look at the thread, the responses and the clarifications. The least useful answers in terms of education value are the ones which focus on whether he was or isn't a bad person for saying it.
As I also point out, your concerns are handled when he gives up the moral ground. you don't have to follow something you know is wrong.
Here he is stating that he is taking an extremely America centric stance, and focused on the shortest path solution.
Its the obvious answer most people come up with, and its dissection and discovery of weak spots is valuable for those who would usually come up with a similar shortest path answer.
At the same time, he has accepted that he doesn't hold the moral high ground.
That should be repeated very clearly - this is a solution which doesn't hold to any high moral values.
So its NOT a good answer - anyone who wants to eschew morality and discuss pragmatism as the greater morality will do well to see its edge and failure cases.
His words should be heard because we can learn from others discussing it. The essence of free speech.