Posted on 05/15/2007 8:04:25 PM PDT by Remember_Salamis
I'm afraid wars are not great respecters of the rights of individuals on both sides. That goes double for a war that is started by the killing of 3000 American civilians, whose rights were abruptly truncated on 9/11. Since we were not a part of the governments in those countries, there were limits to our knowledge about the ultimate sponsors and to our ability to get at them.
Some might say that Hirohito should have been our primary target in WWII. But the reality is that he had an entire country's military protecting him. And ultimately securing victory at a reasonable cost in American lives required the dropping of two atomic bombs. Was it fair to either Japanese civilians or the Japanese draftees who were forced to join the Imperial Japanese military that we had to kill them to get at Hirohito? No. But that's war for you. A lot of bystanders have to get killed before the decision makers will back off.
I think it might also be timely to point out that 9/11 occurred *before* and was the cause of the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. Whatever grievances bin Laden had in mind prior to 9/11, they certainly did not include those invasions. Interestingly enough, al Qaeda has slaughtered *fewer* American civilians after the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq than before.
sigh.... I am a dinosaur.
I'm sure Paul is a patriot. The problem is that the bottom line to his argument is that whomever kills Americans should get to set our foreign policy. There are a lot of governments - friendly ones - that disagree with our policies. Friendly though they are, they don't get to set our foreign policy - we do. But they don't set about killing Americans because they disagree with these policies. Only jihadists have this peculiar idea that it is their right to slaughter us en masse because we have policy disagreements. If we don't let our friends set our foreign policy, why should we let jihadists do so?
I see nothing in there that substantiates direct involvement between the CIA and Bin Laden.
The CIA aided the Afghan rebel mujaheddin - natives of Afghanistan. OBL’s mujaheddin was made of primarily of Arab volunteers, an operation for which he served mainly as fund raiser. They were two seperate groups, and the fact that they were both called “mujaheddins” and fighting the same enemy does not entail that they were directly involved with one another. FWIW, OBL himself has always denied ever having any involvement with the CIA.
You should reread your tagline.
Ron Paul was 100% right. Of course, that doesn’t make it justified or deserved... terrorists are still in control of their own actions.
But the fact of the matter is, if we didn’t d*ck around in the ME, there probably wouldn’t have been a 9/11.
Of course, if we didn’t d*ck around in the ME, we’d probably have other problems that may or may not be worse than what we are currently facing.
So why bring it up as Ron Paul did?
Well, in these things "context" is just about everything. So, for my part, I would like to see the context of the matter. That will tell me a lot right there. Does anyone know where the complete context is given (like in a complete video)? After viewing that, then I'll be able to tell you.
What their reasoning was for attacking us is irrelevant since they are evil
Au contraire, mon ami. It's certainly not irrelevant. It provides a lot of understanding for how they think, what their motivations are, give us ample ability to predict things before they act, allows us to defend more adequately, and helps us get inside the heads of this idealogy -- as it is well known that to defeat your enemy, you know your enemy.
Ron Paul was ascribing to them a reasonable justification for their attack, 'we did something to them' when they do not operate under the laws of reason and logic.
That one would be easy to ascertain, simply by having it directly asked of him if he was ascribing "a reasonable justification for their attack". I think a press conference where a reporter asks the question would clear that one up. And what you're asking is something about motivation which is inside one's head, as opposed to "giving the facts" which it appears that Ron Paul did. So, what we need to have a reporter ask is what his intent was, for the giving of the facts.
This is like trying to 'understand' why a criminal does something.If you state that the reason for the attack on us was due to our actions, then you are giving the terrorists a moral sanction, as if we brought the act on our selves.
He does it because he is a criminal, who cares what his justification was at the moment.
No, by stating his reasons and knowing how one thinks, as in understanding the enemy, has nothing to do with giving any kind of "sanction" to the enemy. I'm afraid that if our government followed your policy of knowing absolutely nothing about the enemy, other than "they did something wrong against us" -- we would have lost the war before we even started out the gate. And in addition to our government needing to know how the enemy thinks and what is in his mind, the public also needs to fully understand this, because they still think that the enemy is simply a bunch of misguided malfeasants, with no guiding idealogy, which is the same idealogy that guides 1.2 billion other people on this planet. Sorry, the name for your plan is "ostrich/head/sand".
And then your reference to the fact that "he is a criminal" -- that was precisely where the Clinton Administration went wrong, treating the matter as if it was a criminal action and handling it in the same way that policemen do. Bush had a much better plan in treating it as a "war" and handling it with military commanders and armies. So, Bush definitely knows that these are not criminals (in order to leave it up to the police forces) but that they are combatants, and are fighting a war of overthrowing governments and are intent on ruling the world. Those kinds of things are not "criminal elements" as criminal elements are meant for personal gain, solely and person aggrandizement. But, these people are not pursuing a "criminal enterprise" but a "governmental" and "ruling" and "war" enterprise. There is a world of difference from these people and criminals.
But Ron Paul did not 'laugh it off' he took it seriously and presented it as it being a legitimate reason for the attack.
In other words, in the mind of Ron Paul, the United States is responsible for bringing on much of its own trouble due to its interventionist foreign policy, including supporting Israel.
I'll have to see Ron Paul saying that directly, as opposed to someone making an interpretation of that from their own mind. Can you supply me with a link to where Ron Paul says that? I'll watch it or look at a transcript. And it should include context, because that's also very important when trying to ascertain what someone is saying. So, once I'm able to see Ron Paul saying this (as you're indicating), then I'll agree with it. So far, I have absolutely no knowledge of him ever indicating that.
We have every right to be in the Middle East, supporting Israel and putting sanctions on Iraq.
Who cares what Bin Ladin says if he is a liar!
Why even repeat it except to mock it as a lie?
Well, on the first one you mentioned, that we have every right to be in the Middle East -- that's not quite true. Inherently, we have no right to be in any country in the Middle East. No country in the world, under "national sovereignty" has any right to be within any other country's borders, anywhere in the world. All our situations, in which we do happen to be within other countries borders are on the basis of mutual agreements, or the results of wars that we've fought (which would have been what is called a "just war" in the U.S., which would then have to pass the "justification test").
So, outisde of wars of defense and outside of mutual agreements between countries -- there exist no inherent right for any country to be inside the borders of any other country in the world. So, as a result the U.S. has no right to be inside of any other country, Middle East or anywhere else, outside of those very specific conditions. And you'll notice that the U.S. goes out of its way to prove those two specific conditions, whenever it does something. It's either going to be by way of treaty/agreement or by way of "just war" of self-defense (which the country must prove and justify to its own citizens, in order to even be able to carry out the war, in the first place).
As far as supporting Israel (or any other country) it takes no "right" to support a country. It only takes an agreement of either money or mutual defense. That's a no-brainer. Any country can lend support to any other country they want and there's nothing against that.
As far as putting sanctions on Iraq, the answer is no, the
U.S. could not put sanctions on Iraq (which are not there now, by the way), unless the U.N. Security Council had ordered it. So, the U.S. had no ability to place sanctions on Iraq. All the U.S. did was carry out the U.N. sanctions. The U.S. had no sanctions that it imposed.
And then you said "Who cares what Bin Ladin says if he is a liar!"... The only problem with that, is that he's not been shown to be a liar. He's been shown to be telling the truth.
When bin Ladin said that he (and other Muslims) were going to war with the United States, he was shown to be telling the truth.
When bin Ladin said that Muslims have the duty and responsibility under the Koran and Islam to kill the infidel Americans wherever they find them, he was telling the truth.
When bin Ladin was saying that he and his organization of al Qaida were going to attack the World Trade Towers and buildings, he was telling the truth.
It would seem that you have a very unsophisticated way of understanding "truth" and "lies". If someone comes up to me, who may look like the most crooked and devious and evil person that I've ever seen -- and he says to me, "I'm going to kill you!" -- then I'm going to consider that he's telling me the truth!"
However, you're free to consider that this individual is lying, when he tells you that.
If you were going to repeat the 'reasoning' of the thief, you would than have to denounce it as the reasoning of a criminal, not act like it had some justification to it.
Well, I guess we can send home all the FBI profilers, who help the various law enforcement agencies with "understanding" how these criminals think then. They're obviously not needed any longer.
And those analysts at the Pentagon and the CIA and the NSA can all go home, because we no longer need to understand the mind of the enemy. All we have to know from now on, is simply that "he is the enemy". No further clarification needed!
By the way, have you ever read the book, 1984. This is beginning to sound strangely like the mass hypnosis of people by the government, in 1984, where they didn't have to "know anything" -- but simply repeat the "government line" and simply know who the enemy was. How did they know who the enemy was? Well, simple, the government told them who it was. No need to know anything else. The only problem was, that about every year of two the enemy changed, and a lot of the time who was an enemy one year was a friend the next year. Yep, this is starting to definitely sound like "
1984" all right...
If you were running for President in 1942, you could talk about why the Japanese decided to bomb Pearl Harbor, due to our embargo, but you had better add that they were unjustified for doing so.
Ron Paul did not, as far as I know, do this.
Well, they sure do talk about that now. In fact, the way it's, more or less presented now, is that we should have known that this was going to be a response to what we did. In other words, that was the big mistake in not knowing this. That means, that if we know this, then we can be prepared for the attack, which is obviously going to come as a result of this.
So, to put this in the context of today's world, one could say this. If one had understood and known what the mindset and idealogy of Islam is and understood how these followers intended to follow it faithfully, then the U.S. would have been more prepared, ahead of time, and would have treated this as a World War, from the beginning, instead of simply a group of criminals and relegate it to the law enforcement field. Their lack of understanding and knowledge of how they thought actually contributed to being totally unprepared for what did happen -- just like we were unprepared for Pearl Harbor when it did happen.
So, the fault was being unprepared because of being ignorant.
I would praise Ron Paul for raising the intelligence of the American people, for those who didn't knnow this before. Perhaps it will contribute to us being more prepared in the future. It would irritate your friend if it sounded like you actually believed the reason the criminal gave. What if it sounded like you were trying to understand 'both sides of the issue'? Well there are not two sides to the issue, there is only right and wrong. The real reason we were attacked in 9/11 was because of our weakness in responding to terrorist aggression under Clinton.
I definitely would be trying to understand both sides of the issue. Let's use that neighbor example, who was the thief who tried to break into my house to steal my TV set. I would try to understand the mindset of my neighbor for sure. You see, if I really understand that he thinks that he has a right to one of my three TVs and I really understand that he intends to come in there when I'm not around -- by knowing this, I'm going to do something.
And here's what I'm going to do. I'm going to have an alarm system, a video camera system, good locks on the doors and windows and make sure I have some other good neighbors to help watch the house when I'm gone.
Otherwise, if I don't care to know or understand, I can be ignorant in any knowledge of my neighbor's intent and simply find out later, when something happens to me (just like the U.S. found out later and 9/11 happened to it).
And by the way, how do you think that the government is able to uncover a lot of the plots for further attacks on the U.S. -- other than by listening carefully to what enemy says and analyzing what their thinking is and actually believing that they are telling the truth, when they say they are going to attack here or attack there and do this plan or that plan? They listen to what their thinking is, they analyze carefully all their statements, and communications to pick up every last single word and phrase that is mentioned. They believe them, when they speak, in that when they say that they are intending to do something, they don't dismiss it as "oh, they always lie so we don't have to care what they say!"
If you were in charge of our security here in the United States, we would probably have had another five to ten more major terrorists attacks in the meantime. Thank god that's not true.
And the problem with Clinton is that he treated it as simply a crime and a police action, having to do with an isolated bunch of crooks and nuts. He didn't view it as a war upon the United States and as an integrated idealogy which had intentions of overthrowing the U.S. In other words, he simply thought they were criminals and liars, and nothing more. According to the terrorists themselves, they were amazed at our withdrawal from Somalia and our tepid responses to the bombings of our embassies and WTC. This emboldened them to become more aggressive.
The religio-fanatical-governmental oppressive idealogy of Islam has a very long history. It didn't start in this century. However, it is in this last century that it began its "third wave" of conquest in the history of that idealogy.
We can see the very long string of attacks from this documented list of terrorist attacks -- Islamic Terror Timeline that the attacks of terrorists are not any more emboldened by Clinton or any other administration. They are going to do what they do according to their idealogy and that's what they've done all along. Their terror timeline in modern history goes way back to the beginning decades of the 20th Century, especially with the beginnings of the formation of the state of Israel.
But, if they were amazed at our tepid responses before, the terrorists are going to be more amazed at our rapid withdrawal from Iraq beginning around 2008. Wait for their "amazing" responses" then... I think Clinton did far more damage than you give him credit for. He took terrorist acts as acts of individuals, not actions of groups or nations. Thus, the terrorists never felt threatened as a group. Thus, they underestimated Bush and his response in Afghanistan.
Well, you mention that they've never (before) felt threatened as a group. Well, they're not too threatened as a group right now. Osama bin Ladin is safe and sound over there in between Afghanistan and Pakistan where no one has ever been able to touch him. The Taliban is currently being funded by the Pakistanis and is being sent back over into Afghanistan to fight against the Americans and other Afghanis, with Pakstan's full blessing and with Pakistan's "sanctuary" granted to the Taliban in Pakistan. It sure doesn't sound like they're too threatened as it is, right now. And this is from a so-called "ally" of the U.S. (Pakistan).
In Lebanon, the terrorists are not too threatened either, getting all the support and money they need from Iran. They have absolute safe sanctuary over there.
In the Palestinian Authority, they not only have absolute safe sanctuary, they are also the elected government of the P.A. by an overwhelming majority of the PA people. And on top of that, the U.S. is giving money to the terrorist government in order to help it become a "state". That sounds like pretty safe sanctuary to me.
In Iran the terrorists have all the safe sanctuary they need, getting the training and the supplies and the money to disrupt all that want to in Iraq. Ahmadinejad is getting nuclear weapons soon. They have all the oil money they need to keep fudning all the terrorism that they want to spread around.
Saudi Arabia has no problem with giving sanctuary to all the terrorist who want to grow up in that country, being taught the terrorist idealogy of Islam. In fact, Saudi Arabia funds this very same terrorist idealogy in America with the mosques over here. Saudi Arabia has all the money it needs from us giving it to them, to fund the terrorists for a very long time.
Syria has no problem in giving sanctuary to every terrorist organization on the face of this earth. If you're a terrorist, Syria wants you. Syria even has Saddam Hussein's WMD, as they were shipped over there before the U.S. got into Iraq. So, Syria has a lot of sanctuary and weapons for the terrorists.
Tell me..., where did you say that these terrorists were feeling threatened? And once again, the question was why were people upset over Ron Paul bringing up the reasoning of the terrorists, not you! Ron Paul's views on the WOT have to considered when viewing his statements. It appears as if Ron Paul is saying that if only America would change its foreign policy to give the terrorists what they want, we would be at peace. If he did not mean that, then he needed to clarify exactly why he was repeating the enemy's justification for making an unprovoked attack on U.S. citizens.
Well, I guess if we're only offering Ron Paul's opinions here, we can simply leave this entire thread blank, until Ron Paul shows up and posts something himself. And as far as everyone else's opinions here, please notify the moderator to remove all the opinons from other people, please..., since we are all awaiting Ron Paul's appearance here... LOL...
In the meantime, while we are all awaiting Ron Paul's expected appearance, I'll post my own opinions. Let me know when he shows up....
As far as what Ron Paul was saying, I'll simply wait to hear what he actually has to say from his own mouth and statements. If anyone wants to venture to give that to me, then please do include the full context of wherever it comes from so that we all can see the entire thing....
Whatever it is that is needed to be clarified, I'm sure that someone could easily write to the campaign and ask for a clarification. That wouldn't be too hard, if you think you need a clarification. Or, for the rest of us, we can simply wait for a reporter to pose certain direct questions to him.
I'll definitely be interested in hearing what he has to say about it.
Regards,
Star Traveler
So lets just drop it and call it even. There are other things I would rather spend my time on FR doing.
Paul’s position is that the wisdom of our “no-entangling alliances” founders is what should “set” (guide) our foreign policy. That way we don’t MAKE enemies for you to talk twistingly about.
I think even more than our killing of their people, the Arabs object to us trying to impose OUR values, OUR culture, OUR institutions, and OUR style of government on them. That’s why I think it is misleading to call it the War In Iraq. The honest name for it would be the War On Iraq.
Well, in these things "context" is just about everything. So, for my part, I would like to see the context of the matter. That will tell me a lot right there. Does anyone know where the complete context is given (like in a complete video)? After viewing that, then I'll be able to tell you.
Well, since Dr. Paul was slammed for it, I think it is safe to say that it was at least perceived as being a terrorist justification for the attack by the other debaters.
Nor, did Dr. Paul do anything to dissuade them otherwise.
What their reasoning was for attacking us is irrelevant since they are evil
Au contraire, mon ami. It's certainly not irrelevant. It provides a lot of understanding for how they think, what their motivations are, give us ample ability to predict things before they act, allows us to defend more adequately, and helps us get inside the heads of this idealogy -- as it is well known that to defeat your enemy, you know your enemy.
That is only if they were telling the truth!
The way to truly understand them is to read what they write to each other, not what they say for world opinion.
Moreover, the Japanese had (in their own mind) a rational reason for bombing Pearl Harbor , knowing that a U.S.embargo would cripple them.
Yet, the entire context is their own lust to expand and control the Far East, as they were attempting to do when they invaded China.
So us 'understanding' why they attacked Pearl Harbor didn't change anything in regards to our own interests in destroying the Imperial system.
Ron Paul was ascribing to them a reasonable justification for their attack, 'we did something to them' when they do not operate under the laws of reason and logic.
That one would be easy to ascertain, simply by having it directly asked of him if he was ascribing "a reasonable justification for their attack". I think a press conference where a reporter asks the question would clear that one up. And what you're asking is something about motivation which is inside one's head, as opposed to "giving the facts" which it appears that Ron Paul did. So, what we need to have a reporter ask is what his intent was, for the giving of the facts.
Those are not the 'facts' they are the reasons that the enemy gave for launching one of the worst terror attacks in history.
When you state that they are 'facts' you are giving weight to them.
Now, all Ron Paul had to say was that this is their reasoning, it doesn't justify what they did and our response to them must to make sure they are never able to do this again.
I think he defended their reasoning as having some merit.
If you state that the reason for the attack on us was due to our actions, then you are giving the terrorists a moral sanction, as if we brought the act on our selves. This is like trying to 'understand' why a criminal does something. He does it because he is a criminal, who cares what his justification was at the moment.
No, by stating his reasons and knowing how one thinks, as in understanding the enemy, has nothing to do with giving any kind of "sanction" to the enemy. I'm afraid that if our government followed your policy of knowing absolutely nothing about the enemy, other than "they did something wrong against us" -- we would have lost the war before we even started out the gate. And in addition to our government needing to know how the enemy thinks and what is in his mind, the public also needs to fully understand this, because they still think that the enemy is simply a bunch of misguided malfeasants, with no guiding idealogy, which is the same idealogy that guides 1.2 billion other people on this planet. Sorry, the name for your plan is "ostrich/head/sand".
No, if you are going to understand the enemy, you read what they write, not what their propaganda puts out.
I am totally unconcerned about the Nazi's reasoning for starting WW2 or their 'justification' for the Holocaust.
If you attempted to bring up the issue in a debate and said, 'well here is the Nazi point of view' and this is there 'thinking' on the subject.
You don't need to understand evil to recognize it as evil.
Once you recognize evil, you know you have to destroy it.
Now, you should understand their tactics in misinformation, as Satan has his 'wiles'(Eph.6:11) and 'devices'(2Cor.2:11) but I am unconcerned about Satan's argument for his war against God.
And then your reference to the fact that "he is a criminal" -- that was precisely where the Clinton Administration went wrong, treating the matter as if it was a criminal action and handling it in the same way that policemen do. Bush had a much better plan in treating it as a "war" and handling it with military commanders and armies. So, Bush definitely knows that these are not criminals (in order to leave it up to the police forces) but that they are combatants, and are fighting a war of overthrowing governments and are intent on ruling the world. Those kinds of things are not "criminal elements" as criminal elements are meant for personal gain, solely and person aggrandizement. But, these people are not pursuing a "criminal enterprise" but a "governmental" and "ruling" and "war" enterprise. There is a world of difference from these people and criminals.
Oh no, not in essence,only in scale!
They are world-wide criminals and were controlling nations, as were the Barbary Pirates.
Clinton was only going after the actual individual involved in the act and not attacking the source, those who gave the orders and the training.
A criminal is anyone who is acting against God's law, and these guys are definitely criminals, but they needed to fought against the way we fought against the Nazi and Japanese criminals who were ruling those nations.
But Ron Paul did not 'laugh it off' he took it seriously and presented it as it being a legitimate reason for the attack. In other words, in the mind of Ron Paul, the United States is responsible for bringing on much of its own trouble due to its interventionist foreign policy, including supporting Israel.
I'll have to see Ron Paul saying that directly, as opposed to someone making an interpretation of that from their own mind. Can you supply me with a link to where Ron Paul says that? I'll watch it or look at a transcript. And it should include context, because that's also very important when trying to ascertain what someone is saying. So, once I'm able to see Ron Paul saying this (as you're indicating), then I'll agree with it. So far, I have absolutely no knowledge of him ever indicating that.
That is fine.
I hope that Dr. Paul is being misrepresented and did not mean to give any moral justification to the 9/11 attack.
If there are any lurkers at there who can help in this regard please do.
We have every right to be in the Middle East, supporting Israel and putting sanctions on Iraq. Who cares what Bin Ladin says if he is a liar! Why even repeat it except to mock it as a lie?
Well, on the first one you mentioned, that we have every right to be in the Middle East -- that's not quite true. Inherently, we have no right to be in any country in the Middle East. No country in the world, under "national sovereignty" has any right to be within any other country's borders, anywhere in the world. All our situations, in which we do happen to be within other countries borders are on the basis of mutual agreements, or the results of wars that we've fought (which would have been what is called a "just war" in the U.S., which would then have to pass the "justification test").
Now, you are being a bit disingenuous.
We are in no nation without their approval.
We as a sovereign nation have a right and responsibility to protect our own self interest and the Mid-East is crucial for us.
I do not know of a war fought in the 20th century by the U.S. that could not be called justified.
If you do, please let me know.
So, outisde of wars of defense and outside of mutual agreements between countries -- there exist no inherent right for any country to be inside the borders of any other country in the world. So, as a result the U.S. has no right to be inside of any other country, Middle East or anywhere else, outside of those very specific conditions. And you'll notice that the U.S. goes out of its way to prove those two specific conditions, whenever it does something. It's either going to be by way of treaty/agreement or by way of "just war" of self-defense (which the country must prove and justify to its own citizens, in order to even be able to carry out the war, in the first place).
There would be no 'need' for the United States to be 'in' the Mid-East except for the Islamic efforts to destroy Israel and wage war on the West.
If anything the U.S. is too hesitant to use its' power to impose its will on the region.
Our moral right to defend our world wide interests is without question.
That includes the sanctity of our Embassies which are U.S. soil, and the live and property of our citizens.
As far as supporting Israel (or any other country) it takes no "right" to support a country. It only takes an agreement of either money or mutual defense. That's a no-brainer. Any country can lend support to any other country they want and there's nothing against that.
And we as a sovereign nation have a right to make any alliances we want and if anyone wants to wage war on our allies, we have the right to wage war on them.
So the Islamic complaint is that we are free to choose who our friends are going to be and they are attempting to dictate our foreign policy with intimidation through terrorism.
As far as putting sanctions on Iraq, the answer is no, the U.S. could not put sanctions on Iraq (which are not there now, by the way), unless the U.N. Security Council had ordered it. So, the U.S. had no ability to place sanctions on Iraq. All the U.S. did was carry out the U.N. sanctions. The U.S. had no sanctions that it imposed.
The U.S. had every right to place sanctions on Iraq, choosing whatever course it wanted to take, through the U.N.(bad choice) or unilaterally.
The issue is that we can do what we want as a nation to protect our interests.
That includes invading Iran and Syria, who are supporting terrorists.
And then you said "Who cares what Bin Ladin says if he is a liar!"... The only problem with that, is that he's not been shown to be a liar. He's been shown to be telling the truth.
No, a half-truth is still a lie.
You haven't made any case for their 'reasoning'.
When bin Ladin said that he (and other Muslims) were going to war with the United States, he was shown to be telling the truth.
He was not telling the truth in why he was going to war with us.
In point of fact, he had no reasonable or rational defense for his acts of terrorism against the U.S.
Note the word rational.
Anyone can say anything and call it a 'reason', but the issue is it rational.
When bin Ladin said that Muslims have the duty and responsibility under the Koran and Islam to kill the infidel Americans wherever they find them, he was telling the truth.
And did Ron Paul state this in the debate?
That Bin Laden was using the Koran as the moral basis for his war with the West?
That would have undermined everything else he said about U.S. actions in the Mid-East.
Moreover, I do not need Bin Laden to tell me what the Koran says about killing the infidel, it is there in writing.
So that Bin Laden said something true, doesn't make him any less a liar.
Satan tempted Christ with some true statements, like if He worshiped him, all the Kingdoms of the world would be His.
That was a true statement, but it was rooted in a lie, that God could ever worship His creation.
For something not to be a lie, it must be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
After 8 years of Clinton, we have learned alot about parsing sentences.
Bin Laden is a liar and Islam gives him moral sanction to lie if it will advance the cause of Islam.
When bin Ladin was saying that he and his organization of al Qaida were going to attack the World Trade Towers and buildings, he was telling the truth.
Yes, and that makes him no less of a liar.
I am sure he has made other threats that he did not carry out as well.
It would seem that you have a very unsophisticated way of understanding "truth" and "lies". If someone comes up to me, who may look like the most crooked and devious and evil person that I've ever seen -- and he says to me, "I'm going to kill you!" -- then I'm going to consider that he's telling me the truth!"
No, it is you who have a very naive view of lying.
A liar may tell the truth, but the point is, since he is a liar, you never know if he is.
That is why Reagan always said, 'trust but verify'.
The Communists were liars and had to be forced to held to their truth.
That is why Satan loves to quote scripture, it is the truth, but ofcourse, Satan puts his little 'spin' on it by dropping or adding a word.
However, you're free to consider that this individual is lying, when he tells you that.
I am 'free' to consider any person a liar who entire philosophy is built on it.
If you were going to repeat the 'reasoning' of the thief, you would than have to denounce it as the reasoning of a criminal, not act like it had some justification to it. Well, I guess we can send home all the FBI profilers, who help the various law enforcement agencies with "understanding" how these criminals think then. They're obviously not needed any longer.
Frankly, I never have had any use for 'profilers'
Usually they are based in general misconceptions.
Rational people cannot 'understand' the criminal mind because it is irrational.
What 'rational' person would spend years in jail, get out and commit another crime and go right back in?
They always believe they will get away with it this time.
And those analysts at the Pentagon and the CIA and the NSA can all go home, because we no longer need to understand the mind of the enemy. All we have to know from now on, is simply that "he is the enemy". No further clarification needed!
We understand the enemies thinking by reading what they read, not listening to their propaganda.
Sadaam gave 'reasons' for invading Kuwait as well.
In his mind, I am sure they were 'reasonable'.
By the way, have you ever read the book, 1984. This is beginning to sound strangely like the mass hypnosis of people by the government, in 1984, where they didn't have to "know anything" -- but simply repeat the "government line" and simply know who the enemy was. How did they know who the enemy was? Well, simple, the government told them who it was. No need to know anything else. The only problem was, that about every year of two the enemy changed, and a lot of the time who was an enemy one year was a friend the next year. Yep, this is starting to definitely sound like "
LOL!
Well, when someone attacks the United States and kills 3000 of her citizens, I think it is reasonable to say that they are the enemies of the United States.
1984" all right..
So now the United States government is the real enemy and we are being deceived?
If you were running for President in 1942, you could talk about why the Japanese decided to bomb Pearl Harbor, due to our embargo, but you had better add that they were unjustified for doing so. Ron Paul did not, as far as I know, do this.
Well, they sure do talk about that now. In fact, the way it's, more or less presented now, is that we should have known that this was going to be a response to what we did. In other words, that was the big mistake in not knowing this. That means, that if we know this, then we can be prepared for the attack, which is obviously going to come as a result of this.
Actually, we did figure the Japanese would attack us, but we did not think it would be an attack on Pearl Harbor.
So, to put this in the context of today's world, one could say this. If one had understood and known what the mindset and idealogy of Islam is and understood how these followers intended to follow it faithfully, then the U.S. would have been more prepared, ahead of time, and would have treated this as a World War, from the beginning, instead of simply a group of criminals and relegate it to the law enforcement field. Their lack of understanding and knowledge of how they thought actually contributed to being totally unprepared for what did happen -- just like we were unprepared for Pearl Harbor when it did happen.
Yes, and talking about their public rational for attacking us is irrelevant to why they really attacked us-their religion demanded it.
And if Ron Paul had stated this and we would be praising him now on the FR instead of criticizing him.
So, the fault was being unprepared because of being ignorant.
Being ignorant of Islam and electing men to office (Democrats) who prefer to surrender U.S. sovereignty than fight against the terrorists.
I would praise Ron Paul for raising the intelligence of the American people, for those who didn't know this before. Perhaps it will contribute to us being more prepared in the future.
Ron Paul did nothing to raise intelligence of the American people.
He simply repeated the terrorist lie that America has itself to blame for the act of terrorist's.
Like a criminal saying that it is our fault we were robbed because we left our door unlocked.
It would irritate your friend if it sounded like you actually believed the reason the criminal gave. What if it sounded like you were trying to understand 'both sides of the issue'? Well there are not two sides to the issue, there is only right and wrong. The real reason we were attacked in 9/11 was because of our weakness in responding to terrorist aggression under Clinton.
I definitely would be trying to understand both sides of the issue. Let's use that neighbor example, who was the thief who tried to break into my house to steal my TV set. I would try to understand the mindset of my neighbor for sure. You see, if I really understand that he thinks that he has a right to one of my three TVs and I really understand that he intends to come in there when I'm not around -- by knowing this, I'm going to do something. And here's what I'm going to do. I'm going to have an alarm system, a video camera system, good locks on the doors and windows and make sure I have some other good neighbors to help watch the house when I'm gone. Otherwise, if I don't care to know or understand, I can be ignorant in any knowledge of my neighbor's intent and simply find out later, when something happens to me (just like the U.S. found out later and 9/11 happened to it).
That is not understanding 'two sides of the issue'
The criminal states he wants your TV and that is his moral justification for taking it.
I do not need to know what his reasoning is for taking the TV, only that he will attempt to do so, if he is able.
His 'reasoning' is irrelevant.
Only the fact that there are those who will take what they want if they think they can get away with it is relevant and useful.
Hilter got away with rearming Germany because the West tried to think of him as rational.
And by the way, how do you think that the government is able to uncover a lot of the plots for further attacks on the U.S. -- other than by listening carefully to what enemy says and analyzing what their thinking is and actually believing that they are telling the truth, when they say they are going to attack here or attack there and do this plan or that plan? They listen to what their thinking is, they analyze carefully all their statements, and communications to pick up every last single word and phrase that is mentioned. They believe them, when they speak, in that when they say that they are intending to do something, they don't dismiss it as "oh, they always lie so we don't have to care what they say!"
I didn't say they always lie, only that as liars, everything they say has to be weighed and considered untrue until it is verified as true.
Not everything Clinton said was a lie, but he was still a liar.
Not everything Hilter said was lie, but he is still a liar.
Not everything Bin Laden says is a lie, but he is a liar and thus, his reasoning for attacking us is only propaganda for the Islamic world, to justify mass murder.
If you were in charge of our security here in the United States, we would probably have had another five to ten more major terrorists attacks in the meantime. Thank god that's not true.
Maybe not.
I would be alot tougher on illegals, student visa's and everyone connected to Islam.
I don't need to know about why they hate us, only that they do.
And the problem with Clinton is that he treated it as simply a crime and a police action, having to do with an isolated bunch of crooks and nuts. He didn't view it as a war upon the United States and as an integrated ideology which had intentions of overthrowing the U.S. In other words, he simply thought they were criminals and liars, and nothing more.
Clinton took the attacks as individual attacks and dealt with them accordingly.
The Democratic Party is following your way of thinking (and Ron Paul's) in assessing what the terrorists are saying in why they hate us and thinking maybe we ought to change!
According to the terrorists themselves, they were amazed at our withdrawal from Somalia and our tepid responses to the bombings of our embassies and WTC. This emboldened them to become more aggressive.
The religio-fanatical-governmental oppressive idealogy of Islam has a very long history. It didn't start in this century. However, it is in this last century that it began its "third wave" of conquest in the history of that idealogy. We can see the very long string of attacks from this documented list of terrorist attacks -- Islamic Terror Timeline that the attacks of terrorists are not any more emboldened by Clinton or any other administration. They are going to do what they do according to their idealogy and that's what they've done all along. Their terror timeline in modern history goes way back to the beginning decades of the 20th Century, especially with the beginnings of the formation of the state of Israel.
Not attacks on the United States!
Bin Laden himself admitted that our withdrawal from Somalia was seen as a U.S. retreat.
In this case, I believe him, since attacks against the U.S. increased dramatically after.
Now, it is up to you to show that attacks against the U.S. did not increase after Clinton was elected to make your case.
But, if they were amazed at our tepid responses before, the terrorists are going to be more amazed at our rapid withdrawal from Iraq beginning around 2008. Wait for their "amazing" responses" then...
It seems that you are agreeing with my point then.
That is why we cannot withdraw from Iraq until the job is complete.
I think Clinton did far more damage than you give him credit for. He took terrorist acts as acts of individuals, not actions of groups or nations. Thus, the terrorists never felt threatened as a group. Thus, they underestimated Bush and his response in Afghanistan.
Well, you mention that they've never (before) felt threatened as a group. Well, they're not too threatened as a group right now. Osama bin Ladin is safe and sound over there in between Afghanistan and Pakistan where no one has ever been able to touch him. The Taliban is currently being funded by the Pakistanis and is being sent back over into Afghanistan to fight against the Americans and other Afghanis, with Pakstan's full blessing and with Pakistan's "sanctuary" granted to the Taliban in Pakistan. It sure doesn't sound like they're too threatened as it is, right now. And this is from a so-called "ally" of the U.S. (Pakistan).
Ofcourse, they are threatened.
They are under constant U.S. attack.
Stop talking like a Democrat. (we are losing, we are losing)
In Lebanon, the terrorists are not too threatened either, getting all the support and money they need from Iran. They have absolute safe sanctuary over there. In the Palestinian Authority, they not only have absolute safe sanctuary, they are also the elected government of the P.A. by an overwhelming majority of the PA people. And on top of that, the U.S. is giving money to the terrorist government in order to help it become a "state". That sounds like pretty safe sanctuary to me. In Iran the terrorists have all the safe sanctuary they need, getting the training and the supplies and the money to disrupt all that want to in Iraq. Ahmadinejad is getting nuclear weapons soon. They have all the oil money they need to keep fudning all the terrorism that they want to spread around. Saudi Arabia has no problem with giving sanctuary to all the terrorist who want to grow up in that country, being taught the terrorist idealogy of Islam. In fact, Saudi Arabia funds this very same terrorist idealogy in America with the mosques over here. Saudi Arabia has all the money it needs from us giving it to them, to fund the terrorists for a very long time. Syria has no problem in giving sanctuary to every terrorist organization on the face of this earth. If you're a terrorist, Syria wants you. Syria even has Saddam Hussein's WMD, as they were shipped over there before the U.S. got into Iraq. So, Syria has a lot of sanctuary and weapons for the terrorists. Tell me..., where did you say that these terrorists were feeling threatened?
They feel threatened by the fact that they know that the United States is at war with them.
When is the last major terrorist act committed against the U.S.
Is the war over?
Not by a long shot, but the enemy is on their heels.
They know if they lose in Iraq a second democracy will be in the Mid-East the very thing that they hate!
If guys like you were in charge during WW2, you would have been griping that since hadn't defeated the Axis by 1943-44 we were never going to do so.
These guys cannot beat us, as long as we understand that we are right and they have to be destroyed.
And once again, the question was why were people upset over Ron Paul bringing up the reasoning of the terrorists, not you! Ron Paul's views on the WOT have to considered when viewing his statements. It appears as if Ron Paul is saying that if only America would change its foreign policy to give the terrorists what they want, we would be at peace. If he did not mean that, then he needed to clarify exactly why he was repeating the enemy's justification for making an unprovoked attack on U.S. citizens.
Well, I guess if we're only offering Ron Paul's opinions here, we can simply leave this entire thread blank, until Ron Paul shows up and posts something himself. And as far as everyone else's opinions here, please notify the moderator to remove all the opinons from other people, please..., since we are all awaiting Ron Paul's appearance here... LOL...
The thread was on Ron Paul's statements.
If you want to defend them as yours, then that is your right, but you would be as wrong as he was.
In the meantime, while we are all awaiting Ron Paul's expected appearance, I'll post my own opinions. Let me know when he shows up....
Well, if your opinion is that we are to give any credence to the terrorist's justification attacking us, then your views are as wrong as Ron Paul's are.
As far as what Ron Paul was saying, I'll simply wait to hear what he actually has to say from his own mouth and statements. If anyone wants to venture to give that to me, then please do include the full context of wherever it comes from so that we all can see the entire thing.... Whatever it is that is needed to be clarified, I'm sure that someone could easily write to the campaign and ask for a clarification. That wouldn't be too hard, if you think you need a clarification. Or, for the rest of us, we can simply wait for a reporter to pose certain direct questions to him. I'll definitely be interested in hearing what he has to say about it.
And whatever Ron Paul's reasoning was in giving the enemies 'side of the argument' it was irrational at best.
Regards, Star Traveler
Likewise.
Please do not send me anymore long posts.
Gee, here I thought they were only attacking nations for getting involved in the MidEast!
Now they are attacking them for their elections!
The most sense I’ve heard out of anyone on this forum so far!
OK, then what? We do what? I’ve hear absolutely NOTHING except surrender from the Democrats. Wrong Party Ronnie’s solution is what...run. Convert? Study his navel?
We didn't have any entangling alliances when Barbary States decided to go after American shipping in the 19th century. Jefferson thought a navy was too expensive, and would get us too involved in international politics. That worked out until the Barbary States upped the amount of tribute we were required to submit to them for transit rights to the Mediterranean.
The point is that all nations, including ours, are based on taking land and other things that did not originally belong to them by force. This practice hasn't stopped just because we've stopped doing it. And the accumulation of trade routes, resources and population via conquest by other countries can present a threat to our security, depending on what areas of the world are involved. Alliances are an attempt to share the security burden and to set up tripwires far from our shores. They are also geared towards protecting our specific interests. Note that we did not get involved in territorial disputes between Morocco and Spain, and the Philippines and China, despite the existence of mutual defense treaties.
Let me point out Europe did not have any entangling alliances with Israel when Arab terrorists decided to attack them in order to persuade them to become more hostile to Israel in the '60's and '70's. Why did the Arabs attack Europe? Because the Europeans were weak. Singapore, South Africa and Taiwan have had robust security and trade relationships with Israel for decades, but there have been zero terrorist attacks there. Why is that? Perhaps because every one of these countries has the death penalty (and an expeditious process for completing capital cases within a year, including execution), and is known for torturing terrorists for information. They are emphatically not weak.
I think an important fallacy here is that we are the only active players in foreign policy and everyone else is reacting to what we do. The fact is that other players in the game have their own objectives, and some will do whatever it takes to win, including deliberately blow up buildings with tens of thousands of civilians in it. In peacetime. (If the 1993 WTC mini-van bomb incident had worked out, tens of thousands would been killed since no one would have had the time to get out). As I stated earlier, the question boils down to whether we make our own foreign policy - a foreign policy that even our friends and countries with similar values don't get to make for us - or ruthless mass murderers* (with values antithetical to our own) get to make it.
* In fact, it makes no sense to me that we make no concessions to domestic terrorists (Weathermen, Black Panthers, Puerto Rican independentistas, McVeigh-style bombers), but are being called upon to make concessions to foreign terrorists. Shouldn't charity begin at home? Aren't we being a little hypocritical? Or is submitting to foreigners somehow a little more sophisticated and cosmopolitan? Sort of like blonds putting on burkhas?
I think a little chronology is important here. 9/11 occurred *before* (and was the proximate cause for) the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. Besides, the Arabs are also trying, with some success, to impose their values, their culture and their institutions on us. The Arab empire was built on the basis of conquest and the mass murder of unbelievers. I don't think they have a leg to stand on. The world doesn't revolve Arab grievances, any more than it revolves around American grievances. They need to grow up. We're not killing them en masse in spite of their incitement of their populations to terrorism. If an Arab A-bomb goes off in an American city, we might start doing so.
I'm afraid bin Laden has a different definition of freedom than you and I. Freedom to him means the freedom to kill anyone who disagrees with him. He is attacking us because we're free - free to make our own foreign policy. He won't be satisfied until the State Department represents al Qaeda's interests.
Besides, imagine if a Taiwanese terrorist group launched attacks against the US because of the American government's refusal to recognize Taiwan as an independent country. Should we then recognize Taiwan as an independent country? Just because our adversaries have a cause doesn't make it our cause, regardless of how many of our people they kill. The solution isn't to have the State Department represent al Qaeda's interests instead of our national interests - it's to slaughter al Qaeda operatives, and to deter any foreign governments that may be tempted to cooperate with al Qaeda.
I'm afraid I find the sources for your claims dubious, at best. However, let's take them at face value. Let's say we did arm bin Laden. (And everything I write after this will be based on this dubious assumption). Exactly how did we turn on him? Was it before or after he launched terrorist strikes on us, starting in the '90's?
You could say it was our responsibility to continue funding him, since he had fought our proxy war against the Soviets for us. You could even say that it was our responsibility to drive Israel into the sea, because Muslims had helped drive the Soviets out of Afghanistan. But how is any of this reasonable as payment for Muslim efforts in Afghanistan? The interests most directly affected by the Soviet invasion were Afghan and Muslim interests. We gave them for free, about a billion dollars worth of weaponry to help defeat a mortal threat to Afghanistan's continued independence. And their response is to say we owe them for helping them to ensure Afghanistan's continued sovereignty? If there's any betrayal involved, it's their betrayal of us, not our betrayal of them.
Let's step back and take a look at the big picture. If I accept your claim that we armed him, did we do so *before* or after his attacks against us?
Note that we helped keep the Russians afloat via massive shipments of aid after the National Socialist invasion of the Soviet Union. This was *after* we knew of tens of millions of dead in the Soviet Union via summary execution, mass murders and forced collectivization. And the Soviets went on to kill 100,000 Americans via their proxy wars in Korea and Vietnam, where they instigated, supplied and trained our adversaries to the tune of billions of dollars. Were the American deaths in Korea and Vietnam our fault for supporting the Soviet Union militarily and financially during WWII against the National Socialists?
If we armed bin Laden during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, we armed him *before* he attacked us. But we armed the Soviets during WWII *after* we knew of their mass murdering ways. The bottom line here is that we are no more responsible for 9/11 because we armed bin Laden than we are of the casualties from Korea and Vietnam because we armed the Soviets. We simply had no way of knowing that they would turn against us. We have helped a lot of causes and countries in wartime. Our historical allies haven't always been grateful, but only the Soviets and bin Laden have repaid our generosity in the coin of American deaths. Their betrayal in the face of our past generosity is evidence of their treachery rather than of ours.
But what were those policies? The prevention of the absorption of China into the Japanese empire and the termination of further expansion* of the territory of Imperial Japan, which would directly threaten US territory in East Asia - specifically Hawaii, Guam, the Wake Islands and the Philippines, not to mention valuable trade routes and access to natural resources. Should we have stood by as the French invaded Mexico in the 19th century? Or was it entirely reasonable to provide military assistance to the Mexicans, as we did, to help them expel the French?
* At the time, the British were overstretched fighting WWII in Europe and North Africa, and France and Holland had been overrun by National Socialist forces. If we did not try to slow Japan down via sanctions, nothing stood in the way of the Japanese acquisition of all of the British, French and Dutch territories in East Asia, not to mention perhaps Australia and New Zealand as well. It is one thing to stay out of the petty squabbles over territorial boundaries, such as the dispute between Greece and Turkey over Cyprus. It's quite another to continue supplying a potential adversary as it conquers and annexes a continental-sized nation not far from your own territory and is conceivably on a quest for global empire.
I don't know what the heck you are babbling about. I didn't say what Ron Paul did or didn't say in my post; I was responding specifically to the passage that I quoted. But there's not a dime's worth of difference between the diarrhea-of-the-keyboard sufferer who wrote that overlong post and Congressman Paul.
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.