Did anyone just see Glen Beck's insulting attack about Ron Paul?

[Gee]

Yep, Desert Storm was the worst mass slaughter known to man and we intentionally kill women and children and call it "foreign policy."

Unfortunately, OBL doesn't need to be correct to convince muslims that we are an enemy of Islam. And our sanctions did - supposedly - kill many, intentional or not:
http://www.commondreams.org/views/102300-103.htm

I have no idea how true that link is or isn't, though the numbers thrown around there have been mentioned by mainstream media without refute (for whatever that is worth).

 

[winston_blade]

Yep, Desert Storm was the worst mass slaughter known to man and we intentionally kill women and children and call it "foreign policy." And we're pilfering oil from Iraq and still paying almost $4 a gallon for it. Give me a break!!!! You can't take anything bin Laden says as truth or even remotely close to reality. Terrorists don't need reasons to blow up people! Terrorism is inherently irrational. It is as irrational as saying that we need to listen to the grievances of cowards who hide in caves and saw prone people's heads off in front of a camera and consider themselves to be freedom fighters for it. What we need to know is this: they will kill us if we do not stop them. I am sick of the pity parties for the terrorists, who suffer from our unjust foreign policy. Terrorists are only empowered by comments like Mr. Paul's, and if you think differently, you've got another guess coming.

It's more than just Desert Storm, duh. Its Iraq-Iran War, its the overthrowing of Iran's leader, it's sending troops into Saudi Arabia (Their holy land), its sanctions on Iraq that caused many people to die.

Go do some more research that terrorism is just the means to an end. It's not irrational, if anything, it is very rational because it is the only kind of warfare that can effectively hurt the United States. If they did to us in our history what we did to them in their history, you would be upset beyond belief.

You get mad at the 3000 or so who died on 9/11. Good, you should get mad because it is horrible, but also realize that is almost nothing compared to the death, destruction, and instability that the United States foreign policy has brought to the middle east region. Stop drinking the kool-aid or I'll cut your mic. Be part of the solution, don't be part of the problem that the neo-cons portray as the end of the world as we know it.

 

[thePhilosopher]

So far, Osama bin Laden has done what he's said, and said what he's done. He's said the attack on 9/11 was largely due to three things: Our forces in Saudi Arabia, our sanctions against and attacks against Iraq, and our support of Israel. Osama tells his people that these events, and others, are evidence that the United States is an enemy of Islam as a whole. In his last video in 2004, Osama said he planned to bleed us economically in Iraq and Afganistan, just as he did the Soviets in Afganistan. He literally said his goal is to bankrupt the USA, and so far I think he's doing a decent job of it.

Whether or not Osama is correct or not isn't relevent to figuring out how to prevent more 9/11-esque attacks. Every American knows he is not - America obviously has no broad policies to eliminate Islam, nor would we ever. But the problem isn't his correctness and sincerity, its his ability to convince others that we are an enemy of Islam. He needs to do this for a good reason: Its needed to establish a jihad under the Muslim law Osama follows (or at least claims to follow). His call for America to convert and his warning us of more attacks were not made as a claim that he truely believes America could be replaced by an Islamic nation, but rather as one of the requirements of his law before he may justifiably attack us again. (see Michael Scheuer's book)

Our continueing military involvement in the Middle East only convinces more and more muslims of bin Laden's message, hence the escalating violence in Iraq. If most of the GOP is correct, and the extreme terrorists do hate us for who we are, not what we do, we need to recognize that our actions will only bring more of the saner Muslims into their fold. Even if we accept the assumption that we were attacked because of our values and freedoms (and I haven't seen any evidence of this myself), we must acknowledge our presence in the Middle East and foreign policy in general does not help us defend against terrorism, unless you think we can somehow occupy the whole region.

I understand where you're coming from Gee, but I can't help but feel like you would rather we sacrifice our national security and general national interests in the Middle East than actually stand up to OBL. We cannot let terrorists dictate to us how, where, and when we will relate to certain countries. I understand that he follows his own code and that warning us means that we are fair game before an attack, but should we just accept that? We certainly have made numerous and serious mistakes in the Middle East, but show me a country who hasn't.

I am not on board with the "they hate us for our freedom" crowd. I think there is too much in Islamic theology which shows that, if a certain interpretation of the Qur'an is used, such actions carried out by bin Laden are not "suggested" but are commanded directly by Allah. Remember, the Qur'an is a divine decree (unlike the Bible, which is divinely inspired, for comparative purposes). No, not all Muslims follow this interpretation, but even an incredibly evil individual like OBL has to square his call for violence and terrorism with the Qur'an and some portion of the umma. Even if we did everything he asked of us, do you really think that he or other terrorist leaders couldn't find some other justification for calling for attacks on US soil? There is no end with these barbarians, and we need to realize that specific actions in the Middle East isn't going to help them ease up on "the Great Satan" any time soon.

 

[tnvoter]

Terrorists are only empowered by comments like Mr. Paul's, and if you think differently, you've got another guess coming.

Ok this is where tactic comes into play- whether they are empowered by Ron Paul's comments or not- if we followed Ron Paul's take on the situation- pulled out of Iraq on our military commands suggested basis- secured our borders- and began enforcement of visa and immigration policies ---- though empowered ---- there won't be jack diddly shit Osama bin Laden can do about it - because our troops won't be there- and they won't be able to get HERE to do anything about it.

Were Islamic Jihadists attacking the United States in the 1800's? Was it because they couldn't? Did Islam and Christianity live in relative peace for centuries in between crusades and jihad wars? YES- why is this?

These are the kinds of questions americans need to be asking, not things like -- which sunni should we support today?

Kthnx

 

[tnvoter]

Adding to my point -- it's not that we shouldn't fight fascist islam...

ok here's a 12am analogy, it's like being against bad drivers... all of us are against crappy drivers who talk on cell phones and put us all at risk - but do we send our police walking through the interstate trying to catch someone? NO. They sit on the side-lines and observe until they see who is breaking the law (with disregard to speed traps of course-scr those)

So is Ron Paul's way to deal with terrorism, only deal with a national IMMINENT THREAT. Stay on the sidelines until necessary, don't put ourselves- OUR TROOPS in harms way if it isn't absolutely necessary.

 

[thePhilosopher]

It's more than just Desert Storm, duh. Its Iraq-Iran War, its the overthrowing of Iran's leader, it's sending troops into Saudi Arabia (Their holy land), its sanctions on Iraq that caused many people to die.

No, clearly from what I cited, he specifically referred to Desert Storm.

"This means the oppressing and embargoing to death of millions as Bush Sr did in Iraq in the greatest mass slaughter of children mankind has ever known"

Now, did "Bush Sr." oversee the Iraq-Iran war, overthrowing the Shah, etc.? No, he was clearly referring to Desert Storm. Strike one!

Go do some more research that terrorism is just the means to an end. It's not irrational, if anything, it is very rational because it is the only kind of warfare that can effectively hurt the United States. If they did to us in our history what we did to them in their history, you would be upset beyond belief.

As soon as you consider terrorism "rational," you begin to justify the intentional murder of civilians. If they did to us in our history what we did to them in their history, I may very well be more upset than most of "them," but would that justify me killing thousands of civilians just trying to make a decent living? Strike two!

You get mad at the 3000 or so who died on 9/11. Good, you should get mad because it is horrible, but also realize that is almost nothing compared to the death, destruction, and instability that the United States foreign policy has brought to the middle east region. Stop drinking the kool-aid or I'll cut your mic. Be part of the solution, don't be part of the problem that the neo-cons portray as the end of the world as we know it.

I am not questioning that we have brought untimely death, terrible destruction, and chaos to this region in the world. What I am questioning is your assertion that there is any way you can rationally square this. When you side with those who strap bombs on their chest, you basically say "yeah, you take innocent life by the dozens every day, but I know you were so wronged that it was your right to do so." I mean, if the basic moral imperative is "don't bring harm to other people," surely you could easily decry all terrorism to be wrong, regardless of what context it is in, or for what motives? When you search for motives for terrorism, you begin to justify it, which is what Congressman Paul was dangerously close to doing. Glenn Beck rightly stated "stop blaming America for terrorism" in his show, and that should be something a real conservative would do. Strike three!

This thread IS in fact, about Glenn Beck and his thoughts on Paul. I suggest that you start another thread if you want to continue on this, that is, if you want to be schooled further, winston blade!

 

[tnvoter]

I am not questioning that we have brought untimely death, terrible destruction, and chaos to this region in the world. What I am questioning is your assertion that there is any way you can rationally square this. When you side with those who strap bombs on their chest, you basically say "yeah, you take innocent life by the dozens every day, but I know you were so wronged that it was your right to do so." I mean, if the basic moral imperative is "don't bring harm to other people," surely you could easily decry all terrorism to be wrong, regardless of what context it is in, or for what motives? When you search for motives for terrorism, you begin to justify it, which is what Congressman Paul was dangerously close to doing. Glenn Beck rightly stated "stop blaming America for terrorism" in his show, and that should be something a real conservative would do. Strike three!

This thread IS in fact, about Glenn Beck and his thoughts on Paul. I suggest that you start another thread if you want to continue on this, that is, if you want to be schooled further, winston blade!

Lol, still, we must fully evaluate why someone would kill themself and especially innocent civilians for a cause. With the japanese kamakazi it was nationalism- and being drunk signing a waiver to the government saying that they would commit suicide for their cause. With Islamic Jihadists, its brainwashed fascism combined with the resulting hate from our foreign policy. Ron Paul's error- may have been not mentioning Islam.

Retorted and conceded- g'night!

<3

 

[Exponent]

As soon as you consider terrorism "rational," you begin to justify the intentional murder of civilians. If they did to us in our history what we did to them in their history, I may very well be more upset than most of "them," but would that justify me killing thousands of civilians just trying to make a decent living? Strike two!

"Rational" doesn't necessarily mean "right". "Rational" means that if you have an agenda (and that agenda might be the most awful and atrocious agenda one could imagine, or the most saintly, or anywhere in between), then the rational course of action is the course that most effectively fulfills that agenda. This is what winston_blade was referring to. It is not an agreement with their agenda. But it is merely pointing out that it was a good move for anyone who has that agenda.

 

[Gee]

I understand where you're coming from Gee, but I can't help but feel like you would rather we sacrifice our national security and general national interests in the Middle East than actually stand up to OBL. We cannot let terrorists dictate to us how, where, and when we will relate to certain countries. I understand that he follows his own code and that warning us means that we are fair game before an attack, but should we just accept that? We certainly have made numerous and serious mistakes in the Middle East, but show me a country who hasn't.

Well, I feel disengaging from the middle east would aid our national security. And remember, Ron Paul supported going after Osama in Pakistan, and has given speaches about it on the house floor. He has, to my knowledge, advocated going after Osama himself and al Qaeda more than any other GOP canidate. We can do that without being tied-down in nation-building exercises. I think he speaks about going after Osama in Pakistan somewhere in this speech:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7456931596878368112&q="Ron+Paul"+pakistan&hl=en

I am not on board with the "they hate us for our freedom" crowd. I think there is too much in Islamic theology which shows that, if a certain interpretation of the Qur'an is used, such actions carried out by bin Laden are not "suggested" but are commanded directly by Allah. Remember, the Qur'an is a divine decree (unlike the Bible, which is divinely inspired, for comparative purposes). No, not all Muslims follow this interpretation, but even an incredibly evil individual like OBL has to square his call for violence and terrorism with the Qur'an and some portion of the umma. Even if we did everything he asked of us, do you really think that he or other terrorist leaders couldn't find some other justification for calling for attacks on US soil? There is no end with these barbarians, and we need to realize that specific actions in the Middle East isn't going to help them ease up on "the Great Satan" any time soon.

I recognize there will always be nut-jobs who hate us, and a disproportionate number of them are probably in the Middle East. But there are nut-jobs everywhere, hell there are probably some in Canada. What I don't like is the nut-jobs having popular support of people who can aid and arm them, and that is what I feel our foreign policy does.

My largest fear is that even if we do get out of the Middle East, another attack may already be inevitable at this point. Still, I think we have a better chance of stopping it or dealing with it if our troops are at home, though I won't assume any bit of expertise on the subject of counter-terrorism.

 

[thePhilosopher]

Ok this is where tactic comes into play- whether they are empowered by Ron Paul's comments or not- if we followed Ron Paul's take on the situation- pulled out of Iraq on our military commands suggested basis- secured our borders- and began enforcement of visa and immigration policies ---- though empowered ---- there won't be jack diddly shit Osama bin Laden can do about it - because our troops won't be there- and they won't be able to get HERE to do anything about it.

Really? They got here pretty easily for the first bombing of the WTC in the early 90's, and not to mention the fact that the 9/11 hijackers had no significant trouble in carrying out their plan. They can get here quite easily, whether our troops are "here" or "there" or anywhere. What you have to do is cut the head off the snake, instead of asking the snake what it wants you to do.

Were Islamic Jihadists attacking the United States in the 1800's? Was it because they couldn't? Did Islam and Christianity live in relative peace for centuries in between crusades and jihad wars? YES- why is this?

These are the kinds of questions americans need to be asking, not things like -- which sunni should we support today?

Kthnx

Islamic Jihadists weren't attacking the United States in the 1800's for a lot of reasons. Wahabism (OBL's Islamic branch of choice) hadn't quite developed, so the theoretical framework wasn't as it is now. The Ottoman Empire was in its final stages as a world power. There was no basis for something like al-Qaeda from an economic, theoretical, or political standpoint. Times have changed, though, and we can't expect old solutions to work for new problems, and asking ourselves questions about the 19th century aren't all that relevant to the 21st. Sorry to break the news to you, but much has changed in Islam in the past 200 years. We need to be figuring out ways to eliminate extremists as effectively as possible, not how we can avoid offending them and "causing" another terrorist attack by our foreign policy (which, by the way, hasn't happened on our soil since 9/11, fancy that).

 

[thePhilosopher]

"Rational" doesn't necessarily mean "right". "Rational" means that if you have an agenda (and that agenda might be the most awful and atrocious agenda one could imagine, or the most saintly, or anywhere in between), then the rational course of action is the course that most effectively fulfills that agenda. This is what winston_blade was referring to. It is not an agreement with their agenda. But it is merely pointing out that it was a good move for anyone who has that agenda.

My friend, you fail to understand rationality, and you are confusing this with pragmatism. The pragmatic with say that the ends justifiy the means, fulfilling an agenda, or what have you. That is not necessarily rational. If I would want to own a BMW, the most pragmatic thing to do would be to steal one from someone (it effectively fulfills that agenda). Easily done. But that wouldn't necessarily be rational, since I hadn't considered a future run-in with the law or seeing my angry victim and 5 of his closest friends. If I was really rational about it, and really wanted it, I'd get a job and work for it, so it could be rightfully mine.

So, terrorists are pragmatic and irrational. The goal is fear and death, and they achieve that with as much efficiency as possible (flying a 747 into a tall building). Killing innocent individuals en masse is not rational, and cannot be justified by reason.

 

[tnvoter]

Really? They got here pretty easily for the first bombing of the WTC in the early 90's

Because our open door and non immigration policy enforcement was NONEXISTENT. Conservatives like our Ron Paul had been screaming about it since Reagan left office.

For the rest of the rant, I'll concede to needing sleep- you make some good arguments as far as Islamic Jihadists go, but the entire scope of history needs to be looked at. There were many years where Christianity fought Islam, and vice versa. The point is, we stopped going after the ones responsible for 9/11, and are using our energy to build up a military outpost in Iraq that is drawing terrorists to easy-target our soldiers-POSSIBLY unnecessarily. This is why we support our candidate, not that we don't believe in fighting them, but we believe in fighting correctly.

Minding our own business, but if you mess with us, we're coming for you. IMO we did great in Afghanistan, good at first in Iraq- but we failed at declaring war on a greater task than defeating the taliban-where a northern alliance had already existed.

G'night!

 

[thePhilosopher]

Because our open door and non immigration policy enforcement was NONEXISTENT. Conservatives like our Ron Paul had been screaming about it since Reagan left office.

For the rest of the rant, I'll concede to needing sleep- you make some good arguments as far as Islamic Jihadists go, but the entire scope of history needs to be looked at. There were many years where Christianity fought Islam, and vice versa. The point is, we stopped going after the ones responsible for 9/11, and are using our energy to build up a military outpost in Iraq that is drawing terrorists to easy-target our soldiers-POSSIBLY unnecessarily. This is why we support our candidate, not that we don't believe in fighting them, but we believe in fighting correctly.

Minding our own business, but if you mess with us, we're coming for you. IMO we did great in Afghanistan, good at first in Iraq- but we failed at declaring war on a greater task than defeating the taliban-where a northern alliance had already existed.

G'night!

Right on, I think I agree with a good deal of what you're saying and apologize for sounding a little stand-offish. I bolded the statement which should dictate our foreign policy, but unfortunately hasn't. I am not a big defender of US foreign policy, but I don't think that it justifies by any stretch of the imagination 9/11. Now I realize this might be stretching out what Mr. Paul said, but not by much. But I'm out for now as well, unless there are others commenting any time soon.

 

[Exponent]

My friend, you fail to understand rationality, and you are confusing this with pragmatism. The pragmatic with say that the ends justifiy the means, fulfilling an agenda, or what have you. That is not necessarily rational. If I would want to own a BMW, the most pragmatic thing to do would be to steal one from someone (it effectively fulfills that agenda). Easily done. But that wouldn't necessarily be rational, since I hadn't considered a future run-in with the law or seeing my angry victim and 5 of his closest friends. If I was really rational about it, and really wanted it, I'd get a job and work for it, so it could be rightfully mine.

So, terrorists are pragmatic and irrational. The goal is fear and death, and they achieve that with as much efficiency as possible (flying a 747 into a tall building). Killing innocent individuals en masse is not rational, and cannot be justified by reason.

It's a matter of semantics at this point then. Using your terminology, if you insist, I still maintain that the essence of winston_blade's point was indeed that terrorists are "pragmatic". That was the idea he was trying to communicate. They have an agenda, and choose behaviors that achieve that agenda more effectively than most other behaviors would. If you want to call that pragmatism, but not a rational pursuit of an unwholesome goal, that's fine. The idea is the same, regardless. Disagreeing with winston_blade on that point was merely an avoidance of what he was truly communicating, and something that you apparently agree with.

 

[thePhilosopher]

It's a matter of semantics at this point then. Using your terminology, if you insist, I still maintain that the essence of winston_blade's point was indeed that terrorists are "pragmatic". That was the idea he was trying to communicate. They have an agenda, and choose behaviors that achieve that agenda more effectively than most other behaviors would. If you want to call that pragmatism, but not a rational pursuit of an unwholesome goal, that's fine. The idea is the same, regardless. Disagreeing with winston_blade on that point was merely an avoidance of what he was truly communicating, and something that you apparently agree with.

I just think that it is dangerous to really mix "rational" actions with "pragmatic" actions. Being rational means having some grounding in reason, but being pragmatic does not require any grounding in reason. To credit the terrorists with any kind of "rationale" to speak of is to say that their actions have some kind of grounding in reason. I cannot bring myself to say that there is any element of reason in purposefully killing innocent people.

I personally know winston blade and we've had conversations on this before. He knows that he is wrong, and will always be wrong, as long as he disagrees iwth me! jk, jk.

 

[Exponent]

I just think that it is dangerous to really mix "rational" actions with "pragmatic" actions. Being rational means having some grounding in reason, but being pragmatic does not require any grounding in reason. To credit the terrorists with any kind of "rationale" to speak of is to say that their actions have some kind of grounding in reason. I cannot bring myself to say that there is any element of reason in purposefully killing innocent people.

I personally know winston blade and we've had conversations on this before. He knows that he is wrong, and will always be wrong, as long as he disagrees iwth me! jk, jk.

Fair enough. I can definitely see the motivation, especially when outside observers are involved and might get the wrong impression over word-usage. My philosophical outlook tends to separate value-theory concepts from logic-based concepts, so I generally see rationality and reason as logical processes, and agendas as values. Rationality and reason alone cannot influence behavior. It takes some desire, some value, some agenda, to direct ones behavior, and reason (in a logical sense) can be an obviously useful tool to more effectively achieving that goal.

I will concede the argument to you, though, in light of the fact that some people most definitely will misunderstand what is meant by "rational", just like people have misunderstood Ron Paul, claiming that he thinks that the people who died in the September 11th attacks deserved it. As irrational as those people can be sometimes, it seems we do have to work extra hard to ensure that the ideas that we intend to communicate do in fact get communicated effectively, even if we have to work around mental blocks that automatically misconstrue everything we say.

 

[Gee]

I think this begs an interesting question into how the mind works and linguistics: Why do people sometimes equate something which makes rational (logical) sense to something which makes rational (moral) sense? The two are obviously quite different in meaning, only sharing a word.

But I digress...

 

[thePhilosopher]

Fair enough. I can definitely see the motivation, especially when outside observers are involved and might get the wrong impression over word-usage. My philosophical outlook tends to separate value-theory concepts from logic-based concepts, so I generally see rationality and reason as logical processes, and agendas as values. Rationality and reason alone cannot influence behavior. It takes some desire, some value, some agenda, to direct ones behavior, and reason (in a logical sense) can be an obviously useful tool to more effectively achieving that goal.

I will concede the argument to you, though, in light of the fact that some people most definitely will misunderstand what is meant by "rational", just like people have misunderstood Ron Paul, claiming that he thinks that the people who died in the September 11th attacks deserved it. As irrational as those people can be sometimes, it seems we do have to work extra hard to ensure that the ideas that we intend to communicate do in fact get communicated effectively, even if we have to work around mental blocks that automatically misconstrue everything we say.

Ah, I see the cause for our wires crossing then. Sorry for unnecessarily talking past each other. I don't think that Ron Paul said that we "deserved" 9/11, and I think that people who suggest that are wrong. Beck does not suggest this, and did not in tonight's broadcast. Paul is not a perfect candidate because there isn't and never will be a perfect candidate. He has a lot of strengths and a lot of good issues which I agree with (security, cutting big gov't, etc.), but he can't expect to say what he did in the debate without serious backlash and possibly being misinterpreted. Hopefully he felt like it was worth it, but I'm not sure that it was.

 

[kylejack]

Is there video or a transcript of this yet?

 

[JoshLowry]

Is there video or a transcript of this yet?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IA3mAe2IdUM