WASHINGTON – A bestselling author, speaker and commentator who likes presidential candidate Ron Paul’s “incredibly refreshing principles, ideas, qualities and character” might be the last person you would expect to blow the whistle on holes in Paul’s foreign policy prescriptions and assumptions behind them.
But that’s just what Joel Richardson does today in an exclusive and explosive commentary in WND.
In a WND column, Richardson writes: “Let me begin by making it very clear that there are a lot of reasons to love Ron Paul.”
“But despite the allure of Paul’s constitutional convictions, his perspective concerning United States foreign policy, radical Islam and the nation of Israel are an absolute deal breaker,” Richardson writes. “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.”
Paul attributes his idea that that U.S. “occupation” is the primary motivation of the vast majority of suicide terrorist attacks – including 9/11 – to Robert Pape, author of “The Explosion of Global Suicide Terrorism and How to Stop It,” who studied 2,200 such incidents since 1980.
“The problem for Paul here is that by most accounts, Pape is an agenda-driven pseudo-scholar whose works and ‘studies’ have been thoroughly debunked by several other scholars,” writes Richardson.
“We show that the data are incapable of supporting Pape’s conclusions because he ‘samples on the dependent variable,'” write Scott Ashworth, Joshua D. Clinton, Adam Meirowitz and Kristopher W. Ramsay of Princeton University. “(The data only contains cases in which suicide terror is used.) We construct bounds … on the quantities relevant to Pape’s hypotheses and show exactly how little can be learned about the relevant statistical associations from the data produced by Pape’s research design.”
But it gets worse, explains Richardson.
Not only has Pape’s methodology been challenged, but his motivations as well. The Investigative Project on Terrorism found in 2010 that Pape conspired with the Hamas-linked Council on America-Islamic Relations to inflate sales of his book and thus the value of his research.
“University of Chicago political scientist Robert Pape, whose research finds religious extremism has a limited role in suicide bombings, is working secretly with a suspected Hamas front to pump up sales of his new book.” the IPT reported. “That includes a secret agreement by CAIR to have its chapters around the country buy them in bulk so they can manipulate the sales to move up the bestseller ranks.”
Pape also appeared as a speaker at the group’s national banquet in October 2010 and in earlier years.
“Emails reviewed by the Investigative Project on Terrorism show Pape reached out to CAIR this past summer, hoping to have the Hamas-front group buy 1,000 advance copies of his new book,” the report said. “Pape asserted in his emails and other communications to CAIR that the book would advance and reinforce CAIR’s ideological views that it is the occupation of Arab lands that causes suicide bombings. CAIR’s officials responded with enthusiasm to Pape’s thesis and to his proposal for bulk purchases to artificially boost his rankings into the best seller lists.”
One of the emails from Pape to CAIR quoted by IPT read: “Pre-orders are especially helpful because they allow the press to increase the advertising for the book when it is published, and so help to build momentum for the message in the book — that ending Western occupation of Muslim countries is the best path for reducing the spread of suicide terrorism.”
About the book, CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad was quoted as saying: “This groundbreaking new book offers a powerful educational tool to be used in challenging Islamophobia that is based on the false linkage between Islam and suicide terrorism.”
Richardson continues his blistering dissection of Paul’s central foreign-policy thrust: “Paul argues that if it had not been for our invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq, we would have lost far fewer soldiers and we would all be far safer today. Let me ask this question: Would far fewer police officers be injured or killed each year if they all simply remained in their police stations and avoided ever engaging criminals? Of course they would. But would this make us all safer? Of course not. This is not hard to understand. Evil exists and there are times when it must be resisted. Freedom requires both responsibility and sacrifice. To cast the radical Islamic terrorists as the victims and the American people as those who deserve blame, which Paul has done, is simply asinine and downright disgusting. Ron Paul’s soothing grandfather-like persona may be far more palatable to most than Jeremiah Wright’s obnoxious rage-filled rants, but his habit of victim-blaming is no less repulsive and should be rejected by all genuine American patriots.”
Richardson continues his challenge of Paul’s contention that Israel is experiencing terrorism largely because of “occupation” of Muslim lands.
“But let’s think through the claim logically,” writes Richardson. “Israel was officially established as a nation in 1948. But according to Islamic sacred tradition, it was roughly 1,300 years before that when Muhammad himself, the founder of Islam, declared the following prophecy: ‘The Day of Judgment will not come about until Muslims fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say, ‘O Muslims, O Abdullah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him.’
“It is worth noting that this ‘prophecy’ is listed as an eternal command within the actual charter of Hamas,” Richardson continues. “But this vision of a last days slaughter and wholesale genocide of the Jewish people was not ‘revealed’ at a time the Jews were ‘occupying’ anyone. There wasn’t even a Jewish state at the time. So what inspired Muhammad from the very early days of Islam to call for an eventual genocide of the Jewish people? If it wasn’t blowback, then what caused it?
“There is much to love about Ron Paul, but until he is willing to acknowledge the very real reality of evil in this world, and the equally real need at times confront it, he can kiss my vote goodbye,” concludes Richardson. “Too many Americans are looking desperately for a hero, and I’m sorry to say that Ron Paul is not the man.”
Read Joel Richardson’s complete commentary in WND, and discover his books, “The Islamic Antichrist” and “Why We Left Islam,” and as well as the book he co-authored with Walid Shoebat, “God’s War on Terror,” at the WND Superstore.