Thank God someone has the guts to say what should be obvious, that we are not being attacked because of our “freedom and women’s rights.” That is absurd. Do amy of you all actually believe we are being attacked because they hate our freedom? Why aren’t they attacking Monaco and Costa Rica and Switzerland, too?
Ron Paul gets my support. That’s for sure. I could never support someone who believes we are hated because we are free. It’s an obvious lie, and a huge one at that — which I guess is what makes it such as easy sell for the 50% plus one of the electorate. Morons.
If al-Qaida was nothing more than a bunch of "freedom-killers", they would have dirty-bombed the crap our of Amsterdam by now.
Ron Paul is an ass who deserves dumb supporters.
No we're being attacked because we hate their tyranny and are an obstacle to their spreading of it.
Why arent they attacking Monaco and Costa Rica and Switzerland, too?
They plan to subjugate them after they are done destroying us. They are aiming for the head. They will consume the appendages at their leisure.
Read this chronological history of islamic terrorism.
Then invite this guy over as a dinner guest.
“”Do amy of you all actually believe we are being attacked because they hate our freedom? Why arent they attacking Monaco and Costa Rica and Switzerland, too?””
They do hate our freedom and see the non-100% Shari’a governments as an extention of American/Western “freedom” in their own way.
You may feel it is a trite comment but this time it actually is correct.
BTW, they think of you as sub-human too. The former placement of troops on Saudi soil is not just seen as a prop to the govt. there, but a defilement.
Anyone who thinks otherwise is either ignorant or gullible as hell, and Ron Paul's apparent (I didn't hear the debate) belief that "involvement" in the region is the driving force behind their hatred of the West is far more off base and objectionable than the Bush/Guiliani line.
Islam has traditionally taught that believers have a responsibility to spread the religion by force, period. To that extent, Al Qaida is fully in agreement with orthodox Islam. Ron Paul may have been "factually correct" that Osama gave Iraq as a specific reason, but if he actually believes they wouldn't be attacking us otherwise then he is far from being fit enough to serve as CIC.
They are attacking us because we are infidels. Just so happens we are the biggest infidels on the block. Why is that so hard to understand?
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.
Israel. Spain. France. The UK. Australia. The Philippines. Do I need to keep going? OK. Sudan. Chad. Even China.
They're not attacking us because we're "over there." They're attacking us BECAUSE WE ARE NOT MUSLIMS AND THEY ARE. They hate us BECAUSE WE DO NOT PRAY TO MECCA. They hate us BECAUSE WE DO NOT LIVE UNDER SHARI'A. What's your boy Ron Paul going to do about that, put on a shalmar kaweez, start praying to Mecca five times a day, rename himself Abu al-Libertarian, and start stoning adulteresses in Lafayette Park?
I like Ron Paul, I really do. If it wasn't for his foreign policy, I could almost vote for the guy. And I even agree that the way we got into this is unconstitutional. But we ARE in it. What do we do now, cut and run with Iraq half-done? We can't change the past. We can't change the fact that the proper declarations of war weren't issued in Afghanistan and Iraq. We can't change the fact that we've got one boot deep in the Iraqi tarpit and we're taking casualties even as we're slowly, slowly turning the country on the right path.
Paul seems not to grasp that we could abandon Israel to the jackals, withdraw every single member of our military from within a thousand miles of the Middle East, and adopt a totally hands-off policy toward all Islamic states, and it wouldn't do a damn thing except strengthen both the Sunni and the Shi'ite extremists. Then one day, somewhere down the road (and not that far), we'd be dealing with a much greater threat, one that COULD "topple or seriously damage" us.
His foreign policy is at best breathtakingly naive, and at worst suicidal. Isolationism did not work between the World Wars, and seventy years later, with the world so much more interconnected, it's not going to work now. And yes, I know he didn't mean that we deserved it, he was listing the alleged "causes." He really trusts what OBL himself said? Please.
Nope, just like it is absurd for us to try and force "democracy" upon Arabs, who have never had it and are not capable of maintaining it.