I’m going to comment on three things Ron Paul has written. As everyone knows, RP is far and away my favorite candidate. He’s the cinnamon on my bread, the Tabasco on my hot tamale.
Here’s the full text of what I’ll be quoting from:
At its core, the WikiLeaks controversy serves as a diversion from the real issue of what our foreign policy should be. But the mainstream media, along with neoconservatives from both political parties, insist on asking the wrong question. When presented with embarrassing disclosures about U.S. spying and meddling, the policy that requires so much spying and meddling is not questioned. Instead, the media focus on how so much sensitive information could have been leaked, or how authorities might prosecute the publishers of such information.
No one questions the status quo or suggests a wholesale rethinking of our foreign policy. No one suggests that the White House or the State Department should be embarrassed that the U.S. engages in spying and meddling.
Is RP seriously suggesting that espionage or military intelligence is not a necessary component of national defense? Does he imagine that we don’t need to obtain information on the hostile intentions or offensive capabilities of other countries that might mean to do us harm? Does he imagine that they will helpfully volunteer that information to give us the lead-time to take effective countermeasures?
It was with great pleasure and hope that I observed the collapse of the Soviet Empire between 1989 and 1991. This breakup verified the early predictions by the free market economists, like Ludwig von Mises, that communism would self-destruct because of the deeply flawed economic theories embedded in socialism. Our nukes were never needed because ideas are more powerful than the Weapons of War.
So he supported unilateral disarmament? What would be the effect on our national security if hostile regimes had us outgunned? If they could wipe us off the map without fear of retaliation? What would happen if we brought knife to a gunfight?
The mantra became that American exceptionalism morally required us to spread our dominance worldwide by force. US world dominance, by whatever means, became our new bipartisan foreign policy.
“Worldwide by force”? Have we used force on 200 countries around the world?
“By whatever means”? Given the means at our disposal, we’ve been pretty restrained.
Saddest of all, this policy of American domination and exceptionalism has allowed us to become an aggressor nation, supporting pre-emptive war, covert destabilization, foreign occupations, nation building, torture and assassinations.
Does he think we should wait to be hit, then hit back with whatever survived the first strike?
My humble suggestion is to replace it with a policy of Mutually Assured Respect. This requires no money and no weapons industry, or other special interests demanding huge war profits or other advantages.
This requires simply tolerance of others' cultures and their social and religious values, and the giving up of all use of force to occupy or control other countries and their national resources.
i) Other countries aren’t culturally monolithic. Countries often contain a variety of sometimes competing subcultures. What about countries where a Muslim majority persecutes a Christian minority. Which national subculture should we tolerate–the Christian or the Muslim?
ii) Likewise, what is RP’s fallback when other countries don’t share his mutuality?
Many who disagree choose to grossly distort the basic principles shared by the world's great religions: the Golden Rule, the Ten Commandments, and the cause of peace.
Now he sounds like he’s running, not for President of the United States, but President of the Parliament of World Religions.
Is he a religious pluralist? Does he really think the Golden rule, the Ten Commandments, and the cause of peace are basic principles shared in common by Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc?
Do Hindu polytheists honor the First Commandment of the Decalogue? Do Muslims practice the Golden Rule? Has he ever heard of dhimmitude? Do Muslims practice the cause of peace? Has he ever heard of jihad?
Religions all too often are distorted and used to justify the violence engaged in for arbitrary power.
Does he think jihad is just a “distortion” of Islam? Isn’t Islam historically and inherently a militaristic religion? Wasn’t Muhammad himself a warlord?
Treating other nations exactly as we expect others to treat us.
How is that a recipe of noninterventionism? If our foreign policy ought to mirror their foreign policy, and they are aggressor nations, then by parity of argument, we should be an aggressor nation.
Refusing to threaten, bribe or occupy any other nation.
Does RP think a credible threat is not a necessary component of national security? Doesn’t that have deterrent value?
Is the controversy over building a mosque near ground zero a grand distraction or a grand opportunity? Or is it, once again, grandiose demagoguery?
No doubt some politicians are grandstanding. Indeed, RP’s own article is a case in point.
The debate should have provided the conservative defenders of property rights with a perfect example of how the right to own property also protects the 1st Amendment rights of assembly and religion by supporting the building of the mosque.
For a “Constitutionalist,” RP has a strangely skewed view of the 1st Amendment.
i) To begin with, the 1st Amendment also protects the right of protestors to protest. Why is RP attacking the Constitutional right of American citizens to exercise their 1st Amendment right to protest the mosque?
ii) Was the establishment clause designed to protect Islam? I thought it was designed to prevent the Federal gov’t from creating a national church.
The fact that so much attention has been given the mosque debate, raises the question of just why and driven by whom?
In my opinion it has come from the neo-conservatives who demand continual war in the Middle East and Central Asia and are compelled to constantly justify it.
They never miss a chance to use hatred toward Muslims to rally support for the ill-conceived preventative wars…This is all about hate and Islamaphobia.
But many conservatives and liberals do not want to diminish the hatred for Islam — the driving emotion that keeps us in the wars in the Middle East and Central Asia.
Why is RP reciting the CAIR playbook? Why is RP attacking Americans and defending Muslims? Whose side is he only? Where do his loyalties lie?
There is no doubt that a small portion of radical, angry Islamists do want to kill us but the question remains, what exactly motivates this hatred?
What about Islamic theology? Ever consider that?
The justification to ban the mosque is no more rational than banning a soccer field in the same place because all the suicide bombers loved to play soccer.
Seriously? Mosques are used as front organizations to launder donations to terrorist networks abroad. Mosques are used to indoctrinate Muslim-American youth in jihadist ideology. Mosques are a natural recruiting center for terrorists. They hide behind religious protections. That’s equivalent to a soccer field? Seriously?
Conservatives are once again, unfortunately, failing to defend private property rights, a policy we claim to cherish.
Suppose Planned Parenthood opened a clinic across the street from a high school. Suppose concerned parents picketed the clinic. Would RP attack the parents for protesting the location of the clinic?
What about the right to boycott a business?
What would we do if 75% of the people insist that no more Catholic churches be built in New York City?
If Catholic churches were equivalent to mosques–yes. RP operates with the simpleminded principle that you should treat everyone the same way. He can only keep one idea in his head.
But the correct principle is to treat like things alike while you treat unlike things unalike.
The point being is that majorities can become oppressors of minority rights as well as individual dictators.
Conversely, a Muslim minority can (and will) game the system to oppress the majority. They collude with local authorities. If you oppose them you’re guilty of “hate speech.”
The outcry over the building of the mosque, near ground zero, implies that Islam alone was responsible for the 9/11 attacks. According to those who are condemning the building of the mosque, the nineteen suicide terrorists on 9/11 spoke for all Muslims. This is like blaming all Christians for the wars of aggression and occupation because some Christians supported the neo-conservative's aggressive wars.
On the one hand, RP opposes foreign wars. On the other hand, he supports the right of Muslims to infiltrate America. So it’s no longer a question of letting them do their thing over there while we do our thing over here.
No, he’s also defending their right to come over here and bring their social blueprint with them. After a while, there’s no escape. He rejects the American occupation of Muslim countries while he accepts the Muslim occupation of America.
Modern Muslims employ an incremental strategy. They begin to transplant Sharia law into the soil of the host country. Demand increasing concessions. Impose their twisted values on the rest of us. Eurabia. We’ve seen this process at work in the UK and the EU.
No one has a right to offend them. They are free to attack Christian expression with impunity, but Christians are denied the right to criticize Islamic faith and practice.
RP is so blinded by his myopic focus on “blowback” and “neocons” that he can’t see the enemy hiding in plain sight.
If someone did this sort of line-at-a-time prooftext-style question asking with a Biblical text we'd all roll our eyes.
ReplyDeleteActually, that's the format of many in-depth, verse-by-verse Bible commentaries: quote/comment, quote/comment.
ReplyDeleteSteve,
ReplyDelete"What would be the effect on our national security if hostile regimes had us outgunned? If they could wipe us off the map without fear of retaliation?"
We would feel the way the rest of the world feels about us.
"“Worldwide by force”? Have we used force on 200 countries around the world?"
Having military personnel in over 130 countries (148 to be exact) around the world is perceived as occupation and the threat of force, regardless of whether we've used that force. But yes, we are often on both sides of wars, and are either directly or indirectly involved in many conflicts around the world.
"Does he think we should wait to be hit, then hit back with whatever survived the first strike?"
Are those the only two options? Pre-emptive, aggressive, policeman-like war, or waiting until we're hit? Maybe we should declare wars Constitutionally? Perhaps more than anything, trade prevents war. Trading with all nations peaceably gives an incentive to all not to fight.
And are we really worried that a country is going to attempt to invade the United States?
"i) Other countries aren’t culturally monolithic. Countries often contain a variety of sometimes competing subcultures. What about countries where a Muslim majority persecutes a Christian minority. Which national subculture should we tolerate–the Christian or the Muslim?"
His policy doesn't prevent diplomatic relations, or seeking human rights. It just doesn't do it at the point of a gun.
"Is he a religious pluralist? Does he really think the Golden rule, the Ten Commandments, and the cause of peace are basic principles shared in common by Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc?
Do Hindu polytheists honor the First Commandment of the Decalogue? Do Muslims practice the Golden Rule? Has he ever heard of dhimmitude? Do Muslims practice the cause of peace? Has he ever heard of jihad?"
Do you believe that most Muslims around the world take their Islam more or less seriously than Christians in America take their Christianity? Why do Muslim terrorists target "free" countries that they have political grievances against, not those who are merely free? Why doesn't Switzerland get attacked by terrorists? It's free!
But this is not the real question. The question is: does our military adventurism discourage or encourage jihad? Is our foreign policy reasonable?
"i) To begin with, the 1st Amendment also protects the right of protestors to protest. Why is RP attacking the Constitutional right of American citizens to exercise their 1st Amendment right to protest the mosque?"
He's not attacking their right to protest, just the consistency in their values.
"Why is RP attacking Americans and defending Muslims?"
When Americans are wrong about something, it should be pointed out, regardless of who is on the other side. We allow a (generally reasonable, but not always so) fear of Islam to give our government carte blanche to fight wars that we shouldn't fight. That is the problem.
"RP operates with the simpleminded principle that you should treat everyone the same way."
Discrimination is okay when we're the ones discriminating. It's the power to discriminate that is worrisome, and should be for Christians in America.
"He rejects the American occupation of Muslim countries while he accepts the Muslim occupation of America."
We occupy with guns.
"They begin to transplant Sharia law into the soil of the host country. Demand increasing concessions. Impose their twisted values on the rest of us. "
All the more reason freedom should be boldly enacted in America.
Steve said:
ReplyDelete"What about Islamic theology? Ever consider that?"
Steve, what's your expertise on Islamic theology?
If your gut reaction is to turn that question back around on me, remember that I'm not the one throwing around ignorant, bigoted statements about Islam.
Furthermore, we've been over this question already, and the idea that Islamic theology motivates suicide terrorism is utterly devastated by the hard data.
Jeff said:
ReplyDelete"Furthermore, we've been over this question already, and the idea that Islamic theology motivates suicide terrorism is utterly devastated by the hard data."
Hm, I have to ask, how is "the hard data" on whether "Islamic theology motivates suicide terrorism" gathered in the first place? Interviews? Polls? Are these reliable? If asked, why wouldn't Muslims simply reiterate Islam is a religion of peace and so forth? Or are we somehow going to do a double blind randomized controlled trial to ascertain this info? How would this work so that what we obtain is bona fide "hard data"?
Also, at the risk of stating the obvious, if the suicide bombing is successful, how are we going to contact the person to find out what motivated him or her? At best we'd have to rely on indirect evidences, no? As such, how is this "hard data"?
If the suicide bombing is unsuccessful, would they come forward to talk? How many? Would this be a representative enough sample? What if there are more successful than unsuccessful suicide bombers?
Hi rockingwithhawking,
ReplyDeleteCheck out Robert Pape.
JEFF SAID:
ReplyDelete“Steve, what's your expertise on Islamic theology?”
i) I could ask you the same thing.
ii) As a matter of fact, I’ve studied the subject extensively.
iii) However, one doesn’t have to be an expert to listen to what Muslims to tell us about the cult of martyrdom which inspires jihad (to take one example).
“If your gut reaction is to turn that question back around on me, remember that I'm not the one throwing around ignorant, bigoted statements about Islam.”
i) Unless you’re “an expert on Islamic theology,” you’re in no position to impute ignorance to me.
ii) Accusing me of bigotry simply reveals you sympathies for the enemy. You’re assuming the Muslim viewpoint.
“Furthermore, we've been over this question already, and the idea that Islamic theology motivates suicide terrorism is utterly devastated by the hard data.”
Indeed, we have been over that ground before. You hung your hat on Pape, I cited counterevidence, and you had no rebuttal.
MATT KLEINHANS SAID:
ReplyDelete“We would feel the way the rest of the world feels about us.”
i) You’re evading the issue of what unilateral disarmament would have done to our national security during the Cold War. It would leave us effectively defenseless against Russia.
You illustrate the inability of Ron Paul supporters to deal with real world threats.
ii) Many countries benefited from our military umbrella during the Cold War.
iii) You’re also insinuating moral equivalence, which reflects the moral blindness of Ron Paul supporters. If a houseburglar and a homeowner both have guns, that doesn’t make them morally equivalent.
“Having military personnel in over 130 countries (148 to be exact) around the world is perceived as occupation and the threat of force, regardless of whether we've used that force.”
i) That’s obviously false. In most cases we are there with the consent of the host country. And our presence is an asset to the host country’s national security.
ii) You’re also misusing language. “Occupation” carries connotations of military subjugation–like the Roman Empire. But as I just noted, our overseas bases generally require the consent of the host country.
iii) Our bases are also an economic boon to the local economy.
iv) According to your theory, if our military presence in 148 countries motivates blowback, then anti-American terrorists ought to be fanning out from 148 different countries. But by some strange coincidence it’s centered in the Muslim world. Wonder what the common denominator is. That’s a real head-scratcher.
“But yes, we are often on both sides of wars, and are either directly or indirectly involved in many conflicts around the world.”
The principle of a military alliance is to support those who support you and oppose those who oppose you. And that can shift over time. One-time allies become future adversaries, or vice versa. Nothing inherently inconsistent about that. It’s adapting to the situation. Try to actually think through the issues.
“Perhaps more than anything, trade prevents war. Trading with all nations peaceably gives an incentive to all not to fight.”
You have a Pollyannaish view of human nature. History tells a very different story. Once again that illustrates the inability of Ron Paul supporters to deal with real world challenges.
“And are we really worried that a country is going to attempt to invade the United States?”
If we relied on trade rather than a standing army to protect us–yes.
“His policy doesn't prevent diplomatic relations, or seeking human rights. It just doesn't do it at the point of a gun.”
i) He has no diplomatic leverage. He rejects foreign aid. And he rejects the military option. No carrot, no stick.
ii) And it’s not as if we haven’t tried the “soft power” approach with hostile regimes. Once more, this illustrates the inability of Ron Paul supporters to deal with real world challenges.
Cont. “Do you believe that most Muslims around the world take their Islam more or less seriously than Christians in America take their Christianity?”
ReplyDeleteWell, to take one example, Muslim clerics seem to exert far more influence over the laity than Christian clerics.
“Why do Muslim terrorists target ‘free’ countries that they have political grievances against, not those who are merely free? Why doesn't Switzerland get attacked by terrorists? It's free!”
No one takes Switzerland seriously. But America symbolizes the enemy faith in the minds of the jihadis.
“But this is not the real question. The question is: does our military adventurism discourage or encourage jihad? Is our foreign policy reasonable?”
Jihad antedates American military “adventurism” by centuries.
“He's not attacking their right to protest…”
That’s exactly what he’s doing.
“When Americans are wrong about something, it should be pointed out, regardless of who is on the other side.”
The protesters did nothing wrong. Indeed, they were right.
“We allow a (generally reasonable, but not always so) fear of Islam to give our government carte blanche to fight wars that we shouldn't fight. That is the problem.”
Protesting a prominent mosque on US soil has nothing to do with foreign wars. That’s just Ron Paul’s non sequitur.
“Discrimination is okay when we're the ones discriminating. It's the power to discriminate that is worrisome, and should be for Christians in America.”
That illustrates the moral blindness and willful stupidity of Ron Paul supporters.
It’s no different than criminal profiling. You focus on the high-risk groups likely to commit certain types of crimes. If the KKK is lynching blacks, you don’t screen Asians or Latinos.
“We occupy with guns.”
And Muslims occupy with “human rights commissions” to persecute the natives for “hate speech.”
“All the more reason freedom should be boldly enacted in America.”
When you give Muslims freedom in America (or the EU or the UK), they use their freedom to suppress your freedom. If you play by the rules while your opponent is a cheater, the cheater wins every time.
Thanks for a final illustration of how Ron Paul supporters can’t deal with real world challenges.
Matt Kleinhans said:
ReplyDelete"And are we really worried that a country is going to attempt to invade the United States?"
It'd be serious enough if we were weakened by an EMP bomb. Or a small nuclear device. Or biochemical weapons. Or the lethal contamination of our water or food supply.
"Do you believe that most Muslims around the world take their Islam more or less seriously than Christians in America take their Christianity? Why do Muslim terrorists target 'free' countries that they have political grievances against, not those who are merely free? Why doesn't Switzerland get attacked by terrorists? It's free!"
Isn't Dar al-Islam the ultimate goal if we take Muslims as seriously as they take themselves? If so, then a free society like Switzerland would be in danger as well unless they capitulate to Islam. In that case it'd be just a matter of time.
This is the single most damning thing I've read from RP. Previously, I just figured "meh, he's not perfect", but this kind of stuff really instills doubts.
ReplyDelete"iii) You’re also insinuating moral equivalence, which reflects the moral blindness of Ron Paul supporters. If a houseburglar and a homeowner both have guns, that doesn’t make them morally equivalent. "
ReplyDeleteYou're insinuating that America is the "homeowner" that simply is protecting itself in a morally superior fashion. That's not always the case, and begs the question.
"i) That’s obviously false. In most cases we are there with the consent of the host country. And our presence is an asset to the host country’s national security."
What do you mean "consent of the host country"? Consent of the dictator who we set up as a puppet leader over a country, who oppresses his people? Is that "consent of the host country"?
"ii) You’re also misusing language. “Occupation” carries connotations of military subjugation–like the Roman Empire."
That's an issue of perspective- in the minds of many in those countries we are in, our presence is perceived as a threat and occupation.
"iii) Our bases are also an economic boon to the local economy."
And not our own.
"But by some strange coincidence it’s centered in the Muslim world. Wonder what the common denominator is."
That's not a coincidence. The preponderance of our military engagements in the past 25 years have taken place in Muslim nations. It is also true that Islam itself contributes to this in its jihadist bent. The jihadist bent of Islam and our foreign policy can both be contributing factors.
http://www.loonwatch.com/2010/01/terrorism-in-europe/ Indicates that 6% of terrorist attacks on the US from 1980-2005 were carried out by Islamic extremists.
"One-time allies become future adversaries, or vice versa. Nothing inherently inconsistent about that."
ReplyDeleteNot inconsistent, but foolish. Our people get killed with our own weapons because of our myopic entanglements.
"You have a Pollyannaish view of human nature."
I'm flabbergasted that my "small government" friends don't trust our politicians with our money, but have a childlike trust in them when it comes to our military.
My libertarianism is a function of my theology of depravity, contrary to most libertarian arguments that assert the goodness of humans.
"History tells a very different story."
No, actually it doesn't. Trade prevents war- that's not naively optimistic, it's historically reliable. http://mises.org/daily/915
"i) He has no diplomatic leverage. He rejects foreign aid. And he rejects the military option. No carrot, no stick."
You talk like a bully who has never had a real friend in his life. It's either the military option or we fade into oblivion, huh? What about the UK? What about France? What about Canada? Do they ignore us?
"And he rejects the military option."
Not when Congress declares war.
"ii) And it’s not as if we haven’t tried the “soft power” approach with hostile regimes."
Do you not even care where the hostility comes from?
"Well, to take one example, Muslim clerics seem to exert far more influence over the laity than Christian clerics"
Do you have some evidence of this?
"No one takes Switzerland seriously. But America symbolizes the enemy faith in the minds of the jihadis."
Where does this incessant need to be the Father of the world come from? We desperately need the entire world to take us seriously, so we threaten them with the strong arm of the American military- but for whose interests? Whose interests are we protecting? Do you simply ignore the corporatism that happens in America?
"Jihad antedates American military “adventurism” by centuries."
Yes, because we're not the only one with foreign policy issues.
"That’s exactly what he’s doing. "
No it's not. He's arguing that their protestation is inconsistent with what they say they believe.
"Protesting a prominent mosque on US soil has nothing to do with foreign wars."
Do you understand how pervasive that story was in the Muslim world? You may see a disconnect, but the Muslim world didn't.
"That illustrates the moral blindness and willful stupidity of..."
The Founding Fathers?
"When you give Muslims freedom in America (or the EU or the UK), they use their freedom to suppress your freedom."
Not if you actually have freedom, no they couldn't- that's the great thing about freedom.
"If you play by the rules while your opponent is a cheater, the cheater wins every time."
Not if the rules are actually enforced.
"Thanks for a final illustration of how Ron Paul supporters can’t deal with real world challenges."
Thanks for interacting with my arguments.
rockingwithhawking said:
ReplyDelete"It'd be serious enough if we were weakened by an EMP bomb. Or a small nuclear device. Or biochemical weapons. Or the lethal contamination of our water or food supply."
And which country would be utterly foolish enough to do something like that?
All of this by the way, comes completely independent from the financial burden these wars are. How can we afford such an aggressive foreign policy? Why do "conservatives" conveniently ignore that fact?
ReplyDeleteMatt Kleinhans said:
ReplyDelete"And which country would be utterly foolish enough to do something like that?"
Um, really? First, why do you delimit the scope of belligerents to "countries"? The face of war has changed significantly since at least 9/11.
And in case you've forgotten what's been happening since 9/11, I'll just point out the jihadis would be "utterly foolish enough to do something like that."
Plus, more vultures would begin to circle us if we're progressively weakened.
"All of this by the way, comes completely independent from the financial burden these wars are."
I'm all for having a more financially streamlined national security and defense budget. But the question is whether RP's policies will do that. And, if so, at what other costs or risks to us.
By the way, I'm not entirely against RP. I appreciate a lot of his ideas. I just happen to think some of the arguments you're trying to make for him are pretty poor.
My original question was:
ReplyDelete""And are we really worried that a country is going to attempt to invade the United States?""
"I'm all for having a more financially streamlined national security and defense budget."
ReplyDeleteYou can't do that while policing the world.
Matt Kleinhans said:
ReplyDelete"And are we really worried that a country is going to attempt to invade the United States?"
Understood, but as I said: "why do you delimit the scope of belligerents to 'countries'? The face of war has changed significantly since at least 9/11.
"You can't do that while policing the world."
Again, understood, but as I said: "the question is whether RP's policies will do that. And, if so, at what other costs or risks to us."
By the way, some people might be interested in checking out Jeremy Pierce's GOP predictions for some perceptive comments on the various candidates including RP.
ReplyDeleteSteve said:
ReplyDelete"As a matter of fact, I’ve studied the subject extensively."
Steve, how/where have you studied Islamic theology extensively? Have you studied under any Islamic clerics? Have you taken any college/university courses on Islam, at an accredited institution? Have you ever attended a mosque? Do you even have any close Muslim acquaintances? Or, rather, has your study consisted of combing the archives of the jihadwatch.org and frontpagemag.com? A bit of unsolicited advice: The fearful, hateful propaganda emanating from Spencer, Horowitz, and associates is poison to the soul and you'd do well to steer clear of it.
"Indeed, we have been over that ground before. You hung your hat on Pape, I cited counterevidence, and you had no rebuttal."
Steve, you're in over your head here and embarrassing yourself. As you yourself have admitted, you have no zero familiarity with Pape's work (you said merely that you were "aware" of him). To dig up your "counterevidence," you spent all of 30 seconds typing "robert pape" into the search bar at jihadwatch.org, which you admitted when I called you on it. There is nothing to rebut here.
The facts are these:
As Pape's data demonstrates, there exists a 95% correlation between suicide terrorism and foreign occupation (not "Islamic fundamentalism" or any such thing). That's an astonishing correlation, notably stronger even than the correlation between smoking and lung cancer (which is roughly 85%, for comparison). Of course, I'm happy to agree that for each individual terrorist, there likely exists "a complicated web of incentives and motivations." But clearly, clearly, the far-and-away primary motivator at work here is foreign occupation. You can hang your hat on the "buggy professor" if you choose, but the US military and defense agencies have chosen to hang their hats on Pape's data. Which is significant, not least because the picture that emerges from that data is absolutely damning to the foreign policy positions of the Bush and Obama administrations (criterion of embarrassment and all that). If anything, they would have strong motivation to resist Pape's data tooth and nail. Yet they don't, because they recognize the veracity of the data.
Finally, just think about it for a bit: It's absurd to think that Islamic theology is the motivator at play here. People (whether black, white, man, woman, Jew, Arab, Christian, Muslim, etc.) do not leave their homes, widow their wives, and orphan their children for the sake of abstract, disembodied ideology. It is practical, sociopolitical grievances that motivate such things. Ideology serves to rationalize such activity, not to motivate it.
MATT KLEINHANS SAID:
ReplyDelete“You're insinuating that America is the "homeowner" that simply is protecting itself in a morally superior fashion. That's not always the case, and begs the question.”
Wrong. I’m not mounting an argument from analogy, where the homeowner stands for America. Rather, I’m responding to your fallacious suggestion that if two countries have the same weaponry, that makes them morally equivalent.
“What do you mean ‘consent of the host country’? Consent of the dictator who we set up as a puppet leader over a country, who oppresses his people? Is that ‘consent of the host country?”
We have military bases in Belgium, England, India, Germany, Greece, Greenland, Holland, Iceland, Italy, Japan, Spain, Singapore, S. Korea, Portugal, Turkey, &c.
Are all of those puppet regimes run by dictators? Try not to be a parakeet, mindlessly reciting the anti-American propaganda you imbibe.
“That's an issue of perspective- in the minds of many in those countries we are in, our presence is perceived as a threat and occupation.”
i) You have a habit of appealing to your tinfoil hat paranoia to justify your tinfoil hat paranoia.
ii) Moreover, self-hating Americans always frame the issue in terms of how others perceive us rather than how we perceive others. But I don’t consider the so-called international community to be a moral arbiter.
The fact that another country (allegedly) perceives America a certain way doesn’t ipso facto legitimate that perception.
“That's not a coincidence. The preponderance of our military engagements in the past 25 years have taken place in Muslim nations.”
It scuttles your claim that our military presence around the world is what incites blowback. Your theory isn’t driven by evidence.
“Not inconsistent, but foolish. Our people get killed with our own weapons because of our myopic entanglements.”
It’s not foolish to deal with one threat at the time. The future is often unpredictable.
“No, actually it doesn't. Trade prevents war- that's not naively optimistic, it's historically reliable.”
Historically, countries frequently invade other countries to plunder their natural resources. Why buy what you can steal?
“You talk like a bully who has never had a real friend in his life. It's either the military option or we fade into oblivion, huh? What about the UK? What about France? What about Canada? Do they ignore us?”
Which is the difference between friendly regimes and hostile regimes. Regimes that historically share a common culture over against regimes with antithetical cultures. Try to use a modicum of intelligence.
“Not when Congress declares war.”
Really? If Congress declared war on Iran, would Ron Paul go along with that?
“Do you not even care where the hostility comes from?”
Now you’re changing the subject. You’re tacitly admitting that diplomacy is ineffectual in dealing with a hostile regime.
Cont. “Do you have some evidence of this?”
ReplyDeleteTurn on CNN.
“Where does this incessant need to be the Father of the world come from?”
Irrelevant to what I said. I was discussing the way Muslims project onto the US.
“We desperately need the entire world to take us seriously…”
You’re the one who thinks our foreign policy ought to be dictated by world perception.
“So we threaten them with the strong arm of the American military…”
I see. We’re militarily threatening Austria, Canada, Denmark, Finland, Guinea, Greenland, Holland, Iceland, Ireland, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malta, Monaco, Mozambique, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, St. Lucia, Sweden, Switzerland, Togo, the Bahamas, &c.
“Do you simply ignore the corporatism that happens in America?”
You mean…the corporatism that enables you to type this question on your computer?
“Yes, because we're not the only one with foreign policy issues.”
Yes, by all means always blame Muslim aggression on the infidel. Blame the Jews. Blame the Christians. Blame anyone accept the suicide-bomber or the grand Ayatollah.
“No it's not. He's arguing that their protestation is inconsistent with what they say they believe.”
No, he’s imputing his own assumptions to them, then accusing them of hypocrisy.
“Do you understand how pervasive that story was in the Muslim world? You may see a disconnect, but the Muslim world didn't.”
You keep moving the goalpost. So does RP. He bitches about our “meddling” in the internal affairs of Muslim countries. But when they come over here and begin to Islamize America, he turns around and bitches about Americans who oppose what they are doing here.
So it’s no longer a question of what we’re doing over there, but what they’re doing over here. Yet he’s equally censorious of Americans in both cases.
“The Founding Fathers?”
Pres. Thomas Jefferson knew the difference between Americans and Barbary Pirates.
“Not if you actually have freedom, no they couldn't- that's the great thing about freedom.”
You’re such a hopeless dupe. One can see the effect of Muslim infiltration right before our very eyes. More freedom for Muslims means less freedom for everyone else. Follow the bouncing ball.
“Not if the rules are actually enforced.”
Muslims play by their own rules–Sharia. And they gradually impose their rules on everyone else through intimidation.
“All of this by the way, comes completely independent from the financial burden these wars are. How can we afford such an aggressive foreign policy? Why do ‘conservatives’ conveniently ignore that fact?”
i) We can’t afford not to protect ourselves.
ii) Moreover, one can be a hawk without supporting foreign aid to useless regimes or nation-building schemes.
And spare me the “world’s policeman” hyperbole.
Jeff said...
ReplyDelete“Steve, how/where have you studied Islamic theology extensively? Have you studied under any Islamic clerics?”
Does Robert Pape have a doctorate in Islamic studies from Al-Azhar University? No, I didn’t think so.
“Have you taken any college/university courses on Islam, at an accredited institution?”
Yes.
“Have you ever attended a mosque?”
As if they’d bring me into their confidence. "Hey, Steve, we're planning to bomb the subway tonight. Wanna come along?"
Back to Jeff:
“Do you even have any close Muslim acquaintances?”
Yes.
But in any event, you’re moving the goalpost. That’s what losers do.
“Or, rather, has your study consisted of combing the archives of the jihadwatch.org and frontpagemag.com?”
Wrong. However, I thank you for illustrating the methodology of a Ron Paul supporter: what you lack in knowledge you make up for in imagination.
“A bit of unsolicited advice: The fearful, hateful propaganda emanating from Spencer, Horowitz, and associates is poison to the soul and you'd do well to steer clear of it.”
Your reproof has all the moral authority of a Vichy collaborator.
“Steve, you're in over your head here and embarrassing yourself. As you yourself have admitted, you have no zero familiarity with Pape's work (you said merely that you were ‘aware’ of him).”
There are thousand upon thousands of books on Middle Eastern history and politics in dozens of languages. His book is one among countless others.
“To dig up your ‘counterevidence,’ you spent all of 30 seconds typing ‘robert pape’ into the search bar at jihadwatch.org, which you admitted when I called you on it. There is nothing to rebut here.”
Document where I admitted obtaining that information by searching Jihad Watch.
Once again, you illustrate the methodology of a Ron Paul supporter–substituting imagination for fact.
“The facts are these…”
The facts are that you’re been bluffing your way through the debate because you can’t directly refute what I cited.
“Finally, just think about it for a bit: It's absurd to think that Islamic theology is the motivator at play here. People (whether black, white, man, woman, Jew, Arab, Christian, Muslim, etc.) do not leave their homes, widow their wives, and orphan their children for the sake of abstract, disembodied ideology. It is practical, sociopolitical grievances that motivate such things. Ideology serves to rationalize such activity, not to motivate it.”
I see. So Ron Paul supporters aren’t acting on principle. When they carry on about states’ rights, the gold standard, civil liberties, noninterventionism–that’s just a rationalization. There’s no correlation between behavior and belief.
JEFF SAID:
ReplyDelete"Have you studied under any Islamic clerics? Have you taken any college/university courses on Islam, at an accredited institution? Have you ever attended a mosque? Do you even have any close Muslim acquaintances?"
Of course, we could pose the same questions of Ron Paul or his supporters.
Steve, I will give you credit for having taken a course on Islam. But then you go and shoot yourself in the foot with this absurd and hateful line:
ReplyDelete"As if they’d bring me into their confidence. 'Hey, Steve, we're planning to bomb the subway tonight. Wanna come along?'"
As for Pape and all that, I have given ample reason why you would do well to familiarize yourself with the "hard data" that you had asked for. It's almost as if you are choosing to remain willfully ignorant about all of this.
"Document where I admitted obtaining that information by searching Jihad Watch."
In another comment thread, I said this:
"Steve, the only thing you've demonstrated here is that you know how to type "robert pape" into the search bar at jihadwatch.org. Busted. You haven't done your homework."
To which you replied:
"That does nothing to refute the counterevidence presented by the reviewers. And why should I reinvent the wheel?"
Fine, that isn't quite a direct admission, but is it just a coincidence that when I went to jihadwatch.org and typed "robert pape" into the search bar, I had found all three of the articles you linked to within about 30 seconds? So I'll ask you directly: did you pull your sources from a search at jihadwatch.org? Yes or no.
You haven't invested any time or intellectual energy into this, so why should I waste my time and energy providing line-by-line rebuttals of these articles? You'll just then move on to three different articles, and try to goad me into rebutting them line-by-line. And then three more, etc.
How about this: You give me your objections to Pape's data, in your own words, and then I'll interact with that.
"I see...There’s no correlation between behavior and belief."
I never said that. What I said, is that when people are choosing to martyr themselves, widow their spouses, and orphan their children, clearly there is something much deeper than ideology serving as the primary motivation.
"Of course, we could pose the same questions of Ron Paul or his supporters."
Steve, you're the one feigning intimate knowledge of Islamic theology and practice. I've been sticking to the "hard data." Furthermore, as I already said, I'm not the one propagating hateful anti-Islamic paranoia.
JEFF SAID:
ReplyDelete“But then you go and shoot yourself in the foot with this absurd and hateful line.”
Subways are a terrorist target. They did that in London, and they tried to in DC and NYC.
But because you’re a jihadist sympathizer, you find the truth hateful, not the atrocities.
“As for Pape and all that, I have given ample reason why you would do well to familiarize yourself with the ‘hard data’ that you had asked for. It's almost as if you are choosing to remain willfully ignorant about all of this.”
The sources I cite deconstruct his “hard data.”
“Fine, that isn't quite a direct admission, but is it just a coincidence that when I went to jihadwatch.org and typed ‘robert pape’ into the search bar, I had found all three of the articles you linked to within about 30 seconds?”
Why would that be surprising? You’d expect Jihad Watch to be an aggregator of articles on that subject. You expect it to have RSS feeds from a variety of sources.
You can get the same results with a simple Google search
“So I'll ask you directly: did you pull your sources from a search at jihadwatch.org? Yes or no.”
No.
“You haven't invested any time or intellectual energy into this…”
It’s superfluous to reinvent the wheel.
“…so why should I waste my time and energy providing line-by-line rebuttals of these articles?”
It’s fine with me if you lose the argument.
“You'll just then move on to three different articles, and try to goad me into rebutting them line-by-line. And then three more, etc.”
That’s a problem when you don’t have the facts on your side.
“How about this: You give me your objections to Pape's data, in your own words, and then I'll interact with that.”
Nice diversionary tactic.
“I never said that. What I said, is that when people are choosing to martyr themselves, widow their spouses, and orphan their children, clearly there is something much deeper than ideology serving as the primary motivation.”
No, that’s not “clear.” That’s just your tendentious assertion.
“Steve, you're the one feigning intimate knowledge of Islamic theology and practice.”
No. You initiated the issue of who knows what. So that cuts both ways. You instantly disqualify Ron Paul and most of his avid supporters.
“I've been sticking to the ‘hard data.”
No. You’ve been sticking to a single source, which you’re pleased to call “hard data,” while evading detailed evidence to the contrary.
“Furthermore, as I already said, I'm not the one propagating hateful anti-Islamic paranoia.”
Reminds me of what Anwar al-Awlaki used to say in early interviews, when he postured as a moderate Muslim.
"But because you’re a jihadist sympathizer, you find the truth hateful, not the atrocities."
ReplyDeleteSteve, you tried to paint all Muslims as terrorists, or at least as supportive of and sympathetic to terrorism. That is hateful, and to call it "the truth" is disgusting.
If Pape's data has been so debunked and deconstructed, why is it recognized as the authoritative such database by the military, CIA, etc.? Is this yet another Islamic conspiracy? Muslims have infiltrated these agencies and are dictating policy?
Pick out what you find to be the most salient points made by Michael Gordon, Jonathan Fine, and IPT News (couldn't find an author name) and I'll interact with that.
JEFF SAID:
ReplyDelete"Steve, you tried to paint all Muslims as terrorists, or at least as supportive of and sympathetic to terrorism. That is hateful, and to call it 'the truth' is disgusting."
i) The fact that you routinely resort to emotive rhetoric betrays your lack of critical detachment.
ii) I've drawn the relevant distinctions in a prior exchange with TFan. I also explained why Muslims aren't trustworthy in a separate post. You're behind the curve.
"If Pape's data has been so debunked and deconstructed, why is it recognized as the authoritative such database by the military, CIA, etc.? Is this yet another Islamic conspiracy? Muslims have infiltrated these agencies and are dictating policy?"
Since you can't rebut the counterarguments, you retreat into the illicit appeal to authority.
Gratifying to see your boundless faith in our intelligence agencies. And here I thought Ron Paul wanted to abolish the CIA. Director Petraeus deeply appreciates your vote of confidence.
"Pick out what you find to be the most salient points made by Michael Gordon, Jonathan Fine, and IPT News (couldn't find an author name) and I'll interact with that."
For somebody who accuses me of not doing my homework, it's amusing to see you take intellectual shortcuts.
Steve, what the hell is the case against Pape's data, in your view?
ReplyDeleteI've read all three articles, and I would at least like to know what you consider to be the authors' respective strongest points.
Have you even read the articles yourself? Are you even able to cogently summarize the case against Pape's data, as you see it?