Ron Paul’s 9/11 Assertion Gains Traction
By Justin Gardner | Related entries in Foreign PolicyPaul suggested that maybe, just maybe, 9/11 was blowback from our foreign policy.
Giuliani called him out on it to score political points, and Fox News calls Rudy out for being intellectually dishonest.
The reaction to the showdown between Rep. Ron Paul and former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani has been fascinating. Paul suggested that the recent history of U.S. foreign policy endeavors overseas may have had something to do with terrorists’ willingness to come to America, live here for several months, then give their lives to kill as many Americans as possible.Perhaps, Paul suggested, the 15-year presence of the U.S. military forces in Muslim countries may have motivated them. For that, Giuliani excoriated him, calling it an “extraordinary statement,” adding, “I don’t think I’ve heard that before.”
Let’s be blunt. Giuliani was either lying, or he hasn’t cracked a book in six years.
I think Ron is foolishly brave to talk about blowback, but if we’re going to win the WoT, I think the conversation needs to be had. We can’t keep pretending that our actions don’t have unintended consequences. Case in point, our war in Iraq has aided the terrorist’s cause, not hindered it. I understand Giuliani’s basic premise, that the US is a beacon of freedom and we’re just trying to do what’s right so we’re never to blame for terrorism. But that’s a naive way to look at the world, and somebody as smart as Rudy knows it. Ron Paul was just pointing that out, and that’s exactly what our conversation needs…a cold, hard punch in the gut that reminds us that we’re not always right.
This entry was posted on Monday, May 21st, 2007 and is filed under Foreign Policy. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
May 21st, 2007 at 11:35 am
Ron Paul is the only person who maintains a degree of functional rationality. Let’s see, how did he describe it to old Wolf Blitzer. Pakistan has the bomb, Pakistan is corrupt, Pakistan has Bin Laden and the likes of.
the Bush type political landscape: Let’s bomb Iran now because they might make a bomb in 10 years.
America’s asking for trouble by voting as they’re told and if one of these rats Rudy or Hillary is elected i’ll just leave this country because it will no longer be safe from the outside world and from the poor citizens themselves who will resort to crime because we are being gutted from the inside by a debt ridden society fueled by a wreckless foreign interventionalist mentality based on imperialism. or wait a minute the pentagon already has a solution for the peoples problems just google: ARMY REGULATION 210-35 problem solved
May 21st, 2007 at 11:41 am
We certainly can have this discussion if we want, and I would argue that our country certainly has been having this discussion since September 12. The notion that American policy is ultimately responsible for terrorism against us is a fundamental postulate of the “anti-war” left. We can also have a discussion about whether Jewish bankers siphoned the wealth of the German people in the 1930s.
The conversation that is absolutely needed, but is completely absent in public discourse, concerns the elements of Islamic scripture, tradition and the life of Mohammad that terrorists use to inform their decisions about attacking us.
May 21st, 2007 at 12:07 pm
“The notion that American policy is ultimately responsible for terrorism against us is a fundamental postulate of the “anti-warâ€Â? left.”
Even a blind squirrel finds an acorn once in a while.
Are you so partisan to not recognize when an opposition has a point? I don’t recall source material like the “9-11 Commission Report” to be a one-sided diatribe from the “anti-war left”:
“”Many Americans have wondered, “Why do ‘they’ hate us?” Some also ask, “What can we do to stop these attacks?” Bin Ladin and al Qaeda have given answers to both these questions. To the first, they say that America had attacked Islam; America is responsible for all conflicts involving Muslims. Thus Americans are blamed when Israelis fight with Palestinians, when Russians fight with Chechens, when Indians fight with Kashmiri Muslims, and when the Philippine government fights ethnic Muslims in its southern islands. America is also held responsible for the governments of Muslim countries, derided by al Qaeda as “your agents.” Bin Ladin has stated flatly, “Our fight against these governments is not separate from our fight against you.”
These charges found a ready audience among millions of Arabs and Muslims angry at the United States because of issues ranging from Iraq to Palestine to America’s support for their countries’ repressive rulers.
Bin Ladin’s grievance with the United States may have started in reaction to specific U.S. policies but it quickly became far deeper. To the second question, what America could do, al Qaeda’s answer was that America should abandon the Middle East, convert to Islam, and end the immorality and godlessness of its society and culture: “It is saddening to tell you that you are the worst civilization witnessed by the history of mankind.”
If the United States did not comply, it would be at war with the Islamic nation, a nation that al Qaeda’s leaders said “desires death more than you desire life.”"
May 21st, 2007 at 1:12 pm
Agreed. Both are valid concerns, and we need to address our responsibilities abroad and Islam’s responsibilities within.
But…how to do that? Is our current foreign policy strategy creating a more moderate Islamic world? I don’t really think so.
May 21st, 2007 at 1:50 pm
Thanks Justin!
When I read people try to defend the fact that our sanctions and our “shock and awe” killed A MILLION people, quite honestly it makes me sick. Are you a Proud American, because your Military starved a Country for 10 years, then bombed the hell out of it and then invaded it for its oil and wealth……well are you?
How in the hell can ANY NORMAL person defend this crap?
Ron Paul tells it like it is, obviously, there are many “Americans” who simply cannot handle the TRUTH…………but this time there will be MORE of US, We the People who CAN handle the truth and we are going to stomp you cowards who want to go kill people, but don’t sign up to go over there and do it yourselves………if you thin our adventures in “spreading freedom” is working so well, why don’t you check out some of the people at VoteVets.com…………see what they have to say!
Yeah WAR is GREAT for Business for the Industrial Military Complex, first they force our Country to Borrow the Money, then the Sell us the TOOLS of WAR and then the same people make interest on the loans to buy the tools of war, oh and then they blow up a Country and then get another loan to rebuild it and of course WE THE PEOPLE pay the interest on these loans and then the best part…………..now we need MORE TOOLS OF WAR because we used what we have………….OH we don’t have the MONEY, so we Borrow it…….the beauty of this system is the BANKS ALWAYS WIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Wake the hell up and stop acting some damn stupid!
Dr. Paul is Honest………………..He is REAL…………and amazingly he is FEARLESS of The Powers that BE!
Ron Paul WILL be the next President of the United States of America……..We the People will make damn sure this time!!!!!!!!
May 21st, 2007 at 2:32 pm
***
To the second question, what America could do, al Qaeda’s answer was that America should abandon the Middle East, convert to Islam, and end the immorality and godlessness of its society and culture…
***
Seems to me the fanatical Islamists are to be feared far more than the most extreme conservative religious right wing in the US.
Although I can understand why the left would side with the fanatical Islamists in their endeavor to eradicate the US of christian values and phylosophies – given how the left gets thier undies in a bunch over “in god we trust” on our currancy and “under god” in our pledge.
I cannot understand how the liberals seem to love OBL they way they do – given the way they are invested in the defeat of the USA. Don’t they see that fanatical Islam extremists will kill them, too?
At least the conservative right does not endorse the killing of those they feel are immoral or godless….
I wonder how PETA, NOW, GLBT, etc. would fair in, say, Taliban controlled pre-2002 Afghanistan?? I’d venture to say they would be considered just as much an enemy of Taliban as the NRA, Pat Robertson, etc.
Why can’t we atleast unite under the common threat of the Islamist Terrorists?? Boggles the mind….
May 21st, 2007 at 8:59 pm
Terrorism is the use of force or its threat to achieve political purposes without attempting to negotiate a contract. It is evil and there is no justification for it. American foreign policy is decided on a contractual basis through the advice and consent of the peoples’ representatives. No non-American has any right to exercise any influence save through persuasion on American foreign policy or any other policy and to do so is to insult, degrade and deny American sovereignty. These forces should be opposed with as little regard for their lives and liberty as is possible.
May 21st, 2007 at 9:04 pm
Terrorism is the use of force or its threat to achieve political ends. American policies are created by contract negotiated by the peoples’ representatives. No foreign person or government has any right to exercise control over those policies and the attempt to do so is to insult, degrade and deny American sovereignty. Such forces must be met with total war: they are the enemy of civilization itself, a process that depends on the honoring of freely entered into contracts.
May 21st, 2007 at 10:02 pm
American policies are created by the people’s representatives ? Think agian!!
Try greedy corporations bent on the destruction of the U.S.
If any one questions the above statement. Google operation Ajax and Iran, UN
and national parks. Then if you realy want to know about 9/11. Research The Grand Chess Board and PNAC.=Plan For A New American Century.
May 21st, 2007 at 10:04 pm
Ron Paul for PRES!!!!
May 21st, 2007 at 10:05 pm
How many terrorists are attacking Switzerland because of their freedom and social tolerance?
May 21st, 2007 at 10:37 pm
To imply that anyone who would see to challenge American policy is an enemy of civlization is typical of the ignorance and jingoism that god us mired in the swamp of Iraq.
May 21st, 2007 at 11:42 pm
That’s actually quite opposite of the case from many of the things we’d consider to be the cause of blowback. The President can and has exercised his authority to strike at certain targets without the permission of the people’s representatives. And we’re not even counting the numerous black ops teams around the world who attempt to wipe out our enemies in secret and off the record.
We obviously give into this system because we must, but I think it’s short sighted to say that some of the actions we’ve partaken in are all right and good. We’ve installed dictators and let’s not forget that we gave Saddam the tools he needed to create chemical weapons.
But Jimmy is right. If we’re going to have any sort of frank discussion about the role of our foreign policy in the current WoT, we need to also have a frank discussion about Islam and its role in the WoT.
May 22nd, 2007 at 10:10 am
Remember that every fascist movement in history ascended to power on a platform of social justice and fighting oppression. The Koran provides a protocol for religious conquest to create Islamic hegemony throughout the world in order to bring about God’s final judgement. It also sews a sense of paranoia amongst its devotees, claiming that Islam is always under persecution by infidels, and therefore it is justified to wage war against them.
Islamic fundamentalists will always find a pretext to justify their supremecist aims. Like Hitler blaming the Jews for the economic problems of the Weimar republic, there is a never-ending list of grievances that Hamas, Al-Queda, Hezbollah, CAIR, and other Islamo-fascist groups will use to rally the populous under an “us-against-them,” “oppressor vs. oppressed” paradigm so as to abrogate any responsibility for their violent actions.
Can we really negotiate the destruction of Israel to satisfy terrorists? If there is a second Exodus, will it end there? Consider the insurgency in southern Thailand; what the heck did the Thai’s do to Muslims to invite this jihad?
May 23rd, 2007 at 10:43 am
The wild applause that Rudi got when he retorted disingenuously that “he had never heard” before that America’s actions might have had something to do with motivating the terrorists proves a glaring a point. Many people (the far right especially) has a vested interest in keeping things as black and white as possible, and they respond with jingoistic amazement if anyone offers discussion or debate over the consequences of our actions. “You are BLAMING AMERICA, you heathen”. It’s mind-boggling that in this dangerous world we wouldn’t want to debate the causes, and find solutions, and be totally brutally honest with ourselves. That’s what Ron Paul is doing, which is a very “conservative” thing to do, btw. He is the only conservative in the pack.
But I think people don’t really want to be brutally honest with themselves (left or right), because it will mean that they have to give something up, or do something different, or god forbid FOCUS ON PEOPLE OTHER THAN THEMSELVES AND THEIR OWN INTERESTS. All we do is talk about what it all means to US. That’s what pisses everybody off around the world. We take their shit, stomp on their turf and get upset only when it offends our “interests”. We are hypocrites, and we pretend we go to war for the sake of freedom, but only when it means our freedom to get rich, or whatever. They know that, and they roll their eyes at our hypocrisy, or worse.
RON PAUL SUPPORTER said:
“When I read people try to defend the fact that our sanctions and our “shock and aweâ€Â? killed A MILLION people, quite honestly it makes me sick. Are you a Proud American, because your Military starved a Country for 10 years, then bombed the hell out of it and then invaded it for its oil and wealth……well are you?
How in the hell can ANY NORMAL person defend this crap?”
How many of us have even considered the million or so people that have been killed? How much air time has that gotten? The people around the world know that we really don’t care that much about that. We really only care about what it means to US. Until that changes, things will continue to get worse and worse. Someone walked into our family rooms, unplugged the TV (while we’re watching AMERICAN IDOL) and said, “Look around you”. “Look over there.” “It can’t be all about YOU, all of the time.” How many times will it have to happen?
May 29th, 2007 at 1:03 pm
Will Ron Paul & Rudy Giuliani Debate Foreign Policy at Freedomfest?
The annual FreedomFest conference, has issued a debate invitation to GOP Presidential candidates Rudy Giuliani and Ron Paul to use FreedomFest ‘07 as a debate venue to further explore their fundamental differences in foreign policy and the war in Iraq that were highlighted in the Columbia, SC debate.
http://www.freedomfest.com/debate.htm
June 8th, 2007 at 1:48 am
Just remember Dr. Paul voted to get OBL and not go blindly into Iraq. Go to his web site and review his speaches, opinions, statements, or Goggle some this videos; there all over the place. I like this man.
June 9th, 2007 at 8:10 am
The power of mainstream media and why the US has “blowback� is well documented in this 2003 film.
It will rock your world(view).
http://www.ronpaulaudio.com/rpaudio/TheRevolutionWillNotBeTelevised2003.wvx
Who IS Ron Paul? They still need to know!!
NOBODY explains Ron Paul
BETTER than Ron Paul himself!
Here is an interactive audio archive of
Ron Paul speeches and interviews as a resource in chronological
order.
http://www.ronpaulaudio.com
June 12th, 2007 at 5:23 am
{posted by Rich} “Seems to me the fanatical Islamists are to be feared far more than the most extreme conservative religious right wing in the US.
Although I can understand why the left would side with the fanatical Islamists in their endeavor to eradicate the US of christian values and phylosophies – given how the left gets thier undies in a bunch over “in god we trustâ€Â? on our currancy and “under godâ€Â? in our pledge.
are you a christian? if we hold the moral high ground, God will bless us. if the ‘Islamists’ hate us for our immorality and corruption, why would they want to ‘eradicate christian values’ from our society? that would only make things worse. if it is a religious goal to convert the world, then we can asses the risk.. but we lose the moral high ground when we interfere in their business and manipulate their policies.
since it is not whole muslim nations attacking America, but individuals, how do we wage a war on (in essence)criminal behavior? the issue is immorality and social injustice. how then is the war effective if we arent solving the root cause of terrorism, be it a cultural/ideological contempt or disposition whatever?
Ron Paul has since made the point that weve rejected the ‘just war’ theory of christianity, and have succumbed to the ideology of pre-emptive strike.. and this is an issue which alleged conservative christians become quite hypocritical.. and conveniently forget biblical principles.. and the constitution.
we can survive on Gods good will and virtue if it is earned, so that ought to be our goal, to lead by example. let us not forget that Jesus was the lamb “blessed are the peacemakers”matthew 5:9
June 21st, 2007 at 1:04 am
“Terrorism is defined by the US Department of Defense as “the unlawful use of — or threatened use of — force or violence against individuals or property to coerce or intimidate governments or societies, often to achieve political, religious, or ideological objectives.”"
hmmmm why does this sound familiar… let me think didn’t little bush lie to us and congress about an imagined wmd threat from Iraq in order to “coerce or intimidate governments or societies, often to achieve political, religious, or ideological objectives” or to convince congress to grant him the hideous power to go to war.
Now obviously lying to congress is considered a crime in the US, since if I remember correctly President Clinton faced quite a bit of trouble, and some speculation about impeachment proceedings over Ms. Lewinsky and his initial statements concerning their little indiscretion.
“the unlawful use of — or threatened use of — force or violence against individuals or property” So if you say that, Iraq supports terrorists and is in possession of wmd’s and that if we don’t take some preemptive action against them they could hurt us. (OOOooooohhh Scary!) but it all turns out to be a lie then isn’t that exactly the same as the definition of terrorism.
“Terrorism is defined by the US Department of Defense as “the unlawful use of — or threatened use of — force or violence against individuals or property to coerce or intimidate governments or societies, often to achieve political, religious, or ideological objectives.”"
“The FBI defines terrorism as “the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.”
These are the official definitions of terrorism by the US Govt.
from
http://www.tvnewslies.org/html/george_w__bush_-_world_s_leadi.html
* George W. Bush, in his unprovoked attack against the sovereign nation of Iraq, openly violated the UN Charter, to which the US is a signatory. The Charter’s core principles contained in Article 2(4) and Article 51 prohibit one nation from attacking another except in self-defense (watch for preemptive attack on Iran coming soon to violate this law) or with the authority of the U.N. In effect, George Bush launched an unlawful use of force against persons and property.
* The invasion launched by George W. Bush was heralded by the most frightening and powerful use of force and military violence in recent history. His Shock (terror) and Awe bombardment of Baghdad was designed to intimidate and coerce the government as well as the civilian population of that nation to change its existing leadership. That, in itself, was a political objective.
* The purpose of the invasion and ensuing occupation of Iraq was to replace the existing dictatorship with an American-backed form of democracy that would not permit the emergence of a government headed by the majority Shia religious leadership. These motives were unquestionably political and social.
Let’s impeach the president so that I don’t have to be embarrassed by my nationality anymore.
(great Neil Young Song)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_McxwuX9Wbs (great Neil Young Song)
December 19th, 2007 at 1:29 am
Jimmy the Dhimmi wants to sacrifice American soldiers to protect Israel. Fine! The question is do the Americans want?
Why isn’t Israel helping our troops in Iraq with a single soldier? Especially, when an atomic-armed Iraq would have threatened none except Israel. Obvously, Jimmy believes that American soldiers are expendable. As a Zio-Nazi settler on a vacation to USA told my friend Russ the bumperstickerseller on the streets of Berkeley, “One Jewish life is worth more that a million gentile lives”
We American need to wake up to the fact that the Israeli-lobby is manipulating us. And the Zio-Nazis are scared of Ron Paul because he says “American soldiers are expendable only to sace Americans NOT for Israelis”
Its the ZioNazis who are manipulating the Americans to die for israel. Wake up!
The following was written by a good professor Arthur Lowrie on http://www.errantyears.com/1997/sep97/002029.html
Israeli leaders, threatened by the violent acts of Hezbollah,
Hamas and Islamic Jihad, have sought to enlist the United States and Europe in the battle against Islamic fundamentalism in general. Haim Baram, writing from Jerusalem, described the position of Israeli leaders in late 1994 as follows:
“The feared and respected enemy now is Islam: the demonization of Muslims is part of the same propagandist strategy reserved untilrecently for Palestinian nationalism. The Likud leader, Bibi Netanyahu, is currently touring the globe and spreading the new gospel. According to Netanyahu, Arafat has become completely unimportant, since he cannot possibly stem the tide of Islamic radicalism generated by Iran It is an almost risible tactic, since the Likud leader himself described Arafa until recently, as the principal threat not only to Israel, but also to the entire Western world.”
Lets echo Ron Paul “America is for Americans NOT for israelis”