Posted under Iraq & Israel & Ron Paul
Recently, Congressman Dr. Ron Paul and MTV game-show host Ben Stein were on Larry King, where Ben Stein slandered the good doctor’s non-interventionist principles as “anti-Semitic”. Due to the controversy caused, Ben Stein has issued a clarification at the American Spectator. In truth, it clarifies quite a lot, though not perhaps in the way Stein hoped.
Stein goes to great lengths to make the reader aware that he is hardly familiar (if at all) with Dr. Paul’s political positions, or with what he (Dr. Paul) was saying to Ben Stein on that very broadcast. “I could be mistaken,” he writes, about Paul’s comments. “Maybe I am misinformed,” he writes, about Paul’s position on foreign aid to Israel. For a man whose recollections of Dr. Paul’s positions are so hazy, he was surprisingly eager to tar Dr. Paul as an “anti-Semite” because (as Ben Stein explains) Dr. Paul asserted that America is “occupying” Muslim lands (Ben Stein does not agree that we are currently “occupying” Afghanistan or Iraq), and because many people who make that claim go on to criticize American foreign policy vis a vis Israel, and to do such is “anti-Semitic”.
The neoconservatives have twisted political discourse in America to the extent that the locution “Orwellian” no longer does it justice. Ben Stein claims that to acknowledge reality (that we are occupying Muslim lands) is to reveal oneself as an “anti-Semite”. To acknowledge – as the Defense Science Board Task Force (charged by Donald Rumsfeld to assess the ramifications of American Foreign Policy) concluded in 2004 – that the “underlying sources of threats to America’s national security” are “American direct intervention in the Muslim world,” America’s “one sided support in favor of Israel,” and “the American occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan” exposes one (somehow) as a Jew-hater, according to Ben Stein. If one acknowledges – as that same Task Force did in 2004 – that “Muslims do not ‘hate our freedom,’ but rather, they hate our policies” then you will be tarred by Ben Stein and his ilk as a quasi-Nazi.
Ben Stein is acting as enforcer for the neoconservative Thought Police. If one criticizes or fails to show obeisance to Israel – if one even questions whether our one-sided support of that foreign nation is wise – he will tar you as a Jew-hater, he will subject you to a Two Minutes Hate, he will slander you, he will play the race card with more dexterity than Al Sharpton, and he will use all the tools at his disposal to crush any inclination you might have to keep America first in your heart – because it is not first in his.
Stein’s AmSpec clarification consists of nothing but that lone slander. Its sole purpose is to slander Ron Paul as an anti-Semite, along with anyone else who questions America’s support of Israel or acknowledges that the American military bombing, invading and occupying Muslim lands increases rather than alleviates the hatred that leads to terrorism – as the aforementioned 2004 Defense Science Board Task Force concluded. You would think such a serious accusation would be accompanied by proof, or at least some evidence. Well, you would think wrong. It is foul calumny; naked, underhanded slander, backed by zero evidence. That is how blithely neoconservatives toss that term around – as it is meaningless to them, so it becomes meaningless to everyone else. Let him blather on – Ben Stein is irrelevant. Ben Stein’s comrades had their chance at the helm and ran us aground, stranded us in two wars, cost us the lives of thousands of American soldiers and quite literally nearly destroyed the entire world’s economy. That is the reality. So utterly have they been discredited that to watch them continue to shriek “anti-Semite!” and “appeaser!” now thankfully engenders pity more than anything else.
RedPhillips on 30 Dec 2009 at 10:18 pm #
I am very disappointed by this. Ben Stein is not a run-of-the-mill neocon. He has historically been somewhat paleo friendly. He doesn’t like Lincoln and has defended the Confederacy, and he has been a strong proponent of battlefield preservation.
I really don’t know if this was calculated or if he has just been out of touch with the debate these last few years. It is conceivable he has been that insulated, but it is hard to believe he could be so clueless about where Ron Paul is coming from.
SLToddard on 30 Dec 2009 at 10:31 pm #
Speaking of Confederations, Red, did you say you’re reading Bill Kauffman’s Life of Luther Martin?
SLToddard on 30 Dec 2009 at 11:31 pm #
And getting back to the subject at hand – the clip of the argument between Paul and Stein is extremely revealing. Dr. Paul says we need to think about the terrorists motivation – that this recent “would-be pants bomber” (as someone recently said) said, after his arrest, that his attack was in retaliation to our bombings in Yemen. Dr. Paul was making an argument about the consequences of our military interventionism. Stein seemed genuinely startled, and squawked: “I’ve never heard anything quite like that in my whole life!” He seemed genuinely stunned.
Honestly – think about who Ben Stein is. Born to affluence in Washington, his father was a presidential adviser, he strolled into the halls of power (speechwriter for presidents Nixon and Ford etc) and into fame (Ferris Bueller appearance, game show host on MTV, his role as a monotonous, droning potato with glasses on any number of “news” programs etc) and fortune (lawyer, prolific writer at umpteen upper-middle-brow publications, professor, everything else I mentioned earlier etc etc ). He was born in Washington, raised in its suburbs, and now splits his time between Malibu and Beverly Hills.
I don’t believe this man is very familiar with anything I want to “conserve.” And I think I may believe him – damn me, I just may- that this is the first time he has ever been exposed to principled non-interventionism. If you think about the life he’s led it doesn’t surprise me at all – a lifelong cog in the machine, isn’t he? A beltway insider-slash-Hollywood actor? A lawyer, a speechwriter for NIXON, a showbiz shmoozer living in Beverly Hills? A man who took paychecks from MTV? A lifelong member of the Washington establishment and the entertainment industry?
I am not at all surprised that he should be utterly ignorant of the anti-war, anti-state right and its history in my country. I doubt he has ever even visited it. His conservatism is not ours.
Eric Dondero on 31 Dec 2009 at 1:10 am #
It is wrong for Ben Stein to call Paul an “anti-Semite.” I knew the man for 12 years, and he was no anti-Semite.
Anti-Israel; most assuredly.
Every position Ron Paul takes is aimed at the destruction of the State of Israel. He seems too eager to side with Islamo-Fascists at every turn, whether it be Hamas, the PLO, or even making excuses for Jihadist bombers wanting to attack the United States.
Thankfully, Paul’s son Rand has distanced himself from his father’s isolationist views.
Support Rand Paul for US Senate in Kentucky!
Support anyone running against Ron Paul in the GOP primary for Congress.
Twitted by Cheryl_Jones on 31 Dec 2009 at 2:39 am #
[...] This post was Twitted by Cheryl_Jones [...]
Red Phillips on 31 Dec 2009 at 3:15 am #
Rand Paul has distanced himself from his father’s views only in Eric’s alternative reality. He wouldn’t still be supported by his father’s supporters if he had because foreign policy is a make or break issue for them. Rand has been careful with his language I believe, and this is OK.
And Ron Paul does not side with “Islamo-Fascists.” He supports American neutrality. Only in the convoluted thinking of the pro-Israel obsessives does anything less than extreme deference to Israel mean someone is anti-Israel.
SLToddard on 31 Dec 2009 at 4:18 am #
“Every position Ron Paul takes is aimed at the destruction of the State of Israel.”
Really. “Every” position? The man has hundreds of positions, surely. They all have that sole aim? Could you name some? Say, a dozen? Are there any quotes wherein Ron Paul states that aim?
What would that look like, I wonder – one of Ron Paul’s nefarious schemes becoming a reality and causing the “destruction of the State of Israel”. Could you draw that picture for us? Pick one of Ron Paul’s many alleged “Destroy Israel” plans and walk us through that: 1) Ron Policy Proposal X becomes law. 2) Y happens. 3) Israel meets with utter “destruction”.
What are X and Y.
Kirt Higdon on 31 Dec 2009 at 7:23 am #
Mr. Dondero, I don’t see how Ron Paul’s position can be described as anti-Israel. He favors the end of US aid to Israel and to all other countries and the establishment of normal diplomatic and trade relations between the US and all countries, including Israel. What’s the problem? How would such a policy lead to the destruction of Israel, which has several hundred nuclear weapons and is opposed by theoretical enemies who have none. And “Islamo-fascist” puleeze!!! Can’t we all agree to abandon this neo-conservative devil term of Marxist origin? Are there any people in the entire world who describe or designate themselves as “Islamo-fascists”?
D B Allyn on 31 Dec 2009 at 9:18 am #
So what else would we expect from a jew sob like Ben Stein. Hurling worn torn invectives like “anti semite” and “racist” are only acceptable due to the dumbed down American people
RonL on 31 Dec 2009 at 9:35 am #
Calling Paul and antisemite is both slanderous and belittles the term. However, in so far as he spends far more time attacking aid to Israel compared to EVERY other country, his position is not neutral.
I am saddened by Stein’s use of the term, but lets not pretend that Paul is a polite debater. He is rarely polite in questioning the motives of those with whom he disagrees.
I always find it amusing that Congressman Paul claims to support national sovereignty as the lynchpin of international affairs (an excuse he gives for shilling of the Iranian nuclear program) yet he buys into the claim of a single Muslim Ummah. Which is it? Are the Muslims following nationalism or transnational ummah and Jihad?
And would Paul call for the US to ignore the attacks on other nations supposedly occupying Muslim land? Spain, Greece, Serbia, Croatia, Slovenia, Romania, Hungary, Armenia, and Georgia were all conquered by Muslims at some point. Larege parts of Italy, Ukraine, and Russia were under Muslim rule.
And let us not forget that the first fight with Muslims came when Jefferson dealt with the Razzias of Barbary states.
Weaver on 31 Dec 2009 at 11:25 am #
Paul would say to let them handle their own affairs.
Your beloved wars are leading to mass immigration of Muslims into the US, btw, and Europe wouldn’t be threatened by Islam if it’d simply kept out immigrants.
And the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan accomplish nothing. Immigration is what matters, and domestic security.
Mexico is a far greater threat than Islam for America – more died last year via Mexican gangs than 9/11. There’s an invasion going on. If Islam becomes a threat, it will only be because it was allowed in.
-
Wars in the Middle East? No one can provide a reason for them other than a vague 70-IQ targeted ramble about fighting Islam, e.g.:
That works for clownhall perhaps…
Weaver on 31 Dec 2009 at 11:31 am #
Muslims aren’t subhuman or any crazier than Jews. Israel has nukes and could nuke the US just as easily as could a nuclear Iran.
It’s fully expected that holding bases throughout the Middle East would enrage Muslims. That’s blow back. Fully expected. Fully predictable. Easily resolved.
If the US simply removed itself from the Middle East, most Muslims would cease hating us, and they’d return to fighting amongst themselves. There’s no reason the US needs to occupy the world. It’s logical that people would be mad if occupied. That’s the expected human reaction, and Muslims are human. And it’s expected that strife will lead to extremism whereas peace will lead to vice and “Westernisation”. The US seems to understand this somewhat because it supposedly sent porn into Iraq early on after entering, lol. That said, I don’t actually want that. What I’d like is for Muslims to seek out their pre-Muslim roots or else convert to Christianity. But if fighting Muslims with every available means, mass media and not war is the sane option. Remove troops, send out bribes, send in free mass media, send in aid groups to build schools, etc. and you can screw up Islam as much as the US has been screwed up. An effective war would involve that and not troops. I don’t want to corrupt Muslims, but I do want to end the war over there.
What forces have wrecked havoc on the West? Security as well as liberalism, degeneracy – whatever you want to label it. The same strategy could be used to destroy Muslims. Al-qaeda wanted the US to invade in order to not only deplete its funds but also to fill its ranks and unite and radicalise Islam. It’s worked.
Anyway what’s needed for America is for all American troops to return and for this immigration crisis to be resolved now before it’s too late. What happens in the Middle East… I’ll worry about that once the US is healthy again.
-
War in the Middle East accomplishes two things: hatred against the US and hatred against Israel. If Israel is driven into the sea, it’ll be because of Likud-nuts who must want attacks and an unfriendly world (incl. nonMuslims). If Likud isn’t crazy, it must deeply loath Israel – if it’s seeking to hide or justify territorial expansion, that plan is clearly backfiring and unnecessary. Palestinian attacks could be played up enough to justify expansion without these other wars. And using white phosphorus on Palestinians and lately harvesting organs… material for stories like that oughtn’t exist. Those problems ought to be corrected before they’re reported. If it’s the Christian Zionists pushing Likud, then perhaps they can be blamed. Whomever – someone needs to wake up and change course. Blame is never important except in seeking to rectify underlying problems.
Consider this: the world loved Israel before these insane wars. Jews were the beloved victims of the Nazis. Now increasingly, Jews are viewed as the new Nazis the world over. World opinion matters and is part of politics. Ask a Chinese or Russian or European or South American what he thinks of Israel. America won’t rule the world forever.
Eric Dondero on 31 Dec 2009 at 1:18 pm #
Red Phillips, you say Ron Paul supports American “neutrality.”
Tell me please Sir, do you think that even the famously “neutral” Swiss would remain neutral if a bunch of Muslims killed 3,000 of their citizens, than a few years later sent a crazed Muslim Army Major to shoot 52 American soldiers on an Army Base, and then a few weeks after that, send a Nigerian kid to blow up a plane over the skies of Detroit?
Neutrality in the fight against Islamo-Fascism means SURRENDER!
Eric Dondero on 31 Dec 2009 at 1:23 pm #
Yes, Kirt, I’ve long been in favor of abandoning the term “Islamo-Fascist.”
Islamo-Nazi is much more accurate when you consider that the Grand Mufti leader of Pan-Arabia in the 1930s and 40s, was one of Hitler’s very closest allies and confidantes. In fact, he was the last man standing in the Axis powers after Germany had even surrendered.
And when you consider that Saddam Hussein literally worshipped Hitler, first as a young boy in his Uncle’s mudhut. His Uncle had set up a shring to Hitler, with candals, portrait, ect… in which young Saddam would pray to 5 times a day. And later during his 40 year reign, Saddam had portraits of Hitler all over his palaces and other government facilities.
So, yes, let’s do abandon “Islamo-Fascist.” These radical Muslims today, had little if anything to do with Mussolini or Pinoche’.
The correct term for the Islamist enemy we face is Islamo-Nazi.
Eric Dondero on 31 Dec 2009 at 1:26 pm #
Weaver, if we simply “removed” our forces fighting the Islamo-Nazis abroad, we’d soon be facing our enemy on the Mexican border between Brownsville and Matamoros, El Paso and Juarez, Tucson and Nogales, and Tijuana and San Diego.
There have been numerous reports in the last few years of direct cooperation between Al Qaeda and Mexican Drug Lords. And just a few weeks ago, news came that Al Qaeda has moved into Bolivia, and El Salvador!!!!
As someone who lives south of Houston, 5 1/2 hour drive from Brownsville, I’m not too excited about the prospects of a border war here in South Texas with Al Qaeda thank you.
Tweets that mention Ben Stein vs Ron Paul | Conservative Heritage Times -- Topsy.com on 31 Dec 2009 at 1:35 pm #
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Cheryl Jones, Free URL. Free URL said: Ben Stein vs Ron Paul | Conservative Heritage Times http://bit.ly/5dwbsg [...]
SLToddard on 31 Dec 2009 at 1:49 pm #
“Tell me please Sir, do you think that even the famously “neutral” Swiss would remain neutral if a bunch of Muslims killed 3,000 of their citizens”
A bunch of Muslims *haven’t* killed 3,000 of their citizens *because* the Swiss are neutral. That is the whole point – they target the US over the Swiss because it is the US that backs Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians, it is the US who bombs, invades and occupies Muslim countries, and it is the US that has killed or displaced millions of Muslims – NOT the Swiss.
Mr. Dondero, what are some of Ron Paul’s positions that are “aimed at the destruction of the State of Israel” (as opposed to merely aiming for neutrality in the Irael/Arab conflict)? Could you draw that picture for us? Pick one of Ron Paul’s many alleged “Destroy Israel” plans and walk us through that: 1) Ron Policy Proposal X becomes law. 2) Y happens. 3) Israel meets with utter “destruction”.
What are X and Y?
SLToddard on 31 Dec 2009 at 2:07 pm #
Thomas R. Eddlem over at the Examiner makes an excellent point: “The more relevant issue revolves around military intervention and whether the United States becoming the policeman of the world creates what is called “blowback” in the intelligence world. Stein denies the possibility that anyone could be motivated to attack the United States because our government is in the business of blowing up people across the Middle East. “They’re terrorists and murderers because they are psychos, same as all terrorists and murderers,” Stein told Rep. Paul during the Larry King debate. Stein argues that terrorists are crazy, that they do not act in a rational way, and that they therefore cannot be reacting to the death of a loved one or fellow countryman. Terrorists attack without reason, Stein flatly stated.
If Stein is correct and terrorists are indeed insane and acting without a reason (a reason may have merit or be entirely devoid of merit), then there is no reasonable expectation that they would target the United States any more than any other government, person or object. If there is no reason, then the attacks are purely random. In fact, if terrorists are truly insane and without reason, logic suggests they would be far less likely to attack the United States. Attacking the United States requires extraordinary travel preparations for Middle Eastern terrorists and intricate planning that is ordinarily beyond the capacity of most insane people to accomplish. And it certainly doesn’t fit the random pattern under which Stein insists terrorists heed.”
http://www.examiner.com/x-19718-Boston-Conservative-Examiner~y2009m12d30-Ben-Stein-Explains-His-Attack-on-Ron-Paul-Creating-More-Questions-Than-Answers
Indeed. Mr Dondero – do terrorists attack the United States for a reason, or is it simply random chance that the US is targeted over neutral nations and nations who intervene less in the affairs of Muslims?
Kirt Higdon on 31 Dec 2009 at 4:28 pm #
Mr. Dondero, I don’t see why “fascist”, “Nazi”, and “anti-Semite” have to be dragged into any discussion of US policy in the Middle East or toward Israel or Moslem countries. These terms, used by none of the players with respect to themselves, simply amount to name calling. In the case of Saddam Hussein, the “Islamo-” part of the hyphenated name calling is especially misleading. Saddam was head of a secular party which included Christians and was founded by a Christian. He made the occasional Islamic gesture, especially in the latter days of his regime, but ruthlessly persecuted Islamic militants of both Shia and Sunni persuasion. Yes, he hated Jews and Israel, but this was no reason for the US to go to war against him. The US could use a similar rationale to go to war against Venezuela. In fact it was the US invasion of Iraq which empowered the Islamists, set up an Iran-light puppet regime, and permitted Moslem terrorists to drive most of the Iraqi Christians into exile.
Eric Dondero on 31 Dec 2009 at 11:42 pm #
Toddard you completely and entirely missed the point. The Muslims don’t hate the Swiss over foreign policy, THEY HATE THE SWISS AND EVERY EUROPEAN BECAUSE OF THEIR WESTERN CULTURE!!!
This HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH FOREIGN POLICY. This is all about Hollywood, Madonna, MTV, Britney Spears, HBO, Big Titty Blonde American women on sunny beaches, BayWatch, and every other aspect of our uniquely American culture.
We’ve got it, they want it, they can’t have it, so they WANT TO KISS US!
My gosh, WAKE THE ‘F’ UP YOU ALL!!!! Are you that friggin’ thick-headed???
S.L. Toddard on 01 Jan 2010 at 3:35 am #
“THEY HATE THE SWISS”
They do? How many attacks have Islamic fundamentalist terrorists staged against Switzerland in the past ten years?
Mr. Dondero, what are some of Ron Paul’s positions that are “aimed at the destruction of the State of Israel” (as opposed to merely aiming for neutrality in the Irael/Arab conflict)? Could you draw that picture for us? Pick one of Ron Paul’s many alleged “Destroy Israel” plans and walk us through that: 1) Ron Policy Proposal X becomes law. 2) Y happens. 3) Israel meets with utter “destruction”.
What are X and Y?
Chris Hewlett on 01 Jan 2010 at 11:08 am #
Let’s face it – the Moslems hate us because of our foreign policy AND our civilization and culture. What we need is segregation. There are too many of them to conquer. Ron Paul is great – I voted for him in the primaries in 2008. But there is one problem with him. He is a libertarian and, as such, because of ideology, cannot bring himself to defend American borders against non-aggresive invaders (immigration).
RedPhillips on 01 Jan 2010 at 7:37 pm #
Ron, I don’t think Ron Paul is an impolite debater, but he isn’t always a good debater either. His voice tends to rise, and he comes off as frantic. I can criticize him for this because I have the same problem. That is why I try to stick to writing.
Toddard, Eric is the Master of Hyperbole, so don’t expect an answer. This is the same guy who said all our wives and girlfriends would be wearing burqa and we would all be bowing to Mecca if we didn’t invade Iraq and every other boogie country of the week.
roho on 01 Jan 2010 at 11:10 pm #
Like an ignorant NEGRO, Ben Stein blurts out “ANTISEMITE” in his lack of intelectual defense?………………..Screw Ben Stein!
Michael on 02 Jan 2010 at 3:10 am #
@Chris Hewlett
Pretty sure Paul’s platform ran on bringing home the troops from the Middle East and having them secure US borders. He said it time and time again.
He also stood against the blanket amnesty for the illegals already here.
S.L. Toddard on 02 Jan 2010 at 3:46 pm #
Here is the question I am trying to get the imperialist jingoes over at “‘Libertarian’ Republican” to answer:
If “Islamofascists” hate us for who we are and not what we do, why do they attack the interventionist United States and not neutral Switzerland?
I suppose there’s no need to point out that Dondero and his crowd lack the integrity to really consider the question, let alone answer.
RedPhillips on 02 Jan 2010 at 5:02 pm #
Or they attack Spain and England who are contributing to the War effort, but never Switzerland. Hmmm…
S.L. Toddard on 02 Jan 2010 at 6:30 pm #
“Let’s face it – the Moslems hate us because of our foreign policy AND our civilization”
Okay – let’s say that many Muslims hate Western society and culture, and that this results some times in violence, especially in Western countries that have imported large numbers of Muslim immigrants. That is somewhat of a separate issue. What we are discussing now is the reason why Islamic extremist terrorist groups target the United States first and foremost, and especially why they target the United States over neutral Switzerland. If terrorists attack only because they hate the West, if they have no motive other than insanity, then they should be attacking Switzerland with no less frequency than the US, as the Swiss are no less Western than the US. In fact, one might assume they would attack Switzerland more than the US, as Switzerland would be the easier target.
This is not happening. Why?
Dylan Hales on 04 Jan 2010 at 2:01 am #
It’s worth remembering that Paul was one of only a handful of Congressmen that refused to denounce Israel’s attack of Iraq’s nuclear reactor in 1981. Surely a committed anti-semite and obsessed opponent of Israel would not have spoken against the U.S. governments condemnation of the Israeli’s – oh wait..he did.
Sean Scallon on 04 Jan 2010 at 6:59 am #
“Support anyone running against Ron Paul in the GOP primary for Congress.”
In your dreams you sorry son of a bitch! Your neocon clique failed to oust Paul in 2008 when you had the chance and the collection of clowns who’ve been dredged up to oppose Paul this year couldn’t win an election for dog catcher.
And while the Campaign for Liberty is working to try an build a Freedom movement, what is Republican Liberty Coalition doing these day by comparison? Hmmm? Meeting in the breakfast area at the local Motel 6?
Funny isn’t it, that Paul is more influential now than ever before, even when you worked for him, while your boy Rudy just announced he’s quitting politics. I guess taking about blowblack wasn’t as damaging to Paul’s career as you thought at the time, wasn’t it?
But just like the leech that you are, I’m sure you’ll find some neocon to latch onto if only stay off the welfare rolls. I have an idea, how about Jonathan Pollard?
Bruce on 05 Jan 2010 at 5:40 pm #
Ben Stein doesn’t know much about Semites. A true Semite is a descendant of Shem who was a son of Noah and an ancestor of Abraham. This includes Arabs, some Northern Africans and a tiny segment of Jews. Most Jews are a mixture of Eastern European tribes such as the Khazars and Mongols dating back to the sixth century A.D. They are NOT Semites. Most modern Jews do not have one drop of Semitic blood or DNA.
Most Jews are anti-Semites because they hate the Palestinians and others Arabs who really are Semites.
Read Arthur Koestler’s book, ” The Thirteenth Tribe”.
Bruce
noway on 18 Feb 2010 at 8:00 pm #
This Paul vs Stein thing makes me thing of the black guy on TV a few years back who said ” don’t hate me because I am black, get to know me first – you’ll fine plenty of other reasons”. Sttein and his other foolish Jewish friends had better shut their mouths and we might be fooled into thinking they are wise. Once they talk we “find other reasons”.
James on 26 Feb 2010 at 10:25 pm #
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/8537925.stm
Yeah, terrorists only care about preserving their own home lands, they don’t hate Westerners b/c of religious reasons.
When will you idiot liberals learn? Jihadists will hate the West until we’re all Muslim or dead.