BooMan snarls with a whimper

Earlier today, I did an unwise thing. I posted BooMan's thoughts contained in an email without first getting his permission. When my transgression was pointed out, I apologized. And he graciously accepted my apology.

However, it is more than passing strange, for someone who blogs and says on his "About me" page, "The BooMan is not anonymous, and my true identity is not a secret" to complain that I used his name. As I know all so well, my excuse does not justify my careless actions.

BooMan was kind enough to post his rebuttal to my comments.

First, BooMan defended his earlier assertion that Islam is not expanding territorially. BooMan would have us believe there is no difference between Turkey, under AKP's leadership, and pre-war Afghanistan, under Taliban leadership. As Burckhardt taught us, there is a profound difference between a nation governed by the State, and a nation governed by its Religion. We see the former in Turkey, and we see the latter in pre-war Afghanistan. Perhaps, BooMan does not see the difference, but if Turkey was under Taliban leadership, I'm quite certain EU nations in Brussel would not be considering Turkey's application to become a member state.

Secondly, BooMan complains that I mischaracterized his statements, by conflating different thoughts, to produce an effect he never intended to convey. BooMan objected to me saying:

[BooMan] suggests our troubles with radicalized Muslims would end if we figured out "how to get our oil and gas to markets" from the Middle East. This notion defies common sense.

However, what I should have quoted was this:

If we want to stop being attacked, we need to figure out how to get our oil and gas to market without creating generation after generation of jihadists.

In my original comments, I did not point out BooMan's absurd notion of ownership of Middle Eastern natural resources, when he said "our oil and gas," which he tells us bin Laden finds so objectionable. But since he said it twice, that false claim of ownership shall not pass unnoticed. Seemingly, only in a progressive community is another man's property claimed as one's own.

More to the point, I added nothing to BooMan's original thought that wasn't already there. I merely exchanged the notion of "stop being attacked" with the notion of "our troubles would end."

BooMan is correct when he says "the fight will go on." And this very statement points to the fallacy of his entire argument. In BooMan's original rebuttal to Barone, he told us he knew why bin Laden attacked us. And BooMan believes if we "leave them alone" they will "leave us alone." All we have to do is "listen" and not create "generation after generation of jihadists." Try as I might, I have found no suggestions in BooMan's commentary instructing us how to achieve the ends he desires; that is, "getting [his] oil to market" without us being attacked.

In my comments, I pointed out Burckhardt's statement regarding the "detrimental" effects of trade between the West and Muslim nations. BooMan offered no rebuttal to Burckhardt's assertion. At best, BooMan offered an opinion that Muslims were being "insulted."

Next, BooMan returns to his "thesis" that bin Laden "was angry at the Saudi regime first, and America second," which surely explains why a "propagandist" attacked the militarily stronger nation first.

Finally, BooMan brands Bertrand Russell's and Jacob Burckhardt's comments as "insulting" to Muslims. Since BooMan has "read all those books," he knows full well they were equally "insulting" to Christianity and Judaism.

But BooMan complains, "Somehow, these racial assessments and historical opinions are supposed to be relevant to my article on Michael Barone's asshattery."

My dear Mister BooMan, the relevance is easy to explain: they described the Nature of Islamic civilization.

Long before we invaded Iraq, long before we blockaded Iraq, long before we had an airbase in Saudi Arabia, long before we were engaged in "economic exploitation" of the Middle East, long before the House of Saud sat on the throne -- Did I miss any of your causes of bin Laden's fatwas? -- these scholars (Russell and Burckhardt) told us about the Nature of Islamic civilization.

In the works of Homer, Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, Livy, Machiavelli, Hobbes, Hume, Locke, Rousseau, Burke, and Tocqueville, each one these Thinkers has commented on the Nature of people living within a given culture. For example, Livy told us Hannibal said the Gauls were perfidious by Nature. For example, Machiavelli told us about the religious and law abiding Nature of the Romans. For example, Professor A.T. Olmstead told us the Persian emperors knew the Greeks would sell their country for gold, for that was their Nature.

Even in your BooMan Tribune progressive community, we see banded together like-minded spirits that share a common Nature. As an aside: I took particular delight in some of the more refined "debate," that some might easily mistake for petty insults. Perhaps, that's part of the Natural charm of your progressive community.

No, Mister BooMan, you don't undertand Hume's chiming clock theory of causation, you don't know why we were attacked, and you don't understand why they "hate" us.

Your assertions are only opinions, not causes. Your arguments are mere whimpers.