It's OK If Ron Paul Is Right

TSC Daily ^ | 5/18/07 | Gregory Scoblete

[Fee]

In Australia, muzzie men scream at bikini Australian woman if they are on the beaches near their families, and will not hesitate to beat up any Australian men coming to the woman’s defense. Several times, the Australian men (including a life guard) were knifed by the Muzzies. That is the level of violence the muzzies are willing to do and they are less than 5 percent of the population, imagine what Australia will face if muzzies become 10 percent of the population?? Given enough time, muzzies will smash planes into India over Kashmir, China over Sanjing, and Russia over Chenchenia. It is in their nature to commit violence because unlike most religions, muzzies did not go thru a period of enlightment in their history. They went from the Middle Ages to Modern Age.

[Steel Wolf]

Muslims war against nations that incessantly stick their nose into Middle Eastern affairs. Other nations are left alone.

Spoken like a good little Dhimmi.

How's Darfur doing these days, btw? 85 and sunny, with a 40% chance of genocide later in the evening?

[Always Right]

There are non-Muslims in Peru, Norway, South Africa, Mongolia, and Australia. Why don't Muslims fly planes into buildings and pursue jihad against these nations?

Not really the best examples either. Australia has been the target of several attacks. In 2005, there were 17 Islamic terrorists arrested who planning major attacks in Sydney and Melborne. Then their embassy in Jakarta was attacked. The attacks in Bali in both 2002 and 2005 killed numerous Astralians.

[ketsu]

It would be OK if Ron Paul were right, but he's not. UBL's stated reasons for declaring war on the U.S. are good PR in the Arab world, nothing more. He's selling an ugly Salafist product, wrapped in sexy packaging of Resistance to Foreign Aggression!

You're mistaking cause and effect.

Osama would be a grease smear under a Russian tank tread if it weren't for American support. Likewise Hamas wouldn't exist if not for Israel backing Hamas against the PLO(during the first Intifada).

So Ron Paul is right, to an extent. If it weren't for US intervention, AQ very likely wouldn't be a problem. However, if the US didn't support the Taliban and proto-AQ Russia would have a strong position in the middle east today and may not have collapsed. It's a matter of picking your poison.

What the US does need to do though is take a long view. Does the way we deal with threats today create more threats tomorrow? US policy making needs to be less ideological and more realistic. That includes bumping off threats before they can be a problem(if the US had quietly wiped out the Taliban leaders in the 80's ...) and less whinging for "democracy"(you can see how well democracy worked for the occupied territories).

[sauropod]

Thanks for the information! Looks like I have more larnin’ to do!

Wasn’t the first WTC attack an Al Qaeda operation?

[rlmorel]

"...They don't come here to attack us because we're rich and we're free. They come and they attack us because we're over there..."

I am sorry folks. Nothing out of context there. This was not clumsy. He said what he said, and it is just, plain wrong.

Make all the arguments about his possession or lack of conservative credentials, but this is not the battleground you should choose to fight on.

[Always Right]

Muslims war against nations that incessantly stick their nose into Middle Eastern affairs. Other nations are left alone.

The same could be said of Nazis

[eleni121]

Another Rue Paul thread...we’re getting flooded with the 1%centers..

[kevkrom]

less intervention in the Middle East would ultimately improve American security

False. These people are out to conquer the world. They can use whatever excuse they want, but ultimately, their intent is to take over every country, either via warfare or internal methods, and make the world one giant Islamic Caliphate.

They are willing to be slow, patient, and methodical -- attitudes the modern West, and especially the non-interventionist subset of the population, sorely lack.

[agere_contra]

Jack the Ripper killed whores. Other women were left alone.

You may not like trial-by-analogy, but I think it has a certain utility on this occasion. What had those evil prostitutes done to hurt Jack the Ripper?

False Answer: they had occupied the part of Whitechapel which Jack's father had been thrown out of by the feelthy Joos.

True Answer: by simply existing, they were an affront to his world-view, and so they had to die.

[presidio9]

lol, see post 19, you appear to have some misconceptions about libertarianism...

Just a tip: If you are going to use the all-powerful "lol" you might want to have a clue what you're actually lauging at. That quote is often used by libertarians without context. It is from a July 1975 article to Reason Magazine, and it is an indication of why he did not win his party's nomination for President that year. Ronald Reagan is held as an ideal by Conservatives for the man he became as President, not for who he was when he was a registered Democrat, or when he was a libertarian governor who signed an abortion bill into law in California. The man EVOLVED into a Conservative after much soul-searching. He was the most Pro-Life President we've had since Roe, he stepped up the War on Drugs radically, and he was quick to send US Forces wherever he deemed necessary. In short, Ronald Reagan would have zero time or respect for Ron Paul.

[sauropod]

Oh i see now.

Because we were not in Lebanon in large numbers, but had some soldiers there, that was justification to kill 241 of them. And we left Lebanon right after that happened.

I get it now. Thanks for illuminating my dim mind.

You frigging twit. 'Pod.

[Always Right]

Which means giving up any and all support of Israel.

We have troops in Israel? Who knew? ???? Providing support and having troops are two completely different things. You do realize we support Israel????

[Lurker]

Thanks for illuminating my dim mind.

Apparently I haven't succeed yet.

L

[Always Right]

Which means giving up any and all support of Israel.

We have troops in Israel? Who knew?

???? Providing support and having troops are two completely different things. You do realize we support Israel????....forget to add paragraph last time.

[tophat9000]

You can alway say the policy caused it because it's true but also not the question... the question is, is the policy right?

If we set a policy of becoming Muslim and join there Jihad the would love us ... but is that the policy we want?...No

OK So we set a policy based on the assumption if we don't bother them... they won't bother us.... has that in the past, prove to be a good assumption ...no... has that in the past, prove to be a good assumption with Islam... no... has that in the past, prove to be a good assumption with militant Islam?...hell no

So how about if they don't bother us.... We won't bother them... problem is they have a habit of uses these times of peace to prepare for the next time to bother us...

Of course you can say it not us it our friends (Israel)

Well has Israel try the same policy if we don't bother them... they won't bother us... yes... did they get the same results as us... yes....

Well maybe in just Jews... if we "Christian" just were not friends with Jews...then militant Islam would not bother us...

But Hindu and Buddhist are not and particular friends of Jews and Christians yet militant Islam seem to bother them... so maybe being a Jews or Christian is not the issue for militant Islam ... maybe militant Islam issue is with anybody thats not militant Islam... because militant Islam seem to even have issues with non militant Islam (hell militant Islam has problem with other branches of militant Islam ...

So you can alway say the policy caused it because it's true ...If we set a policy of becoming Muslim and join there Jihad the would love us ... but is that the policy we want?... We say No so it our own dam fault...

It kind like saying "no" to putting out is the reason the women got raped and therefor it's her own dam fault

[sauropod]

Interesting article in Slate. I saved it for later reading.

So Ron Paul has a point. American intervention in the middle east *does* inflame terrorism in the middle east.

I do not disagree. But what he said implies that it was the sole cause or even the major cause of it and I call BS on that. It would happen whether we were there, had been there or not.

[Rick_Michael]

Ron Paul=Idealogue

[BlackbirdSST]

Actually we, and I do mean we, were in Lebanon. That's why they attacked us in Lebanon you frigging twit.

LMAO! The bad thing here is you had to point that out. Is it any wonder we're in the mess we're in? Go Ron Go! Blackbird.

[sauropod]

Keep trying.