PDA

View Full Version : Dr. Paul on Terrorists




cradle2graveconservative
06-02-2008, 11:29 PM
Edit

Omphfullas Zamboni
06-02-2008, 11:49 PM
Hello,

Listen to this conference, please, sir. The guest speaker speaks at length concerning the Middle East, foreign policy, and protecting the United States from terrorism:

http://fora.tv/2008/04/21/America_and_Islam_After_Iraq_with_Michael_Scheuer

Be well.

Sincerely yours,
Omphfullas Zamboni

Danke
06-02-2008, 11:50 PM
I don't see the argument in actions to be taken vs. what RP says?

Suppose your position is correct? How does that differ from RP not wanting to send our troops over there to stir some more shit up? Could we not protect ourselves more effectively (and cheaply) by other measures? Like protect our boarders & ports, arm our pilots, etc?

cradle2graveconservative
06-02-2008, 11:55 PM
Edit

cradle2graveconservative
06-03-2008, 12:13 AM
Edit

Omphfullas Zamboni
06-03-2008, 12:20 AM
Thank you, I found that very useful.

Hello,

Much obliged. Have you listened to the whole talk, already? It freaks me out, severely; the reality of terrorism is more cause for action than the popularly presented view.

Sincerely,
Omphfullas Zamboni

Danke
06-03-2008, 12:27 AM
...I believe there's a flaw in his belief that simply negotiating with terrorism is a solution for it.

O.K. Point me to where RP has said that. Negotiate with terrorism?

How do you negotiate with a tactic?

Mini-Me
06-03-2008, 12:38 AM
This is a LONG, RAMBLING POST, but...

A good book to read on this is Dying to Win by Robert A. Pape. I haven't read it, but Ron Paul references it in The Revolution: A Manifesto where he's making his brief case (which is pretty strong for only being a single chapter on foreign policy :)).

Essentially, you're right that there will always be a few nutcases who hate us so much "just because" that they're willing to sacrifice their lives fighting us, but they are very few. In fact, Ayatollah Khomeini tried for a whole decade to start a jihad against us based precisely on the premise of our "immoral culture" and all that, but it went nowhere. Sure, a lot of Muslim hardliners agreed with his message, but it just wasn't worth giving up their lives, loved ones, and homelands to take us out. We were some distant and remote heathen culture, so despite their hatred for us, we just weren't worth it to them. The guys we're talking about here, the ones who would blow us up anyway, are not your average run-of-the-mill terrorist recruit: Rather, these are the kind of guys that singlehandedly start terrorist groups in the first place.

All of the other ones are just a bunch of confused, pissed off young guys that the first group emotionally manipulates to join their cause. Yes, it does require an ideological backing (extreme, militant Islam), but that alone is not enough to make young men leave their family and blow themselves up: It's a combination of that guiding ideology and infuriating practical concerns that really make people join these groups. Ron Paul mentioned a statistic from Pape's book: After studying every single suicide attack since 1980, Pape found that perpetrators were twice as likely to be from a country with a strong Wahhabist tradition (basically, fundamentalist Islam) than not. However, they were ten times as likely to come from a country with a US troop presence than not. The reason Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda were so much more successful than the Ayatollah in gaining recruits is because of Osama's very specific list of practical grievances against the US: In essence, he's right to hate us, and the truth of this gets these extremely religious young Muslims really, really pissed off - pissed off enough that they can be convinced to commit horrible crimes. Sure, it doesn't help that they're entirely convinced that a whole bunch of virgins are waiting for them, but as Pape found, the real reasons were a whole lot more worldly and practical than we originally led ourselves to believe (and which warmongering propagandists want us to believe).

That's some of the evidence I remember off the top of my head...I'd strongly encourage you to read The Revolution: A Manifesto to hear it in Paul's words. He also quotes a former CIA expert on bin Laden, etc., and his foreign policy arguments are some of the most compelling ones in the book IMO. If you're still not convinced, it wouldn't hurt to check out his reading list, particularly the book I mentioned by Pape, Dying to Win.

Anyway, the bottom line is that with a vastly different foreign policy, we wouldn't draw nearly so much hatred, and we also would avoid pissing people off for practical reasons. This would drastically reduce the number of terrorist recruits - the vast majority just wouldn't really have any strong reason to sacrifice so much anymore. There might still be a suicidal Ayatollah-clone out there somewhere, so we'll always have to be relatively on our guard, but it's impossible to have absolute 100% security. Thinking we can is a utopian thought, and the more lives and money we piss away into trying to reach an unattainable goal, the more we'll suffer for it - especially if we pursue it with counterproductive means. Sure, we can follow McCain's train of thought and say, "We're never wrong, and we were attacked on 9/11, and by God, because we're right, we're going to do whatever we damn well please and embark on an eternal War on Terror, blah blah, and if we do anything else, we're just pacifying the enemy and the terrorists win, blah blah," but if we choose to sit on that moral high horse, the only thing we'll get out of it is being smug in our self-righteousness, and we'll never actually experience peace and security. When it comes down to it, peace and security is what it's all about...and the best way to achieve that is to pursue good relations with as many nations as we can, and just leave the rest alone.

So, how can we pursue good relations? Well, let's first examine how we've been pursuing bad relations. Here's a short list of some of the things our government has done that piss off people in other countries (especially in the Middle East):

Unbeknownst to the public at large, our CIA essentially operates as a secret policy-making agency, performing peacetime cloak and dagger missions, helping to organize rebel groups to launch a coup, and contributing to the general instability of any regime we don't like. It played an important role in overthrowing Iran's democratically elected government in the 50's and installing the Shah, which was friendly with us but oppressive to the Iranian people. Now, if I were an old guy from Iran, I'd be pretty pissed off - imagine Iran's secret intelligence agency overthrowing the US government and installing an oppressive theocracy, which takes years for us to overthrow to restore a republic. (Now imagine that happening during an administration you actually liked, i.e. not the Bush admin, and the thought should be even more upsetting ;))
We have troops in 130 countries, and that includes a whole bunch in the Middle East. A lot of people don't really like it when their country is occupied by foreign troops, and I can't really blame them. I know it's hard for some Americans to understand, because "Hey, we're America - who would have a problem with us?" Still, I sure as hell know I wouldn't want Chinese troops permanently stationed in the US, arrogantly using our country as a launching pad for its own empire. It sends the message, "Don't forget - you're completely at our mercy, and we can invade your country at a moment's notice."
Although we give more foreign aid and weapons to Arab countries than we do to Israel (ironically fuelling the fires of war on both sides...this is our twisted idea of "neutrality"), Middle Eastern countries can't stand us because of the way we always "have Israel's back." Sure, we give Israel less money (although still way too much), but if push came to shove, we'd jump in and fight alongside her in war. It kind of pisses off Israel's enemies that the only world superpower is unfairly picking sides and rigging the game, and it also upsets them that we're butting into a situation that's frankly none of our business, which ultimately makes us an obstacle to lasting peace in the region.
It doesn't help that we invaded Iraq. It doesn't help that we're still there. It doesn't help that we've threatened several other countries. It doesn't help that we're apparently looking for an excuse to go to war with Iran, and we're constantly making veiled threats of invading Iran. We're incessantly accusing them of trying to make a nuke, even though our own investigations have shown they stopped that five years ago (and if I were them, I'd want a nuke anyway - the countries with nukes are the only ones the US seems to treat with respect). Also, as much as we don't want Iran to have a single nuclear weapon (or for nukes to proliferate at all), other countries are able to recognize our hypocrisy for what it is: We have thousands, Israel has a whole bunch, and we're also the only country crazy enough to have ever actually used them on anyone else. After all that, we have the audacity to think that we should have thousands, yet another sovereign nation cannot be trusted with one? And that if they ever tried, that's grounds for preemptive war?


There are plenty of other things we do that upset other countries, especially Middle Eastern ones, but I think you get the idea. From the biased perspective of an American citizen, we're the good guys, right? I mean, we're us! I'm a good guy, you're a good guy - our country is the good side! However, when you truly consider the world with an objective mind, it becomes truly apparent how much our government abuses our superpower status to bully around those weaker than us. Sure, a lot of people justify this under the premise, "That's just what nations do - they look out for their own interests!" However, we reached the point long ago where we were angering other countries by acting on our short-term interests that we totally undermined our long-term interests. You can only abuse your influence so far until it's in simply everyone else's interest to knock you down a peg.

Now, the point of all of that was: Our government does all of these different things and more that would completely enrage anybody on the receiving end of them, and yet neoconservatives STILL say that nobody is actually bothered by any of it, and the reason people hate the US is solely because of religious fundamentalism?!? Yeah, right! Talk about denying reality...:eek:

What we need to do to pursue better relationships with other countries is to stop doing all of these things, stop trying to police the world, and start minding our own business. It's time to just become the best republic on the face of the earth, rather than the all-powerful empire that everyone else revolves around. If we did this, and we only interacted with other countries through trade, travel, and diplomacy, then we'd get along a LOT better with everyone else...and a lot less people would bother being terrorists.

EDIT: Ah, your question is simple - you can read the rest of this post for an explanation of why and how, but...the bottom line is, Ron Paul doesn't want to negotiate with terrorists. Rather, his simple plan is to stop creating terrorists in the first place, and any stragglers who attack us will be dealt with the Constitutional way, through Letters of Marque and Reprisal. The key is understanding why people become terrorists in the first place, so we can stop fueling those conditions. Also, it shouldn't hurt to mention that if airlines were in charge of their security (and not the feds) and airline pilots were allowed to carry guns, 9/11 probably never would have happened. After all, how much more dangerous is a pilot with a gun? He can already nose-dive and kill everyone on board anyway.

cradle2graveconservative
06-03-2008, 12:44 AM
Edit

cradle2graveconservative
06-03-2008, 12:55 AM
Edit

Mini-Me
06-03-2008, 12:56 AM
Ah...in regards to the conversation with Stossel:
Well, first of all, I think it's a bit far-fetched that some terrorist leader is going to take power in a country and directly threaten the United States of America. It would be suicide. In fact, that leader would quite possibly be killed by his own people, since they're smart enough to know that we can and possibly will obliterate their whole country if it directly attacked us like that. (Well, Ron Paul wouldn't, but someone they're more likely to hate in the first place like Bush sure as hell would.)

If a terrorist leader acquired a nuke and was planning on using it, they'd just do it - they wouldn't bother threatening us. If they're threatening us, it means they're rational enough to be talked down, like Russia. What do you suggest, other than diplomacy? Preemptive attack? How will that save us? If we attack, then the nuke is no longer a threat but a reality, and it will be detonated in retaliation for our attack, unless our attack involves miraculously extricating the nuke. Also, it's important to note that diplomacy is not the same as "negotiating with terrorists" - hostage-taking terrorists want something specific, and if we give it to them, that just encourages more of the same. In this case, diplomacy is in making the other side understand that hostilities will cause horrific casualties not only on our side, but on theirs as well. Diplomacy is appealing to the other side's sense that bloodshed is a lose/lose scenario.

Besides, we're so geographically isolated that we cannot even be nuked from the Middle East - it has to be done here, by a single terrorist or a small group, and once he's decided he's going to do it, our only option is to try stopping him. Either way, no war is necessary beforehand. After the fact, if we find out it was sponsored by a rogue state, we'd go to war in retaliation for an attack. This is MUCH different from the Bush and McCain doctrine of preemptively attacking anyone who threatens us or who becomes a potential threat.

Ultimately, armed hostilities are the fault of whichever side fires the first shot.

Anyway, the most important thing is to prevent countries (and people) from wanting to threaten us like this (or wanting to risk everything they'd have to risk in order to do so).

Omphfullas Zamboni
06-03-2008, 01:17 AM
In regards to religious extremism, I would also like to add that the idea of a worldwide caliphate is overviewed in the speech which I have posted. Though not mentioned directly within the context of this conversation, it is a common concern for those who feel fanaticism is the prime motivator for terrorist attacks.

Thank you for your time.

Regards,
Omphfullas Zamboni

Kraig
06-03-2008, 01:35 AM
I've found this topic, above all others, to be the one where the majority of people find fault with Dr. Paul, and I'm one of them. I'll quote from his interview with John Stossel because it's what I can

remember: Paul said that it is the lack of diplomacy that leads to war with Middle Eastern countries, and it isn't a hate of our culture that leads terrorists to attack us, but simply the occupation of their

lands. He then cites the Cold War as an example of how diplomatic relations with a country are the key to peace, and not violence. I believe this to be the case 90% of the time. I believe the majority of

Muslims would be content to dislike us and our culture from afar and not violently try and "punish" us. However, that being said, it doesn't take the majority of Muslims to hijack a plane, or to sneak a

dirty nuke into Washington. We may be able to reason with the Middle Eastern countries themselves, as we were able to with the USSR, but I'm afraid that the extremes of Islam bear no semblance of

reason. They do, quite frankly, want to kill us for our culture, and whether or not we occupy the Middle East won't change that. It may be harder to mobilize a large number without that fact as backing,

but as I've already stated, it doesn't take a large number. The concept of MAD doesn't matter to these people as it did to the Soviets. Turns out the Soviets enjoyed life, whereas the Muslim extremists

welcome death. Please explain why I'm wrong and Dr. Paul is right.

Reseach Al Queda's recruitment sucess rates in countries that have a US presense vs countries that do not, that will answer your question. Yes there will always be nut jobs who just want to kill us, but in most cases they are going to recruit people who have suffered and lost the will to live to do the real dirty work. Convincing a devout muslim who has a job and a family to drop what he is doing to go kill americans isn't an easy task. Find another muslim who's family has been killed by the US military and it becomes quite a bit easier.

That said, I hope no one is pretending that we can prevent all attacks, period. The point is to just take the most logical approach, and then you'll get the fewest attacks.

Mini-Me
06-03-2008, 01:55 AM
Reseach Al Queda's recruitment sucess rates in countries that have a US presense vs countries that do not, that will answer your question. Yes there will always be nut jobs who just want to kill us, but in most cases they are going to recruit people who have suffered and lost the will to live to do the real dirty work. Convincing a devout muslim who has a job and a family to drop what he is doing to go kill americans isn't an easy task. Find another muslim who's family has been killed by the US military and it becomes quite a bit easier.

That said, I hope no one is pretending that we can prevent all attacks, period. The point is to just take the most logical approach, and then you'll get the fewest attacks.

I've posted one-too many times here probably, but I wanted to quote your comments for being very concise and accurate. :)

cradle2graveconservative
06-03-2008, 02:38 AM
Edit

Delivered4000
06-03-2008, 05:01 AM
Why don't the terrorists attack Switzerland? Surely they won't like their culture of pig eating and extra marital sex, not to mention drinking alcohol and listening to music.

liberteebell
06-03-2008, 05:21 AM
Reseach Al Queda's recruitment sucess rates in countries that have a US presense vs countries that do not, that will answer your question. Yes there will always be nut jobs who just want to kill us, but in most cases they are going to recruit people who have suffered and lost the will to live to do the real dirty work. Convincing a devout muslim who has a job and a family to drop what he is doing to go kill americans isn't an easy task. Find another muslim who's family has been killed by the US military and it becomes quite a bit easier.

That said, I hope no one is pretending that we can prevent all attacks, period. The point is to just take the most logical approach, and then you'll get the fewest attacks.


Excellent post.

Not only that, but you have to go back and understand the long and complicated history behind our meddling in ME affairs, financially, covertly, militarily and otherwise. It goes back to the arbitrary dividing of the Ottoman Empire, with no respect or acknowledgement of tribal differences (which remain today) and the creation of Israel.

Bottom line: "terrorists" didn't just wake up one day and want to kill Americans for no apparent reason.

liberteebell
06-03-2008, 05:23 AM
Why don't the terrorists attack Switzerland? Surely they won't like their culture of pig eating and extra marital sex, not to mention drinking alcohol and listening to music.


QFT!

Mini-Me
06-03-2008, 06:37 AM
Define pre-emptive strike. If we have intelligence (ironic word in this day in age) that says "so and so has a nuke in this camp here," I have no problem sending a SEAL squad in to find them and "dispose" of the risk. I wouldn't want to go to war with the country where said camp was, but I doubt we'd send a SEAL team in with a negotiator just in case. I always believed a surgical strike made more sense after 9/11, and I believe that's the future of modern warfare. This fighting in the streets with tens of thousands of people is becoming as outdated as standing in lines and shooting at masses of soldiers until one mass collapsed.

From my other post, new emphasis added:
"If we attack, then the nuke is no longer a threat but a reality, and it will be detonated in retaliation for our attack, unless our attack involves miraculously extricating the nuke."
By this, I was referring to the SEAL team idea. :) If another country makes a direct threat of using a nuke, such a surgical preemptive strike would certainly be on the table (IMO) to neutralize the threat - assuming we know where it is. That said, if it isn't already on our soil, it's probably not an imminent threat anyway. There's a lot to be said about being surrounding by water to the east and west.

As far as the future of warfare...a bright future of war would be one in which we don't send our 18 year old kids to kill and be killed by their 18 year old kids, letting the leaders continue sitting in their luxurious offices. If I were Commander in Chief and we were forced into war with another country, there would be two objectives:
1.) Repel attacks on our own soil
2.) Assassinate their politicians/rulers, then leave and let their country deal with the nation building and replacing the dead politicians. If their new regime goes to war with us, those leaders will have to die, too. Lather, rinse, repeat - minimal young kids on either side die, and finally, it's the old men who cause all the problems who do the suffering. Once this became the standard modus operandi for war, I don't think many wars would ever be waged again. ;)

Of course, I'm compelled to mention in all of my posts in this thread...your best bet is to avoid creating enemies in the first place.