One wonders why you would "agree with the spirit of" a poster who is so factually inaccurate and on many issues doesn't appear to know what he's talking about.
I'm actually entertaining the idea that the original post is a spoof meant to draw out diehard Ron Paul supporters into defending obviously idiocy because they "agree with the spirit of" it.... After all, if it were such a spoof, the post wouldn't be much different.
I think the post makes many good and correct points, while at the same time suffering from a few inaccuracies and weaknesses in argument - some of which you pointed out. I also think the author failed to address some of those original questions head-on. But that said, I don't think it necessarily diminishes the validity of the perspective. I just think it could have been backed up better and more credibly. I jumped to praise too quickly, before I'd fully digested it, but oh well.
With regard to the foreign policy questions, it's incontrovertible that our history of interventionist action in the Middle East has fanned the fires of hatred. Does that mean the terrorists are right and justified in their actions? No, and Ron Paul has certainly never said as much. But willfully disregarding the potential repercussions of our policies, and refusing to look at the pathology of radicalizing muslims and catalyzing militant activity, is foolish and not in our security interests. That's the larger point here. That's the spirit with which I agree.
There were other questions that I thought were handled better.
My own answers are posted here.
This is an important discussion to have, and I think tossing in the word "idiocy" so abruptly is detrimental to that.