A quote from Ron Paul that some forum members need to stop straying from...

[Reason]

Foreign Policy, Welfare, and 9/11 (page 245)

"The tragedy of 9/11 and its aftermath dramatize so clearly how a flawed foreign policy has served to encourage the majoritarians determined to run everyone’s life.

Excessive meddling in the internal affairs of other nations and involving ourselves in every conflict around the globe has not endeared the United States to the oppressed of the world.

The Japanese are tired of us. The South Koreans are tired of us. The Europeans are tired of us. The Central Americans are tired of us. The Filipinos are tired of us. And above all, the Arab Muslims are tired of us.

We believe bin Laden when he takes credit for an attack on the West, and we believe him when he warns us of an impending attack. But we refuse to listen to his explanation of why he and his allies are at war with us.

Bin Laden’s claims are straightforward.

The U.S. defiles Islam with military bases on holy land in Saudi Arabia, its initiation of war against Iraq, with 12 years of persistent bombing, and its dollars and weapons being used against the Palestinians as the Palestinian territory shrinks and Israel’s occupation expands.

There will be no peace in the world for the next 50 years or longer if we refuse to believe why those who are attacking us do it.

To dismiss terrorism as the result of Muslims hating us because we’re rich and free is one of the greatest foreign-policy frauds ever perpetrated on the American people. Because the propaganda machine, the media, and the government have restated this so many times, the majority now accept it at face value. And the administration gets the political cover it needs to pursue a “holy” war for democracy against the infidels who hate us for our goodness.

Polling on the matter is followed closely and, unfortunately, is far more important than the rule of law. Do we hear the pundits talk of constitutional restraints on the Congress and the administration? No, all we ever hear are reassurances that the majority supports the President; therefore it must be all right.

The terrorists’ attacks on us, though never justified, are related to our severely flawed foreign policy of intervention. They also reflect the shortcomings of a bureaucracy that is already big enough to know everything it needs to know about any impending attack but too cumbersome to do anything about it.

Bureaucratic weaknesses within a fragile welfare state provide a prime opportunity for those whom we antagonize through our domination over world affairs and global wealth to take advantage of our vulnerability.

But what has been our answer to the shortcomings of policies driven by manipulated majority opinion by the powerful elite? We have responded by massively increasing the federal government’s policing activity to hold American citizens in check and make sure we are well-behaved and pose no threat, while massively expanding our aggressive presence around the world.

There is no possible way these moves can make us more secure against terrorism, yet they will accelerate our march toward national bankruptcy with a currency collapse.

Relying on authoritarian democracy and domestic and international meddling only move us sharply away from a constitutional republic and the rule of law and toward the turbulence of a decaying democracy, about which Madison and others had warned.

Once the goal of liberty is replaced by a preconceived notion of the benefits and the moral justifications of a democracy, a trend toward internationalism and world government follows.

Can one imagine what it might be like if a true worldwide democracy existed and the United Nations were controlled by a worldwide, one man/one vote philosophy? The masses of China and India could vote themselves whatever they needed from the more prosperous western countries.

How long would a world system last based on this absurdity? Yet this is the principle that we’re working so hard to impose on ourselves and others around the world.

In spite of the great strides made toward one-world government based on egalitarianism, I’m optimistic that this Utopian nightmare will never come to fruition. I have already made the case that here at home powerful special interests take over controlling majority opinion, making sure fairness in distribution is never achieved.

This fact causes resentment and becomes so expensive that the entire system becomes unstable and eventually collapses. Democratic socialism is so destructive to production of wealth that it must fail, just as socialism failed under Soviet Communism.

We have a long way to go before old-fashioned nationalism is dead and buried. In the meantime, the determination of those promoting democratic socialism will cause great harm to many people before its chaotic end and we rediscover the basic principle responsible for all of human progress."

[/URL][url]http://www.amazon.com/Foreign-Policy-Freedom-Commerce-Friendship/dp/0912453001/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1242861810&sr=8-1 (http://www.amazon.com/Foreign-Policy-Freedom-Commerce-Friendship/dp/0912453001/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1242861810&sr=8-1)

[Kotin]

+1

[squarepusher]

wow, great

[tremendoustie]

that's excellent

[angelatc]

I didn't see the words "forum members" anywhere in there.

[Working Poor]

I think it is good that this is put here in the forums this is the message that needs to ring out about 911 they attacked us because we won't mind our own business.

There are way too many truthers here and they take away from Ron's message of non intervention in foreign policy.

Ron has told the truth about terrorist attacks on the USA and we need to support it. If the truther movement were about what Ron says we would have a lot more and people awake right now.

Even if the gov. did have something to do with 911 it will never be proved in our life time. What Ron says is true and it makes sense and people could believe it. The general public will not believe the truthers with the message they are sending out.

[Reason]

bump

[tonesforjonesbones]

Yes I saw Schurer on Oreilly last night..he was good as usual. I really like that man and he's very polite. tones

[LibertyEagle]

Working Poor,

Please do not incite a war with the Truthers. :(

[pinkmandy]

Great post. So how would we explain to the average neocon, in simple terms that are easy to understand and repeat, that our promotion of 'democracy' and war activities are actually leading us straight into the world government they fear and detest? If we can do this and get that message out there in a non-confrontational manner we might have some hope at converting more to true liberty. We could take back the liberty movement from the pretenders and bring about real understanding as to why nonintervention is the way to go. In all of my discussions with neocons the war is the sticking point. They just won't budge. :(

[Dreamofunity]

Now I want that book, but I have no money at the moment. :(

[Reason]

Now I want that book, but I have no money at the moment. :(

I too am broke but already have the book! :cool:

[Reason]

Yes I saw Schurer on Oreilly last night..he was good as usual. I really like that man and he's very polite. tones

O'reilly is bad for your health. :cool:

[Reason]

bump!

[Truth-Bringer]

I think it is good that this is put here in the forums this is the message that needs to ring out about 911 they attacked us because we won't mind our own business.

Right - they did want to attack us. But the evidence seems to indicate that there were those in government who knew about it beforehand and allowed it to happen.



There are way too many truthers here and they take away from Ron's message of non intervention in foreign policy.

Look, all I know is that the government's story doesn't add up. But, yes, we also need to embrace non-interventionism as our foreign policy. I don't see any conflict between the two.


Ron has told the truth about terrorist attacks on the USA and we need to support it. If the truther movement were about what Ron says we would have a lot more and people awake right now.

Ron Paul is telling what he believes to be true. But he's not completely right about it.



Even if the gov. did have something to do with 911 it will never be proved in our life time.

That doesn't mean we ignore the possibility though. The truth must prevail - if only for future generations.

[constituent]

That doesn't mean we ignore the possibility though. The truth must prevail - if only for future generations.

In deed, but most people don't share your sentiment.

Here, imo, is where many lose their audience. You admit to not knowing the truth, but then suggest that "the truth" must prevail. These are conflicting messages. The best one can do is convince others that their "truth" is built on shifting sand, and that not having the answer (or all the answers) doesn't mean we should stop looking.

And that's the wall right there, some folks are all for seeking truth/knowledge/beauty/justice/whatever, others are not. This is something you'll have to learn to expect if you're ever going to know when to "just walk away."

But, whatever.

Back to the thread...

[Truth-Bringer]

You admit to not knowing the truth, but then suggest that "the truth" must prevail. These are conflicting messages.

Well, really, I'm just admitting that the government's story doesn't add up. I don't claim to know the whole truth in the matter, which is probably impossible now since an investigation of anyone in the government as a suspect never occurred.

I just know that the story we were given isn't the whole truth. There's a peer reviewed study confirming thermitic material in the rubble. (http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Scientists_find_active_superthermite_in_WTC_0404.h tml) I'd say that warrants further investigation, but such will not happen.

[TGGRV]

Obviously they didn't attack you because you are free and rich. Your foreign policy is a part and you being kafirs is another one.

[dannno]

I think it is good that this is put here in the forums this is the message that needs to ring out about 911 they attacked us because we won't mind our own business.

There are way too many truthers here and they take away from Ron's message of non intervention in foreign policy.

Ron has told the truth about terrorist attacks on the USA and we need to support it. If the truther movement were about what Ron says we would have a lot more and people awake right now.

Even if the gov. did have something to do with 911 it will never be proved in our life time. What Ron says is true and it makes sense and people could believe it. The general public will not believe the truthers with the message they are sending out.


Uh, you don't seem to understand the "truth movement" at all...

Can you cite ONE person in the truth movement who doesn't believe that any Islamic terrorists were involved in the attacks?

You can't. Why? Because there is VIDEO EVIDENCE of Islamic terrorists at the airports. So clearly there were terrorists involved. Clearly there were a few people who hated us enough to justify to themselves what they were planning on doing. That doesn't mean the terrorists flew the planes into the buildings, all it means is that the intent was there. The fact that the intent was there and they were part of this plan is a huge problem.

It is amazing to me that you think truthers don't have the same views on foreign policy as Ron Paul, because the VAST majority absolutely have the same views.. We just believe that many of the events that you see through the eyes of the media are a bit more controlled than you seem to think they are.

[Reason]

Let's keep this thread focused on the OP please.

[Reason]

//

[JoshLowry]

This one?

[Reason]

This one?

damn you're good...

thx! :)

[BuddyRey]

Good thread! In my mind, the foreign policy issue is an absolute deal-breaker. You either get non-interventionism (along with my vote), or you don't. Neocons need not apply.

[catdd]

If all of those countries are tired of our presence they should kick us out. I wish they would.

[phill4paul]

nvm

[Depressed Liberator]

Good thread! In my mind, the foreign policy issue is an absolute deal-breaker. You either get non-interventionism (along with my vote), or you don't. Neocons need not apply.

Well said. I don't see why a lot of people here are supporting the neocons that are just talking fiscally conservative because they aren't in office (for example, Jim Demint).

[Peace&Freedom]

The OP's point is false. 9-11 truth is not "straying" from the non-interventionist message, it is reinforcing it by pointing out the interventionists frequently stage false flag events to create emotional support for our incursions into other countries. Paul has elswhere admitted to the relevance of false flags, why wasn't that quote included?

What is a distraction are the tedious claims made by non-truthers that 1) false flags are unrelated to interventionism, when in fact they give that foreign policy its primary momentum, and 2) the blowback-only approach is more compelling or persuasive. There is no evidence whatsoever for this. Again, exactly how many primaries did Paul win on this basis?

My experience is that the blowback-only explanation preaches solely to the choir, while a truth based approach actually wakes people up, both to the faux left-right paradigm, and to the truth of the blowback view. Let's stop feuding and dividing on this by admitting both elements are relevant, and stop trying to disenfranchise one from the other.

[phill4paul]

The OP's point is false. 9-11 truth is not "straying" from the non-interventionist message, it is reinforcing it by pointing out the interventionists frequently stage false flag events to create emotional support for our incursions into other countries. Paul has elswhere admitted to the relevance of false flags, why wasn't that quote included?

What is a distraction are the tedious claims made by non-truthers that 1) false flags are unrelated to interventionism, when in fact they give that foreign policy its primary momentum, and 2) the blowback-only approach is more compelling or persuasive. There is no evidence whatsoever for this. Again, exactly how many primaries did Paul win on this basis?

My experience is that the blowback-only explanation preaches solely to the choir, while a truth based approach actually wakes people up, both to the faux left-right paradigm, and to the truth of the blowback view. Let's stop feuding and dividing on this by admitting both elements are relevant, and stop trying to disenfranchise one from the other.

Pretty much what I was gonna post, but I'll let you deal w/ blowback tonight.:p

Good post.

[silverhandorder]

Who gets you less blowback a guy trying to wind down our empire or a guy trying to push on forward with building it?

9/11 truth to me is a non issue. I live in NYC and I could care less. I can't remember the last time I had a conversation come up about 9/11. Right now all it does is pisses off everyone. Last I bothered with it was when they kept comming out with loose change movies one after another as they were getting debunked. Eventually people just got tired of listening to it. I personally view killing millions in Iraq as a consequence of our policy as a much more important issue then trying to "get to the bottom of it".

[Peace&Freedom]

Who gets you less blowback a guy trying to wind down our empire or a guy trying to push on forward with building it?

9/11 truth to me is a non issue. I live in NYC and I could care less. I can't remember the last time I had a conversation come up about 9/11. Right now all it does is pisses off everyone. Last I bothered with it was when they kept comming out with loose change movies one after another as they were getting debunked. Eventually people just got tired of listening to it. I personally view killing millions in Iraq as a consequence of our policy as a much more important issue then trying to "get to the bottom of it".

Even though that policy is the result of a false flag? I also live in NYC, and can tell you fewer people talk about the Iraq war at this point than they do 9-11. The point is that to most people blowback is a non-issue, because they accept the premise that "they did it to us." If you press the non-interventionist viewpoint under those circumstances you may get the neocon rebuff "that idea is absurd, and you're making us less safe by wasting time blaming us for what our enemies did to us."

Once you concede a pressing "terrorist threat" you have lost the argument for blowback, and your concern for the deaths overseas fall on deaf ears. The emotions associated with self-defense and "we are at war" trumps attempts to understand motivations. 9-11 is the backdrop barrier to getting people to hear the blowback concept, and so must be deflated to get reason to prevail in our foreign policy.

[silverhandorder]

Even though that policy is the result of a false flag? I also live in NYC, and can tell you fewer people talk about the Iraq war at this point than they do 9-11. The point is that to most people blowback is a non-issue, because they accept the premise that "they did it to us." If you press the non-interventionist viewpoint under those circumstances you may get the neocon rebuff "that idea is absurd, and you're making us less safe by wasting time blaming us for what our enemies did to us."

Once you concede a pressing "terrorist threat" you have lost the argument for blowback, and your concern for the deaths overseas fall on deaf ears. The emotions associated with self-defense and "we are at war" trumps attempts to understand motivations. 9-11 is the backdrop barrier to getting people to hear the blowback concept, and so must be deflated to get reason to prevail in our foreign policy.

Well from my personal arguments that I had (very few in NYC for pro war) neocons are concerned about the empire and having everyone as our slave. They hide behind they are savages and we must fight them there so they dont come here until you start ripping those arguments apart.

To each their own I guess. I would like to see a poll done here if people still care about 9/11.

edit:

I may be wrong on who said this but I think it was danno. He said that truthers have different levels. From those who beleive US gov't staged it to those that think that rogue people let this happen by dropping the ball. I would say I would not be surprised if there were rogues who indeed let 9/11 happen. But I don't think about it.

[fatjohn]

There are way too many truthers here



we can always hold a vote and see who should leave ... :mad:

[Reason]

let's please keep this thread on topic in relation to the RP quote in the OP

[therepublic]

I think it is good that this is put here in the forums this is the message that needs to ring out about 911 they attacked us because we won't mind our own business.

There are way too many truthers here and they take away from Ron's message of non intervention in foreign policy.

Ron has told the truth about terrorist attacks on the USA and we need to support it. If the truther movement were about what Ron says we would have a lot more and people awake right now.

Even if the gov. did have something to do with 911 it will never be proved in our life time. What Ron says is true and it makes sense and people could believe it. The general public will not believe the truthers with the message they are sending out.

you said it in a nut shell

[romacox]

Liberty is about respecting ones right to disagree. But when newbies come to this site trying to decide if they want to vote for Ron Paul, Rand, Medina and others, they need to be able to tell the difference between their ideas and ours which may not always be in line with Ron Paul's. After all we are asking for them to vote for him not us.

[tremendoustie]

Even though that policy is the result of a false flag? I also live in NYC, and can tell you fewer people talk about the Iraq war at this point than they do 9-11. The point is that to most people blowback is a non-issue, because they accept the premise that "they did it to us." If you press the non-interventionist viewpoint under those circumstances you may get the neocon rebuff "that idea is absurd, and you're making us less safe by wasting time blaming us for what our enemies did to us."

Once you concede a pressing "terrorist threat" you have lost the argument for blowback, and your concern for the deaths overseas fall on deaf ears. The emotions associated with self-defense and "we are at war" trumps attempts to understand motivations. 9-11 is the backdrop barrier to getting people to hear the blowback concept, and so must be deflated to get reason to prevail in our foreign policy.

I disagree. You can explain how we have been meddling over there for decades, and ask what a person's response would be if the Chinese or Iranians had similarly bombed and embargoed us, or assassinated our leaders.

[jmdrake]

working poor,

please do not incite a war with the truthers. :(

+1776!

[jmdrake]

let's please keep this thread on topic in relation to the RP quote in the OP

You know what? The blowback argument didn't sell. Sorry to bust your bubble, but it didn't. I'm talking as someone who worked in the trenches in 2007 and 2008 trying to sell it. The reason Ron Paul isn't president is not because of some forum post by some 9/11 truther. It's because rank and file republicans hear the argument that we were attacked for our foreign policy and either say "I don't believe that" or worse "I do believe that, but so what?" I literally listened to a neocon talk show host (well...libertarian on economics but certainly neocon on foreign policy) drone on for half an hour or more about how it's our foreign policy especially with regards to Israel, and not some deep seated hatred of Christianity by Muslims that caused us to be attacked but that regardless of that we shouldn't throw Israel under the bus just to sleep better at night. Now I don't think that Israel is the only foreign policy issue we have. Our support for despotic regimes is at least as much the culprit. But the point is that even if/when some of these people agree with Ron Paul on the root cause they still reject his foreign policy. Why do you think Rand isn't running on it? Why do you think Peter Schiff isn't running on it? If you really believe that Al Qaeda poses some grave threat that couldn't have been prevented with the tools the government had before 9/11.....well you end up with the foreign and domestic policy we have now.

That's why it's imperative to point out how we've been lied to about 9/11. You don't have to believe Steven Jones about "controlled demolition". You don't have to believe a missile hit the Pentagon. You can ignore Able Danger and the hundreds of other government whistle blowers. But if we aren't able to convince people that 9/11 didn't happen because some "clever cavemen" were able to "exploit our freedoms against us" but rather some elements in the government were criminally negligent or worse....we don't get our country back. It's that simple.

The fact of the matter is we already have the smoking gun for 9/11. We did years ago. Indian intelligence tracked the cell phone records of the had of Pakistani intelligence and proved that he funded 9/11. The FBI confirmed this. The general resigned shortly thereafter. The 9/11 commission covered this up. Two congressmen who would become members of the 9/11 commission were having breakfast with this general on 9/11. Ron Paul has recently pointed out that we should "follow the money" when it comes to the federal reserve and Saddam Huessein. I agree. But we should also follow the money when it comes to Mahmood Ahmed, Mohammed Atta, Porter Goss and Bob Graham.

[jmdrake]

I disagree. You can explain how we have been meddling over there for decades, and ask what a person's response would be if the Chinese or Iranians had similarly bombed and embargoed us, or assassinated our leaders.

A blank stare followed by a resounding "So what"? People are impatient. And people are prideful. Most people do not want to admit that our policy did anything to cause this any more then they would want to admit that our government might have willfully allowed or instigated 9/11. And even if/when you get people past that threshold, their next question is "So what do you want me to do about it now? The Ayyyyrabs are already mad anyway. They aren't going to stop all of a sudden just because we decide to play nice. Besides, look at Ghadafi declaring jihad against the Swiss."

[therepublic]

Even though some supporters are 9/11 Truthers, Ron Paul is not:

YouTube - Ron Paul on 9/11 Truthers (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hGyhlNY0y1k)

[jmdrake]

Even though some supporters are 9/11 Truthers, Ron Paul is not:

YouTube - Ron Paul on 9/11 Truthers (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hGyhlNY0y1k)

Ah the famous clip where Ron Paul denies himself. I say "denies himself" because he said the questioner specifically asked if he had abandoned the idea that the government "covered it up". Ron Paul had said on multiple occasions that the 9/11 commission report was a "cover up". And yes, I know, he was talking about a "cover up of incompetence". Post this video (and post the election) there was the video where someone asked why didn't Ron Paul come out about the "truth" of 9/11, and Ron Paul said "It's too controversial". Again I assume he was talking about the "truth about a cover up".

Anyway, Ron Paul has supporters who support / are against gay marriage, support / are against abortion, support / are against continuing the war in Afghanistan etc. 9/11 should not be singled out.

[therepublic]

Even though some supporters are 9/11 Truthers, Ron Paul is not:

YouTube - Ron Paul on 9/11 Truthers (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hGyhlNY0y1k)

When asked if he would ask his supporters to abandon the 9/11 truthers position, Ron says, If they care about me they should. I do not endorse what they say, and I don not agree.

Now one could argue that they read something different between the lines, but I have to go by the evidence. And so far Ron's voting record demonstrates his honesty.

[jmdrake]

When asked if he would ask his supporters to abandon the 9/11 truthers position, Ron says, If they care about me they should. I do not endorse what they say, and I don not agree.

Now one could argue that they read something different between the lines, but I have to go by the evidence. And so far Ron's voting record demonstrates his honesty.

Again you have snipped out a large part of the quote. The part where the questioner said "or covered it up". And it's not Ron Paul's honesty I question. It's sad to see people still using this clip and still taking it out of context after the election is over. Have you seen the other clip where Ron was asked why didn't he come out with the truth about 9/11 and he said "because it's too controversial for me"? The clip I'm referring to is after this one. I've seen people try to explain that one away as "Ron getting ambushed". Well why can't people see that this was an ambush question?

Anyway, it's irrelevant. Like I said. Some Ron Paul supporters support gay marriage and some are against it also. We don't have to agree on everything.

[therepublic]

Again you have snipped out a large part of the quote. The part where the questioner said "or covered it up". And it's not Ron Paul's honesty I question. It's sad to see people still using this clip and still taking it out of context after the election is over. Have you seen the other clip where Ron was asked why didn't he come out with the truth about 9/11 and he said "because it's too controversial for me"? The clip I'm referring to is after this one. I've seen people try to explain that one away as "Ron getting ambushed". Well why can't people see that this was an ambush question?

Anyway, it's irrelevant. Like I said. Some Ron Paul supporters support gay marriage and some are against it also. We don't have to agree on everything.

No I have not seen that video. Please post it. And yes as libertarians we respect differences of opinion. However it is not us we are trying to get re-elected, so we should listen to what he says, "if they care about me they would". I think he respects differences of opinion, but we should be clear about what Ron Paul believes, and where we differ. Too often people twist his words for various reasons. Lets trust what he says.

[jmdrake]

No I have not seen that video. Please post it. And yes as libertarians we respect differences of opinion. However it is not us we are trying to get re-elected, so we should listen to what he says, "if they care about me they would". I think he respects differences of opinion, but we should be clear about what Ron Paul believes, and where we differ. Too often people twist his words for various reasons. Lets trust what he says.

I won't post it here because it ticks people off. Just go to YouTube and search

ron paul imf 9/11

It's the first one that comes up. Also Ron Paul will have absolutely no problem getting re-elected. And if his campaign for congress could get derailed by some post on a forum then it wasn't real to begin with. The questions about Ron Paul and 9/11 didn't come up because of "truthers" making forum posts or waving signs. It came up because of comments Ron Paul made on the Alex Jones show. He's in complete control of the amount of "truther exposure" he has. He pushes the envelop with statements about "Gulf of Tonkin style contrived events that might get us into a war with Iran" and I think that's great. But people need to recognize that this is were his "truther problem" originated.

[tremendoustie]

A blank stare followed by a resounding "So what"? People are impatient. And people are prideful. Most people do not want to admit that our policy did anything to cause this any more then they would want to admit that our government might have willfully allowed or instigated 9/11.


I find that most people are more willing to listen to the former argument than the latter.



And even if/when you get people past that threshold, their next question is "So what do you want me to do about it now? The Ayyyyrabs are already mad anyway. They aren't going to stop all of a sudden just because we decide to play nice. Besides, look at Ghadafi declaring jihad against the Swiss."

I would say,

"I would stop making the problem worse. We are creating three new terrorists for every one we kill, ten new enemies for every innocent person we murder, and hundreds for every month we spend occuping another country. We can't afford our foreign policy anyway, even if it were moral. We have over 700 bases in 140 countries -- it's beyond insane. Bring the troops home, and if anyone attempts to attack us, bring them and those who supported them to justice -- don't attempt to take over an entire country and rebuild its infrastructure and political system. Our policies are Osama's best friend. We are driving people to him in droves."


They could use the objection you cite even if you somehow convinced them to entertain the notion that 9/11 was not committed by terrorists. The reality is, though, as soon as you mention 9/11 truth, odds are they're going to say, "you're a nutter", and will shut their ears. You won't even get to make the argument above.

Heck, people I debate with online often try to pigeon hole me as a "9/11 truther", just so they can discount my arguments in their own mind and in the minds of others.

[jmdrake]

I find that most people are more willing to listen to the former argument than the latter.


That's nice. I've found the opposite to be true.



I would say,

"I would stop making the problem worse. We are creating three new terrorists for every one we kill, ten new enemies for every innocent person we murder, and hundreds for every month we spend occuping another country. We can't afford our foreign policy anyway, even if it were moral. We have over 700 bases in 140 countries -- it's beyond insane. Bring the troops home, and if anyone attempts to attack us, bring them and those who supported them to justice -- don't attempt to take over an entire country and rebuild its infrastructure and political system. Our policies are Osama's best friend. We are driving people to him in droves."


They could use the objection you cite even if you somehow convinced them to entertain the notion that 9/11 was not committed by terrorists. The reality is, though, as soon as you mention 9/11 truth, odds are they're going to say, "you're a nutter", and will shut their ears. You won't even get to make the argument above.


I've never met anyone who came to the realization that they were lied to about 9/11 yet continued to insist that we should be invading places like Iraq and Afghanistan. I have met plenty who by the blowback argument but still go for an aggressive "Let's bomb Iran's suspected nuclear program" mentality. (*cough Peter Schiff cough*)

Further the way to talk to someone about 9/11 truth is not to shout "9/11 was an inside job" to them. It's to bring up things that they can't explain through the official story. Like why has the U.S. government never sought the extradition of the man whom the FBI verified funded 9/11. Anyone with half a brain won't dismiss you as a "nutter" if you say that. And if they do, they are a lost cause anyway.

[tremendoustie]

That's nice. I've found the opposite to be true.


Wow -- really? This is almost unbelievable to me. You seriously have an easier time convincing random people that 9/11 was intentionally instigated by the government, than convincing them that terrorists are to a large degree motivated by our interventionist and abusive foreign policies?

As I say, that's the absolute opposite of what I've seen, but I'm not going to say you're lying. Perhaps your arguments for the former are more finely honed, while your presentation of the latter point is abraisive -- or perhaps it has something to do with the circles you run in.



I've never met anyone who came to the realization that they were lied to about 9/11 yet continued to insist that we should be invading places like Iraq and Afghanistan. I have met plenty who by the blowback argument but still go for an aggressive "Let's bomb Iran's suspected nuclear program" mentality. (*cough Peter Schiff cough*)


I find the "yes but" folks don't really accept the blowback argument either. They just sidestep it.



Further the way to talk to someone about 9/11 truth is not to shout "9/11 was an inside job" to them. It's to bring up things that they can't explain through the official story. Like why has the U.S. government never sought the extradition of the man whom the FBI verified funded 9/11. Anyone with half a brain won't dismiss you as a "nutter" if you say that. And if they do, they are a lost cause anyway.

You seem to have some good methods, and if you're as sucessful as you claim, more power to ya. I'd rather live among a bunch of "truthers" than a bunch of warmongers, that's for sure.

[kahless]

The OP really should change that bullshit title and bold text.