Raimondo vs. Poe -- A Question of Patriotism

RichardPoe.com ^ | February 9, 2003 | Richard Poe

[mr.pink]

Do you believe that 9-11 was a "false flag" operation?

[Richard Poe]

<< You obviously have a lot of time on your hands since you were purged as editor of David Horowitz's "FrontPage." >>

I wish that were true! Sadly, I seem to have even less time now than when I was working for Horowitz.

But why do you say I was "purged" from FrontPage? I thought I resigned. Do you know something I don't? What would have been the reason for this purge?

<< fighting Al Qaeda is not something that interests either you or this administration... >>

Well, no, it doesn't, for the reasons explained in the article posted above. I believe -- with Laurie Mylroie -- that "Al Qaeda" is a red herring. If we simply fight them and "get out," we will have accomplished nothing, and our true enemies will have escaped unscathed.

<< ...the administration... has been taken over by neoconservatives whose foreign policy goals are to make the U.S. military a cat's-paw for Israel's Likud party. ... >>

Well, if that is true, that would mean that Israel now effectively controls the United States. It's no small feat to make a "hyperpower" go to war against its own interests.

By what means or mechanism did Israel and the neocons pull off this extraordinary coup?

<< So, why not drop the crap about my alleged lack of "patriotism" and start discussing the more substantive issues? >>

Okay, let's. Here are two substantive questions:

1. What makes you so sure that Al Qaeda alone -- without any helpers -- is solely responsible for 9-11? You appear to be so sure of this fact that you are willing to bet your nation's very survival on it. The evidence must be extraordinarily compelling. Let's hear it.

2. What makes you so sure that the U.S. government has no reasons of its own for undertaking this war? Why do you assume with apparently 100-percent certainty that our foreign policy is being dictated from Tel Aviv?

[decimon]

Justin,

You often invoke Rothbard in your writings. Rothbard said that the proper course for the U.S., in the unlikely case of invasion, would be to immediately sue for peace. Any comments on that?

[Richard Poe]

<< Dismissive phrases? With your use of "enemy agent" (the mother of all "dismissive phrases"), you should be the last person to complain about that. >>

I beg to differ.

My use of the term "enemy agent" was an admittedly provocative preamble to an 1,143-word argument in which I attempted -- however imperfectly -- to justify the charge.

Raimondo's use of such phrases as "tin-foil hat material" is genuinely dismissive, because he seeks to end all argument by the mere utterance of them.

[Austin Willard Wright]

As to point 1, you are asking your opponent to disprove a negative (an impossibility). The burden of proof is on you to show a link.

[Richard Poe]

<< Do you believe that 9-11 was a "false flag" operation? >>

Of course.

[Austin Willard Wright]

Give a choice, I would rather be called a nut rather than a traitor (potentially a capital crime)? How about you?

[TLBSHOW]

BUMP

[mr.pink]

Of course.

Who's flag?

[Richard Poe]

<< Give a choice, I would rather be called a nut rather than a traitor (potentially a capital crime)? How about you? >>

Depends.

In the old Soviet Union, incarceration in a state mental health facility for the politically "insane" could arguably have been worse than a quick bullet to the back of the head.

[jammer]

Motivations of the person who makes an argument or states a hypothesis/theory do not make that argument or hypothesis/theory any more or less correct. That's an elementary logical proposition.

Please forgive me for not attempting to post a link, but you can cut and paste to go to this:

http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/attack.htm

[Richard Poe]

< Whose flag? >>

Well, that's the $64,000 question, isn't it?

The "flag" they flew was that of Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda. If we content ourselves with the mass media version of events -- as Raimondo appears to have done -- that pretty much ends the matter.

It was Al Qaeda and only Al Qaeda. How do we know? Because ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, Justin Raimondo and our good friends in the gummint told us so.

I'm trying hard to believe that Al Qaeda acted alone. I really am. I don't want to be a thought criminal.

But, jeepers, the idea of Osama bin Laden and his gang of Keystone cutthroats pulling this off all by themselves is just so damn ridiculous. Maybe I'd better just head over to the Ministry of Truth and turn myself in.

[TLBSHOW]

Resigned is not purged. Gee Justin your friends from the left love ya now! purged from the right would be you, and that is the bottom line!

[jammer]

One other caveat--lol--I have used the same fallacy myself, sometimes intentionally, sometimes not. For example, I have derided arguments because someone is a "newbie"!

But you don't have to apologize for being new or lurking. Neither affects the quality of your argument.

The only unwritten "rules" I can think of are that ad hominem arguments used by people who agree with the moderator are overlooked, while ad hominem arguments used by people who do not agree with the moderator are usually dealt with promptly and, sometimes, severely.

[j_bottoms]

Poe seems to have gotten his facts right about Raimondo and Pravda, and I continue to differ with Poe's conclusion. Like Raimondo, I think the world would be a better place without a US hyperpower, and I respect Raimondo's goal of undermining that monopoly.
Just as the American federalist concept of shared power among competing states prevented tyranny (for awhile, anyway), a multi-polar world with competing powers would be a better, and probably safer one than a One World Government, run by the USA or any other power. Safer still would be a world where the US followed our founders' advice to be a commercial and moral leader for the world, but not to meddle in other countries' internal politics.

[Richard Poe]

<< Poe seems to have gotten his facts right about Raimondo and Pravda, and I continue to differ with Poe's conclusion. >>

I think you meant to say that I got the facts wrong, didn't you?

In any case, if you read the article posted above a bit more carefully, you will see that the issue of Raimondo's relationship to Pravda.ru remains murky, at best, and certain key questions have been left conspicuously unanswered.

[mr.pink]

But, jeepers, the idea of Osama bin Laden and his gang of Keystone cutthroats pulling this off all by themselves is just so damn ridiculous.

That's bothered me as well, I don't see how those guys could've pulled it off without inside help.

[IronJack]

I fail to understand why Raimondo alone should be accorded a fair hearing, and why he should have license to dismiss others' opinions in the most arrogant and high-handed manner, using such dismissive phrases as "tin-foil hat" material and so forth.

This is just a well-articulated way of saying "How come Johnny gets to stay up late and I don't?" You're better than this. Raimondo's flip dismissals of your points will be seen for what they are. That doesn't excuse your indulgence in equally bankrupt tactics.

I think your argument has its weak points too, but there seems to be little principled discussion going on and a whole lot of squabbling.

Why don't you try restating your criticisms, and call on Justin to rebut them one by one?

[Richard Poe]

<< Rothbard said that the proper course for the U.S., in the unlikely case of invasion, would be to immediately sue for peace. >>

Did Rothbard really say that?

Why, that's... disgusting!

[Richard Poe]

<< Why don't you try restating your criticisms, and call on Justin to rebut them one by one? >>

That's what I'm doing now. Haven't you noticed?

It seems to have scared Raimondo away. Or at least stunned him into temporary silence.