Posted on 01/18/2012 5:18:06 AM PST by SJackson
Congressman Ron Paul showed in the January 17th Fox News debate why he would be so dangerous as president and commander-in-chief. He believes, in a twist on the Judeo-Christian Golden Rule, that our Islamist enemies are only assaulting us because we assaulted them first. Sorry, appeaser-in-chief Paul, but the Koran commands devout jihadists to use whatever means are necessary to destroy all infidels, no matter what we have done or plan to do to them.
As part of an exchange involving the appropriate response to al Qaeda and their Taliban supporters, Paul exclaimed:
My point is, if another country does to us what we do others, we’re not going to like it very much. So I would say that maybe we ought to consider a golden rule in — in foreign policy. Don’t do to other nation… what we don’t want to have them do to us.
Paul even offered the absurd analogy comparing our killing of the mass murderer Osama bin Laden on Pakistani soil, where he was provided a sanctuary, to the Communist Chinese government deciding to go after a Chinese dissident seeking freedom in the United States. Newt Gingrich properly labeled this comparison “utterly irrational.”
Ron Paul may have some good ideas on reining in the power of the Federal Reserve and on the need to control federal spending. But he is clueless in dealing with our Islamist enemies. He either does not understand or refuses to believe the ideology that drives them. They want to kill us because our nation is governed on the basis of principles derived from Judeo-Christian beliefs including the true Golden Rule. They hate us because of who we are, not for any alleged harm that we’ve ever caused them.
Only three years after the United States won its independence, when there was no Jewish state for Muslims to resent, and no American troops on Muslim soil, Thomas Jefferson, then U.S. ambassador to France, and John Adams, then U.S. Ambassador to Britain, learned from a Muslim ambassador to Britain why the Muslims were so hostile towards Americans. Jefferson and Adams were attempting to negotiate a peace treaty with the Muslim “Barbary pirates,” an exercise that ultimately proved to be futile.
As Jefferson and Adams later reported to Congress, the Muslim ambassador explained to them that Islam
Was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman [Muslim] who should be slain in Battle was sure to go to Paradise.
All that Ron Paul needs to do is take a look at the Koran itself, cited by that Muslim ambassador more than 200 years ago, to understand the source of the jihadist ideology that we are still fighting today.
Here is a sample:
• “Kill the disbelievers wherever we find them.” (Koran, 2:191)
• “O ye who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends: They are but friends to each other.” (Koran 5:51)
• “Shall I tell you who, in the sight of God, deserves a yet worse retribution than these? Those [the Jews] whom God has rejected and whom He has condemned, and whom He has turned into monkeys and pigs because they worshiped the powers of evil.” (Koran 5:60)
• “I will inspire terror into the hearts of unbelievers: you smite them above their necks and smite all their fingertips off of them.” (Koran, 8:12)
• “So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.”
• “[F]ight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book [Christians and Jews], until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.” (Koran, 9:29)
• “When we decide to destroy a population, we send a definite order to them who have the good things in life and yet sin. So that Allah’s word is proven true against them, then we destroy them utterly.” (Koran, 17:16-17)
Islamist apologists argue that the Koran also contains verses calling for tolerance and understanding. If the verses written while Muhammad was living in Mecca, where he and his followers were then surrounded by much stronger non-Muslim populations, constituted the entirety of the Koran, they may have had a point. However, the milder verses were superseded by the far more war-like and intolerant verses written during Muhammad’s time in Medina where he successfully launched his jihad of conquests against non-believers, especially against Jews who refused to convert to Islam. Moreover, when one examines the real meaning of jihad according to Muhammad from other primary sources such as Bukhari (the Hadith, which are oral traditions relating to the words and deeds of Muhammad), the fact is that 97% of the jihad references are about war and 3% are about so-called inner struggle.
Sayyid Qutb, an Egyptian author, educator, and the leading Islamic scholar who was a member of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood in the 1950s and ’60s, wrote:
It may happen that the enemies of Islam may consider it expedient not to take any action against Islam, if Islam leaves them alone in their geographical boundaries to continue the lordship of some men over others and does not extend its message and its declaration of universal freedom within their domain. But Islam cannot agree to this unless they submit to its authority by paying Jizyah, which will be guarantee that they have opened their doors for the preaching of Islam
Islam has the right to take the initiative…this is God’s religion and it is for the whole world. It has the right to destroy all obstacles in the form of institutions and traditions … it attacks institutions and traditions to release human beings from their poisonous influences, which distort human nature and curtail human freedom.
Those who say that Islamic Jihaad was merely for the defense of the “homeland of Islam” diminish the greatness of the Islamic way of life.
This is the ideology that inspired Osama bin Laden and his replacement as the current leader of al Qaeda, Ayman Zawahiri. A “die or submit” ideology is the antithesis of the Golden Rule that is so central to Judeo-Christian beliefs. If Iran, al Qaeda or other jihadists were ever armed with nuclear bombs, we would face an existential threat. Yet Ron Paul believes that the solution is to simply pretend the threat only exists because of our own foreign policy.
In my previous article on Ron Paul’s dangerous foreign policy views, I discussed Paul’s perverted moral equivalency version of the Golden Rule in dealing with the Iranian theocracy. Referring to the U.S.-Iranian conflict and justifying Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons (which he simultaneously denies is happening), Paul said during the August 11, 2011 GOP presidential debate in Iowa:
It’s been going on and on because we just plain don’t mind our own business. That’s our problem…Why wouldn’t it be natural that they might want a weapon? Internationally, they’d be given more respect.
Again, to be charitable, Paul is way out in left field. The fanatics ruling Iran today do not believe in the Golden Rule as we understand it in the West. They believe instead in a “golden age” when the big Satan (the United States) and the little Satan (Israel) will be destroyed. This will hasten the arrival of the 12th Imam, otherwise known as the Mahdi, whom Iran’s rulers look to as Islam’s messianic savior.
For example, Ayatollah Khamenei linked Israel and the United States together as the mortal enemies of the 12th Imam and declared through a spokesman in August 2009:
We have to train honest forces that can stop the obstacles that may hinder the coming of the Mahdi like the United States and Israel.
The spokesman described Ayatollah Khamenei, Iran’s supreme leader, as “a direct representative” of the Mahdi and said following his orders is like “obeying the guided one.
Ron Paul is on a fool’s gold mission in believing that applying the Golden Rule in dealing with our Islamist enemies will lead to any result other than the killing of many more innocent Americans.
Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Article printed from FrontPage Magazine: http://frontpagemag.com
URL to article: http://frontpagemag.com/2012/01/18/ron-pauls-absurd-golden-rule/
He came across as a doddling old fool IMO. Shuffling along like Tim Conways character on Carol Burnett. Mumbling, fumbling idiot.
Ron Paul: Dangerously naive, cuckoo, and an intellect of magnificent desolation.
Yup. Another idiot whom I will never vote for if he gets the nomination.
Its amazing such a large group of Americans think like this guy, i.e. conservative on domestic/economic policy and nut cases on foreign policy.
He has no chance to get the nomination only to hang around to blackmail the party.
And the RNC should get a court order ASAP to make Ron Paul stop using 'republican' to describe himself to the people. And to bar him from all 'Republican debates', and keep his name off all Republican primary election ballots.
He's a nutty Libertarian and should be running in that party, not the GOP. And he can have all the Libertarian debates he wants -- with himself!
Also, if his son, the honorable Senator Rand Paul, really cared for his father he'd have him declared legally incompetent and have him put away in some nice Home that has MDs & Nurses on staff, and a LOT of medications on hand.
This has gotten to the point of beating a dead horse.
Most people that are NOT Paulbots and have some common sense already understand that Paul is a dangerous nutcase.
Ron Paul is the proverbial stopped clock, right twice a day.
As far as the Golden Rule goes, who is always first to offer assistance in times of disaster?
Let me be clear that we are not making naked pyramids or urinating on enemy, that would 10,000 times worse than My Lei. Many of our servicemen are Christians but they are not allowed to fulfill the Great Commission. They are not allowed to share their primitive gospel with anyone, because that would be more offensive than urinating on them.
Secular Humanism is doomed, it dead on it's feet. At worst, Ron Paul is right for the wrong reasons. Read Mark Steyn's "America Alone"
Matthew 28:19
Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
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.
I wonder why Switzerland doesn’t get any terrorist attacks. After all, they’re infidels too.
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.
Dr. Paul's foreign policy is the one for which Washington argued in his Farewell Address. Note, that the Washington argument was not based upon anything peculiar to his time or any other time. It was based upon psychological effects, both on us & others, from the attitudes that Dr. Paul tries to avoid. Consider the argument from a Washingtonian perspective, for once: Pseudo Pragmatism.
You will note that my argument does not name any candidates. My hope is to urge whomever is the Republican nominee against Obama, to avoid the sort of hysterical ranting which causes problems, as well as alienates potential supporters.
William Flax
William Flax
Dr. Paul's foreign policy is the one for which Washington argued in his Farewell Address. Note, that the Washington argument was not based upon anything peculiar to his time or any other time. It was based upon psychological effects, both on us & others, from the attitudes that Dr. Paul tries to avoid. Consider the argument from a Washingtonian perspective, for once: Pseudo Pragmatism.
The speech, written by Hamilton, was a response to the lunacy of the Jeffersonians who wanted to go to war for France. And it was followed by our Quasi war with France. It was also written during our early empire, as we consolidated control over our native subject peoples.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.