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.
So why bring it up as Ron Paul did?
What their reasoning was for attacking us is irrelevant since they are evil.
Ron Paul was ascribing to them a reasonable justification for their attack, 'we did something to them' when they do not operate under the laws of reason and logic.
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.
If you state that the reason for the attack on us was due to our actions, then you are giving the terrorists a moral sanction, as if we brought the act on our selves.
This is like trying to 'understand' why a criminal does something.
He does it because he is a criminal, who cares what his justification was at the moment.
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.
But Ron Paul did not 'laugh it off' he took it seriously and presented it as it being a legitimate reason for the attack.
In other words, in the mind of Ron Paul, the United States is responsible for bringing on much of its own trouble due to its interventionist foreign policy, including supporting Israel.
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.
Who cares what Bin Ladin says if he is a liar!
Why even repeat it except to mock it as a lie?
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!"
And you just answered your own question on why people jumped on Ron Paul's statement!
If you were going to repeat the 'reasoning' of the thief, you would than have to denounce it as the reasoning of a criminal, not act like it had some justification to it.
A liberal judge would consider that defense, 'extenuating circumstances' and not punish the thief.
If you were running for President in 1942, you could talk about why the Japanese decided to bomb Pearl Harbor, due to our embargo, but you had better add that they were unjustified for doing so.
Ron Paul did not, as far as I know, do this.
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.
It would irritate your friend if it sounded like you actually believed the reason the criminal gave.
What if it sounded like you were trying to understand 'both sides of the issue'?
Well there are not two sides to the issue, there is only right and wrong.
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.
According to the terrorists themselves, they were amazed at our withdrawal from Somalia and our tepid responses to the bombings of our embassies and WTC.
This emboldened them to become more aggressive.
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 think Clinton did far more damage than you give him credit for.
He took terrorist acts as acts of individuals, not actions of groups or nations.
Thus, the terrorists never felt threatened as a group.
Thus, they underestimated Bush and his response in Afghanistan.
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...
And once again, the question was why were people upset over Ron Paul bringing up the reasoning of the terrorists, not you!
Ron Paul's views on the WOT have to considered when viewing his statements.
It appears as if Ron Paul is saying that if only America would change its foreign policy to give the terrorists what they want, we would be at peace.
If he did not mean that, then he needed to clarify exactly why he was repeating the enemy's justification for making an unprovoked attack on U.S. citizens.
Regards, Star Traveler
Likewise.
So why bring it up as Ron Paul did?
Well, in these things "context" is just about everything. So, for my part, I would like to see the context of the matter. That will tell me a lot right there. Does anyone know where the complete context is given (like in a complete video)? After viewing that, then I'll be able to tell you.
What their reasoning was for attacking us is irrelevant since they are evil
Au contraire, mon ami. It's certainly not irrelevant. It provides a lot of understanding for how they think, what their motivations are, give us ample ability to predict things before they act, allows us to defend more adequately, and helps us get inside the heads of this idealogy -- as it is well known that to defeat your enemy, you know your enemy.
Ron Paul was ascribing to them a reasonable justification for their attack, 'we did something to them' when they do not operate under the laws of reason and logic.
That one would be easy to ascertain, simply by having it directly asked of him if he was ascribing "a reasonable justification for their attack". I think a press conference where a reporter asks the question would clear that one up. And what you're asking is something about motivation which is inside one's head, as opposed to "giving the facts" which it appears that Ron Paul did. So, what we need to have a reporter ask is what his intent was, for the giving of the facts.
This is like trying to 'understand' why a criminal does something.If you state that the reason for the attack on us was due to our actions, then you are giving the terrorists a moral sanction, as if we brought the act on our selves.
He does it because he is a criminal, who cares what his justification was at the moment.
No, by stating his reasons and knowing how one thinks, as in understanding the enemy, has nothing to do with giving any kind of "sanction" to the enemy. I'm afraid that if our government followed your policy of knowing absolutely nothing about the enemy, other than "they did something wrong against us" -- we would have lost the war before we even started out the gate. And in addition to our government needing to know how the enemy thinks and what is in his mind, the public also needs to fully understand this, because they still think that the enemy is simply a bunch of misguided malfeasants, with no guiding idealogy, which is the same idealogy that guides 1.2 billion other people on this planet. Sorry, the name for your plan is "ostrich/head/sand".
And then your reference to the fact that "he is a criminal" -- that was precisely where the Clinton Administration went wrong, treating the matter as if it was a criminal action and handling it in the same way that policemen do. Bush had a much better plan in treating it as a "war" and handling it with military commanders and armies. So, Bush definitely knows that these are not criminals (in order to leave it up to the police forces) but that they are combatants, and are fighting a war of overthrowing governments and are intent on ruling the world. Those kinds of things are not "criminal elements" as criminal elements are meant for personal gain, solely and person aggrandizement. But, these people are not pursuing a "criminal enterprise" but a "governmental" and "ruling" and "war" enterprise. There is a world of difference from these people and criminals.
But Ron Paul did not 'laugh it off' he took it seriously and presented it as it being a legitimate reason for the attack.
In other words, in the mind of Ron Paul, the United States is responsible for bringing on much of its own trouble due to its interventionist foreign policy, including supporting Israel.
I'll have to see Ron Paul saying that directly, as opposed to someone making an interpretation of that from their own mind. Can you supply me with a link to where Ron Paul says that? I'll watch it or look at a transcript. And it should include context, because that's also very important when trying to ascertain what someone is saying. So, once I'm able to see Ron Paul saying this (as you're indicating), then I'll agree with it. So far, I have absolutely no knowledge of him ever indicating that.
We have every right to be in the Middle East, supporting Israel and putting sanctions on Iraq.
Who cares what Bin Ladin says if he is a liar!
Why even repeat it except to mock it as a lie?
Well, on the first one you mentioned, that we have every right to be in the Middle East -- that's not quite true. Inherently, we have no right to be in any country in the Middle East. No country in the world, under "national sovereignty" has any right to be within any other country's borders, anywhere in the world. All our situations, in which we do happen to be within other countries borders are on the basis of mutual agreements, or the results of wars that we've fought (which would have been what is called a "just war" in the U.S., which would then have to pass the "justification test").
So, outisde of wars of defense and outside of mutual agreements between countries -- there exist no inherent right for any country to be inside the borders of any other country in the world. So, as a result the U.S. has no right to be inside of any other country, Middle East or anywhere else, outside of those very specific conditions. And you'll notice that the U.S. goes out of its way to prove those two specific conditions, whenever it does something. It's either going to be by way of treaty/agreement or by way of "just war" of self-defense (which the country must prove and justify to its own citizens, in order to even be able to carry out the war, in the first place).
As far as supporting Israel (or any other country) it takes no "right" to support a country. It only takes an agreement of either money or mutual defense. That's a no-brainer. Any country can lend support to any other country they want and there's nothing against that.
As far as putting sanctions on Iraq, the answer is no, the
U.S. could not put sanctions on Iraq (which are not there now, by the way), unless the U.N. Security Council had ordered it. So, the U.S. had no ability to place sanctions on Iraq. All the U.S. did was carry out the U.N. sanctions. The U.S. had no sanctions that it imposed.
And then you said "Who cares what Bin Ladin says if he is a liar!"... The only problem with that, is that he's not been shown to be a liar. He's been shown to be telling the truth.
When bin Ladin said that he (and other Muslims) were going to war with the United States, he was shown to be telling the truth.
When bin Ladin said that Muslims have the duty and responsibility under the Koran and Islam to kill the infidel Americans wherever they find them, he was telling the truth.
When bin Ladin was saying that he and his organization of al Qaida were going to attack the World Trade Towers and buildings, he was telling the truth.
It would seem that you have a very unsophisticated way of understanding "truth" and "lies". If someone comes up to me, who may look like the most crooked and devious and evil person that I've ever seen -- and he says to me, "I'm going to kill you!" -- then I'm going to consider that he's telling me the truth!"
However, you're free to consider that this individual is lying, when he tells you that.
If you were going to repeat the 'reasoning' of the thief, you would than have to denounce it as the reasoning of a criminal, not act like it had some justification to it.
Well, I guess we can send home all the FBI profilers, who help the various law enforcement agencies with "understanding" how these criminals think then. They're obviously not needed any longer.
And those analysts at the Pentagon and the CIA and the NSA can all go home, because we no longer need to understand the mind of the enemy. All we have to know from now on, is simply that "he is the enemy". No further clarification needed!
By the way, have you ever read the book, 1984. This is beginning to sound strangely like the mass hypnosis of people by the government, in 1984, where they didn't have to "know anything" -- but simply repeat the "government line" and simply know who the enemy was. How did they know who the enemy was? Well, simple, the government told them who it was. No need to know anything else. The only problem was, that about every year of two the enemy changed, and a lot of the time who was an enemy one year was a friend the next year. Yep, this is starting to definitely sound like "
1984" all right...
If you were running for President in 1942, you could talk about why the Japanese decided to bomb Pearl Harbor, due to our embargo, but you had better add that they were unjustified for doing so.
Ron Paul did not, as far as I know, do this.
Well, they sure do talk about that now. In fact, the way it's, more or less presented now, is that we should have known that this was going to be a response to what we did. In other words, that was the big mistake in not knowing this. That means, that if we know this, then we can be prepared for the attack, which is obviously going to come as a result of this.
So, to put this in the context of today's world, one could say this. If one had understood and known what the mindset and idealogy of Islam is and understood how these followers intended to follow it faithfully, then the U.S. would have been more prepared, ahead of time, and would have treated this as a World War, from the beginning, instead of simply a group of criminals and relegate it to the law enforcement field. Their lack of understanding and knowledge of how they thought actually contributed to being totally unprepared for what did happen -- just like we were unprepared for Pearl Harbor when it did happen.
So, the fault was being unprepared because of being ignorant.
I would praise Ron Paul for raising the intelligence of the American people, for those who didn't knnow this before. Perhaps it will contribute to us being more prepared in the future. It would irritate your friend if it sounded like you actually believed the reason the criminal gave. What if it sounded like you were trying to understand 'both sides of the issue'? Well there are not two sides to the issue, there is only right and wrong. The real reason we were attacked in 9/11 was because of our weakness in responding to terrorist aggression under Clinton.
I definitely would be trying to understand both sides of the issue. Let's use that neighbor example, who was the thief who tried to break into my house to steal my TV set. I would try to understand the mindset of my neighbor for sure. You see, if I really understand that he thinks that he has a right to one of my three TVs and I really understand that he intends to come in there when I'm not around -- by knowing this, I'm going to do something.
And here's what I'm going to do. I'm going to have an alarm system, a video camera system, good locks on the doors and windows and make sure I have some other good neighbors to help watch the house when I'm gone.
Otherwise, if I don't care to know or understand, I can be ignorant in any knowledge of my neighbor's intent and simply find out later, when something happens to me (just like the U.S. found out later and 9/11 happened to it).
And by the way, how do you think that the government is able to uncover a lot of the plots for further attacks on the U.S. -- other than by listening carefully to what enemy says and analyzing what their thinking is and actually believing that they are telling the truth, when they say they are going to attack here or attack there and do this plan or that plan? They listen to what their thinking is, they analyze carefully all their statements, and communications to pick up every last single word and phrase that is mentioned. They believe them, when they speak, in that when they say that they are intending to do something, they don't dismiss it as "oh, they always lie so we don't have to care what they say!"
If you were in charge of our security here in the United States, we would probably have had another five to ten more major terrorists attacks in the meantime. Thank god that's not true.
And the problem with Clinton is that he treated it as simply a crime and a police action, having to do with an isolated bunch of crooks and nuts. He didn't view it as a war upon the United States and as an integrated idealogy which had intentions of overthrowing the U.S. In other words, he simply thought they were criminals and liars, and nothing more. According to the terrorists themselves, they were amazed at our withdrawal from Somalia and our tepid responses to the bombings of our embassies and WTC. This emboldened them to become more aggressive.
The religio-fanatical-governmental oppressive idealogy of Islam has a very long history. It didn't start in this century. However, it is in this last century that it began its "third wave" of conquest in the history of that idealogy.
We can see the very long string of attacks from this documented list of terrorist attacks -- Islamic Terror Timeline that the attacks of terrorists are not any more emboldened by Clinton or any other administration. They are going to do what they do according to their idealogy and that's what they've done all along. Their terror timeline in modern history goes way back to the beginning decades of the 20th Century, especially with the beginnings of the formation of the state of Israel.
But, if they were amazed at our tepid responses before, the terrorists are going to be more amazed at our rapid withdrawal from Iraq beginning around 2008. Wait for their "amazing" responses" then... I think Clinton did far more damage than you give him credit for. He took terrorist acts as acts of individuals, not actions of groups or nations. Thus, the terrorists never felt threatened as a group. Thus, they underestimated Bush and his response in Afghanistan.
Well, you mention that they've never (before) felt threatened as a group. Well, they're not too threatened as a group right now. Osama bin Ladin is safe and sound over there in between Afghanistan and Pakistan where no one has ever been able to touch him. The Taliban is currently being funded by the Pakistanis and is being sent back over into Afghanistan to fight against the Americans and other Afghanis, with Pakstan's full blessing and with Pakistan's "sanctuary" granted to the Taliban in Pakistan. It sure doesn't sound like they're too threatened as it is, right now. And this is from a so-called "ally" of the U.S. (Pakistan).
In Lebanon, the terrorists are not too threatened either, getting all the support and money they need from Iran. They have absolute safe sanctuary over there.
In the Palestinian Authority, they not only have absolute safe sanctuary, they are also the elected government of the P.A. by an overwhelming majority of the PA people. And on top of that, the U.S. is giving money to the terrorist government in order to help it become a "state". That sounds like pretty safe sanctuary to me.
In Iran the terrorists have all the safe sanctuary they need, getting the training and the supplies and the money to disrupt all that want to in Iraq. Ahmadinejad is getting nuclear weapons soon. They have all the oil money they need to keep fudning all the terrorism that they want to spread around.
Saudi Arabia has no problem with giving sanctuary to all the terrorist who want to grow up in that country, being taught the terrorist idealogy of Islam. In fact, Saudi Arabia funds this very same terrorist idealogy in America with the mosques over here. Saudi Arabia has all the money it needs from us giving it to them, to fund the terrorists for a very long time.
Syria has no problem in giving sanctuary to every terrorist organization on the face of this earth. If you're a terrorist, Syria wants you. Syria even has Saddam Hussein's WMD, as they were shipped over there before the U.S. got into Iraq. So, Syria has a lot of sanctuary and weapons for the terrorists.
Tell me..., where did you say that these terrorists were feeling threatened? And once again, the question was why were people upset over Ron Paul bringing up the reasoning of the terrorists, not you! Ron Paul's views on the WOT have to considered when viewing his statements. It appears as if Ron Paul is saying that if only America would change its foreign policy to give the terrorists what they want, we would be at peace. If he did not mean that, then he needed to clarify exactly why he was repeating the enemy's justification for making an unprovoked attack on U.S. citizens.
Well, I guess if we're only offering Ron Paul's opinions here, we can simply leave this entire thread blank, until Ron Paul shows up and posts something himself. And as far as everyone else's opinions here, please notify the moderator to remove all the opinons from other people, please..., since we are all awaiting Ron Paul's appearance here... LOL...
In the meantime, while we are all awaiting Ron Paul's expected appearance, I'll post my own opinions. Let me know when he shows up....
As far as what Ron Paul was saying, I'll simply wait to hear what he actually has to say from his own mouth and statements. If anyone wants to venture to give that to me, then please do include the full context of wherever it comes from so that we all can see the entire thing....
Whatever it is that is needed to be clarified, I'm sure that someone could easily write to the campaign and ask for a clarification. That wouldn't be too hard, if you think you need a clarification. Or, for the rest of us, we can simply wait for a reporter to pose certain direct questions to him.
I'll definitely be interested in hearing what he has to say about it.
Regards,
Star Traveler