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 ...
Chuck Norris wears Ron Paul jammies.
Declassified Key Judgments of the National Intelligence Estimate "Trends in Global Terrorism: Implications for the United States" dated April 2006
Oh, you mean the NIE I wrote this op-ed about? The one Michelle Malkin responded to by saying, “If our intelligence agencies are laboring under the moonbat illusion that Muslim hatred of the infidel West didn't really start bubbling until the year 2003, we are really in deep, deep doo-doo”? That 2006 NIE?
Declassified Key Judgments of the National Intelligence Estimate "Trends in Global Terrorism: Implications for the United States" dated April 2006
Oh, you mean the NIE I wrote this op-ed about? The one Michelle Malkin responded to by saying, “If our intelligence agencies are laboring under the moonbat illusion that Muslim hatred of the infidel West didn't really start bubbling until the year 2003, we are really in deep, deep doo-doo”? That 2006 NIE?
When I said “we shouldn’t worry,” I mean they don’t consider it, they don’t worry about it. And please, are you telling me that people who want to pull out of Iraq are giving due consideration to the message it sends?
Know, we should now assume that Paul's supporters will continue to cherry pick stuff out of context just like the Dems, all to support losing a war.
Reagan only made two foreign policy mistakes. The first was to get in the Israeli's way, the second was to pull out based on casualty count.
Irontank did not cherry pick that quote. Ron Paul restated the the generally accepted Middle eastern policy analysis of the US government for the last decade. The CIA has been aware of this since just prior to the fall of the Shah. The British have been dealing with blowback on some widely noted bad policy decisions in the Middle East for over a century. The Brits learned this lesson the last time they invaded Afghanistan. In 1842.
Ron Paul was restating the most basic military concepts first presented in writing by Sun Tzu several thousand years ago.
And bringing up Michelle Malkin in your defense is a complete joke. She has no more, and probably less, background on US foreign policy over the last several decades than you and Irontank have. She was incoherently screeching on the Gibson show about Paul, in a manner so shrill it made her look more obviously the shill for an other candidate than usual.
What experts? Noam Chomsky is an expert in some things?
There are rows of experts that will attest the the central point made by Rep. Tancredo and the authors of the above editorial.
Let look at a few, shall we. Lets start with Prof. Bernard Lewis - Professor Emeritus of Princeton University and author of more than two dozen books on Islam and the Middle East. Here is the link to an article about a recent speech he gave:
Bernard Lewis Credits Bush on Iraq His most recent book is called: The Crisis in Islam: Holy War and Terror, which might tell you something.
Moving on to a author born into the Islamic faith who has also written a half dozen books on Islam one comes to Ibn Warraq. (A pseudo-name. Islam doesn't take kindly to aposty or strong criticism, as you no doubt know. Institutionally it is willing to condemn people to death for renouncing the faith.) An excellent book that explains, in their own words, what many individuals have experienced as the teachings of the faith is his: Leaving Islam: Apostates Speak Out
The authors, while not academic experts, though Warraq does a nice job of framing and organizing the material, but certainly real life experts on Islam from the inside. Excellent book.
Another recent one I found interesting was Matyrdom in Islam by David Cook, who is a Professor of Religion at Rice University.
To move from a specialist to a generalists many of the most basic reasons for the conflict were very well laid out in Prof. Samuel Huntingtons precient The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order He is the director of the Olin Institute for Strategic Studies at Harvard University.
Please note I've left off all books by the uncreditentialed, those writing Christian apologetics with PhDs from Bible Colleges, and anything for the general reader here.
And of course the ultimate source of "Why did Bin Laden do it?" are his won writings, two volumes of which are available currently: Messages to the World: The Statements of Ossama bin Laden and Osama bin Laden: America's Enemy in His Own Words
I believe a fair minded review of the relevant expert literature on Political Islam will reveal that Rep. Tancredo's claim is esentially correct and that Rep. Paul is simply wrong.
Al-Qaeda hates and targets America because America is : (a) powerful and (b) not Muslim.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.
16 posted on 05/17/2007 11:58:35 AM PDT by wideawake
*******************************************************
It is one thing to make a case on the merits that our foreign policies should be changed. Perhaps we should end our alliance with Israel. Perhaps we should remove our troops from Saudi Arabia, or lift the sanctions on Iraq. But not under duress. A policy designed to keep from offending people who might be inclined to attack us is a policy of preemptive capitulation to terrorists. In his address to Congress, President Bush explained why the terrorists kill: "With every atrocity they hope that America grows fearful, retreating from the world and forsaking our friends." The terrorists' hope is the frank advice of those who would have us back away from Israel because of the September 11 attacks [or run out of Iraq like scalded dogs].
Dishonorable in principle, such a policy would also fail in practice. There would be no obvious stopping-point to it. Having seen terrorism accomplish its objectives in the Mideast, why should North Korea not use it to make us withdraw our protection from South Korea? Beijing could sponsor terrorism until we let it swallow Taiwan. In the past, Puerto Rican independistas have resorted to terror. Etc. Shall we capitulate to them all?
Here, then, is the true strategy being recommended to America: Curl up and die.--Ramesh Ponnuru
Though I am not sympatheitic to isolationist sentiments, if I were I would have the exact same position I have now. We are in this fight now, and if we run away from this fight, if we show weakness in the face opf people who only listen to death and strength, we will get more terrorism, not less. Moreover, the fight will likely be over here, not over there. The duty of every American is to get behinfd this effort and push until victory. then everybody can snipe all they want.
Amen, Brother!
Thanks!
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.