It is wrong because it gives the sense of moral equivalence to each side.
We have every right to be in the Middle East, supporting Israel and putting sanctions on Iraq.
The real reason we were attacked in 9/11 was because of our weakness in responding to terrorist aggression under Clinton.
I have a great deal of respect for Dr. Paul.
He is coming from the 'Old Right' tradition that was very pacifistic.
But there are some people we can't be at peace with, since they are at war with all mankind-Nazism, Japanese Imperialism, Communism and Islam.
Tonight, Ron Paul stated that al-Qaida attacked us because we are involved in the Middle East. Below I have posted Bin Laden's declaration of War against the United States, made in 1996. He cites (1) US Involvement in the Middle East, (2) Palestine, and (3) Sanctions on Iraq as reasons why he has declared war.
I then said --
Well, that sound about right to me. I'm not sure why some people are jumping on that statement. Is there a problem with it?
To which you replied --
It is wrong because it gives the sense of moral equivalence to each side.
Well, I've read Osama bin Ladin's stuff from way back in 1999, not too far along in the year. I read up on the terrorist stuff back before the turn of the century. I knew what the religio-political-governmental oppressive idealogy of Islam was a long time ago, before they ever attacked.
And I could very easily read that stuff and understand exactly what they were talking about. I understood that they wanted to kill every last single Jew on the face of the planet. I understood that if Islam had ever controlled any territory in the past (in history) that they were duty-bound to recover that land for Islam. I understood that they were required by their political-religious-governmental idealogy to take over the entire world. And so, I did understand what bin Ladin was talking about. I understood that it would require all the Western nations to get out of the Middle East because none of them were supposed to be there. I understood that it required the obliteration of the nation of Israel, because that was an offense to the Muslim mind.
But, just because I understood that and knew what their reason was for doing and acting in the way that they did -- had no bearing on whether I thought it was the right or correct thing to do.
I also knew that the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob had given the land to Israel, in perpetuity. I also understood that the founder of the idealogy of Islam was Satan, as the idealogy was the enemy of Israel and that is what Satan is (the enemy of Israel). I realized that this was the World-wide/global War of the evil and despicable idealogy of Islam, masquereding as a quasi-religious entity, and fighting at the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
In all that, I never did give any moral equivalence to what the evil and despicable religio-political-governmental idealogy of Islam said. I still don't today, in any way, shape or form. I think it needs to be totally destroyed and wiped completely off the face of this earth, as an idealogy for anyone.
So, I have no idea how you ever get the idea that knowing these things about Osama bin Ladin and what he thinks and what he wants to do, and saying that this is what he wants to do -- gives any measure of moral equivalence to him.
It's like you're saying that we have to hide what he thinks, or else if we actually said what he thinks, we might have to agree with itl. Well, I can laugh that one off and right into the ground.
We have every right to be in the Middle East, supporting Israel and putting sanctions on Iraq.
I have no idea how you came up with this one in regards to me recognizing what bin Ladin says.
I mean it's like I have a neighbor that has come over several times and seen my three TVs in the house. He doesn't have one. So, one day he decides to break in while I'm gone and take one of the TVs, since he figures I've got too many and he doesn't have any.
But, he gets caught and then it comes out that he does this because he thinks that since he doesn't have any and I had too many (in his mind) that he should take one. So, when I'm asked by another friend how come my neighbor did this to me, I say, "Well, he thought that since I had three TVs and he had none that he should take one."
And my friend says to me, "How can you say such a thing??!! You have a right to have three TVs and he shouldn't have come in and tried to rob you. I don't know why you're giving him any moral equivalence at all, in the matter!"
Well, at that point I'll probably be irritated at my friend for coming to that ridiculous conclusion that I gave any moral equivalence to the neighbor by stating what he thought. But, some people just don't know the difference, I guess.
The real reason we were attacked in 9/11 was because of our weakness in responding to terrorist aggression under Clinton.
Well, when I look at the history of Islamic terrorism and see what their idea of Israel was, even way back in the early 1900s, and to the point of supporting Hitler and offering to do away with the Jews if they sent them over to them -- I don't see it as a "Clinton thing". I see it as a Mohammed thing, going way back to the 600s. In fact, the religio-political-governmental idealogy of Islam has already tried this world-wide conquest two other times. This just happens to be the third time in their history. They are making their third push and it looks like they have a lot better shot at it, this third time around.
Just look at this list of terrorist attacks, documented way back when -- Islamic Terrorism Timeline -- it's about 100 pages worth of documented terrorists attacks. It was long before Clinton. It's been a steady progression.
Now, while Clinton could have definitely done a better job of it, it's obviously not the fact that Clinton was weak in responding. I say that, because when we look at the present, Bush has not been weak in responding -- and yet -- the world-wide conquest aims of the religio-political-governmental idealogy of Islam has not backed off one iota, with the strong response from Bush. Therefore it was not a weak or strong response that had anything to do with it, as much as it is the push that they are making now, after years and years (going back over 60 years and more) of the world basically tolerating Islam in taking over in the areas where they could gain control and trying to continually intimidate and wipe out Israel.
Clinton is a cheap two-bit player in the terrorism scale of things over the decades. He didn't respond very well, but he sure didn't do anything to start it off or make it go any faster. It was well on its way, totally on its own. I have a great deal of respect for Dr. Paul. He is coming from the 'Old Right' tradition that was very pacifistic. But there are some people we can't be at peace with, since they are at war with all mankind-Nazism, Japanese Imperialism, Communism and Islam.
Well..., I've never said to be at peace with that religio-political-governmental idealogy of Islam, that's for sure. That idealogy should be wiped off the face of this earth, and it surely will be, as soon as Jesus, the Messiah of Israel, arrives on this earth to set up the Kingdom of God, for His 1,000 year reign -- what is called the Millennial Reign of Christ on this earth, over all the nations of the world and all the peoples.
It's clear that we won't destroy that idealogy, because basically no one really wants to. But, Jesus, the Messiah of Israel will totally obliterate it, when He returns, and that won't be too much longer, from now...
Regards,
Star Traveler
I used to, but I woke up yesterday.