Posted on 05/21/2007 1:53:00 PM PDT by The_Eaglet
Care to define those two terms as you see them?
Germany (and Italy) declared war on the US on December 11, 1941.
Congress immediately responded the same day with a declaration of war against Germany (and also one against Italy).
If that was to be our only source we would be running quite blind indeed. It would be the 90's all over again.
We have been running quite blind because we haven't taken what they believe seriously.
What the Nazi's intended to do was made clear in Mein Kamph.
What the Communists believed is made clear in the writings of Marx, Lenin and Mao.
Their actions come from those writings.
Now, stop trying to reinterpret what Ron Paul said, he didn't say we need to understand Islam to defeat it, he said we need to understand their opinions of our actions, in order to change our actions as not to provoke their 'retribution' again.
I believe Dr. Paul said “the past ten years.”
That is exactly what you are doing.
No, because Ron Paul stated that those attacks were because of something we did
Not because of who they are.
Now, they are fighting the Lebanese.
What excuse will they make for that?
The clear implications of Ron Paul's viewpoint is that we brought the attacks on ourselves-as retribution.
The "blowback" theory isn't some fringe idea common only to crazy Sept. 11 conspiracy theorists. It doesn't suggest that we "deserved" the Sept. 11 attacks, nor does it suggest we shouldn't have retaliated against the people who waged them.
What it does say is that actions have consequences. When the Arab and Muslim world continually sees U.S. troops marching through Arab and Muslim backyards, U.S. trade sanctions causing Arab and Muslim suffering and U.S. bombs landing on Arab and Muslim homes, it isn't difficult to see how Arabs could begin to develop a deep contempt for the U.S.
This isn't to say we should never bomb an Arab or Muslim country. Certainly, to the extent that the Taliban in Afghanistan gave Usama bin Laden and Al Qaeda refuge after the attacks, we had no choice but to attack and topple them from government.
The "blowback" theory isn't some fringe idea common only to crazy Sept. 11 conspiracy theorists. It doesn't suggest that we "deserved" the Sept. 11 attacks, nor does it suggest we shouldn't have retaliated against the people who waged them. What it does say is that actions have consequences. When the Arab and Muslim world continually sees U.S. troops marching through Arab and Muslim backyards, U.S. trade sanctions causing Arab and Muslim suffering and U.S. bombs landing on Arab and Muslim homes, it isn't difficult to see how Arabs could begin to develop a deep contempt for the U.S. This isn't to say we should never bomb an Arab or Muslim country. Certainly, to the extent that the Taliban in Afghanistan gave Usama bin Laden and Al Qaeda refuge after the attacks, we had no choice but to attack and topple them from government.
Yes, I do disagree with it because U.S. troops in Arab lands is not the cause of anything Al Qaida did to us.
It is bringing in a irrelevant issue.
In the narrow context, 9/11 can be traced to U.S. weakness in not responding to earlier Muslim attacks.
That is where the real contempt began.
That is when they began thinking they could actually defeat us.
In the broader context, it can be traced to a general hostility between militant Islam and the West.
“The campaign aganst Saddam was a waste of...”
You’re just stating misconceptions that are popular in the anti-war crowd. Your own personal evaluation regarding Saddam doesn’t refute my claims. Nothing you listed refutes my assertion that Ron Paul has been publicizing false claims against the U.S. I cited the findings by others (like the P5 and congress) that contradict the claims by Ron Paul. I see nothing that refutes these claims and supports Ron Paul’s claims instead. Why you wouldn’t consider a terrorist assasination attempt on another nation’s citizen (be it in government or not) as a hostile act is beyond me. You then create some kind of analogy which appears to put Nazi war criminals hanged at Nuremburg on the same level as Former Prime Minister Hariri. I already demonstrated how Saddam was in breach of his commitments to the cease fire, including terrorism, as unanimously concluded by the P5. You appear to insinuate that Limbaugh accuses the U.S. of ‘controlling’ another nation’s natural resources, as Ron Paul has. Even if true, which I doubt, it wouldn’t legitimize Ron Paul’s absurd accusations. As I have shown in my previous post, Ron Paul even calls the 9-11 investigation a ‘cover up’. That statement in and of itself makes him a ‘truther’ and not somebody who should be take seriously.
“You are offering nits and legalisms as rebuttals.”
I cited the findings of the multinational alliance as a rebuttal to Ron Paul’s accusations against America. You’ve listed nothing to rebut these findings. Whether you dismiss these as ‘legalisms’ has no relevence.
“You appear to believe....”-insert strawman here-
Unless you can acutally refute the findings of the p5, you have nothing. Dismissing the joint resolutions as ‘naked assertion’ makes no sense.
And you're just stating misconceptions that operation Iraqi freedom was actually strategicaly meaningful, or that Iraq was a serious threat to American interests. Both have been proven to be in error.
Nothing you listed refutes my assertion that Ron Paul has been publicizing false claims against the U.S. I cited the findings by others (like the P5 and congress) that contradict the claims by Ron Paul.
Your assertions are not proof of anything. Anything you have posted to "prove" your assertion has been refuted by myself and others. Do continue though, People such as yourself have been the best allies that the Ron Paul for President campaign has to date. Much better than 1,000 fans on YouTube.
Why you wouldn’t consider a terrorist assasination attempt on another nation’s citizen (be it in government or not) as a hostile act is beyond me.
Maybe because since the days of Bill Clinton, US policy doesn't forbid it.*, and It has been used by this Nation. You're not seriously asserting that the US is a terrorist state are you?
*One of the positive things of the Clinton Presidency was the Presidential Finding that he made concerning President Ford's executive order forbidding the assasination of foreign subjects. The finding was that the order only applied to recognised heads of state. This allowed Clinton to make the attempt on Bin Ladin (when he blew up the "aspirin factory" in the Sudan in a pathetic attempt to distract from Monica Lewinski).
You then create some kind of analogy which appears to put Nazi war criminals hanged at Nuremburg on the same level as Former Prime Minister Hariri.
No, you created the situation. i simply refuted it with a technique called Reducto Ad Absurdum. You may be familiar with the techinque, Rush Limbaugh uses it all the time.
You appear to insinuate that Limbaugh accuses the U.S. of ‘controlling’ another nation’s natural resources, as Ron Paul has
No, Ron Paul has not made such an assertion. Neither has Rush Limbaugh. You made that up out of thin air.
What Limbaugh has said, echoed by Ron Paul is that the war is about oil. (In Limbaugh's case, Gulf War I). If the War isn't about oil, then what interests do we have there AT ALL?
As I have shown in my previous post, Ron Paul even calls the 9-11 investigation a ‘cover up’. That statement in and of itself makes him a ‘truther’ and not somebody who should be take seriously.
All you have to do to substantiate that accusation is to prove that Ron Paul has said that the US Government had acute advanced knowledge of attacks, and/or planted explosives in the towers, and that there was no plane that hit the Penatagon. That's what the "9/11 Truthers" advocate.
Good luck on that.
There have been lots of Criticism of the 9/11 report and the bipartisan committed from people who don't have a thing in common with Ron Paul. In light of the fact that Paul quoted the report, it is obvious that he does not share the opinions of either the critics, or the "truthers".
Nice try though.
“And you’re just stating misconceptions that” *-insert strawman here. You have yet to refute any of my claims.
“Both have been proven to be in error.”
*You now attribute new arguements to me and declare them to be erroneous, simply because you say so. You have yet to refute my claims against Ron Paul or the evidence I layed out showing his claims to be ficticious.
“Your assertions are not proof of anything. Anything you have posted to “prove” your assertion has been refuted by myself and others.”
*I have shown that my claims are supported by the unanimous findings of the Security Council. You have yet to refute any of them. When you say my ‘assertion’ has been refuted by yourself and others, what assertion? Are you claiming that Ron Paul’s statements are correct, and that the unanimous findings of the Security Council are false? And who do you mean by ‘others’. Who? Also, you haven’t sourced anything yet, other then a link to a wacked-out web site of conspiricy theorists. Why would you think your claims are more valid than that of the P5? Or that claims on LibertyPost have any validity to them?
“Do continue though”
If you insist. You had claimed that “Former PM hariri continued to be a part of the Lebanese government, as is normal in a Parlimentary democracy, as opposed to our Constitutional Representative Republic. Former President Bush has no official (elective) role in the Government.” Which ‘elective’ role did Hariri hold when he was assasinated, and what international law are you referring to when you claim that an attack on another nation’s citizen is only considered ‘agression’ against that nation if the citizen holds a position in government?
“Maybe because since the days of Bill Clinton...”
*What happened to your Rush Limbaugh red-herring? I have already shown how the findings of the P5 contradict the publicized claims of Ron Paul. You’re attempt to paint the assasination attempt of George H. W. Bush as a non-agressive act is in vain. The P5 had already concluded that Saddam was in breach of his commitments to the resolutions regarding terrorism, per UNSCR1441. You inject red herrings like Bill Clinton and Rush Limbaugh, simply because you have thus far been unable to refute the findings of the Council, which directly contradict the publicized claims of Ron Paul.
“You appear to insinuate that Limbaugh accuses the U.S. of ‘controlling’ another nation’s natural resources, as Ron Paul has...
No, Ron Paul has not made such an assertion. Neither has Rush Limbaugh. You made that up out of thin air.”
*If you read my post 225, you will see the excerpt from a Ron Paul article in which he accuses the U.S. of maintaining ‘control’ of Iraqi oil. And as I stated in an earlier post, this would put the U.S. in direct violation of Security Council Resolution 1546, which specifically states that the ‘Iraqi people freely control their own natural resources’. You have been unable to prove this allegation by Ron Paul to be true, so now you claim I made it up out of ‘thin air’.
” If the War isn’t about oil, then what interests do we have there AT ALL?”
*The objectives can be found in the congressional authorization of use of force.
“All you have to do to substantiate that accusation is to prove that Ron Paul has said that the US Government had acute advanced knowledge of attacks, and/or planted explosives in the towers, and that there was no plane that hit the Penatagon. That’s what the “9/11 Truthers” advocate.”
*The burden of proof lies with Ron Paul and his supporters. He has already claimed that the 9-11 investigation was a ‘cover up’. It is now up you to prove his accusation correct, since I’m guessing he won’t.lol
“There have been lots of Criticism of the 9/11 report “
*This does not refute my claim that Ron Paul accused the U.S. of a ‘cover up’ regarding the 9-11 investigation.
” it is obvious that he does not share the opinions of either the critics, or the “truthers”.”
*His senseless accusations against America, coupled with his declaration that the 9-11 investigation was a cover up, indicates otherwise.
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.