What does Ron think about Islamofascism?

[Starks]

I know he preaches non-interventionism, but how does perceive the threat itself?

[noxagol]

Well, after reading "Imperial Hubris" it is not an offensive force. They perceive Islam to be under attack and regard us as a continuation of the Crusades. The jihad they preach is of defensive nature, not offensive. So if we were to stop attacking, it is very probable that the threat would go away.

[Green Mountain Boy]

http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2007/10/13/ron-paul-and-islamofacsism/

.

[Kregener]

Islamofascism is a neocon term.

It is an oxymoron.

[noxagol]

OH and guess what, WE created it. We create all our own enemies. We gave Saddam his weapons that put him into power. We gave Osama weapons, money, and training. We encouraged the redicalization of islam we see today to fight the Russians.

Now who/what are our enemies of late? Saddam, Osama, and radical Islam. We wouldn't even be in this situation if we had just minded our own business.

[scipio337]

OH and guess what, WE created it. We create all our own enemies. We gave Saddam his weapons that put him into power. We gave Osama weapons, money, and training. We encouraged the redicalization of islam we see today to fight the Russians.

Now who/what are our enemies of late? Saddam, Osama, and radical Islam. We wouldn't even be in this situation if we had just minded our own business.BS. The Crusades happened long before the US existed, and were largely a defensive response to Islamist expansion on the Medittereanean rim. We fought two Barbary Wars prior to the foundation of modern Isreal.

Or perhaps the centuries of Ottoman Millet rule was a good thing?

[Primbs]

While Jihad may be defensive in nature, their strategy appears to be to strike at the heart of our power which is economic.

Hurt the economic power, then there is less to fund the military and to make it too painful to stay over there.

[apropos]

We create all our own enemies. We gave Osama weapons, money, and training.

To be fair, while we did fund and arm several mujaheedan groups in the Afghan-USSR war, we did not fund Osama's group. Our main ally in Afghanistan was actually killed by Osama on 9/10/01 in Kabul.

While we do stick our noses in other people's business, there are Muslims and groups who want to see a renewed caliphate from Morocco from Indonesia. The true scope of this attitude has yet to be determined, but there is certainly a sentiment out there that considers Europe as Islamic territory, for example. The attitude to conquor has been an element of the Mohammedans for 1500 years. An invasion of Europe is what caused the Crusades to come about in the first place, after all. The later crusades had different motivations, but the first was to repel an Islamic invasion.

I don't agree with nation building and the Bush doctrine, but we should never forget what happened to Constantinople. Historically, Islam uses conquest to spread. It has been very successful so far.

[DrNoZone]

In the speech he gave at the University of Michigan he said that using the word Islomofacism was simply a way to fear monger and get the American people to think we're up against another Hitler. At least, I think it was that speech; I know he's said it sometime recently.

[noxagol]

Remember, it doesn't matter what we think, it matters what they think in regards to their actions. If they think they are under attack, then they will act like they are under attack.

[johngr]

How any sane (but non-Machiavellian psychopathic) person can consider a people with an average IQ of 85 who would have a hard time engineering a decent refrigerator, who need Western help to get their oil out of the ground as threat to the West, so long as they stay in their own lands is beyond me. Even if they are granted residence, they are little more than a slight inconvenience (notwithstanding the 9/11 psyop).

The Neocon strategy of "invade the world; invite the world" is the entire problem. Do the reverse and the problem disappears.

[johngr]

On a related topic, who here thinks that the "blowback" is unwanted by the people who are deciding to do things that cause it. It occurs to me that policymakers can reasonably anticipate the results of their actions and therefore one of two things must be true 1) They calculate that the benefits of stirring the hornet's nests outweigh the costs. 2) They want exactly the results they get and have gotten from stirring the hornets's nests.

The aftermath of terrorist attacks has been a bonanza for authoritarians, "defense" contractors, and security state experts. It's hard to imagine such people not wanting terrorist attacks. Terrorist attacks (false flag or otherwise) are very good for Israel as well (I hope I don't have to spell out exactly why).