To: Desperately Seeking Freedom
While it's true that we were not attacked simply because they disagreed with our concept of freedom, it's also true that we'd probably have been attacked on 9/11 even if Saddam's forces had not been kicked out of Kuwait in 91, etc.
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.
How can you argue that they would be attacking us anyway?
How do you explain the fact that non-allies AREN'T being targeted???
posted on 05/15/2007 9:08:01 PM PDT
(A nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master, and deserves one!)
Sayyid Qutb was in the United States in the 1930s and expressed his disdain and desire for its removal during a time when the US WAS isolationist. This was a long time before so called “interventionist” actions of the United States. If anything, the first targets of Islam should have been the British and the French, who carved the middle east into pieces.
posted on 05/15/2007 10:10:41 PM PDT
by Sam Gamgee
(May God have mercy upon my enemies, because I won't. - Patton)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson