Tuesday, June 15, 2010

Conspiracy Theory Time

Okay, so I'm on a role today. It happens. I blame the loss of Big Butter Jesus. But I got into a bit of a comment scrap over at Proof Positive.

I love a bit of good and healthy political debate, but my head imploded with this comment,
Radical Islam couldn't possibly invade and occupy America, but pro-state radicals could take-over the government.
My first reaction was, What is a pro-state radical?
Where are they operating? Where are their training camps like Islamberg and their national leaders? Does their funding come from billions in oil revenue? Yet, they are suppose to be a greater threat than radical islam? The commenter was certainly a libertarian because I've heard all of their arguments before. But my second thought was a bit, uh, murkier. I seemed to recall something regarding "Radical Islam not invading and occupying America."

Maybe it was this quote,
“One of the Iranian religious leaders said if Obama will enter the White House, then Islam will conquer the heart of the American nation”~Menashe Amir, Iranian-born head of Radio Israel's Persian language service.

Maybe is was this picture, sans American Flag and decor'ed in pure gold ala Saudi Arabia style.

Maybe it was this announcement that Muslims will be building a mega mosque and "community center" on the site of the 9/11 attack which was waged in the name of Islamic Jihad.

Despite naive Libertarians' wish that Islam is no threat to American liberty, this just doesn't jive with reality. There's evidence everywhere you look that the threat of invading radical Islam is not merely real but may have even arrived.

1 comment:

Mike aka Proof said...

Part of the problem with libertarians, and despite some libertarian leanings, why I am not one, is their tendency to live inside their heads, in some utopian theoretical world.
In a fallen world, humans are neither pure nor idealistic on the whole, which is one of the purposes and need of limited government.
Pure libertarianism breeds anarchy. Plus, the person who does not believe in the use of violence to defend himself is often the victim of one who has no such compulsions.

The idea that if we were to simply withdraw within our borders that all the world would be "Happy! Happy! Joy! Joy!" is simplistic pap and quite mistaken.

I would think that strict "non-intervention" would mean that we would also keep missionaries and the Red Cross from meddling in the affairs of others, too. After all, We've got ours and we're keeping it!

If your blood pressure can stand it, there's another guy trying to defend neo-isolationism on this thread:

Scroll down until you see "lester" something or another. My reply to him is just below that.