Posted on 11/24/2007 5:42:59 PM PST by Lovebloggers
Terrorists `Just Hoodlums’
The greatest threat to the nation, Paul said, is an overextension of the U.S. military and ``involvement in places we shouldn’t be.’’ Terrorism shouldn’t be fought by waging war on nations, he said. Terrorists are ``just hoodlums and convicts, so to speak, but we incite them with our foreign policy,’’ he said.
(Excerpt) Read more at sayanythingblog.com ...
This does not follow, at all.
Close your eyes if you want, that's fine. You don't need to look before crossing the road, either. Insult the thug in the alleyway and tug on Superman's cape.
In other words, you declare them your rulers.
By your logic, if you consider consequences of your actions, you are declaring them your rulers. Not so.
Having pumps on-hand when you dig by a river, or putting sunscreen on before going into the sun, doesn't make you a slave to nature--it just means you aren't being stupid.
One appropriate action for America might have been to be a bit more prepared for the obvious results of annoying the Islamists. Knowing their motivation would have provided forewarning.
First, terrorist crimes against Israel have nothing to do with the US. Terrorists crimes against Israel would probably have ceased if it wasn’t for the US holding Israel back.
Second, because terrorists are in a certain country does not mean the country is ‘harboring them’. Surely there are terrrorists in the US right now, it doesn’t mean the US governemnt is not trying to find them.
Third, a lot of your facts are incorrect, Mohammad Atta never met with Iraqi intelligence officials in prauge.
I haven’t heard of that court case you mentioned, but, generally speaking, there has been no credible evidence Iraq was invovled in 9/11. As Paul has been stating, it just doesn’t make sense. Why would Saddam do such a thing? What would he have to gain from a terrorist attack on the United States? As seen, he lost his country, his life, and his family.
It would have made more sense if we had gone to war for the attempted assassination of President Bush H.W. I don’t know how a foreign government can attempt to assasinate a former US president and get away with it...
Not at all. You make an overly broad assumption.
But if you don't know why a patient is dying, then it's not easy to treat properly. If you don't know why an enemy is attacking, then it's not as easy to defeat properly.
“First, terrorist crimes against Israel have nothing to do with the US.”
Uh yes they do when those ATTACKS (not crimes) kill American citizens.
“Terrorists crimes against Israel would probably have ceased if it wasn’t for the US holding Israel back.”
We’re holding Israel back?
“Second, because terrorists are in a certain country does not mean the country is ‘harboring them’.”
They’re harboring them when said terrorists have an Iraqi Diplomatic Passport as in the case of Abu Nidal.
They’re harboring them when they were granted access into the country despite being a wanted terrorist.
They’re harboring them when said terrorist recieves medical aid at a hospital that caters to the regime elite and is operated by one of saddam’s sons.
They’re harboring them when one said terrorist is an employee of the Iraqi government at one of it’s embassies.
“Surely there are terrrorists in the US right now, it doesn’t mean the US governemnt is not trying to find them.”
The U.S. IS trying to find the ones hiding here, UNLIKE what your beloved saddam did by provided funding, medical treatment and safe passage with a government issued diplomatic passport.
As for the rest of that idiocy you posted I have to ask you this one question.
Were you born stupid or did you have to work on it?
Seriously.
paul doesn’t know jack sh*t about what the hell he’s talking about when it comes to terrorism.
There is enough credible evidence in that a federal judge found Iraq responsible and awarded $104 million dollars to the plaintiffs
Besides the FACT that Iraq supported terrorism, they violated the cease fire agreement they signed to halt hostilities in Desert Storm. They were legally binding by that agreement that THEY signed to comply with the mandates set forth by the coalition as well as the U.N.
They violated the agreement and the hostilities resumed.
All of it is fully legal under the laws of armed conflict.
Your code pink traitor b*tch ron paul may say otherwise but I don’t expect someone who was never in a leadership position and was never in combat arms to know things like that.
No, what I'm saying is that if you tailor your actions around what (you think) the consequences (i.e. enemies' response) will (supposedly) be, then you are in effect submitting to enemies' rule. If you're saying something well short of that, of course, my comments don't apply, but in that case neither would your criticism have all that much content. So you tell me.
Having pumps on-hand when you dig by a river, or putting sunscreen on before going into the sun, doesn't make you a slave to nature--it just means you aren't being stupid.
These are revealing metaphors. Enemies and potential enemies are not immutable, unthinking forces of nature, but it makes perfect sense that this is how you view them.
In reality they are other human beings. Figuring out what they will do and when they will do it is not a simple matter of calculating some immutable equations of motion. And nor are their actions as predictable as "water flows downhill"; because they are conscious, their behavior can actually be influenced by us in nontrivial ways besides mere "action-reaction".
One of the ways we can affect their behavior is to deny them incentives to commit terror acts, and punish them for committing terror acts. "Considering the consequences", the way you are using it here (which implies, if you are saying anything at all, "not doing X if they don't like X" - at least a significant fraction of the time), runs completely counter to this purpose; it both (1) takes terrorists' responses as somehow an inevitable, almost dictated-by-the-laws-of-nature given that we cannot stop and must accept (not so!), and (2) if done as consistently as (one must assume) you contemplate doing, it rewards each and every terrorist for making a plausible enough threat, by giving him precisely what he wants.
More generally, our interactions with our fellow humans take a different shape than the interaction of matter or radiation with other matter. There are concepts such as "honor", "face", "fear", "deterrence", and so on which have no analogue whatsoever in nature. Water flows downhill when it can, period. It cannot be "deterred" from flowing along available downhill paths, nor will "defending your honor" be all that useful as a bulwark against water that is uphill. But in human interactions these concepts do exist and are nontrivial.
One appropriate action for America might have been to be a bit more prepared for the obvious results of annoying the Islamists. Knowing their motivation would have provided forewarning.
It's difficult to see how what Ron Paul is talking about serves this purpose. Paul has decided a priori that terrorists are "just" hoodlums and (as well) that terrorism has nothing whatsoever to do with states. These are flawed and dangerous notions for reasons I've already stated above, and adhering to neither will help us all that much in the "forewarning" department.
That’s from a month and a half ago.
Well, I'm all for "knowing why", and if that's all you're advocating, of course I have no argument with you.
But "knowing why", by itself, doesn't automatically tell you what to do about it and this is where I think we may have disagreement.
For example, your earlier comments (perhaps only implicitly) indicate that you think knowing that one of the prominent "whys" of 9/11 was our troop presence in Saudi Arabia, should have been enough to draw some conclusion (=remove the troop presence, presumably). You take it as a given that the WTC bombing in '93 wasn't "notice[d]", presumably because we didn't (a) form the conclusion that the bombing occurred because of our troop presence in Saudi Arabia (a conclusion I dispute, by the way), and (b) because of this, withdraw our troop presence from Saudi Arabia. To you, this adds up to 'we didn't notice it'.
But if 'noticing' the 'why' of a terror act equates, in your mind, to "doing what the terrorists were mad at us for not doing", then you're saying precisely what I've been criticizing you for saying all along.
If it doesn't equate in your view to "doing X if terrorists want X", then your critique of our post-1993 policy falls apart, and you must agree with me that "knowing why", by itself, doesn't necessarily lead to one conclusion or another. In which case your overall criticism has little content.
best,
My comment was in reference to CaptRon’s question: “does it really make any difference what their motivation is?”
As you point out, we can take a variety of actions, but motivation is relevant to their effectiveness. Deterrents that would work against one motivation might not be effective against another. We can better choose the appropriate response if we know the motivation.
BTW, this isn't a correct presumption. But it can direct our response.
For example, it could have been used--hypothetically, if we wanted to--as a chip against the Saudis. "Hey, look...it's not worth our while to protect you unless you stop supporting these idjits who want to kill us for supporting you."
Sure, that could be seen as giving in to the terrorists, but it could also be a way we use that terrorist claim ("you're stirring us up by being in SA") against them.
I'm saying it's complex enough that motivations CAN be very important and useful.
How are we holding Israel back? This explains it pretty well:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/block/block88.html
and wow... well, you started out at least making some good arguments, but now you’re just throwing insults so there’s no point in continuing...
“How are we holding Israel back? This explains it pretty well:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/block/block88.html
and wow... well, you started out at least making some good arguments, but now you’re just throwing insults so there’s no point in continuing...”
lew rockwell?
ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!
The ny times has more credibility than that nut will ever have.
What's a "state sponsored terrorist attack"? They don't necessarily come with stamps marked "This Terror Attack Was Sponsored By". There is no International Registry Of State Sponsorship Of Terror Attacks. If states do not come out and admit sponsorship (or support, or..) then we are in a fuzzy territory of whether the "link" can be "proved", whether this or that "support" is "material support", and all that sort of debate.
So the question all boils down to what counts as "proved", like I already said. From his words I surmise that Ron Paul has a very high standard of "proof", and I consider that a problem for deterrence, for reasons I've gone into at length already.
like him or not, one has to admit Paul is at least honest and sincere about what he says and does.
1. First, generally I like Ron Paul and have done so for many years.
2. And indeed, I do assume he is honest and sincere in his words and beliefs. That is precisely why I believe I can listen to his words and conclude something about his beliefs and likely actions. The only problem in this case is that his beliefs, if widespread and put into action, are dangerous to the logic of deterrence, for reasons I've thoroughly explained.
Most people confuse Paul's statements that American foreign policy plays a roll in the terrorist motivation and generation to something along of lines that he is excusing their behavior.
I am not one of them. I've not said here that Paul is excusing terrorist behavior. What I have said is that he puts forth and adheres to a set of beliefs that (if it carries the day) will make terrorist behavior more likely and widespread, because it makes terrorist behavior profitable.
He has condemned terrorists crimes as evil and the terrorists as evil, regardless of their motivations.
That's nice but I'm afraid it doesn't help because he still holds a philosophy that makes terrorist tactics more likely by rewarding them.
The question is how high and what is the right level? These sorts of issues are pretty abstact and hard to debate.
Yes indeed they are pretty abstract and hard to debate. The problem in Paul's case is that his mind appears closed off:
Terrorists are "just hoodlums", and terrorism has nothing to do with states.
He has decided this a priori and independently of any particular discussion of any particular terrorism instance. What this means is that he is not engaged in or open to any form of debate on this issue in the first place; instead he adheres to an ideology that precedes all debate and dictates his views.
After all, who says terrorists are "just hoodlums"? Who says they can't be sponsored by states and aimed precisely at achieving geopolitical aims by those states, thus bringing them above the level of "just hoodlums"? Such things are not prohibited by the laws of physics. They can happen. But Ron Paul has stated that terrorists are "just hoodlums" and that terrorism is not a state problem. And like you say, Ron Paul is very sincere and forthright in his words, therefore we can conclude this is what he really believes. Unfortunately, in this case his beliefs are dangerous in a would-be Commander-in-Chief and that is why, however likeable and honorable I may find him otherwise, he is unfit for the office.
I understand & agree with this and also that I probably overinterpreted your earlier words. Best,
You can start with Article I, Section 8.
And what’s your source?
The facts aren't on their side, so they must resort to lies and personal attacks. I believe that some actually believe the misrepresentation of views that has occurred, and aren't making it up themselves. That is, they are just repeating the lies someone else has told.
But also consider that a good part of FR would have been, in different times, complaining about
“And what’s your source?”
His hatred for Ron Paul and his brainwashed minions...
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.