The Political Inquirer

I am on a mass emailing list that received two emails about Ron Paul’s foreign policy. Both were articles that are located on Lew Rockwell’s website. I agreed with both of them, but one person on the email list took the time to respond with this email:

Between these two warnings from Dr. Paul about the possible terrorist blowback from U.S. foreign policy, Osama bin Laden had re-released his 1996 “fatwa” against the United States. Titled “Declaration of War Against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places” (the Arabian peninsula), he invoked support for Israel, the occupation of Saudi Arabia, the backing of local dictatorships and the continuous bombing of Iraq as his major grievances against U.S. policy

I wasn’t aware that we were occupying Saudi Arabia. Apparently, if a government invites us or gives us permission to be in their country, we must ask permission from Bin Laden or he will kill our civilians.

Bin Laden also backs local dictatorships (Afghanistan). Maybe we
would be justified in targeting some innocent civilians just as Bin Laden did.

I thought Iraq tried to take over a country and we intervened and set up some terms Hussein had to agree to in order to keep power, then he reneged. I suppose if we let dictatorships take over the countries of our friends, Bin Laden would be pacified and wouldn’t kill our civilians.

Maybe if we just nuked Israel, Bin Laden would like us.

If I want to support Israel (as the Bible says I should) then I ought to be able to do it. Either personally or with the help of my elected representatives.

I think these would be good positions for Dr. Paul. Unfortunately, he thinks exactly opposite of me on these issues.

I know this person well and I knew there were disagreements with Dr. Paul, but after bottling up the anger from this email inside for two hours I finally wrote a lengthy response to him. I am not sure yet if I will send it or not, by the end I essentially undermine his entire political value system, I think.  Here it is, I thought it would be appropriate to share:

I cannot let this email go unanswered. The warnings against the terrorist blowback showed to be true due to the facts stated in the first paragraph! Sadly, all of the things Osama claims are true. Looking deeper in to al-Qaeda, though, above the surface, you quickly find something horrendous: Osama bin Ladin and al-Qaeda are creations of the CIA. (http://www.google.com/search?q=osama+cia+plant&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a)

In the past couple hundred years, Arab history has been dominated by the colonialism of not just the Ottoman Empire, but of France and England. After the Ottoman Empire fell, a nationalist movement was started that resulted in the overthrow of French and English colonialism and domination–however, many of the leaders who came to power were backed fully by either once again the English, or the United States. The French began to recede in their status as a powerful state, so they withdrew much of their influence from the region. Arab Nationalism was largely not terrorist related and was more of a freedom-fighting militia, it was not until later that the crazy Islamist groups were formed and started to do everything in the name of Allah. Beforehand it was largely secular.

It is a well known fact that Saudi Arabia is occupied by the United States and that the terrorist-supporting Saudi government is backed by U.S. dollars and was put in place by the force of the British military. The king of Saudi Arabia claims a kinship to Mohammed, a lineage that cannot be traced and was made up to give ‘legitimacy’. The only reason the Saudi king stays in power is because he is given guns and money by the British and the US. The Saudi occupation of the United States is proven by the very fact we have a base in the country: we essentially gave ourselves “permission” to be there because the Anglo-American alliance controls the government of Saudi Arabia. The people there are not the government, nor is that really the case in any country of the Middle-East.

Looking into Afghanistan, Bin Ladin did back the Taliban there. Is the Taliban just? No, but what were the root causes of the Taliban coming to take the place of the Afghan government? It is a simple answer: The United States meddled in the foreign affairs. Rather than letting the Communists take over, we pushed a bunch of crazy Islamists to a powerful status to fight the Communists (who were, in all truth, a non-threat). I’m not sure what the “we could target innocent civilians as Bin Ladin did” statement means, because I really find it to be revolting if there is meaning behind what was said. To kill innocent civilians is to…kill innocent civilians. General Sherman razed Atlanta and murdered and raped and pillaged the South in the ending campaign of the War of Northern Aggression, many many innocent people were killed that never should have died. Is it right to kill other people at the expense of trying to make Bin Ladin civil? What if it doesn’t work? People are now dead, Bin Ladin probably doesn’t care, and someone committed a big sin: “Thou shalt not murder”, I believe Jesus said, in the Gospels, when he was paraphrasing the ten commandments and the law.

Moving onto Iraq, we did essentially take it over and then we let Hussein stay in power. Who committed the biggest wrong at that point? The US or Bin Ladin? Well, Bin Ladin wasn’t around causing havoc in 1991, he was more than likely waiting for a CIA agent to give him the go-ahead to begin attacks on US soil. Whether or not the Iraqi invasion of 1991 was acceptable (and it is argueably very good that we went into Iraq and saved Kuwait), the fact remains that the US government committed a huge sin by letting Hussein stay in power. Unless, of course, it was all in the planbook in the first place. I don’t know what the last sentence in the Iraq paragraph has to do with bin Ladin. Iraq and Bin Ladin had little association with each other, and we had no presence in Iraq. Two separate issues altogether, I believe.

I disagree vehemently with this statement: “Maybe if we just nuked Israel, Bin Laden would like us.” It isn’t about Israel. Israel is just the excuse for the Islamists to use terrorism against us. Given that they have no nation-state, they seek a justification for their actions, and Islam is just that. Personally I believe they are insane radicals that, if they want reforms, shouldn’t be running around murdering people, but it does us good to see why they started their movement in the first place.

The last two sentences about Israel and what Dr Paul’s issues should be really disturb me. It is not that there is a believe one should be allowed to help Israel. I am fully committed to freedom of association anywhere in the world. If you want to give money to Israel, so be it. The problem is–and this is what is scary–by saying “with the help of my elected representatives” you have overthrown the ideas of Freedom, the message of Liberty, and completely rid yourself of what the Founding Fathers intended for this country. There are two reasons for this. One is that it violates the rule of Law, the United States Constitution, which as it stands is the Supreme Law of the Land. Not one time does Article I section 8 give the authority to Congress to fund other countries.  The second reason is worse than the first. By believing that your representative should fund Israel and violate the Constitution, you hereby agree wholeheartedly with Communists, Fascists, devout Racists, “Progressives”, Authoritarians, Totalitarianism, Tyrants, Kings, and Dictators. I am not saying this lightly. It is a problem that plagues American political mindset these days.

At the point that one says “I should be able to help fund Israel through the United States government,” one has agreed, in principle, with saying “I should be able to keep Joe from smoking inside his own private home where he livse 50 miles from all other civilization.” There is no denying that you agree with a nationwide fascist smoking ban, because you want to force some people to do something that they disagree with. That is wrong, immoral, anti-American.

Calculate how much money you think your tax dollars contributes to Israel and feel free to write them a check every year for the amount you want. If the US government itself was not violating its own law by sending them money, and your taxes were lower, you would be free to do that. Churches everywhere could start donation drives for the State of Israel. I am not against that and there is no reason to be.

Frankly I find it strange one can claim to love liberty and yet justify their beliefs by the same manner of thinking that the Communists and the Dictators and the Islamists use.