Tuesday, January 10, 2012

Paul and Pape's Fraudulent Argument: Islamic Violence Not Caused by Islam

Ron Paul's belief is that murderous and genocidal actions by Muslims worldwide are the result of western actions, not the tenets of the Islamic faith.  Ron Paul wrote:
Though it is hard for many to believe, honest studies show that the real motivation behind the Sept. 11 attacks and the vast majority of other instances of suicide terrorism is not that our enemies are bothered by our way of life. Neither is it our religion, or our wealth. Rather, it is primarily occupation. …
On this point, Ron Paul is full of it up to his ears.  Joel Richardson of WND opines:
...despite the allure of Paul’s constitutional convictions, his perspectives on United States foreign policy, radical Islam and the nation of Israel are an absolute deal breaker. Paul’s emphatic trademark claim that the present rise of Islamic terrorism globally is the result of “blowback” from American actions abroad is nothing less than ridiculous and an absolute insult to my intelligence.

According to Paul, radical Muslims are not radical because they have drunk deeply from the trough of an expansionist, racist and murderous ideology, but rather because American actions abroad have brought about the natural response of resistance.
 Richardson blames a Paul advisor, Robert Pape for this fraudulent argument.  Pape claims in his book "Cutting the Fuse" that 95% of terrorist attacks worldwide were a response to foreign occupation.   Richardson counters with his argument that Robert Pape is a pseudo-scholar whose claims have been refuted by other, real scholars.  Further, Pape has been found conspiring with CAIR to promote his book and his arguments.

I think the best refutation of Paul and Pape's argument comes from Lawrence Auster of View From the Right.  Auster writes:
I have written about Pape's fraudulent argument in the past. In December 2005, in a long discussion with a reader who was promoting Pape's ideas. I said:

Obviously, a Western presence in a Muslim country is going to exacerbate jihadist manifestations including suicide terrorism. That's why I'm against any involvement by us in the Muslim world and any efforts to reform it from within.

But when analysts detach from Islam phenomena that are obviously deeply tied to Islam, such as terrorism, we have a problem. This is what all the mainstream intellectuals do today. They say terrorism is due to some cultural or economic or political factor that is extrinsic to Islam, so if we just remove that extrinsic factor, the terrorism will stop. So if we assimilate the Muslims in Europe better, or if we stop "discriminating" against Muslims, or if we create a global Provider State to give Muslim countries food and schools and highways, or if we betray Israel to its mortal enemies, then terrorism will go away.

My point is that while we should not do unnecessary things that exacerbate jihadism, ultimately jihadism is an expression of Islam itself. As long as Islam exists, jihadism, along with the terrorism that Allah specifically orders in the Koran, will exist as well. Thus any writer who says that terrorism committed by Muslims is not connected with Islam is promoting a dangerous delusion. [Emphasis added].
My reading of Islamic literature and books on Islam revealed that, according to Muhammad, the only sure way for a Muslim to go to heaven is to die in jihad fighting against the infidel.  Without this, a devout Muslim's chances of making it to heaven are only one in one thousand.  Therefore, I believe that jihad against non-Muslims in Muslim countries is merely Muslims taking advantage of a religious opportunity:  they can secure their place in heaven attacking "infidels," even when the infidels were sent to their country to protect it, as we did in Saudi Arabia after Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait.

Islamic jihad is all about Islam and Muslim salvation; it is not Arabic nationalism.  The problem, reduced to its essence, is Islam itself.  Our best method of protecting ourselves from Islam is separation, i.e. stopping Islamic immigration into the west, developing energy independence, and ceasing the stupidity of "nation building" within the Islamic states.


Always On Watch said...

I am ever amazed at how many Westerners are in denial about Islam. Ugh.

The Griper said...

i'm not too worried about his foreign policy ideas. we have the Senate plus term limits as a check of that extremist position.

but if he could get this nation back on the constitutional track in regards to domestic policies then that would be a very good thing. this is my big concern.

Tommy said...

I guess I don't really see how Auster actually refutes Pape. I agree with Auster that we can't detach the suicide terrorism phenomena from radical Islam ideology, but at the same time the hard evidence and timelines suggest that in an overwhelming number (is it 95%? does it matter?) of these suicide attacks the motivating factor was a desire to compel DEMOCRATIC countries to remove armed forces from their holy lands. I see Islam as the fuse and occupation of their homelands as the spark. I don't think there was an Islamic terrorist attack on American soil until 1972. The United States existed for almost 200 years without a domestic attack. So what changed? Could it be the U.S.'s mettling in Iran's affairs during the 1950's?

If you rest your case by saying the terrorist threat is Islam itself, then what is the solution? Do you have to kill all Muslims in order for America to be safe? What exactly is the foreign policy that results from the conclusion that Islam itself is the terrorism threat?

Stogie said...

Tommy, I do not agree that any persuasive evidence supports the blowback theory. It is wishful thinking, pure and simple.

To understand Muslim thinking, you need to read some books on the history, teachings and practices of this violent, expansionist ideology. I am on my 18th book. If you want some suggestions, just ask.

What changed in 200 years? Well we moved from sailing ships and horses to jet airliners and an international economy. The great oceans do not protect us as they once did. However, Muslims were attacking us even early in the 19th century. President Jefferson sent the navy and the marines to fight the (Muslim) Barbary Pirates in Tripoli (now Libya) and surrounding Muslim states in 1801. The Barbary Pirates were attacking our shipping, stealing our ships and goods, and enslaving our sailors. They cited the Koran as their reason for doing so. It certainly wasn't "blowback."

Muslims have been violent and expansionist since the religion was created, conquering many nations and peoples and forcing them to convert to Islam. They were commanded to do so by their prophet and holy book, until all the world is Islamic, and all the Christians and Jews converted, killed or enslaved.

Didn't you read my post before commenting? We don't have to "kill all the Muslims," we just have to separate ourselves from them, isolate and contain them. Stop all Muslim immigration into the west and encourage those here to leave. It is essential that we become energy independent, so we can stop funding the barbarians. Then we need a powerful military as a deterrent, and a promise to incinerate their holy sites if they launch any more 911-style terrorist attacks against us.

No more nation-building nonsense too. You cannot make democrats out of barbarian savages.

Ema Nymton said...


"Muslims have been violent and expansionist since the religion was created, conquering many nations and peoples and forcing them to convert to Islam. They were commanded to do so by their prophet and holy book, until all the world is Islamic, and all the Christians and Jews converted, killed or enslaved."

In your reading and understanding of Islam, is there any action called for by the Koran that is not called for in the Torah/Bible? Does not Book of Numbers command murder and mayhem just for the fun of it?

Given that followers of Islam have lived in USA/Canada peacefully since before the founding of USA in 1787, just how do you propose to separate 'our'selves from them? To help encourage those here to leave, should followers of Islam be forced to wear yellow stars of David or perhaps red crescents?

BTW - where in the Constitution do you find such authority for your advocated actions?

Ema Nymton

Stogie said...

Ema, the Torah does not require "continuing war against all mankind" to force them to convert to Judaism, and Judaism and Christianity are not remotely comparable to Islam in this regard. You continue your self-delusion but that will not change reality, that Islam is violent, totalitarian, expansionist and lethal to non-Muslims and Muslims alike. Thousands of innocents have been murdered by Muslims since 911, and their deaths are a reality, not some oblique debating point as you seem to think.

The Constitution is not a suicide pact, and we have a natural right to protect ourselves from a violent, undemocratic ideology that would kill or enslave us. The Constitution does not require us to allow anyone to immigrate and we can end such immigration immediately and legally. We can make it uncomfortable for Muslims to remain here, by removing their tax exempt status as a religion and recognizing them as a foreign, hostile ideology.

I have refuted you several times on the myth that Muslims "have lived peacefully among us" since before the founding -- B.S. See this post here, for example:


Stogie said...

Ema, I received your latest asinine comment, and it will not be posted.

Go peddle your communist propaganda somewhere else. You are all through here.

You are banned from further commenting on this blog.