Anyone who has taken a close look at Ron Paul’s past statements should have seen this coming. The Des Moines Register reports that Ron Paul places the blame for 9.11 on US policy:
Two weeks away from the tenth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, presidential candidate and Texas Rep. Ron Paul says that U.S. intervention in the Middle East is a main motivation behind terrorist hostilities toward America, and that Islam is not a threat to the nation.
At a campaign stop on Saturday in Winterset, one man asked Paul how terrorist groups would react if the U.S. removed its military presence in Middle Eastern nations, a move the candidate advocates.
“Which enemy are you worried that will attack our national security?” Paul asked.
“If you’re looking for specifics, I’m talking about Islam. Radical Islam,” the man answered.
“I don’t see Islam as our enemy,” Paul said. “I see that motivation is occupation and those who hate us and would like to kill us, they are motivated by our invasion of their land, the support of their dictators that they hate.”
Regarding 9/11, Paul said that attacks against the U.S. from Middle Eastern groups at home and abroad can be traced to the foreign presence of U.S. troops, as well as America’s relationships with dictator regimes.
Paul referred to a military base in Saudi Arabia, the birthplace of Islam, as a key motivator in the Sept. 11th attacks. Osama bin Laden viewed it as an American desecration of holy land.
“After 9/11, (people said) ‘Oh yeah, it’s those very bad people who hate us,’ but 15 of (the hijackers) came from Saudi Arabia,” said Paul. “One of the reasons they attacked us, is we propped up this Sharia government and the fundamentalists hated us for it.”
This is but a logical extension of everything Ron Paul believes.
Of course, the real truth is that even if Ron Paul had been elected president as the Libertarian candidate in 1988, and had followed his campaign pledges to unilaterally disengage from the rest of the world and follow a noninterventionalist and isolationist policy, 9.11 would have still occurred. The US would have still been–despite Paul’s efforts–the richest, most powerful nation and the leading light for democracy in the world. These men who perpetrated 9.11 hated America not for what it did, but for what it is. And no amount of fawning, kowtowing, and disengagement from world affairs will change who we are as a people.
Most informed people understand this. Ron Paul does not.
(H/t Politicons)
Related articles
- Ron Paul Blames US for 911 Attacks (atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com)
- Ron Paul: American Foreign Policy Is The Primary Motivation For Terrorism (outsidethebeltway.com)
You’re arguing a hypothetical here. If the military had disengaged from the rest of the world from 1988 and onward, nobody knows what would have happened. I don’t see Ron Paul arguing that 9/11 could have been prevented had he been elected in 1988 because he knows such a statement is foolish on its face. Why argue along the same lines and call it wisdom?
The person arguing the hypothetical is Ron Paul. He has created the hypothetical and now you want to say that replying to his hypothetical is foolish. This is dishonest, but typical.
Ron Paul has said that US policy incited 9.11, specifically the US presence in Saudi Arabia. If Paul had become president in 1988 and followed his stated policies, the US would not have been in Saudi Arabia, and therefore according to to him 9.11 would not have happened. This is simply wrong.
It is a fact that Spain, the UK, and Australia (the Bali bombing) all suffered 9.11 style attacks by Al Qaeda, even though these countries were not at all guilty of any recent crimes, hypothetical or otherwise, against Saudi Arabia or Islam. The motivation for these attacks was simple–they represented the West, democracy, and are considered infidels by the terrorists. According to Ron Paul’s theories, these attacks should not have happened.
But why don’t you ever defend his position instead of trying to point out fallacies in what his detractors say? This is very typical of Ron Paul and his supporters–one rarely sees a full defense of his views. Rather, it is always attack, attack, attack. He and his cohort should be required to actually defend his views with fact, and not theories or supposition, as a prelude to shooting back questions and accusations towards people who disagree with him. Until you begin to actually defend his positions instead of merely trying to refute mine, then I am not going to talk to you about this any longer, as it is a waste of time. You are always trying to sidetrack the debate. He is the one with the nutty statements–my positions are fairly mainstream conservative. The burden of the argument is with Ron Paul and his supporters, not me.
The simple fact is, Ron Paul’s position is indefensible on its very face.
No, Ron Paul was not stating a hypothetical, he was stating the situation right now as he sees it; there is a difference.
Spain, Australia, and the UK all participated in the Iraq War, so your argument falls flat right there. They were attacked after they sent troops into Iraq. You’ll recall that after the train bombings in Spain, the Socialist took over and they pulled out of Iraq. So again, you’ve only reinforced Ron Paul’s argument by bringing those nations in. You could mention Russia, except Al-Qaeda specifically has left them alone and the terrorists they deal with are those in the territories they occupy.
I know that I have not defended Ron Paul’s stances here on this blog, but as a believer in the individual rather than group think, I refuse to do so because I may interpret it wrong. He said what he said. The fact is, there are numerous videos on YouTube of him explaining it over and over again.
Also, if the simple fact to you is that Ron Paul’s position is indefensible, then why in the name of all that is holy and good should I defend him? It is obvious that you have zero interest in listening or considering anything he says John, so what should I say in response to that? As far as I can tell, there is nothing I can say that would either convince of anything favorable of Ron Paul or have you respond to me here.
And that smacks of pride. I am not asking for your support of Ron Paul. And I’m sorry that Sarah Palin has so far turned out to be a huge disappointment as far as presidential aspirations are concerned.
In my next post, I will answer your main point about Spain, the UK, and Australia above (you are in error, by the way), and I will also address Ron Paul’s stated position in detail. There is not much else to say to you.
My main point is a response to yours. I’ve heard Ron Paul’s stated position where he believes that offensive actions should not be taken without Congressional approval via a declaration of war or a Letter of Marque and Reprisal. Defensive actions, however, do not need Congressional approval. This is how Thomas Jefferson handled the Barbary pirates. (see this speech for some insight: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VsN0rGjonjE)
But still, I know that I am just beating a dead horse here as you have stated that Ron Paul’s position is indefensible, but required me and others who support him to defend his position.
You are trying to change the issue again.
I’ve decide to delay my planned post about 9.11 until later.
Ron Paul may be right in that American foreign policy has over the year earned us as many or more enemies than friends. What seems to escape most Libertarians is that there are bad people and bad governments in this world. And, bad people and bad governments do bad things. Ignoring this truth can be dangerous to ones health.
So what you are saying is that because bad governments do bad things, it is our job to fix them?
What about when our government does bad things?
And when have you ever seen or heard or read a self-described libertarian ever claim that there are not bad governments or bad people?
We cannot ignore everything and hope it turns out well. Mark, you are changing the subject again. Why don’t you reply to what was said instead of trying to put words into someone else’s mouth?
I have not changed any issue, I am responding to what was posted. If he doesn’t respond, that’s his business.
I asked a simple question for clarification. If there are bad governments and bad people, why is it our job to straighten them out? I did not say we should ignore everything, you are putting words into my mouth.
The logical conclusion to his statement was support of massive foreign interventionism. I was simply redirecting his statement and asking why it is solely our responsibility. I do not see how that is changing the subject.
There are two Pauls. The domestic/economic/social policy Paul is one I could get behind. The foreign policy/defense Paul is one I want to retire to a rocking chair at the funny farm.
Unfortunately, it is the same man.
For some reason my response to this never appeared, I’m not sure why that would be. Basically, I said I don’t see how anyone can deny that an aggressive foreign policy helps the recruiting efforts of terrorists. Imagine if you lived in a country that was being occupied by a foreign nation, and that you had seen innocent bystanders — perhaps your own family or loved ones — caught in the crossfire. It makes a lot of sense that someone in that situation would be motivated to attack the occupying force, or strike at the homeland of the occupying force.
I’m not saying that masterminds of terrorist plots hate us because we’re a global police force (though I’m sure it adds to their hatred of us) — many of them hate us because we have a form of government and society they despise. But their minions, the suicide bombers they are recruiting from the desperate youths in their countries, many of those people hate us because we are an occupying army that has wreaked havoc on their homeland and its people. How can this not be seen as an obvious statement of truth?
Ruling the world with an iron, military fist will never succeed. We must lead by example, by having a free society that others seek to join or imitate. Yes, we should mercilessly attack anyone who attacks us, but we are wasting enormous resources and costing ourselves the goodwill of the rest of the planet by engaging in needless, endless wars. Ron Paul is not a crazy person for recognizing that fact, he is simply stating a pretty basic truth. The crazy people are those who think it’s a good thing to be a global police force, ensuring security for all at our Treasury’s expense.
Would I be correct to guess that perhaps you are okay with the government tapping every phone call and email in the U.S., since only the terrorists and drug dealers and criminals have anything to hide? It’s that militarized view of the world that is the problem.
1) There have been no major terrorist attacks in the US since 9/11. The premise that an aggressive response helps recruits more terrorists cannot be supported.
2) Imagine that you lived in a country that had just been set free from a repressive dictatorship like Saddam Hussein’s or the Taliban. It makes sense that you would welcome US forces. This in fact happened, though in the opinion of many, but by no means all Iraqis and Afghans, it is past time for US forces to leave.
3) The people who perpetrated 9/11 were wealthy kids from Saudi Arabia. They had never been abused in any way by the US. The people who perpetrated the London attacks were from England, but of Pakistani and Jamaican heritage. The people who perpetrated the Bali and Madrid bombings had never lived under any sort of foreign occupation. Can you please point to me where your thesis might have any basis in truth?
4) The military fist succeeded against Japan and Nazi, and in in every other war that has been fought where there were winners and losers.
5) People hate the US because it it the largest, most powerful nation in the world, and because it represents western values such as free speech and democracy. They need no excuse to attack us. Many other nations which were never a part of US policy and the war on terror have been attacked by Al Qaeda and Islmofacsists for similar reasons, even though they pose no conceivable threat to Islam.
6) I never said that the US government should tap phones. You are trying to put words in my mouth.
(1) Who do you think are joining the ranks of the insurgents across Afghanistan and Iraq? To say the lack of attacks is a success story is only a small part of the picture. The fact that we’ve been occupying the growing forces of insurgent extremists by “taking the war to them” doesn’t mean they haven’t had a great boom in recruitment as a result of that action. At some point, we’ll need to draw down forces, and where will all these now-highly experienced insurgents go? Well of course, they’ll take the war to the Western nations again. At which point of course you will say “See? We should never have stopped taking the war to them!”
(2) Being occupied by a foreign army is not exactly the same thing as being “set free” by them. Yes, the old dictator is gone, but instead you have a decade or more of tanks in your streets, checkpoints everywhere, fighter jets roaring overhead, surveillance drones constantly looking down on you, and a never-ending fear of IEDs or suicide bombers everywhere you go. When you spend much of your life living in a war zone, it seems like it would be pretty easy to start blaming the foreign army for starting the war, even if life was pretty bad under the old dictator.
(3) As I said, the people BEHIND terrorist attacks undoubtedly just hate freedom and hate our global influence. Same goes for what would be equated to the terrorist “special forces” — those you’d trust with a high-value target like the 9/11 attacks. But the whole infrastructure of terrorist groups is based upon a recruitment foundation in poor, downtrodden communities. The suicide bombers walking into markets across Iraq and Afghanistan are not wealthy kids from Saudia Arabia.
(4) Military victory works fine against a COUNTRY. Not so much against an amorphous idea like “terrorism.” The war on terrorism is more like the war on drugs, an unwinnable war with no clear objective. Kill all the terrorists? Then what? Obviously, there is a never-ending supply of terrorists so long as we are seen as the big bully on the block. It’s basically an Orwellian basis for eternal war.
(5) People hate us because we are a large, powerful nation that *exerts that power through global military dominance.* Some may hate and attack us even if we were a relatively peaceful economic powerhouse, but if you’re seriously suggesting that people are no more likely to hate a global military police force than a global economic powerhouse, then I guess we just cannot possibly see eye-to-eye. People hate with envy the successful guy with the big house and fancy car. But that is nothing like the resentful, cold hatred felt toward someone who dominates you by force.
(6) Yes, as I said quite explicitly, I was GUESSING that you might support such a policy. I’ve found that people who support our global police policies also tend to be more likely to support a domestic police state. How else can we catch the terrorists infiltrating our free society than by making it only free for those who are confirmed through surveillance as being non-terrorists?
Nobody knows what would have happened had Ron Paul won in 1988 and disengaged the military presence across the world. Such hypothetical speculation is foolish at best. I do not hear Ron Paul stating anywhere that had he been President in 1989-1994, that 9/11 would not have happened.
I am wondering though: on the off chance that Ron Paul wins the nomination, which is highly plausible given that John McCain won last time, would you vote for him against Obama? I mean, Obama has continued to wage the War on Terror, so with all this distaste directed at Ron Paul’s own foreign policy views, I would not be surprised with many conservatives allowing Obama to win in 2012.
There are no circumstances where I could imagine voting for Ron Paul for any position in government, regardless of who he were running against. I would rather sit out the election. I do not believe that he his honest, principled, credible, or sane.
It figures. President Barry Obama is better than President Paul because Obama shares the same foreign policy views as President Bush did.
Do you realize how irrational that is, especially considering I was told to vote for John McCain three years ago by conservatives like you?
I proudly was and am a Bush supporter. While I view McCain as flawed in many ways and not to my liking, I cannot imagine that McCain under any circumstances would have been a worse president than Obama. I do have many complaints about Obama’s foreign policy, as I think you give him much too much credit by comparing him with Bush.
Here’s a question for you John (and this is changing the subject): how is Ron Paul dishonest and in what way does he lack credibility? How has he lacked principles?
I’d ask how he is insane, but I can’t really imagine a legitimate answer there so I’ll stick with questions that can be verified.
As pointed out elsewhere on this blog, when Ron Paul ran the House seat in the 1990s he claimed that Ronald Reagan was supporting his candidacy. He was caught in this lie when Ed Meese flew out to Texas to confront him. In his recent campaign, he has personally backed away from this claim. However, many of his supporters are still making it, and he has done nothing to clear the air. This is dishonest. Consequently, most people are under the impression that Ron Paul supported Reagan’s presidency (not true), and that Reagan gave an overall endorsement of Ron Paul’s policies (also not true). Since he is running on Reagan’s coattails, if he were honest he would clear this up.
Then we have the issue of the newsletters produced under his name which were full of racist remarks. His denials about not having authored or known about them are simply not credible.
Tell you what, since you are going to respond to one of my points in a blog post at some point, I’ll post a blog post in response to this one. I think our extensive back and forth merits this.