You're conflating terrorist groups.
AQ is a sunni organization that was founded during the insurgency against the russians in Afghanistan. Their primary goals are the conquest of Saudi Arabia and the middle east. AQ's goals, members and motivations differ from all of the other terror groups and attacks you mention.
The WTC itself was considered an insult to Islam in general. A little known fact about the WTC is that the Japanese architect who designed it used many islamic elements in its construction. You can read more about what I'm talking about here:
http://www.slate.com/?id=2060207
The Beirut attacks and possibly the first WTC attack were based on American support for Israel and the American occupation of Lebanon along with the Israelis. The Iranian came from the US's support for the shah(note that the shi'ites would love nothing more than to slaughter sunni AQ and vice versa).
So Ron Paul has a point. American intervention in the middle east *does* inflame terrorism in the middle east.
However please don't take this argument as my position against US intervention. The US *should* intervene in the middle east, but US intervention has to be tempered with realism(US policy makers should not be surprised when groups rebel against American intervention) and stoicism(you are going to take causalities, this should be expected, this whole "we will be welcomed as liberators" BS needs to be replaced with a fundamental understanding that we have have a job to do, and should do it right).
Thanks for the information! Looks like I have more larnin’ to do!
Wasn’t the first WTC attack an Al Qaeda operation?
Interesting article in Slate. I saved it for later reading.
So Ron Paul has a point. American intervention in the middle east *does* inflame terrorism in the middle east.
I do not disagree. But what he said implies that it was the sole cause or even the major cause of it and I call BS on that. It would happen whether we were there, had been there or not.