Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Ron Paul and Islamic Terrorism

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

Aside from references to religion, I think the main reason Ron Paul doesn't get support from objectivists is because of his stance on foreign policy. Ron Paul is not a pacifist, and with all the talk of the christian just war theory he has also said that he would have no problem annihilating every inch of a country if they attacked us or showed an imminent threat. As far as response against the 'war on terror', he voted for our entrance into Afghanistan to attack terrorists and advocates Letters of Marque and Reprisal, which treat terrorism as a criminal activity and allow for US troops to enter foreign nations and engage in counterterrorism missions. 'Intervention' in the Middle East is unecessary, and terrorism is not a potent threat, it is only a reaction to foreign occupation of Middle Eastern countries. Name one Islamic terrorist attack in world history that was not linked to occupation by foreign armies or ethnic cleansing of Arabs/Muslims. Of late, attacks on Spain, the UK, and the USA were all openly justified by Al Qaeda as a response to foreign military occupation. If we get out of the Middle East and leave other nations to nation-build there, then if the terrorists do ever get a hold of a bomb then they wont use it on the US. And putting democracy, which can then vote in any form of government, in the middle east is not going to do anything significant to stop terrorists from acquiring a nuclear weapon. the USSR probably has hundred of nuclear weapons unaccounted for; who's to say the terrorists or a non-nuclear nation doesnt already have one. The main issue is that we have no reason to be there. The Middle East has nothing to offer the US except oil, and that oil is not crucial to our economy. There is more oil in the north shore of Alaska than Saudi Arabia; we should drill for all the resources we have, go completely nuclear, and if the time ever comes when we need more resources, that is the point we should destroy non-free governments in order to open up trade for their natural resources or simply annex the countries. Did none of you read 'The Lessons of Vietnam' by Ayn Rand? She was also no pacifist, but she recognized when war and nation-building have value and when it is futile. Right now it's futile. I have no doubt that most of the nations of the Middle East have no right to exist, but now is not the time to attack or occupy. The Middle Eastern nations are impotent bush-league countries that present no threat to the US. And occupation of their nations is not ultimately going to stop terrorists from acquiring a nuclear bomb. We should pull out of the Middle East, maintain our strong national defense, abolish the welfare state and return to laissez faire. once we abolish or drastically reduce the welfare state, Ron Paul advocates free flow of labor across borders; it was part of his platform in 1988 and it still is now. his reason for opposing immigration is that we cant afford the entitlements for illegal immigrants. those are the main tenets of Ron Paul's platform.

Edited by pl1985
Link to comment
Share on other sites

'Intervention' in the Middle East is unecessary, and terrorism is not a potent threat, it is only a reaction to foreign occupation of Middle Eastern countries. Name one Islamic terrorist attack in world history that was not linked to occupation by foreign armies or ethnic cleansing of Arabs/Muslims. Of late, attacks on Spain, the UK, and the USA were all openly justified by Al Qaeda as a response to foreign military occupation. If we get out of the Middle East and leave other nations to nation-build there, then if the terrorists do ever get a hold of a bomb then they wont use it on the US.

This is the primary error. Islamic Totalitarianism is not a reaction to meddling in the middle east, support of Israel, etc., but because of a fundamental incompatibility between mystic Islam and rational western values. Percieved "incursions" by western culture into "muslim" countries are simply the result of people deciding that freedom is preferable to tyranny, and do not justify the killing of Americans. The Quran explicitly states that Islam cannot be seperated from the State and that Muslims should "fight and slay the pagans wherever you find them." Bin Laden siezes on this rhetoric to justify mass murder of innocent people. Ron Paul is a terrorist apologist, and I will vote for Hillary Clinton before I vote for him.

The larger issue with Ron Paul is his claim that America is founded on the Christian Religion, and if he were elected he would introduce these ideas into the Supreme Court (appointments will be made in the next term). Due to the Democrat controlled congress, the majority of Ron Paul's better ideas could not take hold. Were it possible for him to be elected, this would make him a serious threat to freedom.

Edited by badkarma556
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...
Name one Islamic terrorist attack in world history that was not linked to occupation by foreign armies or ethnic cleansing of Arabs/Muslims.

Do you know the history of the islamic conquest of India? Look, muslims are great at finding an angle in which to depict themselves as the victims, but 9 times out of 10, they really aren't. Islamic terrorist attacks against africans and europeans that had never heard of Islam were frequent all through the "golden age" of Islam, and since then, attacks only stop because of tactical disadvantages... as Mohammad taught them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

Ron Paul understood the Mideast situation the best of any of the candidates I heard speak on it.

My opinion is this..................if we pull out completely then the caliphate has to deal with Israel on one side(if I remember correctly, didn't Israel open a can of whipass on like five Arab nations at once and make it back home in time to drink beer,raise hell and watch the game on sunday),Russia on the other(and we all KNOW how nice Comrade Putin played with the Chechens),and China on the other(I dont think they have been nominated for any awards by the UN or Amnesty International lately. So let them scream "death to America" all they want, because the joke's on them, America's presence in the Middle east saves muslim lives. If we pull out and let the garbage men handle the garbage, then we have nothing to worry about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Name one Islamic terrorist attack in world history that was not linked to occupation by foreign armies or ethnic cleansing of Arabs/Muslims.

Well, there was that near decade long war between Iraq and Iran. But we can dismiss that as war, not terror, even if civilian populations on both sides were targeted with everything both sides could get their hands on. So let me instead refer you to the murder of Anwar Sadat in Egypt. But then he did sign that peace treaty with Begin, so maybe that doesn't qualify. Well, there's everything that ever happened in Algeria during the 90s, where it was Algerian Islamists vs Algerian non-Islamists. That surely makes the cut.

Then again Saddam also invaded Kuwait, but he claimed that was to free the Palestinians. Oh, and Yemen fought a civil war that split the country in two for decades. Speakign of Saddam, he rose to power through assasination and intimidation, but he was invading other Muslim countries to liberate Palestine, right? then there's Syria, which occupied parts of Lebanon and, incredibly, did not make any Muslims target Syria with terrorist attacks. On the other hand, Syria was busy engaging in terrorist attacks within Lebanon, even after its forces "departed," such as the assasination of Rafik Hariri. You may also want to recall that days before 9/11 the Taliban and al Qaida killed an important leader of Afghanistan's Northern Alliance (remember them?) And during the Soviet occuaption of Afghanistan, both the communists and the muajhadeen who fought them did not shy away from targeting civilians. But of course after the USSR left a huge mess in that country, it was America who abandoned it for some reason.

But that's it. Really.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

Bumping an old topic, etc, etc.

Ron Paul is the epitome of dumb, colloquial libertarianism. His philosophy is not based on the importance and esteem of the individual, as Objectivism does, but rather a simple desire for the government to leave people alone despite whatever they're doing that instead has its roots in naivety.

His lack of understanding Islamic extremism underscores why he's too damn simple-minded to be President. Western intervention in the Middle East plays a role in spreading support for radical Islam, but it would not exist if there wasn't an irrational religious cult justifying it. No rational society would be able to justify their actions, which are only permissible to people who think God is on their side.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...