Ron Paul on 9/11

[GaryC 7]

Oh yeah, 9/11 is all our fault! What a nut job. So because a mass murderer like UBL doesn't like what we do, that is justification for attacking us? Give me a break!! By that logic we didn't like what Saddam was doing and so us attacking Iraq was justified!! Works both ways you know!!

blowback

do you know what that term means?

I am not, specifically, a Ron Paul supporter. But I can appreciate that he has at least opened a history book. Things that we, the US govt, did many years ago are coming back to haunt us. What is sad is that we, the american people, would never have sanctioned the great majority of actions that were taken years ago. But, no one asked us. And only a select few prospered from those actions.

On blowback, one thing the middle easterners have the market cornered on is, memory. Their memories are many times longer than our nation's existence.

We need to educate ourselves. We need to read many differing viewpoints on what is happening around us.

It is frightening that we have become so closed minded. I recently heard a statement by a coworker that I hadn't heard about before. Rather than just accept it or fight it without knowing what I was talking about, I went on the computer(amazing machine!!). I found the facts, emailed him the links so he could enlighten himself. I got a polite reply that basically said, " I will just take my pablum from my brand of pundit". so rather than think for himself, he would rather be led by the nose. This is where our country is headed if we elect another bushy president--he is the divider, not a uniter. He is the teller of info, not the gatherer of wisdom. I don't give a tinker's damn about what body politic someone is as long as he is honest with himself and with me. Bush is neither.

And if you want to remember history then remember that everything we were doing in Iraq prior to 9/11 was authorized by the UN and sanctioned by the world at large. Blowback my azz! UBL is a murderer that had no justification for what he did. To suggest otherwise is turning your back on history not remembering it.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I don't think anything the guy said was particularly unreasonable - he is right in most of what he said IMO. The problems we face today are due in a large part to decades worth of short-sighted foreign policy decisions.

He's certainly he's right about the kneejerk reaction towards (any) criticism of decades worth of bad foreign policy painting anyone with a dissenting voice as being unpatriotic. Unfortunately for him (and his campaign) - that thin-skinned political myopia is well-entrenched, and to get people here thinking about the world beyond the borders of this country (in any meaningful way) is probably going to be an uphill battle.

Amazing how people can read a statement - and add meaning to it that isn't there. Same old "with us or against us" rubbish .

He's not justifying 9/11 as much as putting it in a general historical context ("justifying" is basically putting an emotional spin on his comments that simply isn't there). Much as some people would like to believe - the middle-east is not Mordor.

Edited November 5, 2007 by Number 6

[joelunchbox 0]

I don't think anything the guy said was particularly unreasonable - he is right in most of what he said IMO. The problems we face today are due in a large part to decades worth of short-sighted foreign policy decisions.

He's certainly he's right about the kneejerk reaction towards (any) criticism of decades worth of bad foreign policy painting anyone with a dissenting voice as being unpatriotic. Unfortunately for him (and his campaign) - that thin-skinned political myopia is well-entrenched, and to get people here thinking about the world beyond the borders of this country (in any meaningful way) is probably going to be an uphill battle.

Amazing how people can read a statement - and add meaning to it that isn't there. Same old "with us or against us" rubbish .

He's not justifying 9/11 as much as putting it in a general historical context ("justifying" is basically putting an emotional spin on his comments that simply isn't there). Much as some people would like to believe - the middle-east is not Mordor.

I probably should have added that I couldn't access the ling provided in the original post. I went out on the Internet and read about Ron Paul's position on 9-11. I fomed an opinion and made an entry here. I hoped it would inspire others to go out into the Internet and learn for themselves.

Is OBL a criminal, yes.

Just because something is sanctioned doesn't mean it is the right thing to do. You and I would probably be surprised or maybe not by all the bribery...oooppsss....we don't bribe, we just happen to send money, arms and food to people to who support our agenda. Chew on that for a while.

We need to sit down, and figure out what we stand for. What do you want? What is important to you? Really important.

Unfortunately, I do not see anything in the prior post (my apologies if this is connected to the wrong post), about someone going out and reading about the issues here.

If you haven't seen "the kingdom" and you do go see it, don't be late. The first five minutes give a very concise, very appropriate timeline for OBL. Good movie but not sure it brings anything new to the table.

[Geist 0]

And if you want to remember history then remember that everything we were doing in Iraq prior to 9/11 was authorized by the UN and sanctioned by the world at large. Blowback my azz! UBL is a murderer that had no justification for what he did. To suggest otherwise is turning your back on history not remembering it.

Except for the invasion, of course, that wasn't sanctioned. And do you really think the US ought to be acting only when the UN tells us to? Does that mean you were against the war in Iraq?

What does Usama Bin Laden have to do with Iraq? He was not in Iraq when we invaded.

The fact of the matter is that the US has been interfering in countries around the world since the end of World War 2 to such a degree as we would never allow at home. What gives us the authority to go into Iran and overthrow their government, something we are apparently threatening to do again?

It is impossible to look at a terrorist and devine their motivations. Some of them may be acting because for religious reasons, some because they "hate us for our freedoms", others because they hate us for infringing on their freedoms, and their right to choose the government they want, without interference from the busybodies of the world.

I don't think he is saying its the fault of the US. I think Ron Paul is saying eactly what Geo. Washington said- avoid foreign entanglement. He is an isolationist.

Not exactly. He is a non-interventionist. Here, this is from an article he wrote for the New Hampshire Union Leader

A non-interventionist foreign policy is not an isolationist foreign policy. It is quite the opposite. Under a Paul administration, the United States would trade freely with any nation that seeks to engage with us. American citizens would be encouraged to visit other countries and interact with other peoples rather than be told by their own government that certain countries are off limits to them...It is not we non-interventionists who are isolationsists. The real isolationists are those who impose sanctions and embargoes on countries and peoples across the globe because they disagree with the internal and foreign policies of their leaders. The real isolationists are those who choose to use force overseas to promote democracy, rather than seek change through diplomacy, engagement, and by setting a positive example.

'Nuff said.

[joelunchbox 0]

Oh yeah, 9/11 is all our fault! What a nut job. So because a mass murderer like UBL doesn't like what we do, that is justification for attacking us? Give me a break!! By that logic we didn't like what Saddam was doing and so us attacking Iraq was justified!! Works both ways you know!!

I don't think he is saying its the fault of the US. I think Ron Paul is saying eactly what Geo. Washington said- avoid foreign entanglement. He is an isolationist.

PS I can't believe I am defending his POV. Every progressive in Texas has known he is nuts for years

Question, are we the captains of our ship? If we are, then yes this is a consequence of our actions. Are we saying that this just happened? Nothing we have done has had any effect on the world? These are extreme viewpoints--it would seem reasonable to me that our actions have had some effect on things that have happened to our county and that somethings are unexpected also.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Agreed. I just don't get why people are afraid to look at a general historical context without taking the view that doing so is somehow ideologically dangerous. Of course I suppose the point here is that it is ideologically dangerous - for people who cannot see beyond the ideology.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Unfortunately, I do not see anything in the prior post (my apologies if this is connected to the wrong post), about someone going out and reading about the issues here.

Wasn't sure if you were referring to me there as you quoted my post above. I wouldn't write me off my "reading" on the basis of one post, any more than I write Paul off for his initial comment in that video-clip before he got some time to clarify his meaning

[doodlebug 3]

blowback

do you know what that term means?

I am not, specifically, a Ron Paul supporter. But I can appreciate that he has at least opened a history book. Things that we, the US govt, did many years ago are coming back to haunt us. What is sad is that we, the american people, would never have sanctioned the great majority of actions that were taken years ago. But, no one asked us. And only a select few prospered from those actions.

On blowback, one thing the middle easterners have the market cornered on is, memory. Their memories are many times longer than our nation's existence.

We need to educate ourselves. We need to read many differing viewpoints on what is happening around us.

It is frightening that we have become so closed minded. I recently heard a statement by a coworker that I hadn't heard about before. Rather than just accept it or fight it without knowing what I was talking about, I went on the computer(amazing machine!!). I found the facts, emailed him the links so he could enlighten himself. I got a polite reply that basically said, " I will just take my pablum from my brand of pundit". so rather than think for himself, he would rather be led by the nose. This is where our country is headed if we elect another bushy president--he is the divider, not a uniter. He is the teller of info, not the gatherer of wisdom. I don't give a tinker's damn about what body politic someone is as long as he is honest with himself and with me. Bush is neither.

[Caladan 19]

You mean the foreign policy of a superpower might have an impact on the world? Gee!

[joelunchbox 0]

Agreed. I just don't get why people are afraid to look at a general historical context without taking the view that doing so is somehow ideologically dangerous. Of course I suppose the point here is that it is ideologically dangerous - for people who cannot see beyond the ideology.

UUHHH What he said!!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Agreed. I just don't get why people are afraid to look at a general historical context without taking the view that doing so is somehow ideologically dangerous. Of course I suppose the point here is that it is ideologically dangerous - for people who cannot see beyond the ideology.

UUHHH What he said!!

I think the reaction to Paul's statements is merely illustrative of what happens when you question the foundation of a person's world-view - people respond negatively, and viciously. None of what he said is particularly controversial or indeed 'radical', but it says something that people can't have a dicussion on the basis of some obvious truths without adding their own (negative) emotional subtext to the comments.

It says, quite simply, that a good number of people aren't ready or willing to give up a very insular world view. Of course it does explain quite a lot about our interaction with other countries.

[Stabu 0]

Oh, btw. speaking of which. Today Ron Paul is trying to beat the previous record for most money raised in any ellections anywhere in the world EVER (the previous record is 3 million in a day held by Kerry in 2004)! So you can join the fun by going to Ron Paul's page and donate! If you can't, wan't, won't or have already maxed out you can always look at the big numbers roll here or here. It's rather fun really . I promice to join in with my $2,300 after i receive my green card .

Ron Paul is already third in cash at hand (after Fred Thompson and Giuliani) and he has probably raised the most this quarter. Furthermore he is third on intrade markets Republican field (after Romney and Giuliani) and he polls quite highly in many early primary states (he polls higher in New Hampshire than Thompson for example). So there's a real chance that he might win. And if he does, you can be sure that the troops will leave Iraq, Germany, Korea and all the rest as quickly as they safely can .

[Marc and Olga 0]

Agreed. I just don't get why people are afraid to look at a general historical context without taking the view that doing so is somehow ideologically dangerous. Of course I suppose the point here is that it is ideologically dangerous - for people who cannot see beyond the ideology.

UUHHH What he said!!

I think the reaction to Paul's statements is merely illustrative of what happens when you question the foundation of a person's world-view - people respond negatively, and viciously. None of what he said is particularly controversial or indeed 'radical', but it says something that people can't have a dicussion on the basis of some obvious truths without adding their own (negative) emotional subtext to the comments.

It says, quite simply, that a good number of people aren't ready or willing to give up a very insular world view. Of course it does explain quite a lot about our interaction with other countries.

I don't think it is just a reactionary response, all the while he is explaining his point of view, what is being flashed on the screen by that particular media outlet? "Blames U.S. for 9/11" of course anyone that bothered to listen to (understand) what he was saying would know that is not what he was saying.

My favorite part was when he was talking about had we stayed focused on the primary objective (OBL) we would not be in the position we are in today.

I still say, IF he wins the primary...I will vote for him.

EDIT: clarification

Edited November 5, 2007 by Marc and Olga

[Geist 0]

I still say, IF he wins the primary...I will vote for him.

Why, who are you voting for in the primary?

[GaryC 7]

Some of the opinions and ideas of what is happening are truly amazing. No use in even arguing with you all about it. IMO your misled and wrong. But I also know you think I am just as wrong and misled. I can only pray people that think like this never get into power.