Dr. Yaron Brook - Israel and the West's War against Islamic Totalitarianism - Q&A Part 3

[ORIGINALUSRNM]

@Attritive - Also, I apologize if I sound hostile. I do not mean to be. I think the issue here is that you are making a lot of assumptions that I do not necessarily agree with. So this is probably a discussion that would have to get down to deeper fundamentals. I do respect the idea that if you believe someone is going to harm or enslave you or your family that you want to stand up and defend them. I agree with that. I just think there are issues when involving the State with this.

[Attritive]

@ORIGINALUSRNM If you defeat the countries (primarily the governments and the ideology behind those governments) who have declared war, or have engaged in war, then the problem is solved. No, not 100% of the people of Iran are wanting to destroy the United States and Israel. But the majority is at least complicit if not outright supportive. Regardless, if innocent people die in the process of us defending ourselves, it is the fault of the attackers.

[ORIGINALUSRNM]

@Attritive - I can't agree. Force and mind are opposites. You can't defeat ideas or Ideology with force. What evidence do you have that the majority of Iranians want to "destroy" the unites States? I think that is an insupportable statement, to say the least. I doubt very many Iranians at all want to destroy the US. Where is your evidence?

[Attritive]

@ORIGINALUSRNM The evidence is their culture, political system, and government. As far as force and mind being opposites, I don't know what that means. But I do know that force stops a man from exercising his volition, whether he uses it to choose a business enterprise or to spread an ideology of war and tyranny. Ideas are held by men; they don't exist in the atmosphere or on a supernatural plane. If you snuff out the ability of men to succeed with an ideology, you snuff out the ideology.

[ORIGINALUSRNM]

@Attritive - and I'm not claiming that there are not real dangers or evil people in the world. But I have not yet seen a justification for slaughtering innocent people and I don't see how invading countries is going to be a solution. You know the world was more dangerous after WWII then before. but the original issue here is that Ron Paul did not claim that America was the sole cause of 9/11. But it was a one of the causal factors.

[Attritive]

The fundamental cause of 9/11 was Islamic fundamentalism, Islamic totalitarianism. The primary actors were Bin Laden's group, along with any of his supporters, either monetarily or ideologically. These people hate our way of life, hate the basis of our country, and envy our greatness. For their ideology to succeed, America must be annihilated or it's ideology must be shown to be a failure. To say that America was a 'causal factor' is true--but not in the sense you mean.

[ORIGINALUSRNM]

@Attritive - just curious, what evidence do you have that Bin Laden was behind 9/11? I'm not saying he wasn't, just wondering what the proof is.

[Anochi]

Usfull Idiot where always a target for terrorist propaganda, They will buy everything from "Colonialism" to "Poverty" in order to support the "morality" of terror and murder. The fact is that Jews do not go murdering Germans and Buddhist do not go Murdering Chinese people. Keep in mind the Muslim's terror is directed first to other more moderate Muslim and only after to the west. Their explicit goal is to roll the world.

[ORIGINALUSRNM]

one last thought - Its not about Islam at all. Many of the 9/11 hijackers were not even particularly religious. ( see a book "Who Speaks for Islam" and the '9/11 Commission Report"). People will use whaterver religion/philosophy they are brought up with to justify their actions. If the Middle east were dominated by Christians, those highjackers would have been Christian. If atheists, atheist. etc. History contains terrorists of all creeds.

[ORIGINALUSRNM]

To elaborate, its not either "America's fault" or "bin Laden's" fault. Its both, and not Libertarian I know of would ever excuse the criminal just b/c the State empowered the criminal. that's why I made the analogy with the war on drugs. It's easier to see there, I think. Would we have been attacked on 9/11 w/o American imperialism in the middle east? no way. It's the whole reason for it. check out Robert Pape's work. He actually looked at the empirical facts of what terrorists say themselves.

[ORIGINALUSRNM]

@Attritive - I believe there is a false dichotomy here. Ron Paul does not hold that it was only America's fault. Bin laden is responsible too. but America created the conditions and incentives for it, without which, terrorists would not be motivated. 9/11 was not about Muslims hating our values, but about hating our occupation. we are not at war with Islam. you can only be at war with people, not ideas. You don't resolve disagreement about ideas with violence.

[ORIGINALUSRNM]

Brooke has not told the truth. Libertarians (Paul included) hold Bin Laden responsible for 9/11 but hold the government responsible for placing Americans in a state of war with Bin Laden. Like the drug war, we blame the dealer who does the drive by, but hold the gov responsible for creating the conditions that allow him to flourish. Brooke is wrong.

[Attritive]

@ORIGINALUSRNM "Had we redeployed our soldiers from the Middle East they wouldn't have done anything." He's quoting your argument, about the Libertarian party--specifically the candidate Ron Paul. How is this lying? America is at war with Islam no matter how you slice it. Neither pacifism towards the people who wish to kill us for our Western values, nor anarchism as a form of government, are the solution. The Libertarian party is the worst of all the parties, and Brooke names precisely why.

[ORIGINALUSRNM]

@Attritive - You wrote, "We are at war with Islam no matter how you slice it". Who is at war with who? I haven't attacked anybody and neither have most Muslims. The facts of reality are that a small group of people calling themselves the "American Gov" are killing people in the Middle East who have attacked no one for some unclear reason. That same American government is violating all of our rights here at home more than any muslim ever has. Our troops are not fighting for freedom.

[Attritive]

@ORIGINALUSRNM The country called the United States of America is at war with Islam.

[ORIGINALUSRNM]

@Attritive - Well anyone can make a statement. I can just as easily say, "The country called the United States of America is not at war with Islam". That doesn't prove anything. I have a couple of questions here. 1. How can anyone be "at war" with a philosophy? that doesn't make any sense to me. You can only be at war with people. 2. What evidence do you have that the American government opposes the same type of tyranny and oppression that Islamic fundamentalists believe in?

[Attritive]

@ORIGINALUSRNM 1. You're splitting hairs. 2. I said the country is at war. If another country, group of countries, or a substantial number of military forces intend to destroy or conquer your country--you are then at war. The Nazi's and the Communists believed in a similar form of tyranny; were they not at war with one another?

[ORIGINALUSRNM]

@Attritive - that is a good question and brings up a lot if we really think about it. Properly speaking "Germany" and "Russia" were not at war any more then "blacks" or "whites" could be at war because there is no such thing. There were a small group of individuals in each of those countries that were making war, yes. But what was really happening? Most of the Germans had not choice in the matter and were just as much a victim of the Nazis as the Russions. So I think a more accurate statement...

[ORIGINALUSRNM]

@ORIGINALUSRNM ( part 2 ) ...would be that some German people were at war with not only Russian people, but with other German people and vice versa for Russia. As applied to the war on terror, isn't it more accurate to say that the enemy to the American people is both Islamic fundamentalists and our own government? Its really just two small groups fighting for power and using the rest of us. they are not fighting for us, but using us for themselves.

[ORIGINALUSRNM]

@Attritive - . and #3 - how do you then account for the overwhelming majority of Muslims that do not agree with Bin Laden? If there is evidence that the American government violates our rights most of the time, then the times that they do not violate them are not proof that they believe in rights. It is only proof that they are trying to fool us. Just like a man who beats his wife only sometimes is still an abuser and the times he is nice is only to try and make her forget the beating.

[Attritive]

@ORIGINALUSRNM The American government violates our rights. Does this mean we're in a totalitarian dictatorship, or that we can't avert a totalitarian dictatorship without a revolution? Bit different from Islam. Regarding the overwhelming majority of Muslims and Bin Laden. First of all, you're wrong. Second of all, Bin Laden was pretty small-time, as was his death. There's much greater threats from Islam, such as that supposedly sweet and idyllic majority you speak of.

[ORIGINALUSRNM]

@Attritive What exactly is our government doing in the Middle East right now that could be considered "self-defense"? Seriously, we have attacked people that had nothing to do with Al Qeada while supporting those that do. We are supporting Al Qeada against Kadafi right now. What sense does that make? We have embellished the #1 state of Islamic repression, Saudi Arabia, with the best arms deal ever. Are you sure you know what side our government is on?

[topothemorningtoya]

Ron Paul, most likely, has never more a split second entertained the idea that America is MORALLY responsible for 9/11; that the US deserved it. He just think that America is being stupid to stick it's nose inside a hornet's nest and not expect to get stung.

I do think that ultimately, by the nature of holding concious political convictions which contradict one's vague philosopical ideas, RP will eventually have to blame the US morally, but I don't think he, personally, is that fargone.

[chopin8826]

do you honestly believe that if america had no connections with the middle east and terrorist groups they would leave us alone? check your premise lol check the premise of the taliban, hamas, al qaida what is reasoning, place it next to the Americans then make a decision.

[topothemorningtoya]

Would they still want to attack us? Sure. Would they be able to? Not a chance. If not for the the West paying protection money to Islamic thugs, they'd be throwing rocks at us.

And don't say, no, they'd just use the Russians. If not for the West paying protection to them, they too, would be back in the Dark Ages.

Terrorism is different? Fine, tighten the requirements for US entry by certain foreigners. Oh no, couldnt do that, their home countries would cut us off from "their" oil.

[AlexanderEBott]

@topothemorningtoya The principle at stake in these discussions is not a question of whether we will win a broad war against totalitarian Islam. If we seriously engaged in the pure destruction of any one who poses a threat to us, we would win. As long as this "protect the innocence" ideology is thrown out. The principle that Brook is arguing for is that western peoples (may they be in Europe, North America, or any where around the world) to make a MORAL stand for their self-defense.

[AlexanderEBott]

@topothemorningtoya We shouldn't have to live in a chronic state of fear, as you mean by cutting certain countries immigration. And it was individuals from the west that predominantly produced the capabilities to extract that oil. It was confiscated by nationalization. The overall threat from that region of the world should not lurk over our shoulders forever. We should end it immediately and decisively. No more of this pussyfooting around so as not to step on peoples feet.

[oleaginousjoe]

Another display of brilliant intellectual prowess.

[qtronman]

Excellent answer.