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

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250251-275 next last
To: jrooney
They love this loser who would surrender to Al Qaeda. He wants us to lose in Iraq just like the dummies do

Ok bush-bot. Get off your soapbox.. We will not win this war- because of the rules of engagement that the troops are tied up with... because the politicians are playing games with the $.... because the troops are affriad of military trial rooms if they make a mistake... most of the generals are trying to be politicians and PC. At the current rate, we will NOT win. I know it's a bitter pill to swallow, but it's the truth.

The US military has it's hands tied in Iraq because of PC nonsense. I support this war. However, it's not being carried out the way it should be.
151 posted on 05/15/2007 11:37:03 PM PDT by BigTom85 (Proud Gun Owner and Member of NRA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: cva66snipe; All
Understanding why a Bully punches you in the face does not mean you are friends or support the bully. It means you are able to avoid or be ready for his next punch.

Explaining said bully's motions is by no means excusing them.

152 posted on 05/15/2007 11:37:26 PM PDT by The_Eaglet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: Arcy

I think I would agree that Jerry Springer, Oprah, and Michael Jackson are a plague that will infect their country - the Arabs are not as dumb as people want to believe.


153 posted on 05/16/2007 12:03:54 AM PDT by Howard Jarvis Admirer (Howard Jarvis, the foe of the tax collector and friend of the California homeowner)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: fortheDeclaration
"Remember_Salamis" said --

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.

I then said --

Well, that sound about right to me. I'm not sure why some people are jumping on that statement. Is there a problem with it?

To which you replied --

It is wrong because it gives the sense of moral equivalence to each side.

Well, I've read Osama bin Ladin's stuff from way back in 1999, not too far along in the year. I read up on the terrorist stuff back before the turn of the century. I knew what the religio-political-governmental oppressive idealogy of Islam was a long time ago, before they ever attacked.

And I could very easily read that stuff and understand exactly what they were talking about. I understood that they wanted to kill every last single Jew on the face of the planet. I understood that if Islam had ever controlled any territory in the past (in history) that they were duty-bound to recover that land for Islam. I understood that they were required by their political-religious-governmental idealogy to take over the entire world. And so, I did understand what bin Ladin was talking about. I understood that it would require all the Western nations to get out of the Middle East because none of them were supposed to be there. I understood that it required the obliteration of the nation of Israel, because that was an offense to the Muslim mind.

But, just because I understood that and knew what their reason was for doing and acting in the way that they did -- had no bearing on whether I thought it was the right or correct thing to do.

I also knew that the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob had given the land to Israel, in perpetuity. I also understood that the founder of the idealogy of Islam was Satan, as the idealogy was the enemy of Israel and that is what Satan is (the enemy of Israel). I realized that this was the World-wide/global War of the evil and despicable idealogy of Islam, masquereding as a quasi-religious entity, and fighting at the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

In all that, I never did give any moral equivalence to what the evil and despicable religio-political-governmental idealogy of Islam said. I still don't today, in any way, shape or form. I think it needs to be totally destroyed and wiped completely off the face of this earth, as an idealogy for anyone.

So, I have no idea how you ever get the idea that knowing these things about Osama bin Ladin and what he thinks and what he wants to do, and saying that this is what he wants to do -- gives any measure of moral equivalence to him.

It's like you're saying that we have to hide what he thinks, or else if we actually said what he thinks, we might have to agree with itl. Well, I can laugh that one off and right into the ground.

We have every right to be in the Middle East, supporting Israel and putting sanctions on Iraq.

I have no idea how you came up with this one in regards to me recognizing what bin Ladin says.

I mean it's like I have a neighbor that has come over several times and seen my three TVs in the house. He doesn't have one. So, one day he decides to break in while I'm gone and take one of the TVs, since he figures I've got too many and he doesn't have any.

But, he gets caught and then it comes out that he does this because he thinks that since he doesn't have any and I had too many (in his mind) that he should take one. So, when I'm asked by another friend how come my neighbor did this to me, I say, "Well, he thought that since I had three TVs and he had none that he should take one."

And my friend says to me, "How can you say such a thing??!! You have a right to have three TVs and he shouldn't have come in and tried to rob you. I don't know why you're giving him any moral equivalence at all, in the matter!"

Well, at that point I'll probably be irritated at my friend for coming to that ridiculous conclusion that I gave any moral equivalence to the neighbor by stating what he thought. But, some people just don't know the difference, I guess.

The real reason we were attacked in 9/11 was because of our weakness in responding to terrorist aggression under Clinton.

Well, when I look at the history of Islamic terrorism and see what their idea of Israel was, even way back in the early 1900s, and to the point of supporting Hitler and offering to do away with the Jews if they sent them over to them -- I don't see it as a "Clinton thing". I see it as a Mohammed thing, going way back to the 600s. In fact, the religio-political-governmental idealogy of Islam has already tried this world-wide conquest two other times. This just happens to be the third time in their history. They are making their third push and it looks like they have a lot better shot at it, this third time around.

Just look at this list of terrorist attacks, documented way back when -- Islamic Terrorism Timeline -- it's about 100 pages worth of documented terrorists attacks. It was long before Clinton. It's been a steady progression.

Now, while Clinton could have definitely done a better job of it, it's obviously not the fact that Clinton was weak in responding. I say that, because when we look at the present, Bush has not been weak in responding -- and yet -- the world-wide conquest aims of the religio-political-governmental idealogy of Islam has not backed off one iota, with the strong response from Bush. Therefore it was not a weak or strong response that had anything to do with it, as much as it is the push that they are making now, after years and years (going back over 60 years and more) of the world basically tolerating Islam in taking over in the areas where they could gain control and trying to continually intimidate and wipe out Israel.

Clinton is a cheap two-bit player in the terrorism scale of things over the decades. He didn't respond very well, but he sure didn't do anything to start it off or make it go any faster. It was well on its way, totally on its own.

I have a great deal of respect for Dr. Paul.

He is coming from the 'Old Right' tradition that was very pacifistic.

But there are some people we can't be at peace with, since they are at war with all mankind-Nazism, Japanese Imperialism, Communism and Islam.

Well..., I've never said to be at peace with that religio-political-governmental idealogy of Islam, that's for sure. That idealogy should be wiped off the face of this earth, and it surely will be, as soon as Jesus, the Messiah of Israel, arrives on this earth to set up the Kingdom of God, for His 1,000 year reign -- what is called the Millennial Reign of Christ on this earth, over all the nations of the world and all the peoples.

It's clear that we won't destroy that idealogy, because basically no one really wants to. But, Jesus, the Messiah of Israel will totally obliterate it, when He returns, and that won't be too much longer, from now...

Regards,
Star Traveler

154 posted on 05/16/2007 12:19:52 AM PDT by Star Traveler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | 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?

So then Al Qaeda is intentionally following Japan as a model? This is a stupid statement...Japan's reasons have nothing to do with Al Qaeda's, even if there may be a similarity...it would be coincidental.

155 posted on 05/16/2007 12:23:44 AM PDT by highlander_UW (I don't know what my future holds, but I know Who holds my future)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jess35
Ron Paul was rated by Cannabis Culture Magazine as the number 1 Congressman of the last decade, far and away the number 1 Republican in the House of Representatives, and the highest score of all 435 Members of the House of Representatives in Cannabis Culture’s Survey of the 109th Congress. Ron Paul has voted against The Patriot Act, the Iraq War, and every aspect of the Drug War. Does this not give us a clue as to the Trojan Horse nature of Ron Paul? Those who support him know that he is in there to destroy from the inside the Republican Party.
156 posted on 05/16/2007 12:46:01 AM PDT by jonrick46
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Star Traveler
"Remember_Salamis" said -- 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. I then said -- Well, that sound about right to me. I'm not sure why some people are jumping on that statement. Is there a problem with it? To which you replied -- It is wrong because it gives the sense of moral equivalence to each side. >

Well, I've read Osama bin Ladin's stuff from way back in 1999, not too far along in the year. I read up on the terrorist stuff back before the turn of the century. I knew what the religio-political-governmental oppressive idealogy of Islam was a long time ago, before they ever attacked. And I could very easily read that stuff and understand exactly what they were talking about. I understood that they wanted to kill every last single Jew on the face of the planet. I understood that if Islam had ever controlled any territory in the past (in history) that they were duty-bound to recover that land for Islam. I understood that they were required by their political-religious-governmental idealogy to take over the entire world. And so, I did understand what bin Ladin was talking about. I understood that it would require all the Western nations to get out of the Middle East because none of them were supposed to be there. I understood that it required the obliteration of the nation of Israel, because that was an offense to the Muslim mind. But, just because I understood that and knew what their reason was for doing and acting in the way that they did -- had no bearing on whether I thought it was the right or correct thing to do.

So why bring it up as Ron Paul did?

What their reasoning was for attacking us is irrelevant since they are evil.

Ron Paul was ascribing to them a reasonable justification for their attack, 'we did something to them' when they do not operate under the laws of reason and logic.

I also knew that the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob had given the land to Israel, in perpetuity. I also understood that the founder of the idealogy of Islam was Satan, as the idealogy was the enemy of Israel and that is what Satan is (the enemy of Israel). I realized that this was the World-wide/global War of the evil and despicable idealogy of Islam, masquereding as a quasi-religious entity, and fighting at the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. In all that, I never did give any moral equivalence to what the evil and despicable religio-political-governmental idealogy of Islam said. I still don't today, in any way, shape or form. I think it needs to be totally destroyed and wiped completely off the face of this earth, as an idealogy for anyone. So, I have no idea how you ever get the idea that knowing these things about Osama bin Ladin and what he thinks and what he wants to do, and saying that this is what he wants to do -- gives any measure of moral equivalence to him.

If you state that the reason for the attack on us was due to our actions, then you are giving the terrorists a moral sanction, as if we brought the act on our selves.

This is like trying to 'understand' why a criminal does something.

He does it because he is a criminal, who cares what his justification was at the moment.

It's like you're saying that we have to hide what he thinks, or else if we actually said what he thinks, we might have to agree with itl. Well, I can laugh that one off and right into the ground.

But Ron Paul did not 'laugh it off' he took it seriously and presented it as it being a legitimate reason for the attack.

In other words, in the mind of Ron Paul, the United States is responsible for bringing on much of its own trouble due to its interventionist foreign policy, including supporting Israel.

We have every right to be in the Middle East, supporting Israel and putting sanctions on Iraq.

I have no idea how you came up with this one in regards to me recognizing what bin Ladin says.

Who cares what Bin Ladin says if he is a liar!

Why even repeat it except to mock it as a lie?

I mean it's like I have a neighbor that has come over several times and seen my three TVs in the house. He doesn't have one. So, one day he decides to break in while I'm gone and take one of the TVs, since he figures I've got too many and he doesn't have any. But, he gets caught and then it comes out that he does this because he thinks that since he doesn't have any and I had too many (in his mind) that he should take one. So, when I'm asked by another friend how come my neighbor did this to me, I say, "Well, he thought that since I had three TVs and he had none that he should take one." And my friend says to me, "How can you say such a thing??!! You have a right to have three TVs and he shouldn't have come in and tried to rob you. I don't know why you're giving him any moral equivalence at all, in the matter!"

And you just answered your own question on why people jumped on Ron Paul's statement!

If you were going to repeat the 'reasoning' of the thief, you would than have to denounce it as the reasoning of a criminal, not act like it had some justification to it.

A liberal judge would consider that defense, 'extenuating circumstances' and not punish the thief.

If you were running for President in 1942, you could talk about why the Japanese decided to bomb Pearl Harbor, due to our embargo, but you had better add that they were unjustified for doing so.

Ron Paul did not, as far as I know, do this.

Well, at that point I'll probably be irritated at my friend for coming to that ridiculous conclusion that I gave any moral equivalence to the neighbor by stating what he thought. But, some people just don't know the difference, I guess.

It would irritate your friend if it sounded like you actually believed the reason the criminal gave.

What if it sounded like you were trying to understand 'both sides of the issue'?

Well there are not two sides to the issue, there is only right and wrong.

The real reason we were attacked in 9/11 was because of our weakness in responding to terrorist aggression under Clinton.

Well, when I look at the history of Islamic terrorism and see what their idea of Israel was, even way back in the early 1900s, and to the point of supporting Hitler and offering to do away with the Jews if they sent them over to them -- I don't see it as a "Clinton thing". I see it as a Mohammed thing, going way back to the 600s. In fact, the religio-political-governmental idealogy of Islam has already tried this world-wide conquest two other times. This just happens to be the third time in their history. They are making their third push and it looks like they have a lot better shot at it, this third time around. Just look at this list of terrorist attacks, documented way back when -- Islamic Terrorism Timeline -- it's about 100 pages worth of documented terrorists attacks. It was long before Clinton. It's been a steady progression. Now, while Clinton could have definitely done a better job of it, it's obviously not the fact that Clinton was weak in responding. I say that, because when we look at the present, Bush has not been weak in responding -- and yet -- the world-wide conquest aims of the religio-political-governmental idealogy of Islam has not backed off one iota, with the strong response from Bush. Therefore it was not a weak or strong response that had anything to do with it, as much as it is the push that they are making now, after years and years (going back over 60 years and more) of the world basically tolerating Islam in taking over in the areas where they could gain control and trying to continually intimidate and wipe out Israel.

According to the terrorists themselves, they were amazed at our withdrawal from Somalia and our tepid responses to the bombings of our embassies and WTC.

This emboldened them to become more aggressive.

Clinton is a cheap two-bit player in the terrorism scale of things over the decades. He didn't respond very well, but he sure didn't do anything to start it off or make it go any faster. It was well on its way, totally on its own.

I think Clinton did far more damage than you give him credit for.

He took terrorist acts as acts of individuals, not actions of groups or nations.

Thus, the terrorists never felt threatened as a group.

Thus, they underestimated Bush and his response in Afghanistan.

I have a great deal of respect for Dr. Paul. He is coming from the 'Old Right' tradition that was very pacifistic. But there are some people we can't be at peace with, since they are at war with all mankind-Nazism, Japanese Imperialism, Communism and Islam.

Well..., I've never said to be at peace with that religio-political-governmental idealogy of Islam, that's for sure. That idealogy should be wiped off the face of this earth, and it surely will be, as soon as Jesus, the Messiah of Israel, arrives on this earth to set up the Kingdom of God, for His 1,000 year reign -- what is called the Millennial Reign of Christ on this earth, over all the nations of the world and all the peoples. It's clear that we won't destroy that idealogy, because basically no one really wants to. But, Jesus, the Messiah of Israel will totally obliterate it, when He returns, and that won't be too much longer, from now...

And once again, the question was why were people upset over Ron Paul bringing up the reasoning of the terrorists, not you!

Ron Paul's views on the WOT have to considered when viewing his statements.

It appears as if Ron Paul is saying that if only America would change its foreign policy to give the terrorists what they want, we would be at peace.

If he did not mean that, then he needed to clarify exactly why he was repeating the enemy's justification for making an unprovoked attack on U.S. citizens.

Regards, Star Traveler

Likewise.

157 posted on 05/16/2007 2:23:11 AM PDT by fortheDeclaration (For what saith the scripture? (Rom.4:3))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

To: Remember_Salamis

Bookmark for reference


158 posted on 05/16/2007 3:25:45 AM PDT by WhiteGuy (GOP Congress - 16,000 earmarks costing US $50 billion in 2006 - PAUL2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lakeshark

Reynolds is a neoconservative, not a libertarian in any way. He may occasionally call himself so, but that does not make it true. Bill Maher does the same thing on his show, but he is far from a libertarian.


159 posted on 05/16/2007 3:32:12 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 81 | View Replies]

To: Zhang Fei
So every country that hasn't been attacked by al-Qaida is in "alliance" with them. These arguments get more and more absurd.
160 posted on 05/16/2007 3:34:15 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 82 | View Replies]

To: Arcy
What the hell does Giuliani know. Being mayor of a city that was hit by a terror attack in no way makes you an expert on foreign policy.

I don't understand why people think he's some anti-terror expert; hardly.

People think he was so involved with getting people out of the towers because he was walking around Manhattan; he was walking around Manhattan because he had the brilliant idea of putting his terror response coordination center in one of the towers--which have been known to be the most likely NYC target for 8 years before that point.

161 posted on 05/16/2007 3:37:26 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 86 | View Replies]

To: oldleft
OK; I'll refute more of your logic:

Russia - Ever heard of Chechnya? It's been a Muslim independence movement for decades now; The Chechens are now using terror tactics to break away from Russia.

Algeria - I'm not sure what you're referring to here.

Argentina - Nobody knows who perpetrated the bombing that killed 80+ jews in '94. Not a clue.

Somalia - Not sure what you're referencing here.

Kenya - The '98 embassy bombings were clearly aimed at the US; dead kenyans and tanzanians were seen as collateral damage by AQ.

India - Ever heard of Kashmir?

162 posted on 05/16/2007 3:44:42 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 91 | View Replies]

To: Lakeshark
Ron Paul never said it's our fault, and neither did I. Not even close.

You can just make up statements and attack them, like Giuliani did.

163 posted on 05/16/2007 3:46:07 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 92 | View Replies]

To: Goreknowshowtocheat
How much would oil have to be for gas to run $10/gallon?

For every $1 oil goes up, that's $7.5B that it costs extra to import into the US. Current high gas prices are more of a result of a decrepit refining capacity than anything else.

164 posted on 05/16/2007 3:49:28 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 107 | View Replies]

To: Remember_Salamis

Bump


165 posted on 05/16/2007 3:50:46 AM PDT by Incorrigible (If I lead, follow me; If I pause, push me; If I retreat, kill me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: padre35
Why bother to quote the words of the Emperor of Japan during WWII then?

People do not act without reason. That does NOT say they were justified, but there is a reason why. al-Qaida wasn't sitting around throwing darts at a mpa to decide to attack us.

166 posted on 05/16/2007 3:51:07 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 109 | View Replies]

To: L.N. Smithee

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


167 posted on 05/16/2007 3:53:35 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 122 | View Replies]

To: Chgogal

Nice strawman agurments. Look, Paul NEVER said it was our fault; just the opposite.


168 posted on 05/16/2007 3:55:05 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 129 | View Replies]

To: Sam Gamgee
Retaliation is part of non-interventionism. non-interventionism is NOT Pacifism.

Yes, we don't have troops in Saudi anymore. And how many attacks in the US has there been since they left? How about ZERO.

169 posted on 05/16/2007 3:56:17 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 131 | View Replies]

To: Remember_Salamis
You expect me to READ this crap? (smile). Just tell us Bin Laden said it and give me a link. Besides, the heavy breathers here can't be expected to get past a one liner by Rudy. They wouldn't believe it if they saw him reciting this screed in person. Aside from that, these darlings CANNOT make the distinction between a) THIS is why they did it and b) THIS JUSTIFIES why they did it. Just TOOOOOO big a jump for them. I swear I get more depressed over the conservative movement every day when I see some of the STUPID reasoning behind some of these goobs up howling at the moon whenever someone dares suggest that the war might not be the best way to promote our own security.

There are bright people who support the war, but they hide out well on FR. Mostly we get screeching nimrods who can't get past bawling out "TRAITOR."

170 posted on 05/16/2007 4:16:38 AM PDT by DreamsofPolycarp (Ron Paul in '08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Remember_Salamis
So every country that hasn't been attacked by al-Qaida is in "alliance" with them. These arguments get more and more absurd.

Did I say that? No. Every country has a different reason. I cited China because you did - I was just pointing out that there are no easy generalizations about which countries get attacked and which don't.

I pointed out that China has sold arms to al Qaeda, is a hard target *and* absolutely ruthless to all internal opposition - they will torture and kill them and their male relatives. Of the three items, the most important ones are probably the second and the third, as explanations as to why al Qaeda has not carried off an attack in China*.

Russia has al Qaeda operatives within its borders in spite of its opposition to the invasion of Iraq because of Chechnya. Turkey has al Qaeda operatives within its borders in spite of opposing the Iraqi war because of Ataturk's secular state. Part of bin Laden's conceit is that he can destroy the American economy by forcing the nations with which we trade to sever their economic ties with us - ties that in his recycled Marxist thinking somehow keep the American economy afloat via a form of neo-colonial tribute.

* Weirdly enough, al Qaeda has nonetheless declared China its enemy for China's occupation of East Turkistan (Xinjiang).

171 posted on 05/16/2007 4:26:46 AM PDT by Zhang Fei
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: Remember_Salamis
So every country that hasn't been attacked by al-Qaida is in "alliance" with them. These arguments get more and more absurd.

Did I say that? No. Every country has a different reason. I cited China because you did - I was just pointing out that there are no easy generalizations about which countries get attacked and which don't.

I pointed out that China has sold arms to al Qaeda, is a hard target *and* absolutely ruthless to all internal opposition - they will torture and kill them and their male relatives. Of the three items, the most important ones are probably the second and the third, as explanations as to why al Qaeda has not carried off an attack in China*.

Russia has al Qaeda operatives within its borders in spite of its opposition to the invasion of Iraq because of Chechnya. Turkey has al Qaeda operatives within its borders in spite of opposing the Iraqi war because of Ataturk's secular state. Part of bin Laden's conceit is that he can destroy the American economy by forcing the nations with which we trade to sever their economic ties with us - ties that in his recycled Marxist thinking somehow keep the American economy afloat via a form of neo-colonial tribute.

* Weirdly enough, al Qaeda has nonetheless declared China its enemy for China's occupation of East Turkistan (Xinjiang).

172 posted on 05/16/2007 4:27:22 AM PDT by Zhang Fei
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: Remember_Salamis

Let me get this right — the international policies of the United States of America should be established by some nutcase in a cave?

PBS = Perfect Bullsh!t Stories


173 posted on 05/16/2007 4:27:43 AM PDT by Beckwith (dhimmicrats and the liberal media have chosen sides -- Islamofascism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DreamsofPolycarp
There are bright people who support the war, but they hide out well on FR. Mostly we get screeching nimrods who can't get past bawling out "TRAITOR."

It's got nothing to do with stupidity. If someone's brother gets murdered, and you suggest that his actions were somehow responsible - i.e. walking around in questionable neighborhoods in the wee hours of the morning - you may get dirty looks or even a knuckle sandwich. 9/11 is something like that multiplied by 3000 times. People are enraged. My advice? Don't go there.

174 posted on 05/16/2007 5:29:56 AM PDT by Zhang Fei
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 170 | View Replies]

To: Lakeshark

Oddly enough, I believe BOTH sides are right. The reasons for attacks in those countries are a mix. Some supposedly cause we or allies have troops over there, some cause they’re helping us, some because of local terrorists. I agree they “hate us for our freedom,” but only because we’re seen as a threat to their goals or appear decadent. It doesn’t have to be an either/or proposition.


175 posted on 05/16/2007 5:42:21 AM PDT by PghBaldy (Reporter: Are you surprised? Nancy Pelosi: No. My eyes always look like this.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Remember_Salamis
If we are attacked after withdrawing, we will retaliate.

And exactly how do we retaliate? That's what we have been trying to do with little success.

IMHO if we pulled out of Iraq, Iran would march in. A guaranteed way to start an Iran-Israel war.
Israel would/could not accept Iran that much closer to its border.

That aside, Iran would/could hold much of the world's oil supply hostage. They could threaten Kuwait, Saudi Arabia.
It would be a forward Al Qaeda base set on overthrowing the Saudi kingdom. A goal we know he has.

OBL gives 'reasons' for attacking us, blah blah. When he needs to he dreams up another.
Heck, that bunch is still pissed about the Crusades.

176 posted on 05/16/2007 5:45:28 AM PDT by Vinnie (You're Nobody 'Til Somebody Jihads You)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Remember_Salamis

Oh, so they had a reeeeeeeeason. Yeah, well many mass murders had reeeeeeeeasons. Ruck FuPaul.


177 posted on 05/16/2007 5:51:04 AM PDT by Larry Lucido (Duncan Hunter 2008 (or Fred Thompson if he ever makes up his mind))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brimack34

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.


178 posted on 05/16/2007 5:55:37 AM PDT by Capitalizt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: fortheDeclaration
I have a great deal of respect for Dr. Paul.

I used to, but I woke up yesterday.

179 posted on 05/16/2007 5:56:29 AM PDT by Larry Lucido (Duncan Hunter 2008 (or Fred Thompson if he ever makes up his mind))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: DreamsofPolycarp; Remember_Salamis
You expect me to READ this crap? (smile). Just tell us Bin Laden said it and give me a link. Besides, the heavy breathers here can't be expected to get past a one liner by Rudy. They wouldn't believe it if they saw him reciting this screed in person. Aside from that, these darlings CANNOT make the distinction between a) THIS is why they did it and b) THIS JUSTIFIES why they did it. Just TOOOOOO big a jump for them. I swear I get more depressed over the conservative movement every day when I see some of the STUPID reasoning behind some of these goobs up howling at the moon whenever someone dares suggest that the war might not be the best way to promote our own security. There are bright people who support the war, but they hide out well on FR. Mostly we get screeching nimrods who can't get past bawling out "TRAITOR."

Great post, to the both of you. What most of the keyboard warriors here can't seem to grasp, they're swimming upstream against 70% the American public. Take this PC Iraq War (and a farce that's called the GWOT) into the next election, and they're toast for decades to come. Blackbird.

180 posted on 05/16/2007 6:05:01 AM PDT by BlackbirdSST
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 170 | View Replies]

To: BlackbirdSST
Take this PC Iraq War (and a farce that's called the GWOT) into the next election, and they're toast for decades to come. Blackbird.

I wouldn't be so pessimistic. The Democrats helped deliver a defeat on Vietnam, where we lost 58,000 dead. They were rewarded with a one-term president - Jimmy Carter.

181 posted on 05/16/2007 6:23:29 AM PDT by Zhang Fei
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 180 | View Replies]

To: BlackbirdSST
Take this PC Iraq War (and a farce that's called the GWOT) into the next election, and they're toast for decades to come. Blackbird.

Note that when the Democrats voted for defeat in Vietnam, they had massive majorities in both Houses. These majorities sank like a rock later. The point is that not everything is about the war. If their socialist policies lead to a recession, the American voter will turf them sooner rather than later.

182 posted on 05/16/2007 6:29:25 AM PDT by Zhang Fei
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 180 | View Replies]

To: MitchellC; nw_arizona_granny

Will the Washington Post and MSNBC work?
Much much more at link Regan inherited this mess from Carter.


William Joseph Casey (March 13, 1913 – May 6, 1987) was the Director of Central Intelligence from 1981 to 1987. In this capacity he oversaw the entire US Intelligence Community and personally directed the Central Intelligence Agency.

snip

During his tenure at the CIA, Casey played a large part in the shaping of Reagan’s foreign-policy, particularly its approach to Soviet expansionism. Casey oversaw the re-expansion of the Intelligence Community, in particular the CIA, to funding and human resource levels greater than those before resource cuts during the Carter Administration. During his tenure restrictions were lifted on the use of the CIA to directly, covertly influence the internal and foreign affairs of countries relevant to American policy.

This period of the Cold War saw an increase of the Agency’s anti-Soviet activities around the world. Casey was the principal architect of the arms-for-hostages deal that became known as the Iran-Contra affair. He also oversaw covert assistance to the mujahadeen resistance in Afghanistan by working closely with Akhtar Abdur Rahman (the Director General of ISI in Pakistan), the Solidarity movement in Poland, and a number of coups and attempted coups in South- and Central America.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_J._Casey


Anatomy of a Victory: CIA’s Covert Afghan War

By: Steve Coll, Washington Post, July 19, 1992

“In all, the United States funneled more than $ 2 billion in guns and money to the mujaheddin during the 1980s, according to U.S. officials. It was the largest covert action program since World War II.”

A specially equipped C-141 Starlifter transport carrying William Casey touched down at a military air base south of Islamabad in October 1984 for a secret visit by the CIA director to plan strategy for the war against Soviet forces in Afghanistan.

Helicopters lifted Casey to three secret training camps near the Afghan border, where he watched mujaheddin rebels fire heavy weapons and learn to make bombs with CIA-supplied plastic explosives and detonators.

During the visit, Casey startled his Pakistani hosts by proposing that they take the Afghan war into enemy territory — into the Soviet Union itself.

Casey wanted to ship subversive propaganda through Afghanistan to the Soviet Union’s predominantly Muslim southern republics. The Pakistanis agreed, and the CIA soon supplied thousands of Korans, as well as books on Soviet atrocities in Uzbekistan and tracts on historical heroes of Uzbek nationalism, according to Pakistani and Western officials.

“We can do a lot of damage to the Soviet Union,” Casey said, according to Mohammed Yousaf, a Pakistani general who attended the meeting.

Casey’s visit was a prelude to a secret Reagan administration decision in March 1985, reflected in National Security Decision Directive 166, to sharply escalate U.S. covert action in Afghanistan, according to Western officials.

How the Reagan administration decided to go for victory in the Afghan war between 1984 and 1988 has been shrouded in secrecy and clouded by the sharply divergent political agendas of those involved. But with the triumph of the mujaheddin rebels over Afghanistan’s leftist government in April and the demise of the Soviet Union, some intelligence officials involved have decided to reveal how the covert escalation was carried out.

The most prominent of these former intelligence officers is Yousaf, the Pakistani general who supervised the covert war between 1983 and 1987 and who last month published in Europe and Pakistan a detailed account of his role and that of the CIA, titled “The Bear Trap.”

This article and another to follow are based on extensive interviews with Yousaf as well as with more than a dozen senior Western officials who confirmed Yousaf’s disclosures and elaborated on them.

snip

The attacks later alarmed U.S. officials in Washington, who saw military raids on Soviet territory as “an incredible escalation,” according to Graham Fuller, then a senior U.S. intelligence official who counseled against any such raids. Fearing a large-scale Soviet response and the fallout of such attacks on U.S.-Soviet diplomacy, the Reagan administration blocked the transfer to Pakistan of detailed satellite photographs of military targets inside the Soviet Union, other U.S. officials said.

snip

An intelligence coup in 1984 and 1985 triggered the Reagan administration’s decision to escalate the covert progam in Afghanistan, according to Western officials. The United States received highly specific, sensitive information about Kremlin politics and new Soviet war plans in Afghanistan. Already under pressure from Congress and conservative activists to expand its support to the mujaheddin, the Reagan administration moved in response to this intelligence to open up its high-technology arsenal to aid the Afghan rebels.

Beginning in 1985, the CIA supplied mujaheddin rebels with extensive satellite reconnaissance data of Soviet targets on the Afghan battlefield, plans for military operations based on the satellite intelligence, intercepts of Soviet communications, secret communications networks for the rebels, delayed timing devices for tons of C-4 plastic explosives for urban sabotage and sophisticated guerrilla attacks, long-range sniper rifles, a targeting device for mortars that was linked to a U.S. Navy satellite, wire-guided anti-tank missiles, and other equipment.

The move to upgrade aid to the mujaheddin roughly coincided with the well-known decision in 1986 to provide the mujaheddin with sophisticated, U.S.-made Stinger antiaircraft missiles. Before the missiles arrived, however, those involved in the covert war wrestled with a wide-ranging and at times divisive debate over how far they should go in challenging the Soviet Union in Afghanistan.

Roots of the Rebellion In 1980, not long after Soviet forces invaded Afghanistan to prop up a sympathetic leftist government, President Jimmy Carter signed the first — and for many years the only — presidential “finding” on Afghanistan, the classified directive required by U.S. law to begin covert operations, according to several Western sources familiar with the Carter document.

The Carter finding sought to aid Afghan rebels in “harassment” of Soviet occupying forces in Afghanistan through secret supplies of light weapons and other assistance. The finding did not talk of driving Soviet forces out of Afghanistan or defeating them militarily, goals few considered possible at the time, these sources said.

The cornerstone of the program was that the United States, through the CIA, would provide funds, some weapons and general supervision of support for the mujaheddin rebels, but day-to-day operations and direct contact with the mujaheddin would be left to the Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence agency, or ISI. The hands-off U.S. role contrasted with CIA operations in Nicaragua and Angola.

Saudi Arabia agreed to match U.S. financial contributions to the mujaheddin and distributed funds directly to ISI. China sold weapons to the CIA and donated a smaller number directly to Pakistan, but the extent of China’s role has been one of the secret war’s most closely guarded secrets.

In all, the United States funneled more than $ 2 billion in guns and money to the mujaheddin during the 1980s, according to U.S. officials. It was the largest covert action program since World War II.

In the first years after the Reagan administration inherited the Carter program, the covert Afghan war “tended to be handled out of Casey’s back pocket,” recalled Ronald Spiers, a former U.S. ambassador to Pakistan, the base of the Afghan rebels. Mainly from China’s government, the CIA purchased assault rifles, grenade launchers, mines and SA-7 light antiaircraft weapons, and then arranged for shipment to Pakistan. Most of the weapons dated to the Korean War or earlier. The amounts were significant — 10,000 tons of arms and ammunition in 1983, according to Yousaf — but a fraction of what they would be in just a few years.

(c) ‘Washington Post’, 1992. Posted for Fair Use Only

http://www.chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/pol/wtc/oblnus091401.html


MSNBC News

Osama bin Laden, Saudi-born millionaire turned Islamic terror chieftain, has been on the radar of the United States since the days when both he and the CIA were fighting the Soviet Army in Afghanistan. Now, he is public enemy number one. NBC News investigative producer Robert Windrem has tracked bin Laden’s activities since the mid-1990s. Here are some questions and answers about bin Laden:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3907198/


183 posted on 05/16/2007 7:34:14 AM PDT by DAVEY CROCKETT (Waiting on GOD...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: Remember_Salamis

Baloney.

Ron Paul is a nutjob. He blew any chances of being taken seriously last night.

Even if that were Bin Laddin’s SOLE motivation, which I doubt, that is not what is happening here.

We are engaged a war of cultures and of values.

On one hand we have open societies based on the freedom of the individual and pluralism which tolerates all relgious beliefs.

On the other hand we have Islam - an aggressive cult of death whose sole purpose is to impose its restrictive world views and theocratic government by force or pursuation on the rest of humanity - something it has done with great success in the past.

The availability of the internet and television, not to mention “student visas” have allowed these primitives a closer look into our society than they ever enjoyed in the past and they recognize the threat our life style and values pose for their society.

Again, Ron Paul is an idiot on foreign policy.


184 posted on 05/16/2007 7:37:16 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 1 | View Replies]

To: Remember_Salamis
"A grave miscalculation on Al-Qaida's part too, thinking that we would merely lob a few missiles; I doubt they thought we invade Iraq though."

Maybe not, but they sure hoped we would invade Iraq!
185 posted on 05/16/2007 7:53:43 AM PDT by RegnadKcin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: CrawDaddyCA
"Ron Paul is winning the Fox poll (so far) with 30%."

That's because his followers are netroots nutbags, and they're sitting at their computers going click-click-click over and over again. The morning news on Fox mentioned Paul in the poll, and they noted that they suspected that Paul's mob was gaming the system.
186 posted on 05/16/2007 9:06:49 AM PDT by DesScorp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: ZULU

I rate your post as one of the best for its insight into the global village aspect of this culture war. Bravo to you!


187 posted on 05/16/2007 9:41:16 AM PDT by jonrick46
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 184 | View Replies]

To: Remember_Salamis

BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ


188 posted on 05/16/2007 9:42:32 AM PDT by ChadGore (VISUALIZE 62,041,268 Bush fans. We Vote.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ZULU

I worry about the really evil, evil CFR power elite behind Bush’s throne. Mr. Paul is taking an extreme personal risk putting himself into the crosshairs of those NWO international banker globalists who control this government and are currently on a fast track to establishing their fascist, Orwellian rule over the entire earth via the SPP, NAU, and beyond.

They are probably wondering right now if it’s such a good idea to allow a maverick, Liberty-loving Constitutionalist to be planting the seeds of unorthodox thought into the minds of the mentally enslaved population that they have spent so much time and money brainwashing into amenability to their agenda.

Barack Obama, although not the kind of immediate threat to them that Ron Paul is, would also be well advised to watch his back very carefully. It would be much preferrable to have a mature and cynical bitch like Hillary in the oval office, whose husband has already served them faithfully, than some idealistic youngster who, upon coming to a realization of who and what is really in control of this world’s destiny, might become sufficiently revolted and disgusted that he would start threatening to throw some wrenches into heir plans.


189 posted on 05/16/2007 9:48:35 AM PDT by our plan (Ron Paul - America's 21st Century Cincinnatus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 184 | View Replies]

To: ZULU
So we should restrict our own freedoms and liberties, which you say we are defending, in order to prevent the enemy from using them to destroy our freedom and liberties?

A little inconsistent, no?

Just because you say it's a culture war doesn't make it so.

190 posted on 05/16/2007 9:51:56 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 184 | View Replies]

To: Remember_Salamis

“So we should restrict our own freedoms and liberties, which you say we are defending, in order to prevent the enemy from using them to destroy our freedom and liberties?”

I didn’t really say that, but in ANY war, we have to accept some kinds of restrictions on our activities which we would normally oppose. We did that in the Revolution, Civil War, WW1, and WW2. We didn’t in Viet Nam, which is one of the reasons we lost.

“Just because you say it’s a culture war doesn’t make it so.”

Its more people than humble me who have stated that and in very clear terms, and a good many of the speakers were our enemies themselves. Facts speak for themselves. Only the blind refuse to recognize them.


191 posted on 05/16/2007 9:58:46 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 190 | View Replies]

To: BlackbirdSST
Unfortunately, here's the most likely 2008 scenario:

Dubya stays stubborn, and we're in Iraq with current troop levels through the election.

The GOP nominates a pro-war candidate like Rudy or McCain and loses to whichever democrat runs. If they panic and turn anti-war in the middle of the race, the dems will label them a flip-flopper.

House members will continue to support the war, and will lose a lot of seats.

Result: a massive Dem Majority with a Dem President. All that has been gained in the last 14 years, which isn't that much, is lost. Hello Socialized Medicine. Hello tax hikes. Hello federally-funded abortion.

192 posted on 05/16/2007 9:58:55 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 180 | View Replies]

To: Larry Lucido

Yes Larry, Mass Murderers DO have reasons. But that doesn’t say that their acts are justified. Ron Paul did not say they were justified either.


193 posted on 05/16/2007 9:59:50 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 177 | View Replies]

To: Remember_Salamis

“Remember Salamis” is an interesting tagline.

If the Athenians were not willing to leave their city for Aegina, and not willing to accept a Spartan “Admiral”, the Persians very likely would have won the Persian War.

So you see, we are not in a unique situation here.


194 posted on 05/16/2007 10:00:20 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 190 | View Replies]

To: Vinnie
If Iran marched in, which WOULD NOT happen, Iraq would split into 3 - 4 countries or face a Sunni and Kurdish Insurgency.

I don't really care if they topple the Saudi Regime, but I doubt they have the capability to do so. If they were successful against the Saudi Regime in any way, it would be to wrest the Holy Lands in Western Saudi (Mecca, Medina, and the surrounding areas) away from the House of Saud. They can play Caliphate in the sandbox of Western Saudi Arabia.

I'm tired of the doomsday scenarios that aren't even remotely plausible.

195 posted on 05/16/2007 10:03:27 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 176 | View Replies]

To: Zhang Fei

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.


196 posted on 05/16/2007 10:05:51 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 174 | View Replies]

To: Beckwith
No; that's not straight --

But that is WHY they attacked us; They are wrong, but that is why they did it.

197 posted on 05/16/2007 10:07:00 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 173 | View Replies]

To: Zhang Fei
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?

198 posted on 05/16/2007 10:09:13 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 172 | View Replies]

To: Zhang Fei
My advice? Don't go there.

Very true, 9/11 is way too charged and candidates (ie Giuliani) will jump on that in a heartbeat... 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.

199 posted on 05/16/2007 10:09:47 AM PDT by AlphaJuno
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 174 | View Replies]

To: our plan
I’m not sure I understand the acronyms you are using, but I get the picture.

I’m no supporter of globalism.

I recognize that this President, along with most of his predecessors, have sold out to internationalist corporate interests which are no friends of America. Their ultimate bottom line is the profit margin, not patriotism. But I have to agree with you that the current incumbent has thus far exceeded his predecessors to the degree he has been willing to accommodate these interests.

His failure to enforce our border laws, his appointment of an illegal alien advocate as his AG, his collusion with the Mexican Government to violate our borders and to persecute government officials - at least 5, some of whom are Hispanic-American citizens - for upholding the laws he is flouting, is unprecedented.

George Bush II has assured us that no member of his family will ever succeed him. He has been responsible in part for the loss of Congress to the Democrats and the shadow of his incompetency looms over the candidates running for the Republican nomination which is why they frequently invoked Ronald Reagan - the greatest President of the 2oth Century, instead of Bush II.

The government’s failure to stop the gradual evaporation of our industrial base to companies overseas threatens American prosperity, American jobs, the American dream and way of life, and most importantly, American Security.

As Duncan Hunter so aptly put it last night, the Arsenal of Democracy which defeated NAZI Germany and Imperial Japan no longer exists thanks to this hemorrhaging, a process which, again, began in prior administrations but has been accelerated in this one.

History will judge Bush II as harshly as it will judge Bill Clinton, Bush I, Jimmy Carter, and Lyndon Johnson.

200 posted on 05/16/2007 10:13:29 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 189 | 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