But Who Was Right – Rudy or Ron?

Buchanan.org ^ | May 18th, 2007 | Patrick J. Buchanan

[MNJohnnie]

Still waiting for you to make one rational, factual response. Do you suppose we might see that any time today? Or do you find it utterly to painful to actual deal with the factual reality and so mindlessly cling to your preprogrammed dogmatic responses?

[Remember_Salamis]

Hey -- Like I said, I responded so quickly because I posted an original thread for that Fatwa a few days ago. Here is the link:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1834249/posts

You are a fool for making such comments. I can respond in 2 min. because I already read it!

[fortheDeclaration]

Ron Paul is the most conservative candidate in the debate. In fact, National Review's John Derbyshire wrote yesterday that Paul is "to conservative for the Republican Party" and suggested the Constitution Party.

Ron Paul is very good on most issues.

However to state that the United States was somehow responsible for 9/11 by its foreign policy actions is beyond the pale.

We were fighting the Mid-East because of Iraqi aggression against Kuwait.

We have legimate interests in that region.

[MNJohnnie]

Still waiting for you to READ the link so you ACTUALLY ONE TIME have a clue what you are talking about. Until then I am simply going to post this to you. So sit down, shut up and actually LEARN something instead of mindlessly clinging to your 09-10-01 political dogmas.

One again for the Neo Isolations Al Qeda cheerleaders around here, who simply cling to their Neo Isolationist dogmas, instead of bothering to learn even ONE fact about our enemies, here is Bin Laden’s Fatwa. They should actually try READING it.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/terrorism/international/fatwa_1996.html

[Remember_Salamis]

If you actually read or heard what he said, he DID NOT say we were responsible. He said that our previous actions make us hated, which motivated al-Qaida to attack.

It would be like saying that Welfare causes crime, but the criminal still committed it. Without said government welfare, however, that crime may not have happened.

Understand? It's consistent conservatism. Government is usually not a force for good.

[Remember_Salamis]

Nice copy-and-paste. Don’t care that I’ve already read the link and posted it to FR days ago huh?

[MNJohnnie]

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/terrorism/international/fatwa_1996.html

Read and learn something instead of mindlessly screaming your ignorance louder.

[jammer]

Guess someone better point out to the Do Nothings that Saddam invaded Kuwait and was headed for Saudi Arabia.

You can point it out, but it would be wrong. He invaded Kuwait--with our ambassador's (April Glasbie) imprimatur--because it was a rich province that had formerly been part of Iraq.

Even if he had gone on to Saudi Arabia, so what? The oil would have still flowed. And perhaps he would have killed OBL or some of those 19 Saudi people who hijacked the airplanes.

[OneLoyalAmerican]

Greetings Remember_Salamis:

Libertarians were often described as Republicans on dope. And Congresscritter Ron Paul delivers an aura of credibility to such an assertion.

Cheers,
OLA

[Alberta's Child]

Well, let's think about this for a second . . .

The 9/11 attacks were actually pretty simple to plan and execute, and could have been done at any time in history since the advent of passenger flight. It's worth asking ourselves why this kind of airliner-as-a-suicide-weapon concept was never even discussed before the mid-1990s.

I found this statement by Rudy Giuliani to be particularly comical:

"That's really an extraordinary statement, as someone who lived through the attack of 9/11, that we invited the attack because we were attacking Iraq. I don't think I have ever heard that before, and I have heard some pretty absurd explanations for Sept. 11."

This is coming from the same A-hole who had to deal with another terrorist attack in New York City before 9/11 (the 1997 mass shooting on the observation deck of the Empire State Building by a Palestinian terrorist), and on that previous occasion made every attempt to hide the shooter's motives and instead cited the lack of adequate gun control laws in other states as the cause of the incident.

[MNJohnnie]

Ah I see. Waste of time. The Ron Paulites, because he screams the same nonsensical slogans and talking points of their pet pretend Conservative Talk Radio hosts, simply tune out ALL factual reality. So much easier for them to simply scream slogans and emotion based dogmas then to actually LEARN anything.

[fortheDeclaration]

If you actually read or heard what he said, he DID NOT say we were responsible. He said that our previous actions make us hated, which motivated al-Qaida to attack.

And that would make us responsible, since it is our fault they hate us.

That is the clear implication of the statement.

Now, what excuse does Al Qaida have for attacking the rest of the civilized world?

To give any creditability to Bin Laden's statements is like giving credence to Hilter's excuse for starting his own aggression (Germany needed more living space).

It would be like saying that Welfare causes crime, but the criminal still committed it. Without said government welfare, however, that crime may not have happened.

And if you state this, that is not the Conservative view.

We do not ascribe environmental causes to evil acts.

We ascribe evil acts to the will of those committing the acts.

If not, then they would not be responsible.

Your view is the same reason why Liberal judges let criminals go free (they are not resonsible)

Understand? It's consistent conservatism. Government is usually not a force for good.

A legitimate role for Government is defense and that was what it was doing when it went to the Mid-East to protect our interests there.

[jammer]

Of course it's a waste of time. We don't disregard facts; we form our conclusions from them. You arrive at a conclusion, and don't even bother to try to find data to buttress it. Just loudly spew (moronic) ad hominems.

Yes, it's a waste of time on your part because you can't B.S. people with knowledge. And a waste of time on my part because you won't be swayed by the facts.

By the way, I haven't listened to a radio talk show in years, since it was apparent that Rush was Bush's lackey, carrying his water, no matter that even he must have gotten fed up after a while.

[Steel Wolf]

Osama bin Laden in his declaration of war in the 1990s said it was U.S. troops on the sacred soil of Saudi Arabia, U.S. bombing and sanctions of a crushed Iraqi people, and U.S. support of Israel's persecution of the Palestinians that were the reasons he and his mujahideen were declaring war on us.

This is wrong. Absolutely wrong.

Listen.

The al-Qa'ida brand of Islam is a very harsh Salafist/apocalyptic strain that is very unpopular with your average Muslim. Far more so that garden variety Wahabbism.

The reason that al-Qa'ida is able to flourish from London to Johannesburg to Jakarta isn't because of the appeal of their convictions. It's because UBL is an expert at absorbing local regional conflicts into the framework of a Global War on Infidels.

His fatwas are advertisements, and what he's selling is context. He doesn't give a hot flying half of a damn about the plight of Iraqi children. What he's doing, which he's done from Algeria to the Philippines, is to tell far flung and unconnected Muslims that their local struggle is part of a greater cause, and that if they join him, they'll have a global network to rely on. It's a deal with the devil, but many make it gladly because they want the power to hurt their enemies more than they hate Salafism.

Al-Qa'ida is a world wide grievance absorption machine, rechanneling the frustration and hate of the world back at the powers-that-be. That's why UBL quoted Iraq and Saudi Arabia in his fatwas, and has quoted everything from racism to Kyoto to the occupation of Andalusia. It's advertising, reaching out to anyone that might join him. He doesn't mean a word of it, and until you realize that, you don't understand him.

To actually believe that UBL will stop fighting once his Middle Eastern grievances are resolved is to be utterly ignorant of his methods and motives. He will keep moving the goal line of grievances until there are no non-Muslims left to defeat.

[fortheDeclaration]

I do not see how anything in your post justifies what Ron Paul stated in giving credence to the notion that the 'poor' Muslims, felt victimized by U.S. bombing.

If anything, it was our tepid responses to terrorist acts during the Clinton administration and even our withdrawal from Lebanon during the Reagan era, that 'motivated' this crime.

[Howard Jarvis Admirer]

Good luck reasoning with the “Americans always good, Arabs always bad” crowd. IMO, The best way to get along with muslims is to disconnect - have as little to do with them as possible - do not let muslims into the U.S. and do not send U.S. troops into muslim countries like Iraq.

Personally, I’m not surprised that some Arabs want to attack the country that produced the Jerry Springer show, Oprah, and Michael Jackson - my question is why George Bush still is in love with having open borders and amnesty after 9/11. How many muslim terrorists (like those in New Jersey) will get amnesty with the latest McCain Kennedy amnesty bill?

[yuta250]

In fact, National Review's John Derbyshire wrote yesterday that Paul is "to conservative for the Republican Party"

Well when you have a liberal like Rudy still polling at the top of the Republican primary, you have to wonder... Too many 'pubbies are so obsessed with the Islamofascists hiding under their beds that they can't see the forest for the trees. This is going to come back to bite them in '08 when they find out that a majority of Americans have had enough of nation building and are looking for a new game plan.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

Al-Qa'ida is a world wide grievance absorption machine

It has to be said that the US government in particular and American society in general has global effects, and that those are far from universally popular - indeed, are controversial within the US itself. And that is why it makes sense to consider the possibilty that that influence motivated 9/11. Heck, some of what American society does and is infuriates FReepers - Democrats, after all, are Americans.

So saying that resentment of American influences generally, or even US government actions specifically, motivated 911 is a different proposition from excusing 911, in the sense that Democrats tend to when they say that. Because if you say that "Al-Qa'ida is a world wide grievance absorption machine," what do you think the Democratic Party is?

And what do we want the Republican Party to be? I submit that in a sea of grievance cultivators such as Democratic politicians and worldwide socialists, the Republican Party is to be the voice of candor, and of the reality check. The party of rational economics and love of society - of Thomas Sowell - to protect the middle class from the grievance industry and to recruit the lower class into middle class values and prosperity.

Does America have faults? Surely. Does that mean that killing Americans isn't murder? Certainly not. And that applies to office workers in America, and to US soldiers in Iraq (now that the government of Iraq is not hostile to the US), and everywhere in between. Prevention of the killing Americans without due process is a primary reason for the existence of the US government.

[Howard Jarvis Admirer]

Actually, the preventing of killing Americans without due process is up to the States via police and murder statutes. The preventing of foreign invasion is up to the Federal Government - just don’t expect very much from Bush and the Feds considering the 20 million illegals already here.

[Alberta's Child]

If I were in Ron Paul's position, I would have made the following statement:

"The United States has been involved in a major military campaign in the Middle East over the last 17 years, ostensibly to accomplish the following goals: 1) to restore an Islamic royal family to the throne in Kuwait; 2) to protect an Islamic royal family (one of the world's biggest and most notorious supporters of radical Islam around the globe) in Saudi Arabia; and 3) to establish a nation in Iraq in which Islam is enshrined as the official state religion. If this bizarre chain of events makes sense to anyone, then please fill me in on what the hell is going on here."

"And if you think 9/11 -- along with all of the other various acts of terrorism that we've dealt with (and/or prevented) over the last decade -- has had nothing to do with any of this, then you're delusional."