OK. I’m trying to figure out the point if this article. The author condemns Ron Paul and lays out a historical argument against Islam. This article is completely and utterly irrational in its argument. If not in the argument definitely in its lack of a conclusion.
What are we to conclude from this article or what is the author proposing? He cites Jefferson’s and Adam’s dealings with Islam. OK, thanks. Then suggests that Ron Paul (ie. the reader) read the passages taken from the Koran. OK, thanks again. Then a reference from a leading Egyptian scholar from the 50’s and 60’s. OK.
The author offers all of these historically documented instances and the impossibilities of dealing with Islam and Muslims but proffers nothing on what all of this means with regard to foreign policy. Should we stay in Afghanistan and do what we’re doing? Is he proposing we do unto others what we think they are trying to do to us? Is the argument that Islam at its core and that every muslim is wanting and willing to wage war at any cost, at anytime and in anyplace? If that is indeed where his argument points us, what does he propose? Waging war on all muslims in every part of the world no matter the cost because that’s what he thinks they want and are trying to do to us. I just don’t get where he is going with this.
If he was serious about looking at this from a historical perspective then he wouldn’t be proposing taking it to the muslims, at this point he should be asking what the hell are we still doing in the muslim world trying to reform it?
We don’t live in the muslim world. If we were serious about stopping this stuff it’s really not that hard. We (our military) come home, the terrorists stay there. If we think so and so is sending terrorists here, then don’t let them on a plane to come here. What are they going to do row here? If someone from so and so country has business to conduct, then do it over the phone or internet. If you’re legitimate, sorry, until you and your country get your affairs in order, no entry. You’re losing money by not being able to come to the U.S., sorry. Effect change at home to earn the privilege of coming here. No one has an inherent right to travel here. We need to govern ourselves and let them govern themselves. If they CHOOSE to let extreme religious beliefs guide them, fine, but we choose to not have it affect us. If and when we are serious we can get serious really quickly. We just have to have the will to do it. Is it “fair?” No. Is it fair that some would choose perpetuate terror? No. Do we need to change course? Yes.
To be charitable, Klein is offering nothing more than hyperbole regarding the golden rule statement from Paul.
Pretty much exactly what I was thinking, all these Paul threads are nothing but hyperbole bashing Paul without any suggestions of that our policy should be towards Islam.
Most of the UK terror attacks have been home grown.
Am I advocating continuing to meddle with ground troops? No.
Am I advocating nuking the feces out of any country or compound that has helped a terrorist attack one of our embassies or an attack on the USA? Yes I am.
Islamist radicals understand getting the feces smacked out of them with the leaders and the families of the leaders destroyed and wiped from the face of the earth and their bodies never found again.
Removing those who wish to wage Jihad from the gene pool until they are no more is the logical solution.
Does that sound too harsh? I wouldn’t want to be too harsh.