"Islamists are at war with the entire world"

[giskard]

Help me compose a logical point by point argument to this email I got:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

----QUOTE-------

Go ahead. Blame the U.S. for 9/11 if it makes you
feel enlightened. But the fact remains that radical
Islamists are at war with the entire world- from
Southeast Asia, the Philippines, Indonesia .... (Gee
I wonder what those 3 Catholic schoolgirls said or did
to deserve their heads being cut off (the 4th
survived). Hey let's blame Jesus for that one.)
.....to the Netherlands...."Can angry young Muslims
dictate what is and is not acceptable in the
traditionally open-minded world of Dutch arts? It
appears, the answer has been yes". Those damned
Danish cartoonists. How dare they even draw a picture
of Mohammed They deserve to have their lives
threatened and their embassy fire-bombed.
The Netherlands' main film festival canceled a showing
of a short documentary denouncing violence against
Muslim women that was made by Theo van Gogh, who was
stabbed to death. An Islamic militant is accused of
the crime."
Or in Australia where a muslim "leader" claimed that
it's understandable why Muslim men would rape women
wearing bathing suits because by dressing that way
they were asking for it.
Or what about the bombings in Spain and England and
elsewhere around the world- In France where Muslim
violence is common. And I bet Switzerland is on the
list too. Maybe we can blame all the violence around
the world on the U.S. Fine!! I don't give a $#@!
anymore. I think we need to go wherever we can to
root out terrorists for our own survival. Maybe Iran
should be our next stop.
I don't think we can we can just stay home with our
heads in the sand clutching our bag of gold. That's
not the answer. We need to take their war to them.

[mdh]

Maybe radical Islamists are at war with the entire world. I'm not a radical islamist, so I can't make that determination. That said, there are plenty of countries that they haven't attacked. If they are at war with the entire world, then they're certainly only targetting some of it actively!
The idea that the fact that we were targetted for the attacks of 9/11 has nothing to do with US foreign policies over the past 2 or 3 decades (longer?) is just silly though.

A valid response may simply be "I don't claim this responsibility. The 9/11 commission report says that such connections exist, though. I merely agree with the statements made by the distinguished and educated members of this commission. If you haven't read the entire report, please do so before continuing correspondence so that we are on equal footing. Thank you, and best wishes."
I'd go with something like that. Just a bit condescending, without crossing the line into outright rude.

[tnvoter]

yeah, and it'd be pretty hard for them to go to war with us if we weren't over there with targets on our backs.

it's one thing to have strategical bases for striking imminent threats, it's another to be policing parts of the middle east.

I'm pro-afghanistan as was pro-Iraq -- then realized Ron Paul was right that for Iraq we needed to declare war to go in and actually get the job done correctly. Which we are paying the price for now -- as he predicted THEN.

Also as Ron Paul wants to secure the border PHYSICALLY as well - not exactly making it as easy as it STILL is now for them to get here.

[MsDoodahs]

JMO: That one is a lost cause, irrational, and living in a state of total fear. There is no reasoning with a person in that state of mind.

Rather than rebutt him, try this: "That's an interesting point of view." And say NOTHING ELSE.

It has been my experience that doing this will at times enrage them, so be advised of that possibility.

You may be flooded with angry comments trying to coax you back into the fight.

Don't take the bait.

Hope this helps.

[Stinker]

Just ask them how he would solve the problem. Genocide? Exterminate the 1.6billion Muslims? What?

Those issues are up to those governments and the citizens to resolve. No freaking way would I or a friend go and die for another stupid country. If he wants to, go ahead, fly over there and attack those 'evil' Muslims.

[cujothekitten]

We're talking about terrorists here not a rouge country. The CIA and other operations should handle this. You don't bomb a country because they have radicals there.

If a country declares war then all bets are off.

[Phil M]

Here's my answer-

We ARE at war with Islamic extremists. Ron Paul is the only candidate who can fight it the right way. You see, you can not fight centuries old ideas with bombs. You cannot destroy bigotry and hatred with economic sanctions. The only proper way to fight an idea is with another, better idea. That is why Ron Paul is the only candidate who wants to export Western ideas and culture instead of weapons. Instead of isolating a country economically and giving them even more reason to hate us, Congressman Paul wants us to trade with them so they see the light. Case and point: Iran. Contrary to popular belief, Iran is a fairly Western country. It is filled with Western music, literature, and political thought. They had a very reformist president, Khatami, until 2004. Then the US government goes around saying the Iran is on the axis of evil and talking about sanctions. Should we really have been surprised when they elected a guy like Ahmadinejad after that? Another example: take a look at two of the remaining communist countries in the world: Cuba and China. One of them has open trade relations with us, the other is being embargoed by us. One of them hates us, the other one sees us as a major economic ally. We're at an ideological crossroads with both of them, but one of them is far more workable than the other.

[mdh]

Here's my answer-

We ARE at war with Islamic extremists. Ron Paul is the only candidate who can fight it the right way. You see, you can not fight centuries old ideas with bombs. You cannot destroy bigotry and hatred with economic sanctions. The only proper way to fight an idea is with another, better idea. That is why Ron Paul is the only candidate who wants to export Western ideas and culture instead of weapons. Instead of isolating a country economically and giving them even more reason to hate us, Congressman Paul wants us to trade with them so they see the light. Case and point: Iran. Contrary to popular belief, Iran is a fairly Western country. It is filled with Western music, literature, and political thought. They had a very reformist president, Khatami, until 2004. Then the US government goes around saying the Iran is on the axis of evil and talking about sanctions. Should we really have been surprised when they elected a guy like Ahmadinejad after that? Another example: take a look at two of the remaining communist countries in the world: Cuba and China. One of them has open trade relations with us, the other is being embargoed by us. One of them hates us, the other one sees us as a major economic ally. We're at an ideological crossroads with both of them, but one of them is far more workable than the other.

Iran's political structure is such that the elected president is nothing more than a figurehead. All real power is tightly consolidated with the 'Supreme Leader', a religious position. Iran is definitly a theocracy. Despite many young Iranians being modern people, there is still a lot of radical Islam, especially amongst supporters of the Islamic rulers.

Cuba's really not so bad anymore. Hell, Castro really mellowed out after the USSR toppled. I could see normalizing relations with Cuba in the near future. I mean, hell, we've got stricter sanctions against Cuba than we do against Venezuela, which is one of the up and coming stars of the axis of communism/socialism.

[aravoth]

Ask them how they plan on fighting Islamic extremeism by sreading democracy. Because if they aquire "freedom of speech" then even those extremists will have a platform to speak on, which would bring us right back to square one eventually. It's a paradox of the most idiotic kind.

[RedStripe]

If we didn't have to repeal our own liberties and invade other nations in order to destroy the Soviet Union, what makes a few radical nut cases so much more of a danger that it is necessary to do these things?

Are these disorganized bands of thugs really more of a threat to the United States than the Soviet Union was?

[mdh]

Um... we invaded a lot of places during the cold war. One of them was Afghanistan. We went in, and gave the taliban tons of money, weapons, etc to fight the soviets. Ooops.

[Phil M]

Iran's political structure is such that the elected president is nothing more than a figurehead. All real power is tightly consolidated with the 'Supreme Leader', a religious position. Iran is definitly a theocracy. Despite many young Iranians being modern people, there is still a lot of radical Islam, especially amongst supporters of the Islamic rulers.

The Supreme Leader does not hold all real power. He is by far the most powerful person in the country, and other clerical institutions like the Guardian Council really hinder reform, but the legislature still does have a lot of power. Anyways, under Khatami's presidency, along with a reform minded legislature, a lot of things improved in the ways of women's rights and other social issues. And there is a lot more free speech than we might think- citizens can openly criticize any part of the secular government, so long as they don't question the religious elements. Basically my point is that if we leave Iran alone the reform elements will return (this was already seen in the legislative elections last year- conservative factions that support Ahmadinejad lost a lot of seats), but if we keep doing what the neocons are advocating we will simply give the conservatives a pretext to hate us.

[NMCB3]

We're talking about terrorists here not a rouge country. The CIA and other operations should handle this. You don't bomb a country because they have radicals there.

If a country declares war then all bets are off.

Exactly, when the Mafia blows up a restaurant in NYC we don`t invade Italy. Furthermore the radical Muslims are more active now than before 911 because we have been stirring them up. (our own government confirms this) Also the Bush administrations simplistic "if your not with us your with the terrorists" rhetoric, puts many countries that would otherwise mind their own business in a tough spot. If they don't do what the world bully says they are subject
to "punishment" by the world master. If they help us then they open themselves up to terrorist attack, some choices.

[ARealConservative]

Here's my personal take. Feel free to take all or any part that you might desire if you think it will help.

--------------------


Our country was founded on the tenets of individual liberty. Our government was formed for the express purpose of preserving that concept.

Ron Paul stated plainly in the last debate that the Republican Party has lost its way, and I strongly agree.

A core principal of conservatism is completely abandoned with intervention. Government is prone to corruption and error and far too often actions are undertaken for political reasons more then because it is rooted firmly in solid reasoning or done for the benefit of all.

To illustrate the absurdity of today's current republican mindset you see the President attempting to name a new "War Czar". No matter what kind of titles you want to give top members of the military, our nation is still bound by those principals of individual liberty. One of the "costs" of that freedom is the people are free to change directions - even at the protest of the "War Czar".

It happened in Korea - the American people simply lost their stomach to fight and lose American life - and abandoned another nations cause. It happened again in Vietnam - except this time when we loss our will and left - it caused tremendous suffering for those we left behind. Now we again find ourselves at a time in American history where a huge number of citizens are questioning our actions and are contemplating a reversal of course.

Ron Paul is a statesman and as such he understands that he isn’t simply bound by the constitution, or his own morality. He also understands that the people bind a statesman - and we have proved to be a rather fickle lot when our own freedoms aren’t what are at stake.

So with that in mind, I'm not going to deride anybody that points to the growing rise of Islamic hate and the real threat it presents us. It should concern us all. But I'm also concerned as I witness us go deeper and deeper in to debt pursuing a foreign policy based on the concept of long term solidarity when the rules of a free society make such a goal illogical and impossible.

I believe we are approaching 10 trillion dollars in debt and reaching a point where a huge percentage of our population will be reaching retirement age and beyond.
I don't think it's out of the realm of possibility that we spend the next 20 years on again off again poking the same hornets next without any real improvement to the region. And what will our debt be then?

At some point that debt might grow so out of control that the hornets overtake the wealthiest nation in the world - but that can only happen if we continue down the same myopic path and ignore time tested conservative principals.

Ron Paul supports a strong defense and active patrol of our foreign borders. His foreign policy is designed to preserve the long-term safety of our nation. I hope anybody of any political view will honesty re-exam their own beliefs and ask if any other form of foreign policy is truly logical under the rules of a free society.

Thank You.

[billv]

Here's my answer-

We ARE at war with Islamic extremists. Ron Paul is the only candidate who can fight it the right way. You see, you can not fight centuries old ideas with bombs. You cannot destroy bigotry and hatred with economic sanctions. The only proper way to fight an idea is with another, better idea. That is why Ron Paul is the only candidate who wants to export Western ideas and culture instead of weapons. Instead of isolating a country economically and giving them even more reason to hate us, Congressman Paul wants us to trade with them so they see the light. Case and point: Iran. Contrary to popular belief, Iran is a fairly Western country. It is filled with Western music, literature, and political thought. They had a very reformist president, Khatami, until 2004. Then the US government goes around saying the Iran is on the axis of evil and talking about sanctions. Should we really have been surprised when they elected a guy like Ahmadinejad after that? Another example: take a look at two of the remaining communist countries in the world: Cuba and China. One of them has open trade relations with us, the other is being embargoed by us. One of them hates us, the other one sees us as a major economic ally. We're at an ideological crossroads with both of them, but one of them is far more workable than the other.

I agree with you. I think it follows that the only way to completely eliminate radical Islam is to commit mass genocide, perhaps level Muslim countries. But I don't think anyone but the loonies supports that.

Tis better to to make peace with your enemies if at all possible before confrontations than it is to rush to war unwarranted.

[billv]

Ask them how they plan on fighting Islamic extremeism by sreading democracy. Because if they aquire "freedom of speech" then even those extremists will have a platform to speak on, which would bring us right back to square one eventually. It's a paradox of the most idiotic kind.

We've seen what they do with democracy and how they react. The Palestinean elections put Hamas in leadership of their government. We don't like the outcome, we cry foul, saying we won't support the government then. What a joke, a big fat hypocritical joke.

[ButchHowdy]

Come on folks . . . try to separate the leadership from the people, and remember:

"You can't bomb brains"

[Brandybuck]

The actions of radical islamists in Indonesia and the Netherlands is not a justification for the continuation of the Iraq occupation.

[Anne]

Ron Paul himself called the terrorists "irrational." There is no reasoning with them because we can't tune in to their mindset. What we can do is try to figure out why they make attacks on certain countries. One of those reasons is our fiddling in Middle East affairs, installing the Shah in Iran, etc.

Good or bad, there is always a cause and effect in every action. Saying that does not make the 9/11 attacks our fault. It is just looking at the cause and effect of why things happen.

[billv]

If we didn't have to repeal our own liberties and invade other nations in order to destroy the Soviet Union, what makes a few radical nut cases so much more of a danger that it is necessary to do these things?

Are these disorganized bands of thugs really more of a threat to the United States than the Soviet Union was?

That's what I've been saying for weeks now!

[billv]

Exactly, when the Mafia blows up a restaurant in NYC we don`t invade Italy. Furthermore the radical Muslims are more active now than before 911 because we have been stirring them up. (our own government confirms this) Also the Bush administrations simplistic "if your not with us your with the terrorists" rhetoric, puts many countries that would otherwise mind their own business in a tough spot. If they don't do what the world bully says they are subject
to "punishment" by the world master. If they help us then they open themselves up to terrorist attack, some choices.

I see you read Ron Paul's speech

[NMCB3]

I see you read Ron Paul's speech

Actually I`m not sure which specific speech your talking about, though I have read many of his speeches and his new book; "A Foreign Policy of Freedom" Which was good by the way. Maybe I`m actually learning something.

[Hawaii Libertarian]

No, not global warming! The neocons don't have the courage to tell the American public that they went to war in Desert Storm and Iraqi Freedom to protect the interests of the multi-national oil companies, not to liberate Kuwait or Iraq. Some of our "allies" in the region, such as Saudi Arabia, for example, are among the most totalitarian, intolerant people on the face of the earth.

Muslim extremists make a lot of noise and dogs have been barking at the moon for ages. The answer is definitely not attacking everyone. It seems none of the neocons seem to want to face the facts about who is financing Al Qaeda with the exception of the Taliban.

I think strong border control and immigration restrictions as Dr. Paul advocates on his web site are a big part of the solution. The Western European countries opened their borders and they were innundated with Muslim immigrants. Some were bonafide refugees fleeing political persecution, but others set-up terrorist cells, such as what Al Qaeda did in Hamburg, Germany. Some of the European countries are starting to try and reverse course on this issue as they are losing their national identities.

Finally, I think the neocons and MSM are way overestimating the threat of Al Qaeda in their efforts to justify the endless War on Terrorism and the imposition of a police state. The negligence and imcompetence of our own government, whether deliberate or accidental, contributed as much as anything to the 9/11 attacks.

[Mesogen]

Radical islamists have not attacked Japan, China, any country in Scandinavia, any country in South America, Canada, or Sub-Saharan Africa.