Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

BIN LADEN'S FATWA (Why Ron Paul was Factually Correct) (UBL cited Iraq in 1996 Declaration of War)
PBS Online Newshour ^ | Unknown | PBS

Posted on 05/15/2007 8:04:25 PM PDT by Remember_Salamis

Tonight, Ron Paul stated that al-Qaida attacked us because we are involved in the Middle East. Below I have posted Bin Laden's declaration of War against the United States, made in 1996. He cites (1) US Involvement in the Middle East, (2) Palestine, and (3) Sanctions on Iraq as reasons why he has declared war.

Giuliani either accidentally or purposefully misinterpreted Paul's REASON why they attacked us as a JUSTIFICATION. Paul does not believe that they were right in attacking us; just the opposite.

To believe what Giuliani stated, that they attacked us because of "our freedom and women's rights", you must also believe in the tooth fairy.

The Japanese attacked us because of Sanctions and our policies in SE Asia. It would be absurd to say that Peal Harbor was because the Japanese "hated" our freedom, no?

The Blog at the National Review's Corner has said the same thing: http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YWMyMTBjOTMzOWY5NmIyYTRjNjAzNWYwY2NiYTVmNTg=

BIN LADEN'S FATWA

The following text is a fatwa, or declaration of war, by Osama bin Laden first published in Al Quds Al Arabi, a London-based newspaper, in August, 1996. The fatwa is entitled "Declaration of War against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places."

Praise be to Allah, we seek His help and ask for his pardon. we take refuge in Allah from our wrongs and bad deeds. Who ever been guided by Allah will not be misled, and who ever has been misled, he will never be guided. I bear witness that there is no God except Allah-no associates with Him- and I bear witness that Muhammad is His slave and messenger.

{O you who believe! be careful of -your duty to- Allah with the proper care which is due to Him, and do not die unless you are Muslim} (Imraan; 3:102), {O people be careful of -your duty to- your Lord, Who created you from a single being and created its mate of the same -kind- and spread from these two, many men and women; and be careful of -your duty to- Allah , by whom you demand one of another -your rights-, and (be careful) to the ties of kinship; surely Allah ever watches over you} (An-Nisa; 4:1), {O you who believe! be careful- of your duty- to Allah and speak the right word; He will put your deeds into a right state for you, and forgive you your faults; and who ever obeys Allah and his Apostle, he indeed achieve a mighty success} (Al-Ahzab; 33:70-71).

Praise be to Allah, reporting the saying of the prophet Shu'aib: {I desire nothing but reform so far as I am able, and with non but Allah is the direction of my affair to the right and successful path; on him do I rely and to him do I turn} (Hud; 11:88).

Praise be to Allah, saying: {You are the best of the nations raised up for -the benefit of- men; you enjoin what is right and forbid the wrong and believe in Allah} (Aal-Imraan; 3:110). Allah's blessing and salutations on His slave and messenger who said: (The people are close to an all encompassing punishment from Allah if they see the oppressor and fail to restrain him.)

It should not be hidden from you that the people of Islam had suffered from aggression, iniquity and injustice imposed on them by the Zionist-Crusaders alliance and their collaborators; to the extent that the Muslims blood became the cheapest and their wealth as loot in the hands of the enemies. Their blood was spilled in Palestine and Iraq. The horrifying pictures of the massacre of Qana, in Lebanon are still fresh in our memory. Massacres in Tajakestan, Burma, Cashmere, Assam, Philippine, Fatani, Ogadin, Somalia, Erithria, Chechnia and in Bosnia-Herzegovina took place, massacres that send shivers in the body and shake the conscience. All of this and the world watch and hear, and not only didn't respond to these atrocities, but also with a clear conspiracy between the USA and its' allies and under the cover of the iniquitous United Nations, the dispossessed people were even prevented from obtaining arms to defend themselves.

The people of Islam awakened and realised that they are the main target for the aggression of the Zionist-Crusaders alliance. All false claims and propaganda about "Human Rights" were hammered down and exposed by the massacres that took place against the Muslims in every part of the world.

The latest and the greatest of these aggressions, incurred by the Muslims since the death of the Prophet (ALLAH'S BLESSING AND SALUTATIONS ON HIM) is the occupation of the land of the two Holy Places -the foundation of the house of Islam, the place of the revelation, the source of the message and the place of the noble Ka'ba, the Qiblah of all Muslims- by the armies of the American Crusaders and their allies. (We bemoan this and can only say: "No power and power acquiring except through Allah").

Under the present circumstances, and under the banner of the blessed awakening which is sweeping the world in general and the Islamic world in particular, I meet with you today. And after a long absence, imposed on the scholars (Ulama) and callers (Da'ees) of Islam by the iniquitous crusaders movement under the leadership of the USA; who fears that they, the scholars and callers of Islam, will instigate the Ummah of Islam against its' enemies as their ancestor scholars-may Allah be pleased with them- like Ibn Taymiyyah and Al'iz Ibn Abdes-Salaam did. And therefore the Zionist-Crusader alliance resorted to killing and arresting the truthful Ulama and the working Da'ees (We are not praising or sanctifying them; Allah sanctify whom He pleased). They killed the Mujahid Sheikh Abdullah Azzaam, and they arrested the Mujahid Sheikh Ahmad Yaseen and the Mujahid Sheikh Omar Abdur Rahman (in America).

By orders from the USA they also arrested a large number of scholars, Da'ees and young people - in the land of the two Holy Places- among them the prominent Sheikh Salman Al-Oud'a and Sheikh Safar Al-Hawali and their brothers; (We bemoan this and can only say: "No power and power acquiring except through Allah"). We, myself and my group, have suffered some of this injustice ourselves; we have been prevented from addressing the Muslims. We have been pursued in Pakistan, Sudan and Afghanistan, hence this long absence on my part. But by the Grace of Allah, a safe base is now available in the high Hindukush mountains in Khurasan ; where--by the Grace of Allah-the largest infidel military force of the world was destroyed. And the myth of the super power was withered in front of the Mujahideen cries of Allahu Akbar (God is greater). Today we work from the same mountains to lift the iniquity that had been imposed on the Ummah by the Zionist-Crusader alliance, particularly after they have occupied the blessed land around Jerusalem, route of the journey of the Prophet (ALLAH'S BLESSING AND SALUTATIONS ON HIM) and the land of the two Holy Places. We ask Allah to bestow us with victory, He is our Patron and He is the Most Capable.

From here, today we begin the work, talking and discussing the ways of correcting what had happened to the Islamic world in general, and the Land of the two Holy Places in particular. We wish to study the means that we could follow to return the situation to its' normal path. And to return to the people their own rights, particularly after the large damages and the great aggression on the life and the religion of the people. An injustice that had affected every section and group of the people; the civilians, military and security men, government officials and merchants, the young and the old people as well as schools and university students. Hundred of thousands of the unemployed graduates, who became the widest section of the society, were also affected.

Injustice had affected the people of the industry and agriculture. It affected the people of the rural and urban areas. And almost every body complain about something. The situation at the land of the two Holy places became like a huge volcano at the verge of eruption that would destroy the Kufr and the corruption and its' sources. The explosion at Riyadh and Al-Khobar is a warning of this volcanic eruption emerging as a result of the sever oppression, suffering, excessive iniquity, humiliation and poverty.

People are fully concerned about their every day livings; every body talks about the deterioration of the economy, inflation, ever increasing debts and jails full of prisoners. Government employees with limited income talk about debts of ten thousands and hundred thousands of Saudi Riyals . They complain that the value of the Riyal is greatly and continuously deteriorating among most of the main currencies. Great merchants and contractors speak about hundreds and thousands of million Riyals owed to them by the government. More than three hundred forty billions of Riyal owed by the government to the people in addition to the daily accumulated interest, let alone the foreign debt. People wonder whether we are the largest oil exporting country?! They even believe that this situation is a curse put on them by Allah for not objecting to the oppressive and illegitimate behaviour and measures of the ruling regime: Ignoring the divine Shari'ah law; depriving people of their legitimate rights; allowing the American to occupy the land of the two Holy Places; imprisonment, unjustly, of the sincere scholars. The honourable Ulamah and scholars as well as merchants, economists and eminent people of the country were all alerted by this disastrous situation.

Quick efforts were made by each group to contain and to correct the situation. All agreed that the country is heading toward a great catastrophe, the depth of which is not known except by Allah. One big merchant commented : '' the king is leading the state into 'sixty-six' folded disaster'', (We bemoan this and can only say: "No power and power acquiring except through Allah"). Numerous princes share with the people their feelings, privately expressing their concerns and objecting to the corruption, repression and the intimidation taking place in the country. But the competition between influential princes for personal gains and interest had destroyed the country. Through its course of actions the regime has torn off its legitimacy:

(1) Suspension of the Islamic Shari'ah law and exchanging it with man made civil law. The regime entered into a bloody confrontation with the truthful Ulamah and the righteous youths (we sanctify nobody; Allah sanctify Whom He pleaseth).

(2) The inability of the regime to protect the country, and allowing the enemy of the Ummah - the American crusader forces- to occupy the land for the longest of years. The crusader forces became the main cause of our disastrous condition, particularly in the economical aspect of it due to the unjustified heavy spending on these forces. As a result of the policy imposed on the country, especially in the field of oil industry where production is restricted or expanded and prices are fixed to suit the American economy ignoring the economy of the country. Expensive deals were imposed on the country to purchase arms. People asking what is the justification for the very existence of the regime then?

Quick efforts were made by individuals and by different groups of the society to contain the situation and to prevent the danger. They advised the government both privately and openly; they send letters and poems, reports after reports, reminders after reminders, they explored every avenue and enlist every influential man in their movement of reform and correction. They wrote with style of passion, diplomacy and wisdom asking for corrective measures and repentance from the "great wrong doings and corruption " that had engulfed even the basic principles of the religion and the legitimate rights of the people.

But -to our deepest regret- the regime refused to listen to the people accusing them of being ridiculous and imbecile. The matter got worse as previous wrong doings were followed by mischief's of greater magnitudes. All of this taking place in the land of the two Holy Places! It is no longer possible to be quiet. It is not acceptable to give a blind eye to this matter.

As the extent of these infringements reached the highest of levels and turned into demolishing forces threatening the very existence of the Islamic principles, a group of scholars-who can take no more- supported by hundreds of retired officials, merchants, prominent and educated people wrote to the King asking for implementation of the corrective measures. In 1411 A.H. (May 1991), at the time of the gulf war, a letter, the famous letter of Shawwaal, with over four hundred signatures was send to the king demanding the lift of oppression and the implementation of corrective actions. The king humiliated those people and choose to ignore the content of their letter; and the very bad situation of the country became even worse.

People, however, tried again and send more letters and petitions. One particular report, the glorious Memorandum Of Advice, was handed over to the king on Muharram, 1413 A.H (July 1992), which tackled the problem pointed out the illness and prescribed the medicine in an original, righteous and scientific style. It described the gaps and the shortcoming in the philosophy of the regime and suggested the required course of action and remedy. The report gave a description of:

(1) The intimidation and harassment suffered by the leaders of the society, the scholars, heads of tribes, merchants, academic teachers and other eminent individuals;

(2) The situation of the law within the country and the arbitrary declaration of what is Halal and Haram (lawful and unlawful) regardless of the Shari'ah as instituted by Allah;

(3) The state of the press and the media which became a tool of truth-hiding and misinformation; the media carried out the plan of the enemy of idolising cult of certain personalities and spreading scandals among the believers to repel the people away from their religion, as Allah, the Exalted said: {surely- as for- those who love that scandal should circulate between the believers, they shall have a grievous chastisement in this world and in the here after} (An-Noor, 24:19).

(4) Abuse and confiscation of human rights;

(5) The financial and the economical situation of the country and the frightening future in the view of the enormous amount of debts and interest owed by the government; this is at the time when the wealth of the Ummah being wasted to satisfy personal desires of certain individuals!! while imposing more custom duties and taxes on the nation. (the prophet said about the woman who committed adultery: "She repented in such a way sufficient to bring forgiveness to a custom collector!!").,

(6) The miserable situation of the social services and infra-structure especially the water service and supply , the basic requirement of life.,

(7) The state of the ill-trained and ill-prepared army and the impotence of its commander in chief despite the incredible amount of money that has been spent on the army. The gulf war clearly exposed the situation.,

(8) Shari'a law was suspended and man made law was used instead.,

(9) And as far as the foreign policy is concerned the report exposed not only how this policy has disregarded the Islamic issues and ignored the Muslims, but also how help and support were provided to the enemy against the Muslims; the cases of Gaza-Ariha and the communist in the south of Yemen are still fresh in the memory, and more can be said.

As stated by the people of knowledge, it is not a secret that to use man made law instead of the Shari'a and to support the infidels against the Muslims is one of the ten "voiders" that would strip a person from his Islamic status (turn a Muslim into a Mushrik, non believer status). The All Mighty said: {and whoever did not judge by what Allah revealed, those are the unbelievers} (Al-Ma'ida; 5:44), and {but no! by your Lord! they do not believe (in reality) until they make you a judge of that which has become a matter of disagreement among them, and then do not find the slightest misgiving in their hearts as to what you have decided and submit with entire submission} (An-Nissa; 4:65).

In spite of the fact that the report was written with soft words and very diplomatic style, reminding of Allah, giving truthful sincere advice, and despite of the importance of advice in Islam - being absolutely essential for those in charge of the people- and the large number who signed this document as well as their supporters, all of that was not an intercession for the Memorandum . Its' content was rejected and those who signed it and their sympathisers were ridiculed, prevented from travel, punished and even jailed.

Therefore it is very clear that the advocates of correction and reform movement were very keen on using peaceful means in order to protect the unity of the country and to prevent blood shed. Why is it then the regime closed all peaceful routes and pushed the people toward armed actions?!! which is the only choice left for them to implement righteousness and justice. To whose benefit does prince Sultan and prince Nayeff push the country into a civil war that will destroy everything? and why consulting those who ignites internal feuds, playing the people against each other and instigate the policemen, the sons of the nation, to abort the reform movement. While leaving in peace and security such traitors who implement the policy of the enemy in order to bleed the financial and the human resources of the Ummah, and leaving the main enemy in the area-the American Zionist alliance enjoy peace and security?!

The advisor (Zaki Badr, the Egyptian ex-minister of the interior) to prince Nayeff -minister of interior- was not acceptable even to his own country; he was sacked from his position there due to the filthy attitude and the aggression he exercised on his own people, yet he was warmly welcomed by prince Nayeff to assist in sins and aggressions. He unjustly filled the prisons with the best sons of this Ummah and caused miseries to their mothers. Does the regime want to play the civilians against their military personnel and vice versa, like what had happened in some of the neighbouring countries?!! No doubts this is the policy of the American-Israeli alliance as they are the first to benefit from this situation.

But with the grace of Allah, the majority of the nation, both civilians and military individuals are aware of the wicked plan. They refused to be played against each others and to be used by the regime as a tool to carry out the policy of the American-Israeli alliance through their agent in our country: the Saudi regime.

Therefore every one agreed that the situation can not be rectified (the shadow cannot be straighten when its' source, the rod, is not straight either) unless the root of the problem is tackled. Hence it is essential to hit the main enemy who divided the Ummah into small and little countries and pushed it, for the last few decades, into a state of confusion. The Zionist-Crusader alliance moves quickly to contain and abort any "corrective movement" appearing in the Islamic countries. Different means and methods are used to achieve their target; on occasion the "movement" is dragged into an armed struggle at a predetermined unfavourable time and place. Sometime officials from the Ministry of Interior, who are also graduates of the colleges of the Shari'ah, are leashed out to mislead and confuse the nation and the Ummah (by wrong Fatwas) and to circulate false information about the movement. At other occasions some righteous people were tricked into a war of words against the Ulama and the leaders of the movement, wasting the energy of the nation in discussing minor issues and ignoring the main one that is the unification of the people under the divine law of Allah.

In the shadow of these discussions and arguments truthfulness is covered by the falsehood, and personal feuds and partisanship created among the people increasing the division and the weakness of the Ummah; priorities of the Islamic work are lost while the blasphemy and polytheism continue its grip and control over the Ummah. We should be alert to these atrocious plans carried out by the Ministry of Interior. The right answer is to follow what have been decided by the people of knowledge, as was said by Ibn Taymiyyah (Allah's mercy upon him): "people of Islam should join forces and support each other to get rid of the main "Kufr" who is controlling the countries of the Islamic world, even to bear the lesser damage to get rid of the major one, that is the great Kufr".

If there are more than one duty to be carried out, then the most important one should receive priority. Clearly after Belief (Imaan) there is no more important duty than pushing the American enemy out of the holy land. No other priority, except Belief, could be considered before it; the people of knowledge, Ibn Taymiyyah, stated: "to fight in defence of religion and Belief is a collective duty; there is no other duty after Belief than fighting the enemy who is corrupting the life and the religion. There is no preconditions for this duty and the enemy should be fought with one best abilities. (ref: supplement of Fatawa). If it is not possible to push back the enemy except by the collective movement of the Muslim people, then there is a duty on the Muslims to ignore the minor differences among themselves; the ill effect of ignoring these differences, at a given period of time, is much less than the ill effect of the occupation of the Muslims' land by the main Kufr. Ibn Taymiyyah had explained this issue and emphasised the importance of dealing with the major threat on the expense of the minor one. He described the situation of the Muslims and the Mujahideen and stated that even the military personnel who are not practising Islam are not exempted from the duty of Jihad against the enemy.

Ibn Taymiyyah , after mentioning the Moguls (Tatar) and their behaviour in changing the law of Allah, stated that: the ultimate aim of pleasing Allah, raising His word, instituting His religion and obeying His messenger (ALLAH'S BLESSING AND SALUTATIONS ON HIM) is to fight the enemy, in every aspects and in a complete manner; if the danger to the religion from not fighting is greater than that of fighting, then it is a duty to fight them even if the intention of some of the fighter is not pure i.e . fighting for the sake of leadership (personal gain) or if they do not observe some of the rules and commandments of Islam. To repel the greatest of the two dangers on the expense of the lesser one is an Islamic principle which should be observed. It was the tradition of the people of the Sunnah (Ahlul-Sunnah) to join and invade- fight- with the righteous and non righteous men. Allah may support this religion by righteous and non righteous people as told by the prophet (ALLAH'S BLESSING AND SALUTATIONS ON HIM). If it is not possible to fight except with the help of non righteous military personnel and commanders, then there are two possibilities: either fighting will be ignored and the others, who are the great danger to this life and religion, will take control; or to fight with the help of non righteous rulers and therefore repelling the greatest of the two dangers and implementing most, though not all, of the Islamic laws. The latter option is the right duty to be carried out in these circumstances and in many other similar situation. In fact many of the fights and conquests that took place after the time of Rashidoon, the guided Imams, were of this type. (majmoo' al Fatawa, 26/506).

No one, not even a blind or a deaf person , can deny the presence of the widely spread mischief's or the prevalence of the great sins that had reached the grievous iniquity of polytheism and to share with Allah in His sole right of sovereignty and making of the law. The All Mighty stated: {And when Luqman said to his son while he admonish him: O my son! do not associate ought with Allah; most surely polytheism is a grievous iniquity} (Luqman; 31:13). Man fabricated laws were put forward permitting what has been forbidden by Allah such as usury (Riba) and other matters. Banks dealing in usury are competing, for lands, with the two Holy Places and declaring war against Allah by disobeying His order {Allah has allowed trading and forbidden usury} (Baqarah; 2:275). All this taking place at the vicinity of the Holy Mosque in the Holy Land! Allah (SWT) stated in His Holy Book a unique promise (that had not been promised to any other sinner) to the Muslims who deals in usury: {O you who believe! Be careful of your duty to Allah and relinquish what remains (due) from usury, if you are believers * But if you do (it) not, then be appraised of WAR from Allah and His Apostle} (Baqarah; 2:278-279). This is for the "Muslim" who deals in usury (believing that it is a sin), what is it then to the person who make himself a partner and equal to Allah, legalising (usury and other sins) what has been forbidden by Allah. Despite of all of the above we see the government misled and dragged some of the righteous Ulamah and Da'ees away from the issue of objecting to the greatest of sins and Kufr. (We bemoan this and can only say: "No power and power acquiring except through Allah").

Under such circumstances, to push the enemy-the greatest Kufr- out of the country is a prime duty. No other duty after Belief is more important than the duty of had . Utmost effort should be made to prepare and instigate the Ummah against the enemy, the American-Israeli alliance- occupying the country of the two Holy Places and the route of the Apostle (Allah's Blessings and Salutations may be on him) to the Furthest Mosque (Al-Aqsa Mosque). Also to remind the Muslims not to be engaged in an internal war among themselves, as that will have grieve consequences namely:

1-consumption of the Muslims human resources as most casualties and fatalities will be among the Muslims people.

2-Exhaustion of the economic and financial resources.

3-Destruction of the country infrastructures

4-Dissociation of the society

5-Destruction of the oil industries. The presence of the USA Crusader military forces on land, sea and air of the states of the Islamic Gulf is the greatest danger threatening the largest oil reserve in the world. The existence of these forces in the area will provoke the people of the country and induces aggression on their religion, feelings and prides and push them to take up armed struggle against the invaders occupying the land; therefore spread of the fighting in the region will expose the oil wealth to the danger of being burned up. The economic interests of the States of the Gulf and the land of the two Holy Places will be damaged and even a greater damage will be caused to the economy of the world. I would like here to alert my brothers, the Mujahideen, the sons of the nation, to protect this (oil) wealth and not to include it in the battle as it is a great Islamic wealth and a large economical power essential for the soon to be established Islamic state, by Allah's Permission and Grace. We also warn the aggressors, the USA, against burning this Islamic wealth (a crime which they may commit in order to prevent it, at the end of the war, from falling in the hands of its legitimate owners and to cause economic damages to the competitors of the USA in Europe or the Far East, particularly Japan which is the major consumer of the oil of the region).

6-Division of the land of the two Holy Places, and annexing of the northerly part of it by Israel. Dividing the land of the two Holy Places is an essential demand of the Zionist-Crusader alliance. The existence of such a large country with its huge resources under the leadership of the forthcoming Islamic State, by Allah's Grace, represent a serious danger to the very existence of the Zionist state in Palestine. The Nobel Ka'ba, -the Qiblah of all Muslims- makes the land of the two Holy Places a symbol for the unity of the Islamic world. Moreover, the presence of the world largest oil reserve makes the land of the two Holy Places an important economical power in the Islamic world. The sons of the two Holy Places are directly related to the life style (Seerah) of their forefathers, the companions, may Allah be pleased with them. They consider the Seerah of their forefathers as a source and an example for re-establishing the greatness of this Ummah and to raise the word of Allah again. Furthermore the presence of a population of fighters in the south of Yemen, fighting in the cause of Allah, is a strategic threat to the Zionist-Crusader alliance in the area. The Prophet (ALLAH'S BLESSING AND SALUTATIONS ON HIM) said: (around twelve thousands will emerge from Aden/Abian helping -the cause of- Allah and His messenger, they are the best, in the time, between me and them) narrated by Ahmad with a correct trustworthy reference.

7-An internal war is a great mistake, no matter what reasons are there for it. the presence of the occupier-the USA- forces will control the outcome of the battle for the benefit of the international Kufr.

I address now my brothers of the security and military forces and the national guards may Allah preserve you hoard for Islam and the Muslims people:

O you protectors of unity and guardians of Faith; O you descendent of the ancestors who carried the light (torch) of guidance and spread it all over the world. O you grandsons of Sa'd Ibn Abi Waqqaas , Almothanna Ibn Haritha Ash-Shaybani , Alga'ga' Ibn Amroo Al-Tameemi and those pious companions who fought Jihad alongside them; you competed to join the army and the guard forces with the intention to carry out Jihad in the cause of Allah -raising His word- and to defend the faith of Islam and the land of the two Holy Places against the invaders and the occupying forces. That is the ultimate level of believing in this religion "Deen". But the regime had reversed these principles and their understanding, humiliating the Ummah and disobeying Allah. Half a century ago the rulers promised the Ummah to regain the first Qiblah, but fifty years later new generation arrived and the promises have been changed; Al-Aqsa Mosque handed over to the Zionists and the wounds of the Ummah still bleeding there. At the time when the Ummah has not regained the first Qiblah and the rout of the journey of the Prophet (Allah's Blessings and Salutations may be on him), and despite of all of the above, the Saudi regime had stunt the Ummah in the remaining sanctities, the Holy city of Makka and the mosque of the Prophet (Al-Masjid An-Nabawy), by calling the Christians army to defend the regime. The crusaders were permitted to be in the land of the two Holy Places. Not surprisingly though, the King himself wore the cross on his chest. The country was widely opened from the north-to- the south and from east-to-the west for the crusaders. The land was filled with the military bases of the USA and the allies. The regime became unable to keep control without the help of these bases. You know more than any body else about the size, intention and the danger of the presence of the USA military bases in the area. The regime betrayed the Ummah and joined the Kufr, assisting and helping them against the Muslims. It is well known that this is one of the ten "voiders" of Islam, deeds of de-Islamisation. By opening the Arab peninsula to the crusaders the regime disobeyed and acted against what has been enjoined by the messenger of Allah (Allah's Blessings and Salutations may be on him), while he was at the bed of his death: (Expel the polytheists out of the Arab Peninsula); (narrated by Al-Bukhari) and: (If I survive, Allah willing, I'll expel the Jews and the Christians out of the Arab Peninsula); saheeh Aljame' As-Sagheer.

It is out of date and no longer acceptable to claim that the presence of the crusaders is necessity and only a temporary measures to protect the land of the two Holy Places. Especially when the civil and the military infrastructures of Iraq were savagely destroyed showing the depth of the Zionist-Crusaders hatred to the Muslims and their children, and the rejection of the idea of replacing the crusaders forces by an Islamic force composed of the sons of the country and other Muslim people. moreover the foundations of the claim and the claim it self were demolished and wiped out by the sequence of speeches given by the leaders of the Kuffar in America. The latest of these speeches was the one given by William Perry, the Defense Secretary, after the explosion in Al-Khobar saying that: the presence of the American solders there is to protect the interest of the USA. The imprisoned Sheikh Safar Al-Hawali, may Allah hasten his release, wrote a book of seventy pages; in it he presented evidence and proof that the presence of the Americans in the Arab Peninsula is a pre-planed military occupation. The regime want to deceive the Muslim people in the same manner when the Palestinian fighters, Mujahideen, were deceived causing the loss of Al-Aqsa Mosque. In 1304 A.H (1936 AD) the awakened Muslims nation of Palestine started their great struggle, Jihad, against the British occupying forces. Britain was impotent to stop the Mujahideen and their Jihad, but their devil inspired that there is no way to stop the armed struggle in Palestine unless through their agent King Abdul Azeez, who managed to deceives the Mujahideen. King Abdul Azeez carried out his duty to his British masters. He sent his two sons to meet the Mujahideen leaders and to inform them that King Abdul Azeez would guarantee the promises made by the British government in leaving the area and responding positively to the demands of the Mujahideen if the latter stop their Jihad. And so King Abdul Azeez caused the loss of the first Qiblah of the Muslims people. The King joined the crusaders against the Muslims and instead of supporting the Mujahideen in the cause of Allah, to liberate the Al-Aqsa Mosque, he disappointed and humiliated them.

Today, his son, king Fahd, trying to deceive the Muslims for the second time so as to loose what is left of the sanctities. When the Islamic world resented the arrival of the crusader forces to the land of the two Holy Places, the king told lies to the Ulamah (who issued Fatwas about the arrival of the Americans) and to the gathering of the Islamic leaders at the conference of Rabitah which was held in the Holy City of Makka. The King said that: "the issue is simple, the American and the alliance forces will leave the area in few months". Today it is seven years since their arrival and the regime is not able to move them out of the country. The regime made no confession about its inability and carried on lying to the people claiming that the American will leave. But never-never again ; a believer will not be bitten twice from the same hole or snake! Happy is the one who takes note of the sad experience of the others!!

Instead of motivating the army, the guards, and the security men to oppose the occupiers, the regime used these men to protect the invaders, and further deepening the humiliation and the betrayal. (We bemoan this and can only say: "No power and power acquiring except through Allah"). To those little group of men within the army, police and security forces, who have been tricked and pressured by the regime to attack the Muslims and spill their blood, we would like to remind them of the narration: (I promise war against those who take my friends as their enemy) narrated by Al--Bukhari. And his saying (Allah's Blessings and Salutations may be on him) saying of: ( In the day of judgement a man comes holding another and complaining being slain by him. Allah, blessed be His Names, asks: Why did you slay him?! The accused replies: I did so that all exaltation may be Yours. Allah, blessed be His Names, says: All exaltation is indeed mine! Another man comes holding a fourth with a similar complaint. Allah, blessed be His Names, asks: Why did you kill him?! The accused replies: I did so that exaltation may be for Mr. X! Allah, blessed be His Names, says: exaltation is mine, not for Mr. X, carry all the slain man's sins (and proceed to the Hell fire)!). In another wording of An-Nasa'i: "The accused says: for strengthening the rule or kingdom of Mr. X"

Today your brothers and sons, the sons of the two Holy Places, have started their Jihad in the cause of Allah, to expel the occupying enemy from of the country of the two Holy places. And there is no doubt you would like to carry out this mission too, in order to re-establish the greatness of this Ummah and to liberate its' occupied sanctities. Nevertheless, it must be obvious to you that, due to the imbalance of power between our armed forces and the enemy forces, a suitable means of fighting must be adopted i.e using fast moving light forces that work under complete secrecy. In other word to initiate a guerrilla warfare, were the sons of the nation, and not the military forces, take part in it. And as you know, it is wise, in the present circumstances, for the armed military forces not to be engaged in a conventional fighting with the forces of the crusader enemy (the exceptions are the bold and the forceful operations carried out by the members of the armed forces individually, that is without the movement of the formal forces in its conventional shape and hence the responses will not be directed, strongly, against the army) unless a big advantage is likely to be achieved; and great losses induced on the enemy side (that would shaken and destroy its foundations and infrastructures) that will help to expel the defeated enemy from the country.

The Mujahideen, your brothers and sons, requesting that you support them in every possible way by supplying them with the necessary information, materials and arms. Security men are especially asked to cover up for the Mujahideen and to assist them as much as possible against the occupying enemy; and to spread rumours, fear and discouragement among the members of the enemy forces.

We bring to your attention that the regime, in order to create a friction and feud between the Mujahideen and yourselves, might resort to take a deliberate action against personnel of the security, guards and military forces and blame the Mujahideen for these actions. The regime should not be allowed to have such opportunity.

The regime is fully responsible for what had been incurred by the country and the nation; however the occupying American enemy is the principle and the main cause of the situation . Therefore efforts should be concentrated on destroying, fighting and killing the enemy until, by the Grace of Allah, it is completely defeated. The time will come -by the Permission of Allah- when you'll perform your decisive role so that the word of Allah will be supreme and the word of the infidels (Kaferoon) will be the inferior. You will hit with iron fist against the aggressors. You'll re-establish the normal course and give the people their rights and carry out your truly Islamic duty. Allah willing, I'll have a separate talk about these issues.

My Muslim Brothers (particularly those of the Arab Peninsula): The money you pay to buy American goods will be transformed into bullets and used against our brothers in Palestine and tomorrow (future) against our sons in the land of the two Holy places. By buying these goods we are strengthening their economy while our dispossession and poverty increases.

Muslims Brothers of land of the two Holy Places:

It is incredible that our country is the world largest buyer of arms from the USA and the area biggest commercial partners of the Americans who are assisting their Zionist brothers in occupying Palestine and in evicting and killing the Muslims there, by providing arms, men and financial supports.

To deny these occupiers from the enormous revenues of their trading with our country is a very important help for our Jihad against them. To express our anger and hate to them is a very important moral gesture. By doing so we would have taken part in (the process of ) cleansing our sanctities from the crusaders and the Zionists and forcing them, by the Permission of Allah, to leave disappointed and defeated.

We expect the woman of the land of the two Holy Places and other countries to carry out their role in boycotting the American goods.

If economical boycotting is intertwined with the military operations of the Mujahideen, then defeating the enemy will be even nearer, by the Permission of Allah. However if Muslims don't co-operate and support their Mujahideen brothers then , in effect, they are supplying the army of the enemy with financial help and extending the war and increasing the suffering of the Muslims.

The security and the intelligence services of the entire world can not force a single citizen to buy the goods of his/her enemy. Economical boycotting of the American goods is a very effective weapon of hitting and weakening the enemy, and it is not under the control of the security forces of the regime.

Before closing my talk, I have a very important message to the youths of Islam, men of the brilliant future of the Ummah of Muhammad (ALLAH'S BLESSING AND SALUTATIONS ON HIM). Our talk with the youths about their duty in this difficult period in the history of our Ummah. A period in which the youths and no one else came forward to carry out the variable and different duties. While some of the well known individuals had hesitated in their duty of defending Islam and saving themselves and their wealth from the injustice, aggression and terror -exercised by the government- the youths (may Allah protect them) were forthcoming and raised the banner of Jihad against the American-Zionist alliance occupying the sanctities of Islam. Others who have been tricked into loving this materialistic world, and those who have been terrorised by the government choose to give legitimacy to the greatest betrayal , the occupation of the land of the two Holy Places (We bemoan this and can only say: "No power and power acquiring except through Allah"). We are not surprised from the action of our youths. The youths were the companions of Muhammad (Allah's Blessings and Salutations may be on him), and was it not the youths themselves who killed Aba-Jahl, the Pharaoh of this Ummah? Our youths are the best descendent of the best ancestors.

Abdul-Rahman Ibn Awf -may Allah be pleased with him- said: (I was at Badr where I noticed two youths one to my right and the other to my left. One of them asked me quietly (so not to be heard by the other) : O uncle point out Aba-Jahl to me. What do you want him for? , said Abdul Rahman. The boy answered: I have been informed that he- Aba-Jahl- abused the Messenger of Allah (), I swear by Allah, who have my soul in His hand, that if I see Aba-Jahl I'll not let my shadow departs his shadow till one of us is dead. I was astonished, said Abdul Rahman; then the other youth said the same thing as the first one. Subsequently I saw Aba-Jahl among the people; I said to the boys do you see? this is the man you are asking me about. The two youths hit Aba-Jahl with their swords till he was dead. Allah is the greatest, Praise be to Him: Two youths of young age but with great perseverance, enthusiasm, courage and pride for the religion of Allah's, each one of them asking about the most important act of killing that should be induced on the enemy. That is the killing of the pharaoh of this Ummah - Aba Jahl-, the leader of the unbelievers (Mushrikeen) at the battle of Badr. The role of Abdul Rahman Ibn Awf , may Allah be pleased with him, was to direct the two youths toward Aba-Jahl. That was the perseverance and the enthusiasm of the youths of that time and that was the perseverance and the enthusiasm of their fathers. It is this role that is now required from the people who have the expertise and knowledge in fighting the enemy. They should guide their brothers and sons in this matter; once that has been done, then our youths will repeat what their forefathers had said before: "I swear by Allah if I see him I'll not let my shadow to departs from his shadow till one of us is dead".

And the story of Abdur-Rahman Ibn Awf about Ummayyah Ibn Khalaf shows the extent of Bilal's (may Allah be pleased with him) persistence in killing the head of the Kufr: "the head of Kufr is Ummayyah Ibn Khalaf.... I shall live not if he survives" said Bilal.

Few days ago the news agencies had reported that the Defence Secretary of the Crusading Americans had said that "the explosion at Riyadh and Al-Khobar had taught him one lesson: that is not to withdraw when attacked by coward terrorists".

We say to the Defence Secretary that his talk can induce a grieving mother to laughter! and shows the fears that had enshrined you all. Where was this false courage of yours when the explosion in Beirut took place on 1983 AD (1403 A.H). You were turned into scattered pits and pieces at that time; 241 mainly marines solders were killed. And where was this courage of yours when two explosions made you to leave Aden in lees than twenty four hours!

But your most disgraceful case was in Somalia; where- after vigorous propaganda about the power of the USA and its post cold war leadership of the new world order- you moved tens of thousands of international force, including twenty eight thousands American solders into Somalia. However, when tens of your solders were killed in minor battles and one American Pilot was dragged in the streets of Mogadishu you left the area carrying disappointment, humiliation, defeat and your dead with you. Clinton appeared in front of the whole world threatening and promising revenge , but these threats were merely a preparation for withdrawal. You have been disgraced by Allah and you withdrew; the extent of your impotence and weaknesses became very clear. It was a pleasure for the "heart" of every Muslim and a remedy to the "chests" of believing nations to see you defeated in the three Islamic cities of Beirut , Aden and Mogadishu.

I say to Secretary of Defence: The sons of the land of the two Holy Places had come out to fight against the Russian in Afghanistan, the Serb in Bosnia-Herzegovina and today they are fighting in Chechenia and -by the Permission of Allah- they have been made victorious over your partner, the Russians. By the command of Allah, they are also fighting in Tajakistan.

I say: Since the sons of the land of the two Holy Places feel and strongly believe that fighting (Jihad) against the Kuffar in every part of the world, is absolutely essential; then they would be even more enthusiastic, more powerful and larger in number upon fighting on their own land- the place of their births- defending the greatest of their sanctities, the noble Ka'ba (the Qiblah of all Muslims). They know that the Muslims of the world will assist and help them to victory. To liberate their sanctities is the greatest of issues concerning all Muslims; It is the duty of every Muslims in this world.

I say to you William (Defence Secretary) that: These youths love death as you loves life. They inherit dignity, pride, courage, generosity, truthfulness and sacrifice from father to father. They are most delivering and steadfast at war. They inherit these values from their ancestors (even from the time of the Jaheliyyah, before Islam). These values were approved and completed by the arriving Islam as stated by the messenger of Allah (Allah's Blessings and Salutations may be on him): "I have been send to perfecting the good values". (Saheeh Al-Jame' As-Sagheer).

When the pagan King Amroo Ibn Hind tried to humiliate the pagan Amroo Ibn Kulthoom, the latter cut the head of the King with his sword rejecting aggression, humiliation and indignation.

If the king oppresses the people excessively, we reject submitting to humiliation.

By which legitimacy (or command) O Amroo bin Hind you want us to be degraded?!

By which legitimacy (or command) O Amroo bin Hind you listen to our foes and disrespect us?!

Our toughness has, O Amroo, tired the enemies before you, never giving in!

Our youths believe in paradise after death. They believe that taking part in fighting will not bring their day nearer; and staying behind will not postpone their day either. Exalted be to Allah who said: {And a soul will not die but with the permission of Allah, the term is fixed} (Aal Imraan; 3:145). Our youths believe in the saying of the messenger of Allah (Allah's Blessings and Salutations may be on him): "O boy, I teach a few words; guard (guard the cause of, keep the commandments of) Allah, then He guards you, guard (the cause of ) Allah, then He will be with you; if you ask (for your need) ask Allah, if you seek assistance, seek Allah's; and know definitely that if the Whole World gathered to (bestow) profit on you they will not profit you except with what was determined for you by Allah, and if they gathered to harm you they will not harm you except with what has been determined for you by Allah; Pen lifted, papers dried, it is fixed nothing in these truths can be changed" Saheeh Al-Jame' As-Sagheer. Our youths took note of the meaning of the poetic verse:

"If death is a predetermined must, then it is a shame to die cowardly." and the other poet saying: "Who do not die by the sword will die by other reason; many causes are there but one death".

These youths believe in what has been told by Allah and His messenger (Allah's Blessings and Salutations may be on him) about the greatness of the reward for the Mujahideen and Martyrs; Allah, the most exalted said: {and -so far- those who are slain in the way of Allah, He will by no means allow their deeds to perish. He will guide them and improve their condition. and cause them to enter the garden -paradise- which He has made known to them}. (Muhammad; 47:4-6). Allah the Exalted also said: {and do not speak of those who are slain in Allah's way as dead; nay -they are- alive, but you do not perceive} (Bagarah; 2:154). His messenger (Allah's Blessings and Salutations may be on him) said: "for those who strive in His cause Allah prepared hundred degrees (levels) in paradise; in-between two degrees as the in-between heaven and earth". Saheeh Al-Jame' As-Sagheer. He (Allah's Blessings and Salutations may be on him) also said: "the best of the martyrs are those who do NOT turn their faces away from the battle till they are killed. They are in the high level of Jannah (paradise). Their Lord laughs to them ( in pleasure) and when your Lord laughs to a slave of His, He will not hold him to an account". narrated by Ahmad with correct and trustworthy reference. And : "a martyr will not feel the pain of death except like how you feel when you are pinched". Saheeh Al-Jame' As-Sagheer. He also said: "a martyr privileges are guaranteed by Allah; forgiveness with the first gush of his blood, he will be shown his seat in paradise, he will be decorated with the jewels of belief (Imaan), married off to the beautiful ones, protected from the test in the grave, assured security in the day of judgement, crowned with the crown of dignity, a ruby of which is better than this whole world (Duniah) and its' entire content, wedded to seventy two of the pure Houries (beautiful ones of Paradise) and his intercession on the behalf of seventy of his relatives will be accepted". Narrated by Ahmad and At-Tirmithi (with the correct and trustworthy reference).

Those youths know that their rewards in fighting you, the USA, is double than their rewards in fighting some one else not from the people of the book. They have no intention except to enter paradise by killing you. An infidel, and enemy of God like you, cannot be in the same hell with his righteous executioner.

Our youths chanting and reciting the word of Allah, the most exalted: {fight them; Allah will punish them by your hands and bring them to disgrace, and assist you against them and heal the heart of a believing people} (At-Taubah; 9:14) and the words of the prophet (ALLAH'S BLESSING AND SALUTATIONS ON HIM): "I swear by Him, who has my soul in His hand, that no man get killed fighting them today, patiently attacking and not retreating ,surely Allah will let him into paradise". And his (Allah's Blessings and Salutations may be on him) saying to them: "get up to a paradise as wide as heaven and earth".

The youths also reciting the All Mighty words of: "so when you meat in battle those who disbelieve, then smite the necks..." (Muhammad; 47:19). Those youths will not ask you (William Perry) for explanations, they will tell you singing there is nothing between us need to be explained, there is only killing and neck smiting.

And they will say to you what their grand father, Haroon Ar-Rasheed, Ameer-ul-Mu'meneen, replied to your grandfather, Nagfoor, the Byzantine emperor, when he threatened the Muslims: "from Haroon Ar-Rasheed, Ameer-ul-Mu'meneen, to Nagfoor, the dog of the Romans; the answer is what you will see not what you hear". Haroon El-Rasheed led the armies of Islam to the battle and handed Nagfoor a devastating defeat.

The youths you called cowards are competing among themselves for fighting and killing you. reciting what one of them said: The crusader army became dust when we detonated al-Khobar. With courageous youth of Islam fearing no danger. If (they are) threatened: The tyrants will kill you, they reply my death is a victory. I did not betray that king, he did betray our Qiblah. And he permitted in the holy country the most filthy sort of humans. I have made an oath by Allah, the Great, to fight who ever rejected the faith. For more than a decade, they carried arms on their shoulders in Afghanistan and they have made vows to Allah that as long as they are alive, they will continue to carry arms against you until you are -Allah willing- expelled, defeated and humiliated, they will carry on as long as they live saying: O William, tomorrow you will know which young man is confronting your misguided brethren! A youth fighting in smile, returning with the spear coloured red. May Allah keep me close to knights, humans in peace, demons in war. Lions in Jungle but their teeth are spears and Indian swords. The horses witness that I push them hard forwarded in the fire of battle.

The dust of the battle bears witnesses for me, so also the fighting itself, the pens and the books!

So to abuse the grandsons of the companions, may Allah be pleased with them, by calling them cowards and challenging them by refusing to leave the land of the two Holy Places shows the insanity and the imbalance you are suffering from. Its appropriate "remedy," however, is in the hands of the youths of Islam, as the poet said:

I am willing to sacrifice self and wealth for knights who never disappointed me.

Knights who are never fed up or deterred by death, even if the mill of war turns.

In the heat of battle they do not care, and cure the insanity of the enemy by their 'insane' courage.

Terrorising you, while you are carrying arms on our land, is a legitimate and morally demanded duty. It is a legitimate right well known to all humans and other creatures. Your example and our example is like a snake which entered into a house of a man and got killed by him. The coward is the one who lets you walk, while carrying arms, freely on his land and provides you with peace and security.

Those youths are different from your soldiers. Your problem will be how to convince your troops to fight, while our problem will be how to restrain our youths to wait for their turn in fighting and in operations. These youths are commendation and praiseworthy.

They stood up tall to defend the religion; at the time when the government misled the prominent scholars and tricked them into issuing Fatwas (that have no basis neither in the book of Allah, nor in the Sunnah of His prophet (Allah's Blessings and Salutations may be on him)) of opening the land of the two Holy Places for the Christians armies and handing the Al-Aqsa Mosque to the Zionists. Twisting the meanings of the holy text will not change this fact at all. They deserve the praise of the poet: I rejected all the critics, who chose the wrong way; I rejected those who enjoy fireplaces in clubs discussing eternally; I rejected those, who inspite being lost, think they are at the goal; I respect those who carried on not asking or bothering about the difficulties; Never letting up from their goals, inspite all hardships of the road; Whose blood is the oil for the flame guiding in the darkness of confusion; I feel still the pain of (the loss) Al-Quds in my internal organs; That loss is like a burning fire in my intestines; I did not betray my covenant with God, when even states did betray it! As their grandfather Assim Bin Thabit said rejecting a surrender offer of the pagans:

What for an excuse I had to surrender, while I am still able, having arrows and my bow having a tough string?!

Death is truth and ultimate destiny, and life will end any way. If I do not fight you, then my mother must be insane!

The youths hold you responsible for all of the killings and evictions of the Muslims and the violation of the sanctities, carried out by your Zionist brothers in Lebanon; you openly supplied them with arms and finance. More than 600,000 Iraqi children have died due to lack of food and medicine and as a result of the unjustifiable aggression (sanction) imposed on Iraq and its nation. The children of Iraq are our children. You, the USA, together with the Saudi regime are responsible for the shedding of the blood of these innocent children. Due to all of that, what ever treaty you have with our country is now null and void.

The treaty of Hudaybiyyah was cancelled by the messenger of Allah (Allah's Blessings and Salutations may be on him) once Quraysh had assisted Bani Bakr against Khusa'ah, the allies of the prophet (Allah's Blessings and Salutations may be on him). The prophet (Allah's Blessings and Salutations may be on him) fought Quraysh and concurred Makka. He (Allah's Blessings and Salutations may be on him) considered the treaty with Bani Qainuqa' void because one of their Jews publicly hurt one Muslim woman, one single woman, at the market. Let alone then, the killing you caused to hundred of thousands Muslims and occupying their sanctities. It is now clear that those who claim that the blood of the American solders (the enemy occupying the land of the Muslims) should be protected are merely repeating what is imposed on them by the regime; fearing the aggression and interested in saving themselves. It is a duty now on every tribe in the Arab Peninsula to fight, Jihad, in the cause of Allah and to cleanse the land from those occupiers. Allah knows that there blood is permitted (to be spilled) and their wealth is a booty; their wealth is a booty to those who kill them. The most Exalted said in the verse of As-Sayef, The Sword: "so when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters where ever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush" (At-Tauba; 9:5). Our youths knew that the humiliation suffered by the Muslims as a result of the occupation of their sanctities can not be kicked and removed except by explosions and Jihad. As the poet said:

The walls of oppression and humiliation cannot be demolished except in a rain of bullets.

The freeman does not surrender leadership to infidels and sinners.

Without shedding blood no degradation and branding can be removed from the forehead.

I remind the youths of the Islamic world, who fought in Afghanistan and Bosnia-Herzegovina with their wealth, pens, tongues and themselves that the battle had not finished yet. I remind them about the talk between Jibreel (Gabriel) and the messenger of Allah (Allah's Blessings and Salutations may be on both of them) after the battle of Ahzab when the messenger of Allah (Allah's Blessings and Salutations may be on him) returned to Medina and before putting his sword aside; when Jibreel (Allah's Blessings and Salutations may be on him) descend saying: "are you putting your sword aside? by Allah the angels haven't dropped their arms yet; march with your companions to Bani Quraydah, I am (going) ahead of you to throw fears in their hearts and to shake their fortresses on them". Jibreel marched with the angels (Allah's Blessings and Salutations may be on them all), followed by the messenger of Allah (Allah's Blessings and Salutations may be on him) marching with the immigrants, Muhajeroon, and supporters, Ansar. (narrated by Al-Bukhary).

These youths know that: if one is not to be killed one will die (any way) and the most honourable death is to be killed in the way of Allah. They are even more determined after the martyrdom of the four heroes who bombed the Americans in Riyadh. Those youths who raised high the head of the Ummah and humiliated the Americans-the occupier- by their operation in Riyadh. They remember the poetry of Ja'far, the second commander in the battle of Mu'tah, in which three thousand Muslims faced over a hundred thousand Romans:

How good is the Paradise and its nearness, good with cool drink But the Romans are promised punishment (in Hell), if I meet them.

I will fight them.

And the poetry of Abdullah Bin Rawaha, the third commander in the battle of Mu'tah, after the martyrdom of Ja'far, when he felt some hesitation:

O my soul if you do not get killed, you are going to die, anyway.

This is death pool in front of you!

You are getting what you have wished for (martyrdom) before, and you follow the example of the two previous commanders you are rightly guided!

As for our daughters, wives, sisters and mothers they should take prime example from the prophet (Allah's Blessings and Salutations may be on him) pious female companions, may Allah be pleased with them; they should adopt the life style (Seerah) of the female companions of courage, sacrifice and generosity in the cause of the supremacy of Allah's religion.

They should remember the courage and the personality of Fatima, daughter of Khatab, when she accepted Islam and stood up in front of her brother, Omar Ibn Al-Khatab and challenged him (before he became a Muslim) saying: "O Omar , what will you do if the truth is not in your religion?!" And to remember the stand of Asma', daughter of Abu Bakr, on the day of Hijra, when she attended the Messenger and his companion in the cave and split her belt in two pieces for them. And to remember the stand of Naseeba Bent Ka'b striving to defend the messenger of Allah (Allah's Blessings and Salutations may be on him) on the day of Uhud, in which she suffered twelve injuries, one of which was so deep leaving a deep lifelong scar! They should remember the generosity of the early woman of Islam who raised finance for the Muslims army by selling their jewelery.

Our women had set a tremendous example of generosity in the cause of Allah; they motivated and encouraged their sons, brothers and husbands to fight- in the cause of Allah- in Afghanistan, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Chechenia and in other countries. We ask Allah to accept from them these deeds, and may He help their fathers, brothers, husbands and sons. May Allah strengthen the belief - Imaan - of our women in the way of generosity and sacrifice for the supremacy of the word of Allah. Our women weep not, except over men who fight in the cause of Allah; our women instigate their brothers to fight in the cause of Allah.

Our women bemoan only fighters in the cause of Allah, as said: Do not moan on any one except a lion in the woods, courageous in the burning wars. Let me die dignified in wars, honourable death is better than my current life.

Our women encourage Jihad saying: Prepare yourself like a struggler, the matter is bigger than words! Are you going to leave us else for the wolves of Kufr eating our wings?! The wolves of Kufr are mobilising all evil persons from every where! Where are the freemen defending free women by the arms?! Death is better than life in humiliation! Some scandals and shames will never be otherwise eradicated.

My Muslim Brothers of The World: Your brothers in Palestine and in the land of the two Holy Places are calling upon your help and asking you to take part in fighting against the enemy --your enemy and their enemy-- the Americans and the Israelis. they are asking you to do whatever you can, with one own means and ability, to expel the enemy, humiliated and defeated, out of the sanctities of Islam. Exalted be to Allah said in His book: { and if they ask your support, because they are oppressed in their faith, then support them!} (Anfaal; 8:72)

O you horses (soldiers) of Allah ride and march on. This is the time of hardship so be tough. And know that your gathering and co-operation in order to liberate the sanctities of Islam is the right step toward unifying the word of the Ummah under the banner of "No God but Allah" ).

From our place we raise our palms humbly to Allah asking Him to bestow on us His guide in every aspects of this issue.

Our Lord, we ask you to secure the release of the truthful scholars, Ulama, of Islam and pious youths of the Ummah from their imprisonment. O Allah, strengthen them and help their families.

Our Lord, the people of the cross had come with their horses (soldiers) and occupied the land of the two Holy places. And the Zionist Jews fiddling as they wish with the Al-Aqsa Mosque, the route of the ascendance of the messenger of Allah (ALLAH'S BLESSING AND SALUTATIONS ON HIM). Our Lord, shatter their gathering, divide them among themselves, shaken the earth under their feet and give us control over them; Our Lord, we take refuge in you from their deeds and take you as a shield between us and them

Our Lord, show us a black day in them!

Our Lord, show us the wonderment of your ability in them!

Our Lord, You are the Revealer of the book, Director of the clouds, You defeated the allies (Ahzab); defeat them and make us victorious over them.

Our Lord, You are the one who help us and You are the one who assist us, with Your Power we move and by Your Power we fight. On You we rely and You are our cause.

Our Lord, those youths got together to make Your religion victorious and raise Your banner. Our Lord, send them Your help and strengthen their hearts.

Our Lord, make the youths of Islam steadfast and descend patience on them and guide their shots!

Our Lord, unify the Muslims and bestow love among their hearts!

O Lord pour down upon us patience, and make our steps firm and assist us against the unbelieving people!

Our Lord, do not lay on us a burden as Thou didst lay on those before us; Our Lord, do not impose upon us that which we have no strength to bear; and pardon us and grant us protection and have mercy on us, Thou art our patron, so help us against the unbelieving people.

Our Lord, guide this Ummah, and make the right conditions (by which) the people of your obedience will be in dignity and the people of disobedience in humiliation, and by which the good deeds are enjoined and the bad deeds are forebode.

Our Lord, bless Muhammad, Your slave and messenger, his family and descendants, and companions and salute him with a (becoming) salutation.

And our last supplication is: All praise is due to Allah .


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Foreign Affairs; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 2008; dhimmis; iraq; islam; paul
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250251-275 next last
To: jonrick46

Thanks. But I was just stating the facts.


201 posted on 05/16/2007 10:14:05 AM PDT by ZULU (Non nobis, non nobis Domine, sed nomini tuo da gloriam. God, guts and guns made America great.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 187 | View Replies]

To: Remember_Salamis

Paul’s obviously clueless about Islamic terrorists. Apparently, so are you.


202 posted on 05/16/2007 10:15:17 AM PDT by tabsternager
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: DreamsofPolycarp

I know; sometimes its hard to stomach. That’s why I got to the Mises Institute Blog (blog.mises.org) and the LewRockwell Blog (blog.lewrockwell.com), sister sites. It’s commentary from an Old Right, Paleolibertarian perspective.


203 posted on 05/16/2007 10:15:49 AM PDT by Remember_Salamis (A nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master, and deserves one!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 170 | View Replies]

To: Capitalizt
In response to:

Paul did not say it was “our” fault (the American people)...but rather the past 30 years of US CIA and military policy in the region. 9-11 could not be avoided. The question is...how do we stop it from happening again? If you get stung by a bee, do you run around flailing your arms trying to knock down every beehive you come across? (brute force).. or do you burn the hive up from within (intelligence and counter terror).. It’s a question of tactics. Paul disagrees with the Normandy-esque invasions favored by the neocons, and I think he is right.

The most sense I've heard out of anyone on this forum so far!

204 posted on 05/16/2007 10:15:59 AM PDT by AlphaJuno
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 178 | View Replies]

To: Minn
Thanks for putting into words the reality of the situation....

How anyone believes that we would not be targeted, even if not involved in the Middle East, is rediculous....

OBL and AQ have made it clear....removing us from the ME is only the first step in setting up their fantasy caliphate....Once in place, they plan to move outwards....this has been stated ad-nausea um by AQ and company....

Leaving the ME might secure a fictions peace for a period of time....but to think that is end all of this confrontation is pure fantasy....

You would think people around here would have learned from Neville Chamberlin.....but than again, many Americans have already forgotten about 9-11....

We best start understanding that we are the ultimate target....whether that be today or 10 years from now....
205 posted on 05/16/2007 10:21:35 AM PDT by PigRigger (Donate to http://www.AdoptAPlatoon.org - The Troops have our front covered, let's guard their backs!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: ZULU
Facts like Al-Qaida's own claims and justifications?

The Civil War and WWI were unjust wars that were fought to increase the size and scope of Government; the Civil War was NOT over Slavery, but over the South's Constitutional right to secede. Lincoln the Dictator did a bang-up job of birthing big government.

WWI - We had no dog in that fight, and we lost hundreds of thousands of men for no good reason. It did, however, allow the USG to try out strong controls on the economy for the first time.

A restriction of civil liberties was not necessary during WWII, with overwhelming support. The threat of Japanese subversives is entirely unfounded.

206 posted on 05/16/2007 10:21:48 AM PDT by Remember_Salamis (A nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master, and deserves one!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 191 | View Replies]

To: Remember_Salamis
Click here: PETRODOLLAR & IRAN & IRAQ: LINK and scroll down to the heading "THE PETRODOLLAR BACKGROUND" but the whole thing is a good read. Some of you may agree, others disagree strongly. Fine. But as Buchannan warned some time ago the consequences of being in the middle east (but why must we be there, maybe it's a good reason, but why), and debate now whether they hate us for being there (again why are we there), or because of freedom and jazz music (Michael Savage had interesting things to say about this a while back), there are other possibilities besides those red herrings that could be looked at and I think the author of that article is looking at a likely one.
207 posted on 05/16/2007 10:22:16 AM PDT by Jason_b
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: ZULU
1. My tagline is proof of my NeoCon past. Check my archives if you wish.

2. The Athenian fleet was conducting an evacuation of Athens, when the Athenian Commander, Themistocles, interpreted the Oracle as saying that they should build a wooden wall to save them. Themistocles believed the wooden wall as a line of ships, so he decided to defend Athens on the sea.

3. Interestingly, you mentioned the Spartans. The Spartans wanted to go back to Peloponnese and defend Greece on the ground, which would have failed. If they had listened to the Spartan Generals, Greece would have been snuffed out in its infancy.

208 posted on 05/16/2007 10:28:55 AM PDT by Remember_Salamis (A nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master, and deserves one!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 194 | View Replies]

To: Jason_b

Actually, Ron Paul is a big believer in the Petrodollar and “Dollar Hegemony” theory.


209 posted on 05/16/2007 10:30:31 AM PDT by Remember_Salamis (A nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master, and deserves one!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 207 | View Replies]

To: Remember_Salamis
Russia also has ruthless internal opposition; they'll gas their own citizens to kill Chechen rebels for God's sake. How is that deterrent working out for Russia?

Pretty well - when was the last time you heard of a massive al Qaeda attack on Russia? 99% of their problems are with domestic insurrectionists. And Russians killed almost a million Muslims in Chechnya in just the latest iteration, not to mention lorded it over half-a-dozen Muslim countries for centuries, before they finally broke free with the dissolution of the Soviet empire. How many millions died during the Russian conquest of the Kazakhs, the Uzbeks, the Tajiks, et al? And yet al Qaeda hasn't really done very much in Chechnya - because the Russians will go after their families in their home countries. Al Qaeda attacks the US and not the Russians to the same degree not because it has more grievances against us, but because they see us as weak, and the Russians as ruthless and vengeful.

210 posted on 05/16/2007 10:32:01 AM PDT by Zhang Fei
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 198 | View Replies]

To: Remember_Salamis

If you say so!


211 posted on 05/16/2007 10:33:21 AM PDT by Beckwith (dhimmicrats and the liberal media have chosen sides -- Islamofascism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 197 | View Replies]

To: Remember_Salamis; Arcy
Goes Giuliani think al-Qaida chose to attack the US by throwing darts at a map???

Do you think for a second if Paul gets his arse handed to him PR-wise that it makes any difference what he "wanted" to get across if he's unable to defend himself (or if you are unable to get your point across in 3,000 words or less?)

Imagine what the AlQaeda propaganda machine would do to the inept Paul.

212 posted on 05/16/2007 10:35:24 AM PDT by sam_paine (X .................................)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Desperately Seeking Freedom
Ron Paul: I’m suggesting we listen to the people who attacked us and the reason they did it.

So the problem with our foreign policy is that we're not listening to al-Qaeda enough? Perhaps we should run our foreign policy initiates by bin Laden so we can make sure it doesn't ruffle his feathers too much; maybe give them veto power on the Security Council.

Paul has no business in any position of authority. You should get back to your buddies at Daily Kos so you can start poring over the "root causes" of terrorism. Moron.

213 posted on 05/16/2007 10:36:03 AM PDT by GunRunner (Rudy 2008, because conservatives can't win.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Remember_Salamis; Arcy; Desperately Seeking Freedom
I'm going to repeat a post on a different thread and see what the Paul Unrealist's answer is here.
Suppose we "pull-in," give Israel to Iran and just quit everywhere. Switch to all nuclear energy. And suppose we have a manhattan project for autos, and tank the entire world oil industry, stop CO2 emissions, and save the world.

Hollywood will still exist.

McDonalds will still exist.

Dell and HP will still make money off of laptops used by terrorists and poor nations worldwide because they make the vast majority of pcs worldwide.

And AlQaueda will still whip up hatred for America because of the next Palestinian/Kosovo/Kurdish racial disaster. They will in fact hate us EVEN MORE if our standard of living is the same or even higher, while our anti-oil economy will defund and destabilize all of the Saudi Arabian/UAE 'dictocracies' which keep some semblance of order over there.

America had a choice to make---and Bush had to punch the ticket. God bless him for having the balls to get out of bed in the morning instead of hiding under the isolationist sheets.

Ron Paul's plattitudes are those of a perpetual candidate. They evaporate when they contact the first intelligence briefing in the Whitehouse. Don't be a sucker.

214 posted on 05/16/2007 10:39:29 AM PDT by sam_paine (X .................................)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: sam_paine
Don't worry, Paul torpedoed himself last night. Any candidate whose main priority with al-Qaeda is listening to them rather than killing them doesn't belong in any position that involves a basic understanding of foreign policy.

I've heard him speak about middle east policy on the cable news shows and all I heard was standard lefty hand wringing over the plight of the poor Palestinians. The guy truly has no clue.

215 posted on 05/16/2007 10:41:05 AM PDT by GunRunner (Rudy 2008, because conservatives can't win.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 212 | View Replies]

To: Remember_Salamis
“Facts like Al-Qaida’s own claims and justifications? “

They are our enemies and they have stated these facts. But even more, there is preponderance of historical evidence backed up by the reams of Islamic scripture which clearly set out these goals. Islam was never, or hardly ever, voted into power anywhere. In the overwhelming number of cases, it was spread as it is now, through the use of brute force and power. It is, as it is presently constituted, a far greater threat to your liberties than any other.

“The Civil War and WWI were unjust wars that were fought to increase the size and scope of Government; the Civil War was NOT over Slavery, but over the South’s Constitutional right to secede. Lincoln the Dictator did a bang-up job of birthing big government. “

O.K. So I see where you stand on that one.

From a purely academic perspective, the South had every legal right to secede. There is nothing in the Constitution to bar secession and secession is not rebellion. Slavery itself may not have been the driving force which motivated most southerners to resist northern aggression, but neither secession nor northern aggression would have occurred without the issue of slavery.

Lincoln, like Thomas Jefferson and George Washington, recognized the inconsistency of the institution of slavery with the premises of the Declaration of Independence. Either black slaves were not men, or the principles on which our Republic were founded were fraudulent.

Had Lincoln not fought the Civil War, a great national tragedy from any perspective, two weaker nations would have evolved, and the weaker of the two would have been the agrarian, slave dominated south ruled by a class of cryptoaristocrats. The intervention by France in Mexico might very well have succeeded and the French might very well have taken over the South and later threatened the north.

The South had many sympathetic figures in the Civil War - Lee, Stewart, etc, the North had few. But the martyred President who would have prevented the kind of brutal retaliation of the radical Republicans during Reconstruction, was one of them.

But even more than that, the last, best hope of humanity would have ended if the South had been successful in its secession.

“WWI - We had no dog in that fight, and we lost hundreds of thousands of men for no good reason. It did, however, allow the USG to try out strong controls on the economy for the first time. “

Actually, I agree with you here, but that doesn’t change the validity of my premise - in order to successfully win a war, you have to make temporary accommodations with certain liberties as long as those liberties are restored after wards.

“A restriction of civil liberties was not necessary during WWII, with overwhelming support.”

But we had them nonetheless and could not have won without them.

“The threat of Japanese subversives is entirely unfounded.”

The way Japanese Americans were treated was inexcusable, and I wouldn;t even attempt to defend it. Many of the Japanese interned in prison camps were not citizens. But they had lived in worked here, in some cases for generations and would have gladly BECOME American citizens but were denied that right because of racial based laws.

Islam is not a race, although most Muslims are Arabs or Indonesians. The target is a belief system like communism and taking action against practitioners of an enemy belief system is fully justified.

216 posted on 05/16/2007 10:41:44 AM PDT by ZULU (Non nobis, non nobis Domine, sed nomini tuo da gloriam. God, guts and guns made America great.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 206 | View Replies]

To: Remember_Salamis

Ron Paul and this writer can share the Maroon Award.


217 posted on 05/16/2007 10:43:07 AM PDT by toddlintown (Six bullets and Lennon goes down. Yet not one hit Yoko. Discuss.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Remember_Salamis

I know, but some Athenians, to their misfortune, did NOT evacute Athens. Those who did, chose to make an accomodation with their right to remain there in order to win.

I also know about the Spartan plans to fortify the Isthmus of Corinth. But Themistocles, the man who engineered the victory,was wise enough to argue for a nominal Spartan Admiral to command the allied Greek fllet even though Spartan knowledge of naval warfare was limited. He did this to assure their cooperation.

Did you know what happened to Themistocles after the Persian War?

He was ostracized and exiled by Athens and wound up a suppliant at the Court of the “Evil” Persian King, who
made him one of his courtiers and supported him for life.


218 posted on 05/16/2007 10:46:46 AM PDT by ZULU (Non nobis, non nobis Domine, sed nomini tuo da gloriam. God, guts and guns made America great.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 208 | View Replies]

To: DesScorp
Well except it was phones this time wasn't it? Poor ol' Sean Hannity and Carl Cameron were fit to be tied. The issue is the media understands too well what's happening and they're doing all they can to toss Paul under the bus. Paul is against the establishment. Not just Democrats or Republicans but the establishment. The day after he would be elected, half the government would be out of business, not to mention the hangers on and those who have made the livelihoods off the government in some fashion.

I texted in once for Paul and that's it. It wasn't 'gaming' the system, it's a lot of people fed up where the Republicans have taken us

219 posted on 05/16/2007 10:51:57 AM PDT by billbears (Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it. --Santayana)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 186 | View Replies]

To: Remember_Salamis

The Civil War was about slavery, but not about its abolition. Too many Southerners had let the institution —define their way of life. They wanted to secede not to keep slavery but to guard their economic system. The North—really the Northwest— had basically blocked its expansion to the west and inhibited its growth to the South. The firebreathers underestimated Lincoln and so did the Southern Whigs who thought they knew him. They sure didn’t expect him to use the navy to blockade the southern coasts, a blatant violation of international law, in part because they didn’t think that the Brits would fail to break that blockade. What really made thiat impssible was not American anti-slavery feelings but British anti-slavery feelings. After their decision to abolish slavery in their empire, they weren’t about to encourage any Southern American poaching in middle-America.


220 posted on 05/16/2007 10:56:30 AM PDT by RobbyS ( CHIRHO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 206 | View Replies]

To: Remember_Salamis
If my Brother was killed, I would take out retribution on their brother and leave it at that; that is retribution. I DO NOT have the right to kill their brother in addition; that would be an act of aggression. Bringing the analogy back to 9/11, we slapped around the man who killed our brother, left him bleeding, and started beating the crap out of his second cousin.

I'm afraid wars are not great respecters of the rights of individuals on both sides. That goes double for a war that is started by the killing of 3000 American civilians, whose rights were abruptly truncated on 9/11. Since we were not a part of the governments in those countries, there were limits to our knowledge about the ultimate sponsors and to our ability to get at them.

Some might say that Hirohito should have been our primary target in WWII. But the reality is that he had an entire country's military protecting him. And ultimately securing victory at a reasonable cost in American lives required the dropping of two atomic bombs. Was it fair to either Japanese civilians or the Japanese draftees who were forced to join the Imperial Japanese military that we had to kill them to get at Hirohito? No. But that's war for you. A lot of bystanders have to get killed before the decision makers will back off.

I think it might also be timely to point out that 9/11 occurred *before* and was the cause of the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. Whatever grievances bin Laden had in mind prior to 9/11, they certainly did not include those invasions. Interestingly enough, al Qaeda has slaughtered *fewer* American civilians after the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq than before.

221 posted on 05/16/2007 11:01:20 AM PDT by Zhang Fei
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 196 | View Replies]

To: Remember_Salamis
the von mises institute is headquartered in my HOME STATE of Alabama (Auburn University). I am fond of telling these folks here that "I was quoting mon Mises to my socialist profs before you were....... " Most of em don't know who von Mises is, though. If it is not on Rush, or Ann Coulter didn't write about it, it is not "conservative."

sigh.... I am a dinosaur.

222 posted on 05/16/2007 11:06:26 AM PDT by DreamsofPolycarp (Ron Paul in '08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 203 | View Replies]

To: AlphaJuno
But if you listen to what Paul said and the way he said it, he cares about this country and firmly believes our policies are weakening us instead of strengthening us.

I'm sure Paul is a patriot. The problem is that the bottom line to his argument is that whomever kills Americans should get to set our foreign policy. There are a lot of governments - friendly ones - that disagree with our policies. Friendly though they are, they don't get to set our foreign policy - we do. But they don't set about killing Americans because they disagree with these policies. Only jihadists have this peculiar idea that it is their right to slaughter us en masse because we have policy disagreements. If we don't let our friends set our foreign policy, why should we let jihadists do so?

223 posted on 05/16/2007 11:08:36 AM PDT by Zhang Fei
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 199 | View Replies]

To: DAVEY CROCKETT

I see nothing in there that substantiates direct involvement between the CIA and Bin Laden.

The CIA aided the Afghan rebel mujaheddin - natives of Afghanistan. OBL’s mujaheddin was made of primarily of Arab volunteers, an operation for which he served mainly as fund raiser. They were two seperate groups, and the fact that they were both called “mujaheddins” and fighting the same enemy does not entail that they were directly involved with one another. FWIW, OBL himself has always denied ever having any involvement with the CIA.


224 posted on 05/16/2007 12:32:02 PM PDT by MitchellC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 183 | View Replies]

To: Remember_Salamis
When Germany started to commit acts of industrial sabotage in America, aid Mexican rebels attacking the US, and finally try to co-ordinate war efforts with Mexico, we had a national security interest.

I'm not saying this as a person who has an animous towards the Central Powers. My grandfather was an officer in the Austro-Hungarian Empire. But as an American, I don't fall for the revisionism.

You should reread your tagline.

225 posted on 05/16/2007 12:35:32 PM PDT by rmlew (It's WW4 and the Left wants to negotiate with Islamists who want to kill us , for their mutual ends)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 206 | View Replies]

To: oldleft

Ron Paul was 100% right. Of course, that doesn’t make it justified or deserved... terrorists are still in control of their own actions.

But the fact of the matter is, if we didn’t d*ck around in the ME, there probably wouldn’t have been a 9/11.

Of course, if we didn’t d*ck around in the ME, we’d probably have other problems that may or may not be worse than what we are currently facing.


226 posted on 05/16/2007 1:02:29 PM PDT by CatHerder (Stop Giuliani)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: fortheDeclaration
"fortheDeclaration" said --

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.

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.

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


227 posted on 05/16/2007 1:13:30 PM PDT by Star Traveler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: MitchellC
You and I are not going to see eye to eye on this. You have given no facts or documents to back your self up, just your opinion.

So lets just drop it and call it even. There are other things I would rather spend my time on FR doing.

228 posted on 05/16/2007 1:34:38 PM PDT by DAVEY CROCKETT (Waiting on GOD...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 224 | View Replies]

To: Zhang Fei

Paul’s position is that the wisdom of our “no-entangling alliances” founders is what should “set” (guide) our foreign policy. That way we don’t MAKE enemies for you to talk twistingly about.

I think even more than our killing of their people, the Arabs object to us trying to impose OUR values, OUR culture, OUR institutions, and OUR style of government on them. That’s why I think it is misleading to call it the War In Iraq. The honest name for it would be the War On Iraq.


229 posted on 05/16/2007 1:43:45 PM PDT by our plan (Ron Paul - America's 21st Century Cincinnatus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 223 | View Replies]

To: Star Traveler
"fortheDeclaration" said -- 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.

Well, since Dr. Paul was slammed for it, I think it is safe to say that it was at least perceived as being a terrorist justification for the attack by the other debaters.

Nor, did Dr. Paul do anything to dissuade them otherwise.

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.

That is only if they were telling the truth!

The way to truly understand them is to read what they write to each other, not what they say for world opinion.

Moreover, the Japanese had (in their own mind) a rational reason for bombing Pearl Harbor , knowing that a U.S.embargo would cripple them.

Yet, the entire context is their own lust to expand and control the Far East, as they were attempting to do when they invaded China.

So us 'understanding' why they attacked Pearl Harbor didn't change anything in regards to our own interests in destroying the Imperial system.

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.

Those are not the 'facts' they are the reasons that the enemy gave for launching one of the worst terror attacks in history.

When you state that they are 'facts' you are giving weight to them.

Now, all Ron Paul had to say was that this is their reasoning, it doesn't justify what they did and our response to them must to make sure they are never able to do this again.

I think he defended their reasoning as having some merit.

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.

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".

No, if you are going to understand the enemy, you read what they write, not what their propaganda puts out.

I am totally unconcerned about the Nazi's reasoning for starting WW2 or their 'justification' for the Holocaust.

If you attempted to bring up the issue in a debate and said, 'well here is the Nazi point of view' and this is there 'thinking' on the subject.

You don't need to understand evil to recognize it as evil.

Once you recognize evil, you know you have to destroy it.

Now, you should understand their tactics in misinformation, as Satan has his 'wiles'(Eph.6:11) and 'devices'(2Cor.2:11) but I am unconcerned about Satan's argument for his war against God.

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.

Oh no, not in essence,only in scale!

They are world-wide criminals and were controlling nations, as were the Barbary Pirates.

Clinton was only going after the actual individual involved in the act and not attacking the source, those who gave the orders and the training.

A criminal is anyone who is acting against God's law, and these guys are definitely criminals, but they needed to fought against the way we fought against the Nazi and Japanese criminals who were ruling those nations.

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.

That is fine.

I hope that Dr. Paul is being misrepresented and did not mean to give any moral justification to the 9/11 attack.

If there are any lurkers at there who can help in this regard please do.

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").

Now, you are being a bit disingenuous.

We are in no nation without their approval.

We as a sovereign nation have a right and responsibility to protect our own self interest and the Mid-East is crucial for us.

I do not know of a war fought in the 20th century by the U.S. that could not be called justified.

If you do, please let me know.

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).

There would be no 'need' for the United States to be 'in' the Mid-East except for the Islamic efforts to destroy Israel and wage war on the West.

If anything the U.S. is too hesitant to use its' power to impose its will on the region.

Our moral right to defend our world wide interests is without question.

That includes the sanctity of our Embassies which are U.S. soil, and the live and property of our citizens.

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.

And we as a sovereign nation have a right to make any alliances we want and if anyone wants to wage war on our allies, we have the right to wage war on them.

So the Islamic complaint is that we are free to choose who our friends are going to be and they are attempting to dictate our foreign policy with intimidation through terrorism.

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.

The U.S. had every right to place sanctions on Iraq, choosing whatever course it wanted to take, through the U.N.(bad choice) or unilaterally.

The issue is that we can do what we want as a nation to protect our interests.

That includes invading Iran and Syria, who are supporting terrorists.

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.

No, a half-truth is still a lie.

You haven't made any case for their 'reasoning'.

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.

He was not telling the truth in why he was going to war with us.

In point of fact, he had no reasonable or rational defense for his acts of terrorism against the U.S.

Note the word rational.

Anyone can say anything and call it a 'reason', but the issue is it rational.

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.

And did Ron Paul state this in the debate?

That Bin Laden was using the Koran as the moral basis for his war with the West?

That would have undermined everything else he said about U.S. actions in the Mid-East.

Moreover, I do not need Bin Laden to tell me what the Koran says about killing the infidel, it is there in writing.

So that Bin Laden said something true, doesn't make him any less a liar.

Satan tempted Christ with some true statements, like if He worshiped him, all the Kingdoms of the world would be His.

That was a true statement, but it was rooted in a lie, that God could ever worship His creation.

For something not to be a lie, it must be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

After 8 years of Clinton, we have learned alot about parsing sentences.

Bin Laden is a liar and Islam gives him moral sanction to lie if it will advance the cause of Islam.

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.

Yes, and that makes him no less of a liar.

I am sure he has made other threats that he did not carry out as well.

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!"

No, it is you who have a very naive view of lying.

A liar may tell the truth, but the point is, since he is a liar, you never know if he is.

That is why Reagan always said, 'trust but verify'.

The Communists were liars and had to be forced to held to their truth.

That is why Satan loves to quote scripture, it is the truth, but ofcourse, Satan puts his little 'spin' on it by dropping or adding a word.

However, you're free to consider that this individual is lying, when he tells you that.

I am 'free' to consider any person a liar who entire philosophy is built on it.

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.

Frankly, I never have had any use for 'profilers'

Usually they are based in general misconceptions.

Rational people cannot 'understand' the criminal mind because it is irrational.

What 'rational' person would spend years in jail, get out and commit another crime and go right back in?

They always believe they will get away with it this time.

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!

We understand the enemies thinking by reading what they read, not listening to their propaganda.

Sadaam gave 'reasons' for invading Kuwait as well.

In his mind, I am sure they were 'reasonable'.

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 "

LOL!

Well, when someone attacks the United States and kills 3000 of her citizens, I think it is reasonable to say that they are the enemies of the United States.

1984" all right..

So now the United States government is the real enemy and we are being deceived?

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.

Actually, we did figure the Japanese would attack us, but we did not think it would be an attack on Pearl Harbor.

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.

Yes, and talking about their public rational for attacking us is irrelevant to why they really attacked us-their religion demanded it.

And if Ron Paul had stated this and we would be praising him now on the FR instead of criticizing him.

So, the fault was being unprepared because of being ignorant.

Being ignorant of Islam and electing men to office (Democrats) who prefer to surrender U.S. sovereignty than fight against the terrorists.

I would praise Ron Paul for raising the intelligence of the American people, for those who didn't know this before. Perhaps it will contribute to us being more prepared in the future.

Ron Paul did nothing to raise intelligence of the American people.

He simply repeated the terrorist lie that America has itself to blame for the act of terrorist's.

Like a criminal saying that it is our fault we were robbed because we left our door unlocked.

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).

That is not understanding 'two sides of the issue'

The criminal states he wants your TV and that is his moral justification for taking it.

I do not need to know what his reasoning is for taking the TV, only that he will attempt to do so, if he is able.

His 'reasoning' is irrelevant.

Only the fact that there are those who will take what they want if they think they can get away with it is relevant and useful.

Hilter got away with rearming Germany because the West tried to think of him as rational.

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!"

I didn't say they always lie, only that as liars, everything they say has to be weighed and considered untrue until it is verified as true.

Not everything Clinton said was a lie, but he was still a liar.

Not everything Hilter said was lie, but he is still a liar.

Not everything Bin Laden says is a lie, but he is a liar and thus, his reasoning for attacking us is only propaganda for the Islamic world, to justify mass murder.

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.

Maybe not.

I would be alot tougher on illegals, student visa's and everyone connected to Islam.

I don't need to know about why they hate us, only that they do.

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 ideology which had intentions of overthrowing the U.S. In other words, he simply thought they were criminals and liars, and nothing more.

Clinton took the attacks as individual attacks and dealt with them accordingly.

The Democratic Party is following your way of thinking (and Ron Paul's) in assessing what the terrorists are saying in why they hate us and thinking maybe we ought to change!

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.

Not attacks on the United States!

Bin Laden himself admitted that our withdrawal from Somalia was seen as a U.S. retreat.

In this case, I believe him, since attacks against the U.S. increased dramatically after.

Now, it is up to you to show that attacks against the U.S. did not increase after Clinton was elected to make your case.

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...

It seems that you are agreeing with my point then.

That is why we cannot withdraw from Iraq until the job is complete.

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).

Ofcourse, they are threatened.

They are under constant U.S. attack.

Stop talking like a Democrat. (we are losing, we are losing)

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?

They feel threatened by the fact that they know that the United States is at war with them.

When is the last major terrorist act committed against the U.S.

Is the war over?

Not by a long shot, but the enemy is on their heels.

They know if they lose in Iraq a second democracy will be in the Mid-East the very thing that they hate!

If guys like you were in charge during WW2, you would have been griping that since hadn't defeated the Axis by 1943-44 we were never going to do so.

These guys cannot beat us, as long as we understand that we are right and they have to be destroyed.

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...

The thread was on Ron Paul's statements.

If you want to defend them as yours, then that is your right, but you would be as wrong as he was.

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....

Well, if your opinion is that we are to give any credence to the terrorist's justification attacking us, then your views are as wrong as Ron Paul's are.

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.

And whatever Ron Paul's reasoning was in giving the enemies 'side of the argument' it was irrational at best.

Regards, Star Traveler

Likewise.

Please do not send me anymore long posts.

230 posted on 05/16/2007 2:46:10 PM PDT by fortheDeclaration (For what saith the scripture? (Rom.4:3))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 227 | View Replies]

To: Star Traveler
An Al-Qaeda front group in Europe threatened on Tuesday to launch bloody attacks in France in response to the election of "crusader and Zionist" Nicolas Sarkozy as president.

Gee, here I thought they were only attacking nations for getting involved in the MidEast!

Now they are attacking them for their elections!

231 posted on 05/16/2007 3:25:46 PM PDT by fortheDeclaration (For what saith the scripture? (Rom.4:3))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 227 | View Replies]

To: AlphaJuno
Paul disagrees with the Normandy-esque invasions favored by the neocons, and I think he is right.

The most sense I’ve heard out of anyone on this forum so far!

OK, then what? We do what? I’ve hear absolutely NOTHING except surrender from the Democrats. Wrong Party Ronnie’s solution is what...run. Convert? Study his navel?

232 posted on 05/16/2007 4:53:43 PM PDT by Chgogal (Vote Al Qaeda. Vote Democrat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 204 | View Replies]

To: our plan
Paul’s position is that the wisdom of our “no-entangling alliances” founders is what should “set” (guide) our foreign policy. That way we don’t MAKE enemies for you to talk twistingly about.

We didn't have any entangling alliances when Barbary States decided to go after American shipping in the 19th century. Jefferson thought a navy was too expensive, and would get us too involved in international politics. That worked out until the Barbary States upped the amount of tribute we were required to submit to them for transit rights to the Mediterranean.

The point is that all nations, including ours, are based on taking land and other things that did not originally belong to them by force. This practice hasn't stopped just because we've stopped doing it. And the accumulation of trade routes, resources and population via conquest by other countries can present a threat to our security, depending on what areas of the world are involved. Alliances are an attempt to share the security burden and to set up tripwires far from our shores. They are also geared towards protecting our specific interests. Note that we did not get involved in territorial disputes between Morocco and Spain, and the Philippines and China, despite the existence of mutual defense treaties.

Let me point out Europe did not have any entangling alliances with Israel when Arab terrorists decided to attack them in order to persuade them to become more hostile to Israel in the '60's and '70's. Why did the Arabs attack Europe? Because the Europeans were weak. Singapore, South Africa and Taiwan have had robust security and trade relationships with Israel for decades, but there have been zero terrorist attacks there. Why is that? Perhaps because every one of these countries has the death penalty (and an expeditious process for completing capital cases within a year, including execution), and is known for torturing terrorists for information. They are emphatically not weak.

I think an important fallacy here is that we are the only active players in foreign policy and everyone else is reacting to what we do. The fact is that other players in the game have their own objectives, and some will do whatever it takes to win, including deliberately blow up buildings with tens of thousands of civilians in it. In peacetime. (If the 1993 WTC mini-van bomb incident had worked out, tens of thousands would been killed since no one would have had the time to get out). As I stated earlier, the question boils down to whether we make our own foreign policy - a foreign policy that even our friends and countries with similar values don't get to make for us - or ruthless mass murderers* (with values antithetical to our own) get to make it.

* In fact, it makes no sense to me that we make no concessions to domestic terrorists (Weathermen, Black Panthers, Puerto Rican independentistas, McVeigh-style bombers), but are being called upon to make concessions to foreign terrorists. Shouldn't charity begin at home? Aren't we being a little hypocritical? Or is submitting to foreigners somehow a little more sophisticated and cosmopolitan? Sort of like blonds putting on burkhas?

233 posted on 05/16/2007 6:07:16 PM PDT by Zhang Fei
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 229 | View Replies]

To: our plan
I think even more than our killing of their people, the Arabs object to us trying to impose OUR values, OUR culture, OUR institutions, and OUR style of government on them. That’s why I think it is misleading to call it the War In Iraq. The honest name for it would be the War On Iraq.

I think a little chronology is important here. 9/11 occurred *before* (and was the proximate cause for) the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. Besides, the Arabs are also trying, with some success, to impose their values, their culture and their institutions on us. The Arab empire was built on the basis of conquest and the mass murder of unbelievers. I don't think they have a leg to stand on. The world doesn't revolve Arab grievances, any more than it revolves around American grievances. They need to grow up. We're not killing them en masse in spite of their incitement of their populations to terrorism. If an Arab A-bomb goes off in an American city, we might start doing so.

234 posted on 05/16/2007 6:31:32 PM PDT by Zhang Fei
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 229 | View Replies]

To: Remember_Salamis
So, bin laden explicitly states that they are NOT freedom haters, but attack because of our policies.

I'm afraid bin Laden has a different definition of freedom than you and I. Freedom to him means the freedom to kill anyone who disagrees with him. He is attacking us because we're free - free to make our own foreign policy. He won't be satisfied until the State Department represents al Qaeda's interests.

Besides, imagine if a Taiwanese terrorist group launched attacks against the US because of the American government's refusal to recognize Taiwan as an independent country. Should we then recognize Taiwan as an independent country? Just because our adversaries have a cause doesn't make it our cause, regardless of how many of our people they kill. The solution isn't to have the State Department represent al Qaeda's interests instead of our national interests - it's to slaughter al Qaeda operatives, and to deter any foreign governments that may be tempted to cooperate with al Qaeda.

235 posted on 05/16/2007 7:10:53 PM PDT by Zhang Fei
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: DAVEY CROCKETT
We also armed Bin Laden in his war with the Russians, with the best of the best military equipment we had. scary Then WE turned on Bin Laden.

I'm afraid I find the sources for your claims dubious, at best. However, let's take them at face value. Let's say we did arm bin Laden. (And everything I write after this will be based on this dubious assumption). Exactly how did we turn on him? Was it before or after he launched terrorist strikes on us, starting in the '90's?

You could say it was our responsibility to continue funding him, since he had fought our proxy war against the Soviets for us. You could even say that it was our responsibility to drive Israel into the sea, because Muslims had helped drive the Soviets out of Afghanistan. But how is any of this reasonable as payment for Muslim efforts in Afghanistan? The interests most directly affected by the Soviet invasion were Afghan and Muslim interests. We gave them for free, about a billion dollars worth of weaponry to help defeat a mortal threat to Afghanistan's continued independence. And their response is to say we owe them for helping them to ensure Afghanistan's continued sovereignty? If there's any betrayal involved, it's their betrayal of us, not our betrayal of them.

Let's step back and take a look at the big picture. If I accept your claim that we armed him, did we do so *before* or after his attacks against us?

Note that we helped keep the Russians afloat via massive shipments of aid after the National Socialist invasion of the Soviet Union. This was *after* we knew of tens of millions of dead in the Soviet Union via summary execution, mass murders and forced collectivization. And the Soviets went on to kill 100,000 Americans via their proxy wars in Korea and Vietnam, where they instigated, supplied and trained our adversaries to the tune of billions of dollars. Were the American deaths in Korea and Vietnam our fault for supporting the Soviet Union militarily and financially during WWII against the National Socialists?

If we armed bin Laden during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, we armed him *before* he attacked us. But we armed the Soviets during WWII *after* we knew of their mass murdering ways. The bottom line here is that we are no more responsible for 9/11 because we armed bin Laden than we are of the casualties from Korea and Vietnam because we armed the Soviets. We simply had no way of knowing that they would turn against us. We have helped a lot of causes and countries in wartime. Our historical allies haven't always been grateful, but only the Soviets and bin Laden have repaid our generosity in the coin of American deaths. Their betrayal in the face of our past generosity is evidence of their treachery rather than of ours.

236 posted on 05/16/2007 7:53:01 PM PDT by Zhang Fei
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: Remember_Salamis
The Japanese attacked us because of Sanctions and our policies in SE Asia. It would be absurd to say that Peal Harbor was because the Japanese "hated" our freedom, no?

But what were those policies? The prevention of the absorption of China into the Japanese empire and the termination of further expansion* of the territory of Imperial Japan, which would directly threaten US territory in East Asia - specifically Hawaii, Guam, the Wake Islands and the Philippines, not to mention valuable trade routes and access to natural resources. Should we have stood by as the French invaded Mexico in the 19th century? Or was it entirely reasonable to provide military assistance to the Mexicans, as we did, to help them expel the French?

* At the time, the British were overstretched fighting WWII in Europe and North Africa, and France and Holland had been overrun by National Socialist forces. If we did not try to slow Japan down via sanctions, nothing stood in the way of the Japanese acquisition of all of the British, French and Dutch territories in East Asia, not to mention perhaps Australia and New Zealand as well. It is one thing to stay out of the petty squabbles over territorial boundaries, such as the dispute between Greece and Turkey over Cyprus. It's quite another to continue supplying a potential adversary as it conquers and annexes a continental-sized nation not far from your own territory and is conceivably on a quest for global empire.

237 posted on 05/16/2007 8:23:31 PM PDT by Zhang Fei
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #238 Removed by Moderator

To: Remember_Salamis
Provocation is an entirely different matter. Ron Paul NEVER stated that we “asked” for it. Strawman argument on your part.

I don't know what the heck you are babbling about. I didn't say what Ron Paul did or didn't say in my post; I was responding specifically to the passage that I quoted. But there's not a dime's worth of difference between the diarrhea-of-the-keyboard sufferer who wrote that overlong post and Congressman Paul.

239 posted on 05/16/2007 9:15:29 PM PDT by L.N. Smithee (Memo to Sam Raimi re: the last ten minutes -- I don't forgive you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies]

To: Remember_Salamis
If? We will be attacked after withdrawing; we will have proved that it is safe to attack us. As for retaliating, ask Ron Paul about that.
240 posted on 05/16/2007 9:34:53 PM PDT by Christopher Lincoln
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: NeoCaveman
Yes, he did; but that’s not the only link. Why were U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia? There were there at the request - rather, the appeal - of the Saudi government, which was moved by the well founded fear of Iraqi aggression. Osama bin Laden was, even then, on the side of Iraq against his own country.
241 posted on 05/16/2007 9:49:19 PM PDT by Christopher Lincoln
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: ZULU

If the Islamists are “freedom killers”, why haven’t they dirty bombed the heck out of Amsterdam??


242 posted on 05/16/2007 10:16:19 PM PDT by Capitalizt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 184 | View Replies]

To: Capitalizt

Not on their agenda at present.


243 posted on 05/16/2007 10:53:40 PM PDT by ZULU (Non nobis, non nobis Domine, sed nomini tuo da gloriam. God, guts and guns made America great.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 242 | View Replies]

To: MitchellC; Remember_Salamis
This idea that were there no non-Muslims in the Middle East, those go-along-to-get-along ol' Muslims wouldn't be bothering anyone - in spite of the history of Islam telling us completely the opposite - that's an idea that can be accepted by only the most deluded/gullible/naive/ignorant of people.

And that is exactly the message I have been trying to get across to the Lew Rockwells (Cindy Sheehan's boy-toy) Harry Brownes, and Ron Pauls for years. This stuff about how standing aside and letting megalomaniacs -- be they Hitler, Hirohito, or bin Laden -- do their worst while the U.S. "minds its own business" calls for the world to take such tyrants at their word that once allowed to take their inch, they won't go for the mile.

One can only wonder what would have happened if the Nazi threat had been deemed unworthy of American sacrifice. Listen to isolationists? I would defer to Winston Churchill, the guy who said "An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last." He helped stop the Nazi war machine. What's your guy got?

244 posted on 05/16/2007 11:10:57 PM PDT by L.N. Smithee (Memo to Sam Raimi re: the last ten minutes -- I don't forgive you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: DAVEY CROCKETT

This is not a matter of opinion. I am simply asking you whether or not you know of anyone within the CIA actually having admitted to working with OBL - or even within the ISI, or even OBL’s mujaheddin - not whether you’ve read an article or a thousand that repeats the same old unsubstantiated innuendo.


245 posted on 05/16/2007 11:26:28 PM PDT by MitchellC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 228 | View Replies]

To: L.N. Smithee

I wouldn’t exactly be shocked to find out that Winston Churchill fits the future Mr. Cindy Sheehan’s idea of a “neocon interventionist.”


246 posted on 05/16/2007 11:37:58 PM PDT by MitchellC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 244 | View Replies]

To: cookcounty
If they set a nuke off in one of our cities they will not permanently damage our way of life?

Al-Qaida has nuclear weapons?

247 posted on 05/17/2007 2:33:26 AM PDT by dread78645 (Evolution. A doomed theory since 1859.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: Remember_Salamis

I guess I believe in the tooth fairy because they did indeed attack us because of our freedoms.

Our involvement in the Middle East or any other “reason” they listed is just an excuse. If it wasn’t for those “reasons”, they would have come up with other “reasons”.

Freedom and extreme Islam mix like oil and water in case no one has noticed. You live the way they tell you to live, or you die.


248 posted on 05/17/2007 3:05:46 AM PDT by Miztiki (My vote will be for the best candidate, but my heart and soul longs for God's Kingdom)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Remember_Salamis
Al-Qaida has absolutely ZERO ability to topple the United States or permanently damage our way of life.

That is extremely dangerous thinking there. Prior to 9/11, most of us would have said that they had zero ability to completely flatten the Twin Towers and hit the Pentagon. It never occurred to us that they would hijack planes and use them as missiles.

Ok, so that probably won't happen again because passengers probably won't let it happen again, but there are other ways.

They set off a bomb in an elementary school. It wouldn't be hard to do. The point is not necessarily to kill a bunch of kids. It's to terrorize.

Next day another school in another part of the country is bombed.

This happens a couple more times until parents are too terrified to let their children go to school. There are not enough babysitters to watch all of these kids, and most moms are working now too, so somebody will have to quit their job to stay home with the kids.

This doesn't even take into consideration a situation like Pakistan being overtaken by the extremists there (and they have nukes), or Iran, or North Korea working with them, or Saudi Arabia being taken over by their extremists (no nukes, but they have the oil we need).

You are FOOLISH if you think we are not capable of being toppled or permanently damaged.

But wait, you are also one who thinks the real reason we were attacked is for the reasons they themselves gave, so why am I trying to explain this to you? You just don't seem to get it, do you?

249 posted on 05/17/2007 3:32:44 AM PDT by Miztiki (My vote will be for the best candidate, but my heart and soul longs for God's Kingdom)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: L.N. Smithee
You can only wonder what would have happened if the Nazi threat had been deemed unworthy of American sacrifice>

Well, one possibility, one espoused by Pat Buchanan (among others), is that the Nazis and the Communists would have wiped each other out, preventing a Cold War.

While the Commies and the Nazis were wailing on each other, we should have devoted FULL resources to attacking the Japanese; we would have finished them off much faster, IMHO.

250 posted on 05/17/2007 3:34:57 AM PDT by Remember_Salamis (A nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master, and deserves one!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 244 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250251-275 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson