Ron should comment on this blowback

[bc2208]

SAUDI Arabia revealed yesterday that it had arrested 208 militants for involvement in cells planning an imminent attack on an oil installation, as well as attacks on clerics and security forces.

State television in the world's biggest oil exporter said that one of the cells was planning to smuggle in missiles. Sympathisers of al-Qaeda have mounted a campaign against the monarchy, an ally of the United States, since 2003, following the invasion of Iraq.
http://news.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=1868062007

More evidence that terrorists are pissed because we are there!

[Naraku]

I think Paul should try and restate some of his arguments. It's not simply because our military is there, because people would want to attack the United States regardless of whether we had troops there or not, but our constant intervention rallies people to their cause and makes them heroes to many opposed to the United States involvement.

Were it not for our policy abroad al-Qaeda would not have a following strong enough to carry out these attacks, they'd just be a bunch of loons talking about how evil democracy and capitalism are.

[Mark Rushmore]

It's not simply because our military is there, because people would want to attack the United States regardless of whether we had troops there or not.

Do you really believe that?

There might be a handful already so angry at past history, that correcting our errors wouldn't change their views a bit. But the radicalization that perpetuates down the generations would be halted - and reactive ideologies would lose their catalyst.

It seems we are in agreement in general, and precisely speaking it will probably always be true so long as there is any Nation on earth that "At least one person somewhere on earth wants to attack [That Nation]." I think I'm responding mostly to the way "people" is being used rhetorically in that post to suggest whatever our foreign policies may be, we will always face some sizeable threat of attack.

[Naraku]

There might be a handful already so angry at past history, that correcting our errors wouldn't change their views a bit. But the radicalization that perpetuates down the generations would be halted - and reactive ideologies would lose their catalyst.

It's not about past history. It's simply a matter that there is a sect of Islam that breeds this hatred towards the West. Islam was founded and spread by violence so violence is a prevalent theme in Islamic history. In the Islamic world when you match this up with various imperial and irredentist ambitions of Arabs, Iranians, and Turks with countries largely run by governments that are either run by radical Islam or constantly give support to radical Islamic ideas you have a volatile mixture.

It's inevitable that people will emerge like Osama bin Laden calling for jihad against the West, not for being mean to them, but for "encouraging" immorality by not outlawing it.

However, that being said, it wouldn't be a problem if it weren't for our foreign policy because our foreign policy gives the radicals ammunition to recruit soldiers for their holy war. It's been recognized that the Iraq invasion inflamed many Muslims and boosted terrorist recruitment. Our foreign policy is their recruiting strategy. If it weren't for our foreign policy such people would never have the material or political support they need to attack the United States or the West.

[Elwar]

They hate us for our freedoms.

The neo-con plan is to take away our freedoms so that nobody hates us for them anymore.

[runderwo]

It's not about past history. It's simply a matter that there is a sect of Islam that breeds this hatred towards the West.

Yes, in the history of the U.S., going all the way back to the Barbary pirates.

However, as you acknowledge, it is our foreign policy that is giving them the tools they need to radicalize that hatred into violence. Without our foreign policy, they would be considered a bunch of ragtag kooks by the population around them, a population that is too busy creating wealth in a thriving economy to be distracted by fundamentalist religions.


countries largely run by governments that are either run by radical Islam or constantly give support to radical Islamic ideas you have a volatile mixture.

:rolleyes: Please. We have undermined republican rule in the Middle East for the last 50 years, and that is because national sovereignty and rule by the people conflicts with the notion that their resources should be sold to us in a preferential matter. It's a lot easier to have puppet dictatorships than puppet democracies because it's a smaller number of people we have to control in order to coerce another nation into serving our interests.

[forsmant]

The bottom line is those countries do not have the ability to send an army across the world as readily as the USA. I have hardly ever heard of an Iranian navy as a force in the world. We already blew up Iraq, and Saudi Arabia has been under our protection for a while. These countries are of no threat, criminals within these countries have attempted to target US.

[JimDude]

Ron paul does a fine job and he doesnt need to bothered with this.

[jrcasey]

It's not about past history. It's simply a matter that there is a sect of Islam that breeds this hatred towards the West. Islam was founded and spread by violence so violence is a prevalent theme in Islamic history. In the Islamic world when you match this up with various imperial and irredentist ambitions of Arabs, Iranians, and Turks with countries largely run by governments that are either run by radical Islam or constantly give support to radical Islamic ideas you have a volatile mixture.

It's inevitable that people will emerge like Osama bin Laden calling for jihad against the West, not for being mean to them, but for "encouraging" immorality by not outlawing it.


You have a severely warped perception of Islam and its founding. I would suggest you read A Common Word Between Us and You (http://www.acommonword.com/index.php?lang=en&page=option1), an open letter from Muslims to Christians.

[Naraku]

Please. We have undermined republican rule in the Middle East for the last 50 years, and that is because national sovereignty and rule by the people conflicts with the notion that their resources should be sold to us in a preferential matter. It's a lot easier to have puppet dictatorships than puppet democracies because it's a smaller number of people we have to control in order to coerce another nation into serving our interests.

We didn't overthrow republics and put in democracies in most cases, except Iran, we mainly overthrew one kind of dictatorship and put another one in power. Even then, before we ever intervened they were using radical Islamic language to rally people to their causes.

Hatred against Israel, while lying more in Pan-Arabism, was made into an Islamic issue and governments justified their attacks against Israel as "liberating the holy land from Zionism" rather than what they really wanted, an Arabian state from Morocco to Iraq.

Saudi Arabia was an Islamic state since the 1700s and many Islamic kingdoms existed before that. Even the secular governments appealed to radical Islam to justify their actions. They use it in the same way Christians used religion to justify the Crusades.

[forsmant]

perhaps there is another reason for war in the middle east. The Koran forbids usury (interest) and that goes against the very nature of the world banksters. I read an article not long ago that Citibank wants to introduce modern banking to the Arab world since it is currently not under the control of the world banksters. I am envious of the interest free banking system they have over there. If word got out of an interest free banking system the banksters could go out of business. Bad for banksters good for schmoes like me:D.

[Chomsky]

If in fact Bin Laden funded the 9/11 attacks then we have no reason not to believe the reasons he gave for doing so. The first and most important two were
1) Having military bases in Saudi Arabia
2) Funding the Israeli's illegal occupation of Palestine
plain and simple, I am starting to wonder if Dr. Paul being very clear about his plans to cut off all aid for Israel is becoming the elephant in the room, not only in the debate but on this forum.