*
Where Ron Paul (who may be the most consistent candidate up there and whom I greatly admire) is incorrect is that evcen though bin Laden lists our involvement in the Middle East as one reason, they woudl hvae attacked us even if we were not involved over there. They hate our power and the perceived (and to some extent real) decadence of our society. Our activities in Iraq and our support of Israel just add additional excuses for bin Laden’s murderous ideology.
Ron Paul is functionally equivalent to Barbara Lee (Traitor - CA)
Ron Paul has shown his true antisemitic, anti-American colors tonight for all the world to see.
but the truth gets in the way of our patriotism and simplistic catch-phrases and vague desire for someone to take care of and protect us and ability to talk tough without nuance!
President Bush could have explained the many strategic reasons for the Iraq war, but the average American wouldn’t have understood, so he didn’t.
truth is the first casualty in 30-second soundbite debates. didn’t you watch the post-debate discussion on the FOX internet stream? the panel of youths could give two wits about history, principles, or truth. this might as well be American Idol to them.
when the mob-crowd roared after Guiliani’s cavemannish putdown of Paul, I realized, yet again, why I dislike and distrust ‘the common herd’.
I spent several hours on September 13, 2001 on FR posts smacking down this so-called conventional wisdom. On September 12, 2001, Ron Paul's ideological master -- the late Harry Browne -- wrote an editorial blaming America before the flames of the Twin Towers and the Pentagon were out called "When will we learn?"
This was my response to Derville, a now-defunct Freeper, who echoed Browne's opinion that the USA should "mind its own business" and that it provoked the Pearl Harbor attack:
To: DervilleWe were effectively waging war against [Japan].Have you not heard of the Oil Embargo?What about it?
Remember, we're talking about Browne suggesting that the USA should "prevent our leaders from ever again provoking this kind of anger against America." Honestly...do you see no difference between a foreign policy decision and actual death-dealing acts of military intervention, like in Serbia? It's laughable that you would consider an embargo an act of war. How many people did the oil embargo kill?
If we had every right to fight Saddam lest he control the free flow of oil,why were the Japanese not justified in their concerns?
The Japanese struck at the USA when it would not cooperate with their attempt to make Japan the power of Far East Asia and the Pacific (including Australia and New Zealand). Are you suggesting that it was the United States' obligation to sell fuel to the Japanese? Should Roosevelt have endorsed the Japanese version of "manifest destiny?" Would that have fit Browne's definition of "minding our own business?"
Sorry, it doesn't parallel. With Japan, the USA was controlling what it would do with its OWN oil. Saddam Hussein, fresh off a victory over the Iranians, invaded and possessed a sovereign nation for the sole purpose of increasing his influence as an oil broker. Our oil was ours. Saddam's oil was the Kuwaitis'.
The way the Japanese thought of it, they were going to build the third world power after Hitler and Mussolini got through with the UK, the USSR, and Africa. They would leave the USA in the middle between the Nazi-Fascists and themselves.
Now, you are free to suggest that had Hirohito and Hitler succeeded, with the US watching the action from the coasts, they would have been fat and happy with their own empires, and they would be content to watch the USA "mind its own business." I submit that there is no way you could possibly know for sure -- and that goes for all the Go-Pat-Gorillas too.
n this description we find a summary of the stages of Islamic Jihaad presented in an excellent manner. In this L summary we find all the distinctive and far-reaching characteristics of the dynamic movement of the true religion; we should ponder over them for deep study. Here, however, we will confine ourselves to a few explanatory remarks.http://www.youngmuslims.ca/online_library/books/milestones/hold/chapter_4.aspFirst, the method of this religion is very practical. This movement treats people as they actually are and uses resources Which are in accordance with practical conditions. Since this movement comes into conflict with the Jahiliyyah which prevails over ideas and beliefs, and which has a practical system of life and a political and material authority behind it, the Islamic movement had to produce parallel resources to confront this Jahiliyyah. This movement uses the methods of preaching and persuasion for reforming ideas and beliefs and it uses physical power and Jihaad for abolishing the organizations and authorities of the Jahili system which prevents people from reforming their ideas and beliefs but forces them to obey their erroneous ways and make them serve human lords instead of the Almighty Lord. This movement does not confine itself to mere preaching to confront physical power, as it also does not use compulsion for changing the ideas of people. These two principles are equally important in the method of this religion. Its purpose is to free those people who wish to be freed from enslavement to men so that they may serve God alone.
The second aspect of this religion is that it is a practical movement which progresses stage by stage, and at every stage it provides resources according to the practical needs of the situation and prepares the ground for the next one. It does not face practical problems with abstract theories, nor does it confront various stages with unchangeable means. Those who talk about Jihaad in Islam and quote Qur'anic verses do not take into account this aspect, nor do they understand the nature of the various stages through which this movement develops, or the relationship of the verses revealed at various occasions with each stage. Thus, when they speak about Jihaad, they speak clumsily and mix up the various stages, distorting the whole concept of Jihaad and deriving from the Qur'anic verses final principles and generalities for which there is no justification. This is because they regard every verse of the Qur'an as if it were the final principle of this religion. This group of thinkers, who are a product of the sorry state of the present Muslim generation, have nothing but the label of Islam and have laid down their spiritual and rational arms in defeat. They say, "Islam has prescribed only defensive war"! and think that they have done some good for their religion by depriving it of its method, which is to abolish all injustice from the earth, to bring people to the worship of God alone, and to bring them out of servitude to others into the servants of the Lord . Islam does not force people to accept its belief, but it wants to provide a free environment in which they will have the choice of beliefs. What it wants is to abolish those oppressive political systems under which people are prevented from expressing their freedom to choose whatever beliefs they want, and after that it gives them complete freedom to decide whether they will accept Islam or not.
A third aspect of this religion is that the new resources or methods which it uses during its progressive movement do not take it away from its fundamental principles and aims. From the very first day, whether the Prophet-peace be on him- addressed his near relatives, or the Quraish, or the Arabs, or the entire world, his call was one and the same. He called them to the submission to One God and rejection of the lordship of other men. On this principle there is no com- promise nor any flexibility. To attain this purpose, it proceeds according to a plan, which has a few stages, and every stage has its new resources, as we have described earlier
A fourth aspect is that Islam provides a legal basis for the relationship of the Muslim community with other groups, as is clear from the quotation from Zad al-Mitad. This legal formulation is based on the principle that Islam - that is, submission to God-is a universal Message which the whole of mankind should accept or make peace with. No political system or material power should put hindrances in the way of preaching Islam. It should leave every individual free to accept or reject it, and if someone wants to accept it, it should not prevent him or fight against him. If someone does this, then it is the duty of Islam to fight him until either he is killed or until he declares his submission.
When writers with defeatist and apologetic mentalities write about "Jihaad in Islam," trying to remove this 'blot' from Islam, then they are mixing up two things: first, that this f religion forbids the imposition of its belief by force, as is clear from the verse, "There is no compulsion in religion"(2:256), while on the other hand it tries to annihilate all those political and material powers which stand between people and Islam, which force one people to bow before another people and prevent them from accepting the sovereignty of God. These two principles have no relation to one another nor is there room to mix them. In spite of this, these defeatist-type people try to mix the two aspects and want to confine Jihaad to what today is called 'defensive war'. The Islamic Jihaad has no relationship to modern warfare, either in its causes or in the way in which it is conducted. The causes of Islamic Jihaad should be sought in the very nature of Islam and its role in the world, in its high principles, which have been given to it by God and for the implementation of which God appointed the Prophet-peace be on him-as His Messenger and declared him to be the last of all prophets and messengers.
This religion is really a universal declaration of the freedom of man from servitude to other men and from servitude to his own desires, which is also a form of human servitude; it is a declaration that sovereignty belongs to God alone and that He is the Lord of all the worlds. It means a challenge to all kinds and forms of systems which are based on the concept of the sovereignty of man; in other words, where man has usurped the Divine attribute. Any system in which the final decisions are referred to human beings, and in which the sources of all authority are human, deifies human beings by designating others than God as lords over men. This declaration means that the usurped authority of God be returned to Him and the usurpers be thrown out-those who by themselves devise laws for others to follow, thus elevating themselves to the status of lords and reducing others to the status of slaves. In short, to proclaim the authority and sovereignty of God means to eliminate all human kingship and to announce the rule of the Sustainer of the universe over the entire earth. In the words of the Qur'an:
"He alone is God in the heavens and in the earth." (43:84)
"The command belongs to God alone. He commands you not to worship anyone except Him. This is the right way of life." (12: 40)"Say: O People of the Book, come to what is common between us: that we will not worship anyone except God, and will not associate anything with Him, and will not take lords from among ourselves besides God; and if they turn away then tell them to bear witness that we are those who have submitted to God." (2: 64)
The way to establish God's rule on earth is not that some consecrated people - the priests - be given the authority to rule, as was the case with the rule of the Church, nor that some spokesmen of God become rulers, as is the case in a 'theocracy'. To establish God's rule means that His laws be enforced and that the final decision in all affairs be according to these laws.
The establishing of the dominion of God on earth, the abolishing of the dominion of man, the taking away of sovereignty from the usurper to revert it to God, and the bringing about of the enforcement of the Divine Law (Shari'ah) and the abolition of man-made laws cannot be achieved only through preaching. Those who have usurped the authority of God and are oppressing God's creatures are not going to give up their power merely through preaching; if it had been so, the task of establishing God's religion in the world would have been very easy for the Prophets of God! This is contrary to the evidence from the history of the Prophets and the story of the struggle of the true religion, spread over generations.
This universal declaration of the freedom of man on the earth from every authority except that of God, and the declaration that sovereignty is God's alone and that He is the Lord of the universe, is not merely a theoretical, philosophical and passive proclamation. It is a positive, practical and dynamic message with a view to bringing about the implementation of the Shari'ah of God and actually freeing people from their servitude to other men to bring them into the service of God, the One without associates. This cannot be attained unless both 'preaching' and 'the movement' are used. This is so because appropriate means are needed to meet any and every practical situation.
Because this religion proclaims the freedom of man on the earth from all authority except that of God, it is confronted in every period of human history-yesterday, today, or tomorrow - with obstacles of beliefs and concepts, physical power, and the obstacles of political, social, economic, racial and class structures. In addition, corrupted beliefs and superstitions become mixed with this religion, working side by side with it and taking root in peoples' hearts.
If through 'preaching' beliefs and ideas are confronted, through 'the movement' material obstacles are tackled. Foremost among these is that political power which rests on a complex yet interrelated ideological, racial, class, social and economic support. Thus these two-preaching and the movement - united, confront 'the human situation' with all the necessary methods. For the achievement of the freedom of man on earth - of all mankind throughout the earth - it is necessary that these two methods should work side by side. This is a very important point and cannot be over- emphasized .
This religion is not merely a declaration of the freedom of the Arabs, nor is its message confined to the Arabs. It addresses itself to the whole of mankind, and its sphere of work is the whole earth. God is the Sustainer not merely of the Arabs, nor is His providence limited to those who believe in the faith of Islam. God is the Sustainer of the whole world. This religion wants to bring back the whole world to its Sustainer and free it from servitude to anyone other than God. In the sight of Islam, the real servitude is following laws devised by someone, and this is that servitude which in Islam is reserved for God alone. Anyone who serves someone other than God in this sense is outside God's religion, although he may claim to profess this religion. The Prophet- peace be on him - clearly stated that, according to the Shari'ah, 'to obey' is 'to worship'. Taking this meaning of worship, when the Jews and Christians 'disobeyed' God, they became like those who 'associate others with God'.
Paul just showed that hhe is ignorant. Just like his stupid comment comparing our actions to those of China. Forget the relativism, but Paul is ignorant of the fact that China is building bases in Western Hemisphere!
It is like an Islamic Jihadist’s “Field of Dreams”; "If you build it, (they) will come."
If anything, it would infuriate the muslim fanatics to the point where they would be sending waves of the screeching goobs over here to attack. The staement was made that if we pull out of Iraq, their attention would shift to Afghanistan and then migrate to Europe. This is silly.
Because we have given the Jihadist a fighting front there, they have called their faithful to come to Iraq. Iraq has become the place for Islam to battle the Great Satan. If America tucks tail to cut and run we will give Islamic Fascism a victory and allow them the ability to create a renewed front in the United States. If the Arab mind perceives weakness in an adversary he will press the advantage and continue the attack.
They already view the USA as the Great Satan, responsible for the vicious slaughter of the flower of arab youth and despoilation of thousands of young female arab virgins blah blah blah.
Islam views Christians, Jews and Western Civilization as the anathema to their existence. The USA is the Great Satan because we embody everything they are against and not for any lesser reason such as the destruction of their youth. They obviously have little value for life anyway.
It would be hard to get them to hate us MORE.
We could do much MORE. We must totally defeat Islam and force it to conform to the precepts of civilized society. We must continue the fight to change the murdering brutality of Islam, just as after World War II, Shintoism was no longer the state religion of Japan and Nazism was removed from Germany.
The idea that Iraq is "keeping them occupied" is just silly. There are other reasons they have not hit us, some of it being the relative competence of our intelligence, and some of it being the fact that state sponsored big profile hits will bring a WORLD of hurt down, whether we are discouraged about Iraq or not. They have seen what we can do in the short term when we get energized. They don't want any more of that.
Islam sends it youth in droves to die by suicide bomb and you think they are afraid to die? They will not magically stop killing Americans just because we suddenly go home. If they are afraid of what we might do to them that is all the more reason we must do that.
As for Iraq, *I* don't want any more of that. It is a failed exercise in nationbuilding, an attempt to cover for the two biggest dumbasses we have seen on display yet in the 21st century .Paul Bremer, who dismissed the ENTIRE civil infrastructure of Iraq-- police, fire, emergency rescue, EVERYTHING... f***ing idiot!, and Donald Rumsfield, who, although he KNEW Bremer left the populace un policed and with a history of internicene strife 1400 years old, did not send a SINGLE BATALLION of military police to give order to any of Iraq. These two dunderheads will go down in history as two of the most monstrous architects of failed policy we have seen in years, and it will cost us for years.
You, like Neville Chamberlain, will go down in history as one of the most monstrous dunderheads we have heard from on FR in years.
Each time a Democrat or any American for that matter commits treason in a time of war by saying that we have lost or failed, they possibly perpetrate a self-fulfilling prophecy that will mark the start of our destruction and the beginning of our dhimmi-hood under the Sharia law of the Caliphate.
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.
Bookmark for reference
Bump
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."
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
Oh, so they had a reeeeeeeeason. Yeah, well many mass murders had reeeeeeeeasons. Ruck FuPaul.
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.
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
Ron Paul and this writer can share the Maroon Award.
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.