Ron Paul: "They're Terrorists Because We're Occupiers".

[uscitizen]

So he really thinks if we pull out of everywhere, the terrorists are instantly going to love us? If he does, I've got some oceanfront property in Arizona he may be interested in.

I would suggest the number of those who would want to harm the US would drop dramatically, just like I'm sure the number increased when you invaded Afghanistan and Iraq...

Let's see,

After 911 there wasn't another terrorist attack in 7 years, because Pres. Bush took the war on Al Qaida seriously.

Obama, on the other hand, has not taken it seriously and we have had 3 terrorist attacks, within the US, in a year.

One of those attacks was by a us citizen in the US military. By definition it is not a terrorist attack.

And if it was it is a perfect example of our not being able to stop all terrorist attacks.


Also Bush's actaions encouraged AQ recruitment. That recruitment has come to fruitation and we will have more attacks, because of Bush's actions not Obama's.

 

[The T]

I would suggest the number of those who would want to harm the US would drop dramatically, just like I'm sure the number increased when you invaded Afghanistan and Iraq...

Let's see,

After 911 there wasn't another terrorist attack in 7 years, because Pres. Bush took the war on Al Qaida seriously.

Obama, on the other hand, has not taken it seriously and we have had 3 terrorist attacks, within the US, in a year.

One of those attacks was by a us citizen in the US military. By definition it is not a terrorist attack.

And if it was it is a perfect example of our not being able to stop all terrorist attacks.


Also Bush's actaions encouraged AQ recruitment. That recruitment has come to fruitation and we will have more attacks, because of Bush's actions not Obama's.

By this gem of logic? Could it then be said that FDR and Churchill's policies attracted more NAZI recruitment?

 

[CMike]

Why is it that the "terrorists" are not targeting Switzerland?

.

They have. They blew up a Swissair flight in 1970.

Sabotage was immediately suspected here because of the anger caused in Arab countries by the sentencing the previous December of three Palestinians to 12 years imprisonment by a Swiss court. Reuters reported from Amman, Jordan, that a spokesman for the guerrilla group had denied that it was involved.

The New York Times," Feb. 22, 1970

.

Not very honest

You left out an important sentence to your own link.

Sabotage was immediately suspected here because of the anger caused in Arab countries by the sentencing the previous December of three Palestinians to 12 years imprisonment by a Swiss court. An Arab guerrilla splinter group, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine - General Command, said in Beirut, Lebanon, that it had been responsible for the explosion. Reuters reported later, however, from Amman, Jordan, that a spokesman for the guerrilla group had denied that it was involved. [2]

A barometric triggered IED had been used. On the same day, a bomb exploded aboard a Vienna-bound Caravelle after takeoff from Frankfurt. The Caravelle landed safely.

 

[CMike]

I would suggest the number of those who would want to harm the US would drop dramatically, just like I'm sure the number increased when you invaded Afghanistan and Iraq...

Let's see,

After 911 there wasn't another terrorist attack in 7 years, because Pres. Bush took the war on Al Qaida seriously.

Obama, on the other hand, has not taken it seriously and we have had 3 terrorist attacks, within the US, in a year.

One of those attacks was by a us citizen in the US military. By definition it is not a terrorist attack.

And if it was it is a perfect example of our not being able to stop all terrorist attacks.


Also Bush's actaions encouraged AQ recruitment. That recruitment has come to fruitation and we will have more attacks, because of Bush's actions not Obama's.

By what definition? The terrorist was part of the islamic jihad thing.

You mean killing off their leadership made them mad? Oh No. Poor babies.

Pres. Bush had kept the US safe for 7 years. Obama hasn't done so in one year, with his let's not make the terrorists made policies.

 

[The T]

Let's see,

After 911 there wasn't another terrorist attack in 7 years, because Pres. Bush took the war on Al Qaida seriously.

Obama, on the other hand, has not taken it seriously and we have had 3 terrorist attacks, within the US, in a year.

One of those attacks was by a us citizen in the US military. By definition it is not a terrorist attack.

And if it was it is a perfect example of our not being able to stop all terrorist attacks.


Also Bush's actaions encouraged AQ recruitment. That recruitment has come to fruitation and we will have more attacks, because of Bush's actions not Obama's.

By what definition? The terrorist was part of the islamic jihad thing.

You mean killing off their leadership made them mad? Oh No. Poor babies.

Pres. Bush had kept the US safe for 7 years. Obama hasn't done so in one year, with his let's not make the terrorists made policies.

Exactly. We are fighting an a fundemental group of whackos who's sole aim is to bring down Western Culture. They been doing it since the time of Mohammed. The Army Major was a subscriber to the philosophy, which makes him a Terrorist cut of the same cloth as those we are fighting overseas.

It doesn't matter if we're over there or not. Their stated objective is clear.

 

[CMike]

One of those attacks was by a us citizen in the US military. By definition it is not a terrorist attack.

And if it was it is a perfect example of our not being able to stop all terrorist attacks.


Also Bush's actaions encouraged AQ recruitment. That recruitment has come to fruitation and we will have more attacks, because of Bush's actions not Obama's.

By what definition? The terrorist was part of the islamic jihad thing.

You mean killing off their leadership made them mad? Oh No. Poor babies.

Pres. Bush had kept the US safe for 7 years. Obama hasn't done so in one year, with his let's not make the terrorists made policies.

Exactly. We are fighting an a fundemental group of whackos who's sole aim is to bring down Western Culture. They been doing it since the time of Mohammed. The Army Major was a subscriber to the philosophy, which makes him a Terrorist cut of the same cloth as those we are fighting overseas.

It doesn't matter if we're over there or not. Their stated objective is clear.

Yes. In fact, it makes it even more sinister that he was disguised as a loyal member of our military.

 

[CMike]

Let's see,

After 911 there wasn't another terrorist attack in 7 years, because Pres. Bush took the war on Al Qaida seriously.

Obama, on the other hand, has not taken it seriously and we have had 3 terrorist attacks, within the US, in a year.

One of those attacks was by a us citizen in the US military. By definition it is not a terrorist attack.

And if it was it is a perfect example of our not being able to stop all terrorist attacks.


Also Bush's actaions encouraged AQ recruitment. That recruitment has come to fruitation and we will have more attacks, because of Bush's actions not Obama's.

By this gem of logic? Could it then be said that FDR and Churchill's policies attracted more NAZI recruitment?

Excellent questions. I am sure america and the UK pissed off the nazis by fighting against them.

 

[Truthmatters]

you guys are forgetting richard ried the shoe bomber .

But then why would I be surprized you are altering the facts to protect the Bush record.

 

[CMike]

you guys are forgetting richard ried the shoe bomber .

But then why would I be surprized you are altering the facts to protect the Bush record.

That's true. However, that was only three months after 911, before Pres. Bush could implement anything.

 

[The T]

By what definition? The terrorist was part of the islamic jihad thing.

You mean killing off their leadership made them mad? Oh No. Poor babies.

Pres. Bush had kept the US safe for 7 years. Obama hasn't done so in one year, with his let's not make the terrorists made policies.

Exactly. We are fighting an a fundemental group of whackos who's sole aim is to bring down Western Culture. They been doing it since the time of Mohammed. The Army Major was a subscriber to the philosophy, which makes him a Terrorist cut of the same cloth as those we are fighting overseas.

It doesn't matter if we're over there or not. Their stated objective is clear.

Yes. In fact, it makes it even more sinister that he was disguised as a loyal member of our military.

Indeed. And a scary notion of how many more are ensconced in various positions within the military, and other sectors of our society just waiting to go into action based on these ideals?

And before I get accused of fear mongering? It's a perfectly rational question posed by any thinking individual. Therefore the recourse is to remain vigilant seeing the uptick in attacks in recent months regardless
of our presence at various places on the globe.

 

[The T]

One of those attacks was by a us citizen in the US military. By definition it is not a terrorist attack.

And if it was it is a perfect example of our not being able to stop all terrorist attacks.


Also Bush's actaions encouraged AQ recruitment. That recruitment has come to fruitation and we will have more attacks, because of Bush's actions not Obama's.

By this gem of logic? Could it then be said that FDR and Churchill's policies attracted more NAZI recruitment?

Excellent questions. I am sure america and the UK pissed off the nazis by fighting against them.

And of course the Japanese? How could I forget? The AXIS powers had an ideal of world domination, and they carried it out. Same holds true for this bunch that we fight now.

 

[Chris]

By this gem of logic? Could it then be said that FDR and Churchill's policies attracted more NAZI recruitment?

Excellent questions. I am sure america and the UK pissed off the nazis by fighting against them.

And of course the Japanese? How could I forget? The AXIS powers had an ideal of world domination, and they carried it out. Same holds true for this bunch that we fight now.

A bunch of guys in a cave in Pakistan with no army, no navy, no air force, and now, thanks to Obama, no popular support, will never dominate the world.

They are a minor problem. They will be defeated.

 

[The T]

Excellent questions. I am sure america and the UK pissed off the nazis by fighting against them.

And of course the Japanese? How could I forget? The AXIS powers had an ideal of world domination, and they carried it out. Same holds true for this bunch that we fight now.

A bunch of guys in a cave in Pakistan with no army, no navy, no air force, and now, thanks to Obama, no popular support, will never dominate the world.

They are a minor problem. They will be defeated.

Weak point. As was demonstrated pre-9/11/01. That isn't the only place they are Chris, and you know that. Stop being so disingenuous.

 

[rdean]

Ron Paul. The guy believes in "magical creation", so who knows where he gets his "facts".

They are terrorists because they are terrorists. They made that choice, NOT US.

Bin Laden attacked the WTC because his feelings were hurt. When Iraq invaded Kuwait, the rest of the Middle East asked the US to help, much to the chagrin of Bin Laden. No one wanted Bin Laden because there was the possibility he would "get" a country with wealth.

Bin Laden was angry that "infidels" were killing Muslims in Middle Eastern holy lands and his offer of help had been dismissed.

The US did the right thing driving Iraq out of Kuwait. However, Bin Laden was the cause behind 9/11, NOT the US being a good samaritan.

Because someone takes a good thing and makes something evil out of it doesn't mean that evil is the "fault" of good.

 

[The Rabbi]

It just kills me but when he's right, he's right.
Thanks, RDean. Maybe you aren't a total loser after all.

 

[mascale]

Military strikes tend to breed more military strikes and outcomes. When Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, then even Nisei were put in jail--just for being Nisei--and the United States went off to war: In Europe.

The U. S. Navy won at Midway, and (1) diminished the threat to the U. S. Western seaboard, and (2), set up the chain of events that brought the U. S. military ever closer to Japan. Just like even the Holy Father's own Christian Hitler Youth was likely prompted by Roosevelt and Churchill--having attacked the Homeland--so also the Japanese began to resort to suicidal attacks against the on-coming, United States Navy.

Military onslaughts tend to breed bloodletting, and basis-free military occupations are not different--inlcuding in Vietnam, (with suicidal monks), and in Iraq, (with suicidal bombers), and now in Afghanistan, and now in Pakistan. In Pakistan, the atrocities were in fact clearly caused, anyone sees, by the intended onslaughts, even of the General Betrayus. The clear intent of the military, clearly now visible, is get the Taliban in control of nuclear weapons, as a part of some new Betrayus-concocted, government in Pakistan. The alterntive was to keep them in Afghanistan, helping in the capture and trial of Osama bin laden. The Republicans intentionally, which is in record, clearly refused that option.

Even the Japanese learned about the new real war, even then. Real War now is nuclear. Betrayus seems to sense this, and along with the planners, and along with the West Wing. The new clear strategy is get the Taliban into more a nuclear mode and capability.

Even Joe Lieberman wants the 23 year old who flamed-himself on the plane: Trieda s a precedent nuclear war case, instead of police matter type of case: And clearly since the even the Senator knows that real war is clearly nuclear.

Al Queda, which is not a nation, still is to be treated as some new James Bond Movie, "SPECTRE." The problem is that real war is actually nuclear, and so the use of a military trial is probably obviated by the outcome: Now even Happening In Pakistan!

Democrats will do better to go back to normal civil liberties, treat the problem as an international police matter, and pull the troops so as not to instigate, and even inspire, further incursions into nuclear Pakisan. The outcome of continuing onslaught, and from the occupations: Has already been shown in WWII.

Real War is nuclear. The current atrocity is better described as Americans hating Americans, getting them killed, wounded, disabled, dismembered, disfigured, and by their neighbors: Any who are supportive of the orders which caused that outcome.

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not stirred!"
(Troops in Afghanistan will get corn, and blankets, and body armor: That Americans will not keep for themselves!)

 

[The T]

Ron Paul. The guy believes in "magical creation", so who knows where he gets his "facts".

They are terrorists because they are terrorists. They made that choice, NOT US.

Bin Laden attacked the WTC because his feelings were hurt. When Iraq invaded Kuwait, the rest of the Middle East asked the US to help, much to the chagrin of Bin Laden. No one wanted Bin Laden because there was the possibility he would "get" a country with wealth.

Bin Laden was angry that "infidels" were killing Muslims in Middle Eastern holy lands and his offer of help had been dismissed.

The US did the right thing driving Iraq out of Kuwait. However, Bin Laden was the cause behind 9/11, NOT the US being a good samaritan.

Because someone takes a good thing and makes something evil out of it doesn't mean that evil is the "fault" of good.

Interesting concept...

 

[Paulie]

Quite a popular thread over a guy who's just a fringe lunatic that only a select few people support

 

[The T]

Military strikes tend to breed more military strikes and outcomes. When Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, then even Nisei were put in jail--just for being Nisei--and the United States went off to war: In Europe.

The U. S. Navy won at Midway, and (1) diminished the threat to the U. S. Western seaboard, and (2), set up the chain of events that brought the U. S. military ever closer to Japan. Just like even the Holy Father's pwm Christian Hitler Youth was likely prompted by Roosevelt and Churchill--having attacked the Homeland--so also the Japanese began to resort to suicidal attacks against the on-coming, United States Navy.

Military onslaughts tend to breed bloodletting, and basis-free military occupations are not different--inlcuding in Vietnam, (with suicidal monks), and in Iraq, (with suicidal bombers), and now in Afghanistan, and now in Pakistan. In Pakistan, the atrocities were in fact clearly caused, anyone sees, by the intended onslaughts, even of the General Betrayus. The clear intent of the military, clearly now visible, is get the Taliban in control of nuclear weapons, as a part of some new Betrayus-concocted, government in Pakistan. The alterntive was to keep them in Afghanistan, helping in the capture and trial of Osama bin laden. The Republicans intentionally, which is in record, clearly refused that option.

Even the Japanese learned about the new real war, even then. Real War now is nuclear. Betrayus seems to sense this, and along with the planners, and along with the West Wing. The new clear strategy is get the Taliban into more a nuclear mode and capability.

Even Joe Lieberman wants the 23 year old who flamed-himself on the plane: Trieda s a precedent nuclear war case, instead of police matter type of case: And clearly since the even the Senator knows that real war is clearly nuclear.

Al Queda, which is not a nation, still is to be treated as some new James Bond Movie, "SPECTRE." The problem is that real war is actually nuclear, and so the use of a military trial is probably obviated by the outcome: Now even Happening In Pakistan!

Democrats will do better to go back to normal civil liberties, treat the problem as an international police matter, and pull the troops so as not to instigate, and even inspire, further incursions into nuclear Pakisan. The outcome of continuing onslaught, and from the occupations: Has already been shown in WWII.

Real War is nuclear. The current atrocity is better described as Americans hating Americans, getting them killed, wounded, disabled, dismembered, disfigured, and by their neighbors: Any who are supportive of the orders which caused that outcome.

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not stirred!"
(Troops in Afghanistan will get corn, and blankets, and body armor: That Americans will not keep for themselves!)

Where did you glean this?

 

[Paulie]

Here's a concept...

In countries all around the world there are opposition groups that form because of oppressive governments. There have also been opposition groups that have formed countless times because of occupation by another country. We have read about this kind of thing throughout our education.

It's not a new concept that when an outside country occupies someone's land, opposititon results. What Paul is saying is that because we have occupied foreign land, established military presence there, and then dictated policy to those countries, we have ultimately created new enemies.

He's not saying that every enemy of America is America's fault. He is simply saying that we've created enemies throughout this century because of our foreign intervention.

I'm not really sure how anyone can argue against that simple concept. Opposition to occupation and intervention is inevitable. Just because we are America doesn't mean we have a Gold Card of exception to that concept.

If you want to argue that 9/11 wasn't a direct result of blowback from foreign intervention, by all means, go ahead. Both sides can make a compelling case, I'll admit as much. It's certainly a debatable topic.

But it's simply not debatable that foreign intervention creates enemies. People can only be pushed so far. Anger makes people capable of just about any atrocity you could imagine. Some can simply manage their anger better than others.