Comments on: Confusion With A Purpose http://larison.org/2007/05/06/confusion-with-a-purpose/ n. the principle of good order "Observe the strange inversion of all order and sense! Dignity debased; how vilely is the function of a consul prostituted!" ~The Craftsman Wed, 17 Mar 2010 07:14:29 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.4 by: Eunomia » Romney Should Not Discuss Foreign Policy If He Can Help It http://larison.org/2007/05/06/confusion-with-a-purpose/#comment-8943 Wed, 03 Mar 2010 21:06:42 +0000 http://larison.org/2007/05/06/confusion-with-a-purpose/#comment-8943 [...] As Ackerman knows quite well, Romney’s ignorance on this point has not lessened since he was running for the nomination last time. This is what I said about Romney’s foreign policy views almost three years ago: Suffice it to say that a man who rattles off the two major sects of Islam in a list with various other Islamic groups, none of which has anything to do with the other, is profoundly unfit to head the executive branch in time of war with jihadis or indeed at any time. Someone who can look at the sectarian warfare in Iraq (or, say, Lebanon) and talk about how ”they” have all “come together” against “us” is hopelessly confused about the international scene. Someone who cannot demonstrate even the most basic understanding of the fissures and divisions in the Islamic world and the different political organisations within that world should not even be a party to the debate, much less should he be considered a viable “top-tier” candidate for a major party’s nomination. [...] […] As Ackerman knows quite well, Romney’s ignorance on this point has not lessened since he was running for the nomination last time. This is what I said about Romney’s foreign policy views almost three years ago: Suffice it to say that a man who rattles off the two major sects of Islam in a list with various other Islamic groups, none of which has anything to do with the other, is profoundly unfit to head the executive branch in time of war with jihadis or indeed at any time. Someone who can look at the sectarian warfare in Iraq (or, say, Lebanon) and talk about how ”they” have all “come together” against “us” is hopelessly confused about the international scene. Someone who cannot demonstrate even the most basic understanding of the fissures and divisions in the Islamic world and the different political organisations within that world should not even be a party to the debate, much less should he be considered a viable “top-tier” candidate for a major party’s nomination. […]

]]> by: Daniel Larison http://larison.org/2007/05/06/confusion-with-a-purpose/#comment-6458 Mon, 07 May 2007 22:13:18 +0000 http://larison.org/2007/05/06/confusion-with-a-purpose/#comment-6458 Thanks to you all for your comments. Thanks for the link, George. In fact, I had seen your very good post earlier, but I have had literally no time to even update things today. This evening I will have more to say on this and, presumably, other things as well. What I find remarkable about all of the caliphate and 12th imam talk is that these people are just toeing the Bernard Lewis line (some might say cluelessly). They wouldn't know occultation from dissimulation or shahada from jiziya if they didn't have court academics to tell them what to say and how to say it. Arguably, you could say this about all politicians (and there are good arguments that academics themselves should never get into electoral politics personally), but there are levels of ignorance in public officials that I am not willing to tolerate. If people this hopeless didn't want to run most of the world, I wouldn't worry, but since they do it seems only fair to demand high standards of knowledge and understanding (not that these things alone guarantee good policy, but they usually can't hurt). What I found remarkable about all of the debate banter last week was just how much more uninformed many of them sounded by trying so hard to show their worldliness by dropping "caliphate" and "12th imam" into a sentence. It's like someone at a party who wants to show how learned he is, so he starts using words like "interiority" and "appropriation" to refer to his desire to have a snack. Thanks to you all for your comments. Thanks for the link, George. In fact, I had seen your very good post earlier, but I have had literally no time to even update things today. This evening I will have more to say on this and, presumably, other things as well.

What I find remarkable about all of the caliphate and 12th imam talk is that these people are just toeing the Bernard Lewis line (some might say cluelessly). They wouldn’t know occultation from dissimulation or shahada from jiziya if they didn’t have court academics to tell them what to say and how to say it. Arguably, you could say this about all politicians (and there are good arguments that academics themselves should never get into electoral politics personally), but there are levels of ignorance in public officials that I am not willing to tolerate. If people this hopeless didn’t want to run most of the world, I wouldn’t worry, but since they do it seems only fair to demand high standards of knowledge and understanding (not that these things alone guarantee good policy, but they usually can’t hurt).

What I found remarkable about all of the debate banter last week was just how much more uninformed many of them sounded by trying so hard to show their worldliness by dropping “caliphate” and “12th imam” into a sentence. It’s like someone at a party who wants to show how learned he is, so he starts using words like “interiority” and “appropriation” to refer to his desire to have a snack.

]]> by: GAjjan http://larison.org/2007/05/06/confusion-with-a-purpose/#comment-6457 Mon, 07 May 2007 21:56:01 +0000 http://larison.org/2007/05/06/confusion-with-a-purpose/#comment-6457 Dan, Good points. I addressed the whole debate, including Romney's comments, from an Arab-American Republican perspective under the title "Pachyderm Madrasa" - http://www.ajjan.com/2007/05/pachyderm-madrasa.html. Dan,

Good points.

I addressed the whole debate, including Romney’s comments, from an Arab-American Republican perspective under the title “Pachyderm Madrasa” - http://www.ajjan.com/2007/05/pachyderm-madrasa.html.

]]> by: Christopher B. Hayes http://larison.org/2007/05/06/confusion-with-a-purpose/#comment-6454 Mon, 07 May 2007 14:02:32 +0000 http://larison.org/2007/05/06/confusion-with-a-purpose/#comment-6454 Don't forget Steve Young! If the fact that Reid, Hatch and Osmond can all be mentioned in the same sentence doesn't disprove the idea of the LDS conspiracy, I don't know what would. Don’t forget Steve Young!

If the fact that Reid, Hatch and Osmond can all be mentioned in the same sentence doesn’t disprove the idea of the LDS conspiracy, I don’t know what would.

]]> by: Grumpy Old Man http://larison.org/2007/05/06/confusion-with-a-purpose/#comment-6451 Mon, 07 May 2007 04:02:58 +0000 http://larison.org/2007/05/06/confusion-with-a-purpose/#comment-6451 Let's see. Ratzinger, Robertson, Rushdoony--they're all Crusaders. The Lubavitcher Rebbe, Bill Kristol, and Noam Chomsky--all part of the International Zionist-Fascist Conspiracy. I could go on about Harry Reid, Orrin Hatch, and Donny Osmond as part of the International LDS Conspiracy, but I won't. Let’s see. Ratzinger, Robertson, Rushdoony–they’re all Crusaders.

The Lubavitcher Rebbe, Bill Kristol, and Noam Chomsky–all part of the International Zionist-Fascist Conspiracy.

I could go on about Harry Reid, Orrin Hatch, and Donny Osmond as part of the International LDS Conspiracy, but I won’t.

]]>