Posted on 05/17/2007 11:38:25 AM PDT by Kitten Festival
War On Terror: GOP gadfly Rep. Ron Paul claims 9/11 was "blowback" for bombing and sanctioning Iraq the previous decade. But that's another romantic notion of isolationists. Just ask Osama bin Laden.
Paul, an idealistic White House hopeful from Texas who opposes the Iraq War, shocked fellow Republicans at the presidential debate in South Carolina on Tuesday when he argued that al-Qaida terrorists "attack us because we've been over there. We've been bombing Iraq for 10 years."
A visibly agitated Rudy Giuliani cut Paul off.
"That's really an extraordinary statement, as someone who lived through the attack of Sept. 11, that we invited the attack because we were attacking Iraq," the former New York mayor said. "I don't think I have ever heard that before, and I have heard some pretty absurd explanations for Sept. 11."
It took another long-shot candidate, Rep. Tom Tancredo of Colorado, to straighten Paul out, however.
"Whether or not we were in Iraq, they would be trying to kill us, because it is a dictate of their religion," Tancredo explained. "And we have to defend ourselves."
Indeed, al-Qaida's fatwas include a long list of grievances. Not only do terrorists liberally quote the Quran to support a broader jihad against the West, but they map out at least six fronts — only one of which is Iraq.
Their real grievance regarding Iraq predates U.S. occupation. Baghdad was once the seat of the ancient Islamic empire, the so-called caliphate, and the terrorists have always dreamed of restoring it. Saddam Hussein, a secular nationalist (or "infidel," in the words of bin Laden), was just as much a hindrance to their dream as we are today.
(Excerpt) Read more at ibdeditorials.com ...
Do any of these authors ever think to maybe go back and check on just what Al Qaeda has said about why they attacked? Or what captured Al Qaeda have told us? Ron Paul was pretty on the mark and Rudy displayed his ignorance.
If Ron Paul wants to look for a reason for 9/11, he should start in Mogadishu, where a weak American president did exactly what Paul wants to do in Iraq, and the animals took it as a sign that we could be pushed around.
By the way, that's what most of the IBD article is.
So you’re saying that the conduct of US foreign policy led to the events of 9/11, right?
Really? He said something that needed to be said. Unfortunately, most Americans are completely unaware of how extensive the US government involvement around the world has been in the last few decades. Are people surprised that the US maintains a massive footprint on the world? Or are they surprised that Muslim jihadists are able to exploit US policies such as when Madeline Albright told 60 Minutes when asked about the death of half a million Iraqi children as a result of 10 years of sanctions, that it was "worth the price (Albright's own words)
No one is arguing that the US needs to abandon all policies that Al Qaeda objects to...but we should consider how those policies increase the threat of terrorism when deciding to undertake them...and drop the moronic line that Giuliani and most, if not all, of the rest of the candidates are trying to peddle...that AQ attacked us because "they hate our freedoms". These guys are not doing Americans any favors by trying to silence from public debate exactly what experts and US intelligence cite as the reasons for AQ's attacks
As part of its global power position, the United States is called upon frequently to respond to international causes and and deploy forces around the world. America's position in the world invites attack simply because of its presence. Historical data show a strong correlation between U.S. involvement in international situations and an increase in terrorist attacks against the United States
-- --The Defense Science Board 1997 Summer Study Task Force on DoD Responses to Transnational Threats
If Ron Paul had been President we would not have been in Mogadishu delivering handouts at the behest of the United Nations.
Without commenting specifically on Ron Paul's views, almost everyone I read on FR fails to distinguish isolationism from pacifism. Personally, the idea of a ferocious isolationism appeals to me.
well, this article cites a lot of information in support of paul such as anger at support for Israel and us troops in saudi arabia. I don’t see why we should be giving billions to all these countries, arab as well as israeli, and having our troops all over the world and have the cia overthrowing governments (shah). I don’t agree with Paul on every aspect of his foriegn policy views, but I think he has some broader good points, this kind of asinine behavior by our government loots our tax dollars as well as breeds ill will around the world. I mean, what we were doing over in Bosnia? Why are some democrats calling for US intervention in Darfur? Why were we in Somalia?
Domestically he is second to none as a constitutionalist, and most of our problems lie here at home, not in threats from some stone age islamofascists.
Nice try.
I'm saying that weakness encouraged them to try for a big attack on our soil. Weakness in Somalia, weakness after the Khobar Towers, the embassies, the Cole, etc.
These guys are just following the same strategy that any military architect with a brain follows: Take out your most dangerous opponent first. We're not only the superpower, we're a center of modernity. We are more dangerous to them than any other nation, and they thought they could take us out with a relatively small death toll.
We're pursuing a strategy designed to make any rational person think attacking us is a bad idea. The problem is, we're not dealing with rational people and they have, albeit inadvertently, been trying to tell us that.
I don't make historical or strategic judgements based on tV shows. Take your projection elsewhere.
Is it worth trillions or American taxpayers dollars and the lives of American soldiers and the increased risk of terrorism against the US to lead a fight to prevent the Islamists from trying to establish a Calpihate across the Arabian peninsula? One, do we really care? And two, American intelligence has identified the greatest vulnertability of the jihadists to be their advocacy of a Calpiphate governed by a strict code of sharia law:
The jihadists' greatest vulnerability is that their ultimate political solution -- an ultra-conservative interpretation of shari'a-based governance spanning the Muslim world -- is unpopular with the vast majority of Muslims. Exposing the religious and political straitjacket that is implied by the jihadists' propaganda would help to divide them from the audiences they seek to persuade.
--Declassified Key Judgments of the National Intelligence Estimate "Trends in Global Terrorism: Implications for the United States" dated April 2006
As it stands now...the US government is helping the jihadists by giving them propaganda to exploit...namely that the US is in the region to dominate Muslims, prop up illegitimate regimes and steal their oil
They attacked us because our women are “anatomically correct” and don’t dress in tents.
Al-Qaeda's goal is a restoration of the world to what they perceive to be its golden age: an era when an armed Islam united under a supreme Caliph was the world's uncontested superpower.
Anything America does or fails to do is a sufficient excuse for their hatred.
Modifying our policies in any way will not change the fact that we are powerful and not Muslim.
They see the U.S. as an impediment to their success because they feel we support Israel and support regimes in the Middle East that they do not like. Basically they want us to walk away so they can create their ‘paradise.’ We do that and we will have hell on earth.
What, precisely, is "ferocious isolationinsm?"
It's odd that you take the words of terrorists at face value. All in the name of supporting Ron Paul. Very odd.
Has it ever occurred to you Ron Paul supporters that your whole rational for your cut-and-run/blame America strategy depends on citing people like Osama bin Laden and Madeline Albright as if they are bot truthful and intelligent?
Here's a clue for you: All of those deaths, every single one of them, was caused by one man: Saddam Hussein. He took money from oil sales that were specifically allowed so he could purchase food and medicine, and he spent them on palaces and used the dead kids as a propaganda tool to rope people like you in.
These guys are not doing Americans any favors by trying to silence from public debate exactly what experts and US intelligence cite as the reasons for AQ's attacks
Another leftist talking point from the Ron Paul brigade. Nobody's trying to silence you, we're just telling you that you sound like idiots...useful idiots.
America's position in the world invites attack simply because of its presence.
B-17s, by their very presence over Western Europe, invited attack by the Luftwaffe. That doesn't mean that they shouldn't have been there.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.