Much has been made about Ron Paul’s possible embrace of the “9/11 Truth” conspiracy theories, and more of the view that we are the root cause of terrorism because we are provoking the enemy’s anger. And it’s easy to stigmatize him because he is associated with the John Birch Society – which has itself been unfairly dismissed from polite society.
The problem is that life is rarely that simple. I think Ron Paul is spot-on for some things and dead wrong on others. I’ve certainly read quotes from bin Laden and other terrorists that plainly say that they expect us to submit to Islam. For example, in the same letter that would seem to support Ron Paul’s view that we provoked the Islamists to attack us, where bin Laden wrote
As for the first question: Why are we fighting and opposing you? The answer is very simple:
(1) Because you attacked us and continue to attack us.
he also wrote:
(Q2) As for the second question that we want to answer: What are we calling you to, and what do we want from you?
(1) The first thing that we are calling you to is Islam. …
(2) The second thing we call you to, is to stop your oppression, lies, immorality and debauchery that has spread among you. … (i) You are the nation who, rather than ruling by the Shariah of Allah in its Constitution and Laws, choose to invent your own laws as you will and desire. You separate religion from your policies, contradicting the pure nature which affirms Absolute Authority to the Lord and your Creator. You flee from the embarrassing question posed to you: How is it possible for Allah the Almighty to create His creation, grant them power over all the creatures and land, grant them all the amenities of life, and then deny them that which they are most in need of: knowledge of the laws which govern their lives? …
(4) We also advise you to stop supporting Israel, and to end your support of the Indians in Kashmir, the Russians against the Chechens and to also cease supporting the Manila Government against the Muslims in Southern Philippines.
… If you fail to respond to all these conditions, then prepare for fight with the Islamic Nation. The Nation of Monotheism, that puts complete trust on Allah and fears none other than Him. The Nation which is addressed by its Quran with the words: “Do you fear them? Allah has more right that you should fear Him if you are believers. Fight against them so that Allah will punish them by your hands and disgrace them and give you victory over them and heal the breasts of believing people. And remove the anger of their (believers’) hearts. Allah accepts the repentance of whom He wills. Allah is All-Knowing, All-Wise.” [Quran9:13-1]
He demands that we “reject the immoral acts of fornication, homosexuality, intoxicants, gambling’s, and trading with interest.” We permit gambling. We allow women to have jobs: “You use women to serve passengers, visitors, and strangers to increase your profit margins. You then rant that you support the liberation of women.” The stock market is also apparently out of bounds: “(v) You are a nation that permits gambling in its all forms. The companies practice this as well, resulting in the investments becoming active and the criminals becoming rich.”
Gee, it sure sounds like he hates us for who and what we are. So while Ron Paul seems to be taking bin Laden at face value in some areas, he’s not doing so in all of them. Would it have been better if we had not gotten involved in the first place? Why, yes. It would. But we are involved. And when was “the first place” anyway? At what point do we look at history and say, there – that was the moment where we should have done this or failed to do that? Was the key moment in 1983, when Reagan sent troops to Beirut? Was it when Jimmy Carter abandoned the Shah in favor of Khomeini? Was it our support of Israel in 1948? How about after WWI when the Ottoman empire was divided? Even if we could pinpoint the critical moment, what would that change today? Remember that the Crusades were a defensive war, not offensive. And take note of the fact that in his letter, bin Laden demands we allow radical Islamists to take over the Philippines, as they have been attempting to do for decades. What has that to do with the middle east? So while it’s easy to say we have provoked the anger that led to terrorist attacks, it’s not helpful, and it’s not the entire truth.
In my view, the fact that Ron Paul is entirely correct about small government and personal responsibility don’t balance out the fact that his plan to deal with terrorism is… largely nonexistent. We should “refocus on securing America and bring the troops home” while getting rid of the Department of Homeland Security? What will replace it, and why will it be superior to the admittedly pathetic DHS? For plans like this, we already have Democrats. Even if he were exactly right about the idea that we have provoked the anger that has fueled terrorism – and I disagree because I don’t think it’s that simple – he still apparently has no plan to deal with the facts on the ground. We are dealing with terrorism, and it’s a war like no other we have fought. The enemy is within and without, and winning the war of ideas is equally important as military supremacy to our victory. In fairness, none of the candidates has much of a plan… but I think picking up our marbles and going home under the current conditions is the worst.
Ron Paul is associated with the John Birch Society. He’s the only Congressman rated 100% on their Conservative Index, and back in the day when I was a member, he was well known as “our guy” with close ties to JBS. His MySpace links prominently to theirs. Like Paul, JBS is entirely correct on some things – for example, their stance on immigration and the NAU is well documented. JBS was the main organization calling out the UN for corruption – long before anyone knew about the Oil For Food scandal which is still unpunished. The problem with JBS is not so much the organization, but the people in it. Stick around long enough and you’ll find that your fellow members are often anti-semites and holders of some truly bizarre conspiracy theories. My chapter leader patiently explained to me how Neil Armstrong had not, in fact, walked on the moon. He did not do so during the course of the meeting, and those kind of views are not sanctioned by the John Birch Society. Other members tried to educate me on the Joooos, who it seems we all unwittingly serve. Again, these views are not officially sanctioned by JBS, but after a while you learn it’s not worth being around these people even if the organization IS right on several important issues. Those issues don’t outweigh the fact that they’re wrong on other areas, or make it worthwhile to be associated with either JBS or Ron Paul, in spite of the fact that their supporters are not all lunatics. Enough of them are. I don’t demand perfection from a candidate or a political organization, but some lines I just can’t cross, and some people I just can’t stand alongside.
Trackposted to Outside the Beltway, Is It Just Me?, The Virtuous Republic, Perri Nelson’s Website, Mark My Words, Big Dog’s Weblog, DragonLady’s World, Leaning Straight Up, The Amboy Times, Right Celebrity, third world county, Woman Honor Thyself, Wake Up America, Stageleft, , stikNstein… has no mercy, Nuke’s news and views, Pirate’s Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Dumb Ox Daily News, Right Voices, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, Committees of Correspondence, A Blog For All, The Random Yak, DeMediacratic Nation, Adam’s Blog, Webloggin, Phastidio.net, The Bullwinkle Blog, Cao’s Blog, , Colloquium, Conservative Cat, Jo’s Cafe, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, Walls of the City, The World According to Carl, Blue Star Chronicles, High Desert Wanderer, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.
This is the fallacy of “reasoning by association”. Judging ideas and proponents by who is for or against the proponents is just plain bad thinking. By transitivity, you can get to contradictions. I would encourage you to repent and move to idea-based reasoning.
Specifically, Ron Paul has attracted the attention of a wide range of people including many on opposite sides of issues. He is a nice guy who is both skeptical and open-minded. Applying “reasoning by association” clearly breaks down.
Dar, I’m well aware of both that logical fallacy and of the fact that he’s a nice guy by all accounts. I gave the man credit where it’s due… However, as I said, I believe he’s dead wrong on the issue where he’s attracting the most attention. And it looks like he’s buying into the Truther movement (check the first link in the post) which absolutely disqualifies him in my book.
The fact that he attracts the lunatic fringe as a good deal of his base is just icing on that cake.
One blogger above refers to the 911 Truthers as fringe element. Wouldn’t it be more appropriate to call the minority (in numbers) elite cabal of CFRers, one-worlders, UN-ers, etc. the true lunatic fringe. I think the shoes fit these lunatics quite snugly.
Two words, Jimmy: Popular Mechanics. Google it.
Millions of people think you are fringe, not just me. As for “CFRers, one-worlders, UN-ers” I am not in that category at all. As I wrote in the post, which you probably didn’t read, “Again, these views are not officially sanctioned by JBS, but after a while you learn it’s not worth being around these people even if the organization IS right on several important issues.“
[Edited to delete Truther garbage. Chris, Popular Mechanics on 9/11 has certainly NOT been debunked except in the minds of a bunch of Koolaid drinking freaks. - ed.]
My 2 cents on Ron Paul’s take on terrorism is that the “West” (Europe, and then later the US) has had their noses in the middle east on and off for thousands of years (at least since the Roman occupation). Islam was born hating European invaders. For all of Bin Laden’s posturing, it’s a tough sell to get people to wear bombs to fight gambler’s and fornicators half way around the globe. Way easier to get them to do it after their family has been splattered all over the remaining walls of their village by a GBU 84. It boils down to: do you trust the wisdom of the Constitution and do you trust Ron Paul to uphold it? No other candidate does.
“We should “refocus on securing America and bring the troops home” while getting rid of the Department of Homeland Security?”
You have answered your very own question – It will be the same agency which has always been responsible for our ‘Homeland Security’, our military. They have our military/troops spread out all over the planet, leaving DHS with open reign to incrementally encroach upon and remove our freedoms. Nazi Germany did the same thing.
Godwin violation, first of all.
Second, the foreign policy views of you Ronulans are extremely, and dangerously, naive.