Bill O'Reilly vs Ron Paul (Video. Paul Should Realize That Radical Islam Precedes The U.S. Itself

The Liberty Papers ^ | 9/10/2001 | Kevin

[Laissez-faire capitalist]

Ron Paul and Bill O'Reilly had a lively debate about foreign policy. I think that O'Reilly, while granted he kept interrupting Paul, got the best of him in this debate. In the final minute or so, while O'Reilly did falsely accuse Ron paul of opposing the Afghan war from the beginning, Paul did come back & call for the withdrawal of American soldiers from Afghanistan.

O'Reilly also got Paul when O'Reilly made the distinction between Saudi & Iranian policy toward terrorism...the Saudi government does not sponsor terrorism, unlike Iran. Also around 3 minutes or so left, didn't Paul condone the klilling of American soldiers in Iraq by Iranian surrogates as "logical and defensive"?

[Laissez-faire capitalist]

Ron Paul and the Democratic presidential candidates don't seem to have a clue as to how to deal with radical Islam and fight the terrorists that want to kill us.

Until one understands the nature of radical Islam, one cannot possibly understand how to deal with it, so, ultimately, a blame America first policy can fill the void of the lack of understanding.

American foreign policy isn't to blame for the attack on 9/11, or the first attack on the WTC which came before 9/11 (and during Bill Clinton's term), or the attack on the U.S.S. Cole, or the Khobar Towers.

Since radical Islam precedes the establishment of America itself it - by logical extension - precedes American foreign policy.

Radical Islamists, under the direction of Abu Bakr, encouraged Jihad and for 100 years (632 A.D. to 732 A.D. ), launched repeated attacks stretching from Indonesia to Christian Eastern & Western Europe until they were stopped by Charles Martel in 732 A.D.

Radical Islamists butchered tens of thousands of Serbians in the 14th century and murdered almost 2,000, 000 Armenians in the early 20th century. Add to that 9/11 and other atrocities against the west.

Only a buffoon would say that American foreign policy is to blame for 9/11, the attack on the U.S.S. Cole, and the attack on the Khobar Towers.

Will one throw Occam's Razor out the window and say that the foreign policies of the countries/nations/empire's that were attacked from 632 A.D. to 732 A.D. (plus the Serbs and the Armenians "foreign policies") were to blame?

Their foreign policies weren't any more to blame than U.S. foreign policy is to blame. The simplest theory - and the most logical of them all - is that radical Islam is the problem.

Radioactive Ru Paul and the Democratic presidential candidates (due to their lack of understanding of the nature of radical islam ) clearly aren't fit to be Commander in Chief.

[Laissez-faire capitalist]

The facts presented above rip Radioactive Ron Paul and the Democratic presidential candidates.

[shankbear]

Ron Paul is weak. He came across like a schoolgirl without a clue. Even Bill O ripped him a new butt. Anyway he looks like Wally Cox.

[wastedyears]

Would you be so kind as to link me to this Charles Martel that stopped their jihad in 732 A.D.? Specifically the details of whatever battle.

[mnehring]

Ron who?

[lormand]

Charles The Hammer Martel

[Laissez-faire capitalist]

From Catholic Encyclopedia

Charles Martel:

“...In October, 732, Charles met Abd-er-Rahman outside of Tours and defeated and slew him in a battle (the Battle of Poitiers) which must ever remain one of the great events in the history of the world, as upon its issue depended whether Christian Civilization should continue or Islam prevail throughout Europe...”

[Laissez-faire capitalist]

The site at which this is found... this thread is the first linked to it.

[drzz]

Ron Paul is a dhimmi

[wastedyears]

Thank you both

[picard]

It was a weird interview. Paul looked to me like a demented lunatic. He was determined to compare America to Al Quada with stupid counterpoints.

paraphrasing:

B: Islam has killed thousands...
P: Are you saying that America has not killed thousands? (eyes wildly rolling all over the place)

the whole interview was this kind of equivalences...

I didn't know much about him before, but Ron Paul is a nut!

[Laissez-faire capitalist]

No problem.

[italianquaker]

I think more and more people are starting to question his sanity

[Clint N. Suhks]

while O'Reilly did falsely accuse Ron paul of opposing the Afghan war from the beginning

September 25, 2001...Ron Paul speech in the House of Representatives

"if successful would preclude a foolish invasion of a remote country with a forbidding terrain like Afghanistan- a country that no foreign power has ever conquered throughout all of history."

OH!!!!! SMACK! Don'tcha hate it when your own words come back to bite you in the arse?

[dblshot]

Yeah and now after The Hammer (Tom not Charles) redistricted TX I’m stuck with him as my representative. Hopefully we’ll get a challenger this year.

[George W. Bush]

O'Reilly chose Iran as his key point in the WOT, terrorists working for Hezbollah, that Iran is acting as a hostile power toward us via surrogates while seeking nuclear weapons.

RP pointed directly toward the al-Qaeda in Iraq being over half Saudi nationals.

O'Reilly returned to his theme that withdrawal from Iraq was a carte blanche for Iran to get nukes and do anything in Iraq.

RP tried to talk about Pakistan, O'Reilly (fairly enough) tried to force an answer on Iran.

RP then said that he does not fear Iran as many do who are convinced by the neoconservative policy of aggressive war in the region. RP pointed out the deposal of Mossadegh in 1953 by the CIA, the installation of the CIA, our alliance with Saddam when he had an 8-year aggressive war against Iran.

O'Reilly dismissed that, saying we didn't need a history lesson. RP was defending the idea that the Iranian hard-liners used those actions to crush internal democratic reform by pointing out our involvement in their country. O'Reilly pretty much had to concede the point and did let RP recite Iranian/US history for 30 seconds and then cut it off and returned to his theme of Iranian nukes.

RP then cited the CIA's estimate that Iran is ten years from a nuke, O'Reilly countered that "everyone" knows it's five years or less.

Then followed a few exchanges between the two of "if we do ____, then ____ will happen and you're living in dreamland/Oz". Not too useful.

Overall, O'Reilly was fair enough and I have no great complaints, given that he could have been much tougher and seemed genuinely interested in lively debate and engagement instead of a pure hit piece like you'd get from a Hannity. Both of them got in some hard slugs and represented their views well enough.

RP isn't that good at making rapid-fire thirty-second soundbites at debates or in interviews like this one. I think some of his points would be lost on an audience too young to recall the Cold War, for instance, when he references that conflict empowers hard-liners in both our country and in a country like Iran that we are pressuring and whose hardliners then conclude that the best defense is a good offense and therefore, in Iran's case, they aid terrorism in Iraq, try to keep building nukes, threaten the Gulf of Hormuz, etc. The same Iranian hardliners then can suppress or dissent their own internal reform movements by saying they're disloyal, un-Iranian, dupes for the enemy, blah-blah-blah all-the-usual-rhetoric.

O'Reilly concluded politely enough, thanked RP for a lively debate. I sensed no hostility, a little frustration that he couldn't pin RP down on Iran in the exact way he wanted.

YouTube - Ron Paul and Bill O'Reilly Duke It Out (09/10/07)

[pacelvi]

In 1786 Jefferson and John Adams went to negotiate with Tripoli’s envoy to London, Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdrahaman or (Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja). They asked him by what right he extorted money and took slaves. Jefferson reported to Secretary of State John Jay, and to the Congress:

“The ambassador answered us that [the right] was founded on the Laws of the Prophet (Mohammed), that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have answered their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Mussulman (or Muslim) who should be slain in battle was sure to go to heaven”

[pacelvi]

You’re right... the whole interview was one deflection after another

BOR: What about Iran being emboldened?
RP: Well what about Saudi Arabia
BOR: I’m not asking about Saudi Arabia. What about Iran?
RP: Well what about Pakistan
BOR: I’m not asking about Pakistan. What about Iran?
RP: We been in conflict with Iran since 1953

(paraphrase)

Typical irrationality.

[the OlLine Rebel]

Charles Martel is the grandfather of Charles the Great, aka Charlemagne.

[uxbridge]

Yes...radical Islam predates the US. Radical Islam is solely to blame for the attacks on 9/11. Is anyone arguing those points?

What Ron Paul is essentially saying is that US foreign policies have been an indispensible ally to OBL and Al Qaeda.

That the video wills of the 9/11 highjackers cite American policies as the reason for the attacks doesn't necessarily mean that America must abandon those policies...just that we need to consider that those policies may result in terrorist attacks against the US.

However, it seems that too many Americans are unable to set aside their emotions and anger and reflect on what motivated these barbarians to kill Americans. The American government itself has reflected on and acknowledged this...why is Ron Paul a "traitor" for saying the same thing?

As part of its global power position, the United States is called upon frequently to respond to international causes and and deploy forces around the world. America's position in the world invites attack simply because of its presence. Historical data show a strong correlation between U.S. involvement in international situations and an increase in terrorist attacks against the United States
--The Defense Science Board 1997 Summer Study Task Force on DoD Responses to Transnational Threats

There are a lot of things that are different now [that the U.S. occupies Iraq], and one that has gone by almost unnoticed – but it’s huge – is that … we can now remove almost all of our forces from Saudi Arabia. Their presence there over the last 12 years has been a source of enormous difficulty for a friendly government. It’s been a huge recruiting device for al Qaeda.

In fact if you look at bin Laden, one of his principle grievances was the presence of so-called crusader forces on the holy land, Mecca and Medina.
--Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz Interview with Sam Tannenhaus, Vanity Fair, May 9, 2003

I believe they feel a sense of outrage against the United States. They identify with the Palestinian problem, they identify with people who oppose repressive regimes, and I believe they tend to focus their anger on the United States
--FBI Special Agent James Fitzgerald testimony before the 9/11 Commission