RoR: Forum

There's a flaw in this article. The claim that an explanation is a justification is a bit of a stretch to me. Observing that X did Y because of Y is a descriptive statement, not a justification of it. Ron Paul was correct to correlate aggressive foreign policy with the sentiment of the arab people toward the US government.

Now, Ron Paul did state he voted for the hunt down of Bin Laden, which his voting record affirms it, but what he and folks like me don't like is the invasion of Iraq as it diverted vital resources in the hunt of an outlaw. When the neo-conservatives get their head, which seems firmly planted between their other cheeks, and get that punk's head on a platter, then I'll listen to concerns over Iraq and other backwater states like Iran, which has less than half of its male population manning of the majority of its private and public sector jobs (and not because women are statistically 51% of the population, think drug addiction and etc, which are oddly common problems for that theocracy). So, yes I'm totally in agreement with Ron Paul, if you put your hand into a flame you will get burned. That's the point, and if that's wrong to say, then I guess I won't be warning the neocons anymore. *shrugs* ;)

-- Brede

Post 1

Wednesday, May 23, 2007 - 8:17am

http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=18114572&blogID=257990633&indicate=1

First, I am going to post a blog by one of my Myspace friends. He apparently was raised Muslim, but now actually works for Hustler:

I hate talking about politics in general, even though it's a topic I know a lot about, but I heard three stupid political things today, so now I have to rant. Since other people use their MySpace blogs for this kind of stuff from time to time, I thought I'd give it a shot. Here goes.

1) This morning, I listened to a speech by Rudy Giuliani about terrorism, in which he repeated the Republican party line that Islamic terrorists hate the US's freedoms, and added that it had nothing to do with Israel. I am so tired of hearing this, because it's BS. Here's the truth:

The Islamic world didn't give a flying fuck about the West prior to Israel. They barely knew we existed, largely becuz the Islamic world was also a step above third world at the time. Their attitude was, "they're heathens and will go to Hell," and that was about the extent of the thought process.

Then the US came, and took land /away/ from the Islamic world, including /Holy lands/. Jeruselum is Holy to Muslims too. All of a sudden, the Islamic world became aware that there was this country powerful enough to just come in and take land away from Muslims as they saw fit. Giving it to Jews, enemies of Muslims, was like insult to injury. But the Islamic world felt threatened for the first time becuz the US literally just created this country becuz they felt like it. That was scary, and it fueled fantacism.

So this IS all about Israel, or more generally, it's all about imperialism. Any time you go into somebody else's land - it doesn't matter who you are or what your government is like - and take shit away from them, it's going to scare them, and then piss them off. Period. How do you think the Muslim world looks at Iraq? "Here the US goes again. Coming into our country and taking our shit."

If the US genuinely wants to make nice with the Muslim world, they should realize this and do something FOR them for a change. The US did next to nothing about Bosnia; for the Holocaust they created Israel. Draw your own conclusions. Has nothing to do with this "they hate our freedoms" bullshit that Giuliani was talking about....

Post 2

Wednesday, May 23, 2007 - 8:22am

And now for some comments by Michael Scheuer, who worked for the CIA tracking bin Laden for many years:

http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2007/05/22/fmr-chief-of-cia-osama-unit-why-they-attack-us/

In the dozen-plus years I have been active in matters relating to Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda, I have watched them go from a small Islamist organization to a worldwide insurgent movement, while bin Laden has established himself as the primary source of inspiration and leadership for tens of millions of Muslim Islamists. This process has been made possible by two things: (a) the skill, courage, patience, and ruthlessness of bin Laden and his ilk, and (b) the refusal of the U.S. government to understand the motivation of bin Laden and his allies.

Last week, Representative Paul did all Americans an immense service by simply pointing out the obvious: Our Islamist enemies do not give a damn about the way we vote, think, or live. Though any country they ruled would surely not look like ours, they are motivated by the belief that U.S. foreign policy is an attack on Islam, its lands, and its believers. This, of course, is not to say that America is to blame for the war it is now engaged in, but it is to say that it is foolish – and perhaps fatal – for Americans to believe that are we are being attacked for such ephemera as primary elections, R-rated movies, and gender equality. If our Islamist enemies were motivated by such things their numbers would be minuscule and they would be a sporadic lethal nuisance, not, as they are, the most serious national security threat we face today.

Of the eighteen presidential candidates now in the field from both parties, only Mr. Paul has had the courage to square with the average American voter. We are indeed hated and being warred against because we are “over there,” and not for what we are and how we live. Our failure to recognize the truth spoken by Mr. Paul – and spelled out for us in hundreds of pages of statements by Osama bin Laden since 1996 – is leading America toward military and economic disaster.

At day’s end, Mr. Paul has at least temporarily shaken the pillars of the bipartisan consensus on U.S. foreign policy. Neither party, and none of the candidates, want to discuss the Islamists’ motivation because they would have to deal with energy policy, support for Israel, and the 50-year record of U.S. support and protection for Arab tyrannies. These holy cows of U.S. politics have long been off limits to debate, but Mr. Paul has now accurately identified them as the source of motivation for our Islamist enemies, and implicitly has said that the obsessive interventionism of both parties has inspired al-Qaeda and its allies to kill 7,000-plus U.S. civilians and military personnel since 11 September 2001. The war we are engaged in with the Islamists is a long way from over, but it need end in America’s defeat only if Mr. Paul’s frank statements are ignored.

And no matter how you view Mr. Paul’s words, you can safely take one thing to the bank. The person most shaken by Mr. Paul’s frankness was Osama bin Laden, who knows that the current status quo in U.S. foreign policy toward the Islamic world is al-Qaeda’s one indispensable ally, and the only glue that provides cohesion between and among the diverse and often fractious Islamist groups that follow its banner.

Respectfully,
Michael F. Scheuer
Falls Church, VA

Post 3

Wednesday, May 23, 2007 - 8:33am

We discussed and refuted the idea that Israel and the West took away land from anyone here.

Muslims need to get their heads out of their asses already.

Post 4

Wednesday, May 23, 2007 - 8:48am

Maybe Ron Paul's comment is better understood by introducing intended and unintended consequences. The U.S.'s intervention in the Middle East is part of the sequence of events that led to 9/11. Osama bin Laden has said anyway that his primary motivation was the presence of the U.S. military on Muslim holy land. The U.S. military went there, of course, in response to Saddam Hussein invading Kuwait. The people of the U.S. in no way intended to kill innocent people, there or in the U.S. So it is improper to assign moral blame to them for 9/11, and I doubt very much that Ron Paul does. To the extent 9/11 can be considered a consequence of U.S. intervention, it was a totally unintended one. On the other hand, bin Laden is morally culpable for 9/11, because it was a wholly intended consequence.

Post 5

Wednesday, May 23, 2007 - 9:26am

Despite having strong convictions and some libertarian ideas, Ron Paul is not to be taken seriously. He falls victim to the standard libertarian fallacies, as this demonstrates.

Post 6

Wednesday, May 23, 2007 - 12:00pm

The people of the U.S. in no way intended to kill innocent people, there or in the U.S.

And nobody has said that the people of the US did intend this. It's mainly a bunch of treasonous intellectuals (such as the Project for the New American Century and the editors of National Review), treasonous lobbyists (AIPAC), and treasonous politicians in both parties.

Like it or not, the neo-con ship is filling up with water faster than the Titanic. It's going down. Never did I dream that people who call themselves Objectivists would be fiddling on the deck while everyone else is scurrying for the lifeboats. It may just lead to the destruction of a political party.

One long-time Red Teamer who is actually for the war pointed out to me that Ron Paul is the only electable candidate they have. If they nominate anybody else, they could very well lose every single state.

Remember when Objectivists defended Michael Milken? I do. Now Objectivists are championing the charlatan prosecutor (Giuliani) who went after him.

Post 7

Wednesday, May 23, 2007 - 12:41pm

To the extent 9/11 can be considered a consequence of U.S. intervention, it was a totally unintended one.

Exactly, Jetton, the problem is that we cannot go around being police man. Granted the bs in Israel is unprovoked, and I don't really have an issue helping them, but helping the Sauds keep dominance through tyranical force? That is what irks me.

This Straussian "whatever works is okay" stuff is what is the problem and in fact Ron Paul in 2002 on the floor of the House of Representatives made that same case, here is the link, it has elevent parts, listen to exactly everything is says. Oddly, it's very much Randian in the respect that it's a critical analysis based on unintended consequences and an attack against moral nihilism/arbitrariness.

-- Brede

Post 8

Wednesday, May 23, 2007 - 12:42pm

Are we to believe that if the Jews had formed a new homeland in, say, the plains of western America rather than Israel, the Muslims would have left us alone?

Post 9

Wednesday, May 23, 2007 - 12:55pm

I second Bridgett's comments about the non-equivalence of explanation versus justification, as illustrated by Ron Paul's comment that he favored apprehending Bin Laden. I think Paul's use of the term "blowback" is appropriate, because one can predict that messing with A will probably incite A to respond unpleasantly. Please do not interpret this comment as constituting any sort of backhanded apology or justification for the terrible murders of 9/11.

Interestingly, I carefully read Karsh's book on Tibor's recomendation (on this site), and came away with conclusions at odds with Karsh and Machan about all of this. Throughout the book, Karsh demonstrates that Muslims in history have fought more among themselves than against infidel outsiders; that Muslim culture contains many warring tribes, cults, and states; that Muslim strongholds throughout history have opted to maintain peaceful relations with infidel trading partners, despite continual lip service paid to war-talk; that the only means by which antagonistic Muslim rivals have been united in the past was by promoting the idea of a common infidel enemy. By choosing to involve itself in the long-running dispute between Israelis and muslims after WWII, and by pursuing violent intervention in the region for decades, well before the first Gulf War of Bush I, our government has made Americans less safe. Blowback describes this situation perfectly.

Finally, it is also interesting that the FBI website does not list the murders of 9/11 as crimes for which bin Laden has been indicted, although the site does attribute other crimes to bin Laden. The FBI has stated that the reason 911 is not listed as an indictable offense of bin Laden's is because they have no hard evidence that he was involved. Shortly before the US invasion of Afghanistan, the Taliban offered to extradite bin Laden to the United States if the Department of Justice could provide evidence of his involvement. Our government did not respond to this offer.

As to the important question of who is responsible for the murder of 3,000 innocent Americans on that tragic day in 2001, important answers are provided in David Ray Griffin's latest book "DeBunking 9/11 Debunking".

Post 10

Wednesday, May 23, 2007 - 2:09pm

I read Tibor Machan's article a second time, after worrying that I had skipped over or misunderstood an essential point. But I can't quite understand how one can state that to ackowlege that A was motivated by some event to commit a crime, which event can be shown to be factual, that one thereby concedes the justice of A's action. If one observes that A murdered his wife Susan because he believed that Susan was having an affair with another man, and if it is true that Susan was having this affair, then one does not thereby concede that A was justified in murdering Susan. One simply figures out what motivated A to commit murder.

Moreover, one can draw only limited inferences from the facts that much of Islamic culture has long been repressive, brutal, and often murderous; and that this culture has a long history of aggressive militarism against outsiders, including the West. As Karsh explains, a lot of the energy behind muslim imperialism has been spent over the years in lip service by ambitious muslim strongmen trying to unify disparate muslim tribes and cults by appealing to a common enemy. Such unifying efforts toward Pan-Arabianism have almost always failed.

So the idea that 9/11 had to happen, not as an irrational response by radical Islamic extremists to our government's long history of military and political intervention in the Middle East, but as a logical outgrowth of Islamic imperialism, is not proven. If the United States would cease obliging ambitious thugs such as bin Laden and other muslim "unifiers" by serving as the region's common external bully, if our government would withdraw troops and close military bases around the world, and announce that this is our long-range policy, after 25 years anti-American hatred might recede and be forgotten.

While awaiting the considerable benefits of a peaceful policy of non-interventionism, we could readily bankrupt Middle Eastern regimes sympathetic to terrorism against the West by freeing our energy producers to find oil and natural gas, produce nuclear power, and become wealthy doing so.

Finally, the idea that muslim imperialism produced the murders of 9/11 ignores compelling evidence to the contrary, as carefully demonstrated in books by David Ray Griffin.

Post 11

Wednesday, May 23, 2007 - 7:43pm

When I got on the A Train on Tuesday after work, I sat down and looked across the isle from me to see a woman in a black hijab wearing camouflage fatigues underneath, reading some evil-looking book with very small print. A black clad "Virgin-Suicide-Mary" in camo!

I suppose Israel and the so-called neo-cons created this harpy?

Well, rather than throw a neo-fit, I got up and moved to the other end of the train. Then, at the next stop, an Indian guy, reading... The Fountainhead!!! got on and sat next to me.

Must have been a divine omen.

Ted

Post 12

Wednesday, May 23, 2007 - 9:12pm

I also disagree with Mr. Machan's assessment of Ron Paul's comment. Explanation is not necessarily justification. I believe Rep. Paul would even go so far as to say that there could NEVER be a justification for the murder of innocent people as occurred on 9/11. His explanation may have been insufficient, or lacking comprehensiveness enough for some, but if he was implying anything it was that unfortunately individual americans can be subjected to unintended consequences ("blowback") for our government's poor foreign policy. The poor policy is NOT justification for the consequences. His criticism was directed at the U.S. government, NOT the american people.

Post 13

Wednesday, May 23, 2007 - 9:58pm

Are we to believe that if the Jews had formed a new homeland in, say, the plains of western America rather than Israel, the Muslims would have left us alone?

Prior to 1947, Jews were pretty much welcomed in islamic countries. In fact, prior to the 20th century, many Jews fled to islamic nations due to Christian inquisitions, which they suffered the most under. The worse a Jew often had to deal with in an islamic country was a tax on their faith, compared to what Christians required of them (where do you think the dunce cap originates?).

But let me preface all that by stating none of this absolves the current hostilities toward Jews by modern Muslims, in fact, it's a slap in the face of the historical peace that Jews and Muslims have had for centuries. If the Muslims wanted to prove they weren't bigots toward Jews, then they wouldn't attack Israel, rather instead seek a peaceful resolution to the conflict that rages in that nation.

None the less, our meddling in that issue has not made it better, nor really any worse, just that we now become a new target for the modern Muslim extremist. Which is my problem at this point. Do we as a nation and as individuals have an obligation to protect Israel? In reality, we have none, and pretty much we need to accept that fact. To argue that the Jews could be genocided if we don't help them through finacial and military backing doesn't cause me a single pang of guilt in having little interest in their conflict, (and I state it is their conflict and not ours) because the simple fact is, we have nothing to lose nor to gain by the existence of Israel. And whatever we might gain is purely speculation. I, for one, do not believe in trying to "take the bush out of the bushman" mentality when dealing with others of unlike mind.

I suppose Israel and the so-called neo-cons created this harpy?

Actually I blame the British and the Turks on this one. The British for their attempt to continue a dominance in an area where the Turks could not, thus continuing the inevitable, which is that the arabs in that part of the world will probably falter, starve and suffer from their irrationality, and general hatred toward reason. I say, let them reap what they sow. If they think that faith can save them, let their beliefs make rocks into bread. Let their faith turn unrefined oil into gasoline. And let their faith heal their sick and elderly.

Also, I think Israel can handle itself without our help. Prior to our involvement, their own military was facing off forces many times their own, which even had superior technology along with superior numbers. They'll get along fine without us, and probably more so in that we will not meddle in their strategies and internal affairs. And they too will learn to grow past their belief in God too, as they too are a religious nation still even after all these years and the so-called "secular Jew" majority in that country being in charge. And they too need to learn from the consequence of taking faith instead of reason as the foundation of their actions. Their assumption that the particular land is some how Holy or appointed to them is as silly as the belief of their opponents who suppose the same thing in kind.

All in all, I still agree with Ron Paul, stay out of the way or go to war, no flip flopping please.

-- Brede

Post 14

Wednesday, May 23, 2007 - 10:37pm

Above, Bridget, your quotes implied that Israel was America's creature. I assume that you are too young to remember Israel bombing Osirak, The Oil Embargo, waiting 6 hours to get a tank of gas, or Munich '72, the paralyzed humiliation of the Carter presidency, or expecting the Soviet Union to launch a nuclear strike against us. You do mention the British (Balfour) and the Turks (the self-initiated Ottoman dissolution in WWI - and the Armenian Genocide).

None of these had anything to do with the USA or American injustice or aggression.

During the Cold War, America veered between apologetic idealism and apologetic realpolitik, but we never pursued empire. Israel was an ally that we desperately needed. Those Arab states that weren't too backward to matter had either been Nazi allies during WWII or were communist allies in the cold war. The Ba'ath party was formed by one of Hitler's Arab proteges. When Egypt turned from the Soviet Union under Sadat, we moved quickly toward a bipartisan supported reconciliation between him and Israel - Carter's only and ephemeral accomplishment. The Republicans did not fight to undermine the Camp David Accords for partisan gain. Then Sadat was assassinated by Wahhabists who plague us to this day.

It is easy to be a pacifist when you've grown up during peacetime. But these bullies have been at their game since before the US was born. Paul makes a perfect legislator. Let him keep his day job.

Ted Keer
(Edited by Ted Keer on 5/24, 8:41am)

Post 15

Thursday, May 24, 2007 - 12:26am

Thanks for the article Tibor. I'm in agreement.

I'd like to comment on the "explanation" and "justification" connection. I also think they are often tied together, and in the case of Ron Paul's comments, are indistinguishable. Let me approach it from a different angle.

Imagine you're walking down a busy street. You take a right at the corner, and suddenly the man walking next to you punches you in the back of the head. When trying to make sense of the bizarre and violent action afterwards, someone offers "well, you did take a right at the corner". Now what if someone said "Well, that explains it!". You might be slightly confused since that in no way explains anything. But more to the point, by suggesting it was your action that "explains" the violent outburst, the "cause" of the action is planted squarely on your shoulders. It's as if your action necessitated that outcome. It's saying that it's your fault. The proper response would be "So what? That's no reason to hit me!"

Now what if we add a little further "explanation". Say that the guy who hit you is "Old Crazy Bob" who always smacks people that turn right. Then superficially, you could argue that "you turned right" is an explanation. But only given the insanity of Old Bob. Only by taking it for granted can you not include that as the major part of the explanation.

Or how about a real life example. Salmon Rushdie writes a book. Muslims go insane and demand that he be killed. If someone said "Well, he did write a book", would you answer "Well, that explains it!". No. Saying that would amount to accepting as a given the violent response to criticism, and pointing at his book writing as the source of the actions.

The same goes with the Cartoon War, violent attacks on a foreign embassies over some cartoons. To say "Well, the explanation for all of that is that those damn cartoonists insulted the Islamic faith" is to ignore the insanity. When people believe they should rampage, murder, and kill an entire nation because someone else points out how prone to violence they are, it's preposterous to point to the cartoons as the source of the violence.

And so we have 9/11. We have terrorists crashing planes full of people into tall buildings where thousand of people work to make a living and pursue their own happiness. All of these people innocent. You have a religion that worships death and murder, and a culture that thinks violence and bloodshed is the solution to any irritation in life. You have an ideology that believes murdering thousands of innocent people is somehow justified. And of course, you have Ron Paul saying "Well, it is the US foreign policy that explains that!" Of all of the factors that went in to these murderers choices, Ron Paul decided that the only significant one was the US foreign policy.

Does "explanation" mean "justification"? Not always, just as Tibor said. But if the actions of a person are "explained" by reference to someone else's actions, they become equivalent. By saying that action A caused action B, without reference to the person making the choice for B, it's as if there is a straightforward causal path there. It's as if the results were inevitable. I'm not sure how you can argue that a person must do B in response to A, and not call it justified by A.

So when a woman gets raped, and someone says "She dress provocatively", the response should not be "Well, that explains it." To suggest her action necessitated that result, or that the rape itself was caused by her clothing, does amount to calling it justified.

I think there are a couple of important principles worth identifying.
1.) If you say something explains an action, you're saying it is the primary reason or factor. In the case of rape, the clothing is not the primary factor, even if it contributed. The primary factor is the rapists decision.
2.) If you say that one person's actions were the result of another person's actions, you are
a.) assigning responsibility to the latter (it was the woman's fault)
b.) making the statement that the result was the only possible choice, and thus that is was justified (her clothing made him do it)
c.) removing any possible moral blame for the action on the former, and putting on the latter (he had no choice, but she did)

So yeah, explaining doesn't always mean justifying, but in this case, it certainly does.

Post 16

Thursday, May 24, 2007 - 4:11am

Luke asked in #11

Are we to believe that if the Jews had formed a new homeland in, say, the plains of western America rather than Israel, the Muslims would have left us alone?

Why yes, provided also that John Galt had come out with his motor and made oil no longer a fuel, only a lubricant.

Post 17

Thursday, May 24, 2007 - 4:59am

Stephen, your Post 11 of this thread only confuses me.

Are you saying that oil rather than Israel remains the driver behind Muslim aggression, i.e. that American dependence on oil and the cash flow the Muslim countries receive from our oil purchases allows them to act in ways they could not normally afford to act?

Put another way, if America supported Israel but Muslim countries had no oil reserves and thus no cash flow, Muslims would have no way of aggressing against Israel or America?

Post 18

Thursday, May 24, 2007 - 5:30am

Joe wrote:

I'd like to comment on the "explanation" and "justification" connection. I also think they are often tied together, and in the case of Ron Paul's comments, are indistinguishable.

I don't agree and will start from a dictionary.

explain - to make plain or comprehensible; to offer reasons for or a cause of, justify; to offer reasons for the actions, beliefs, or remarks of (oneself)

justify - to demonstrate or prove to be just, right, or valid

Explain and justify are synonyms, but I don't regard them as interchangeable in all cases. Examples:
1. The egg rolled off the counter. That explains how it broke.
2. Joe was bitten by a dog. That explains the bandage.

It would sound really weird to substitute justifies in either case. Justify usually denotes intentional human action, whereas explain often does not. If there is intentional human action, then the two can be interchangeable. Example: Mom, upset at what her teenage age son did, says, "Explain yourself." Justify would fit as well.

While Ron Paul gave U.S. intervention in the Middle East as a factor to explain 9/11, it doesn't imply he thought U.S. intervention in the Middle East justified the 9/11 terrorists' actions.

Post 19

Thursday, May 24, 2007 - 6:11am