Tinfoil visionaries

JOHN LOFTON, RECOVERING REPUBLICAN SAID:

“Truth is truth even if it is said by Chomsky, Vidal or Clark and, obviously, bin Laden & Hamas are not wrong about everything, as you want us to believe.”

If that’s your position, then why don’t you invite them to contribute articles to your website? After all, truth is truth.

“You do not appear to be a Christian.”

Certainly not as you define it. Or the Mormons. Or the Moonies. Or C. T. Russell.

“Your form of argumentation is extremely weak and begs questions instead of answering them….No Christian can support the carnage you attempt to justify – and, of course, you made no attempt to Biblically justify the carnage you defend.”

That’s because I’ve already done a great deal of blogging on counterterrorism. But to comment on two of the articles I quoted:

“Are bombing, maiming, destroying property, killing, and genocide compatible with biblical Christianity?”

But your website takes the NRA position on the Second Amendment. Do you think the right to bear arms is compatible with Biblical Christianity?

Do you think that killing in self-defense or defense of your dependents is incompatible with Biblical Christianity?

The article itself doesn’t draw any distinction between murder and justified homicide. Instead, it issues a blanket condemnation against military service.

To accuse our troops of committed “genocide” is demagogic hyperbole. Even if one takes the position that the Iraq war was a miscalculation, it hardly follows that our troops are committing “genocide” against the Iraqi people. And most of the violence in Iraq is Iraqi on Iraqi violence, or Muslim on Muslim violence.

If we wanted to commit genocide against the Iraqi people, we could do so far more efficiently by dropping a few neutrino bombs, then seize the oil fields or stock our museums with some ancient artwork.

“The war in Iraq is all of the above, yet this Christian college not only offers Army ROTC, it also offers its students as cannon fodder to the U.S. military.”

We have a volunteer army. College students are adults, capable of making grown-up decisions. These aren’t a bunch of draftees or conscripts.

“The military is responsible for the network of brothels around the world to service U.S. troops who have no business being away from home.”

So it’s better to have a network of brothels at home rather than abroad? Is that the point which your contributor is attempting to make?

At the risk of stating the obvious, not all of our soldiers are Christians. Single unbelievers in their sexual prime are going to be sexually active as well as promiscuous. Unbelievers don’t think that premarital sex or extramarital sex or promiscuity is a sin.

They would behave the same way inside the military or outside the military, abroad or at home.

Continuing with the next article:

“There is nothing brutal about the US/NATO bombing of Serbia, Iraq, and Afghanistan, or the Israeli bombing of Lebanon.”

This jumbles together several different conflicts, as if we were forced to either support every one of them or oppose every one of them. That betrays a complete lack of rational and moral discrimination on the part of your contributor.

I happen to think it was a mistake to intervene in Yugoslavia—especially on behalf of the Muslims. But that happened under Bill Clinton. I never voted for him.

It’s possible that the Iraq war was a miscalculation as well, although that did have a putative rationale in our national defense.

Lebanon is just a front for Syria, which is a state sponsor of terrorism. Israel has every right to defend herself against the jihadis.

The fact that you and your contributor are even opposed to the war in Afghanistan, which was a counterattack for the attack on 9/11, shows how morally warped you’ve become.

And if we wanted to “brutalize” the Afghan people, we could have used napalm, Agent Orange, or carpet-bombing rather than smart bombs.

“The Israeli ethnic cleansing of the West Bank, or the genocide Israel hopes to commit against Palestinians in Gaza.”

There are no “Palestinians.” There never were.

We’re talking about Arabs. Arabs who are Muslims. Muslims who are terrorists. Jihad as a way of life.

Gaza and the West bank are terrorist states. In a state of civil war.

“All of this, as well as America’s bombing of Somalia.”

Somalia? Isn’t that where bin Laden set up headquarters at one time?

“America’s torture dungeons, show trials of ‘detainees’.”

Bracketing the demagogic hyperbole, I happen to think a terrorist doesn’t have the right to withhold information of an impending attack against civilians. I don’t find the Geneva Conventions in the text of Deut 20.

But your sympathies lie with our mortal enemies. Sorry, but I don’t share your Quisling sentiments.

“And overthrow of elected governments and installation of puppet rulers, is the West’s necessary response to keep the brutal world at bay.”

If an elected gov’t empowers Hamas or Hezbollah, then, by all means, let’s overthrow the elected gov’t—as long as that’s a threat to our national security.

“Meanwhile, the United States, the great moral light unto the world, has just prevented the United Nations from censuring Israel, the world’s other great moral light, for cutting off food supplies, medical supplies, and electric power to Gaza.”

Oh, so your contributor thinks that we should support the UN. He also believes in foreign aid. I didn’t know until now that you two were so fond of an interventionist foreign policy.

Speaking for myself, I think the US should defund the UN, sell the real estate, and deport its coterie to Brussels or the Haag—where they belong.

And I’m not a big fan of foreign aid. BTW, why aren’t other Muslim countries sending food and medical supplies to Gaza?

“You see, Gaza is in the outside world and is a home of the bad guys.”

As a matter of fact, that’s exactly what it is.

“Instead of electing the US candidate, the wicked voters elected a government that would represent them.”

Yes, it’s wicked to elect Hamas.

Anyway, why is your contributor so worked up over Israel’s domestic and foreign policy? Why doesn’t a card-carrying libertarian treat Israel’s national security as a purely internal affair? That’s none of his business, right?

Suppose the US were to terminate all foreign aid to Israel? Would he still carry on about “genocide”?

Suppose, for the sake of argument, that Israel is committing “genocide” against the so-called Palestinians? Why should he care? Do you and your contributor believe in international conventions against genocide?

What international body do you think should be empowered to prosecute crimes against humanity? So much for national sovereignty.

“The US and Israel need a puppet government in Palestine so that a ghettoized remnant of Palestine can be turned into a ‘two state solution’.”

I prefer a puppet gov’t to a terrorist state. But if you don’t like the current configuration of the two-state solution, here is my alternative two-state solution: deport so-called Palestinians to their ancestral homeland in Jordan.