Thursday, September 1, 2011

Why I Can't Take Ron Paul Seriously



This is why I can't take Ron Paul seriously:


WINTERSET, Ia. – 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.”

The congressman particularly decried U.S.-led bombings in foreign nations, saying that “almost always those individuals that they are trying to kill did not have any direct relationship” with threats to the U.S.

Accordingly, his expectations for the rebels in Libya, who were assisted by American-led bombing efforts, aren’t very bright.

“Remember ‘Mission Accomplished’? That’s probably about where we are right now,” Paul told The Des Moines Register, “and (the U.S.) better be very cautious about bragging about anything.”

The crumbling of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi’s regime wouldn’t amount to a significant victory because al-Qaeda forces would arise there soon, Paul said.

“As bad as Gadaffi was, he didn’t like the al-Qaeda,” Paul said. “He kicked those people out.”

Paul cited a University of Chicago professor, Robert Pape, whose research argues that most of the suicide terrorism in the past 30 years was caused by military occupation. Pape’s research, funded by the Defense Department, shows that suicide bombings in Afghanistan went up one third after the Obama administration surged 30,000 troops into the country.

“(9/11) was one of the main motivations for getting your attention on why they hate us and want to kill us,” he said. “You could send 20 million people over there and all it would do is make our problems worse.”
(source)

Ron is on the side of our enemy and the rest of the blame-America-first crowd with this kind of rhetoric. In one amazingly obtuse moment, he gives aid and comfort to the enemy, and denies that we gave away the lives of good American men and women in the defense of millions of people worldwide for their causes, and still do to this day.

To hear him talk, you would think that there is nothing in the heart of this worldwide movement of jihadists except simple revenge for wrong-headed global imperialism by the bully Uncle Sam, compounded by every bootstep that Johnny takes on their holy soil.

Sounds as plain as the nose on your face, doesn’t it? Let’s just do what Yuseff says, ok? After all, the jihadists speak for all Muslims and Arabs, right? We should base our foreign policy on the thinking of these war-driven lunatics who imagine an offense at everything we do from allowing our women to walk around without complete cover to giving voice to homosexuals.

Good move, there, Ron. You’ve succeeded in pulling the wool over the Americans’ eyes that have no knowledge of history. Your attempt to lull them to sleep is working with a surprising amount of naive folks. A little more of your philosophy on foreign policy is all we need to be on our knees again, begging for our way of life.

But there’s just a few nagging questions left that don’t fit into your “revenge for-stepping-on-our-soil” explanation:

When jihadists tried to assassinate the Pope repeated times in the past 30 years, what was his crime?

When jihadists have murdered, raped, and evacuated Buddhists in Bangladesh, Thailand, and India, what imperialism had they committed?

When jihadists in the 7th century invaded and destroyed the Zoroastrians, what did they do to deserve eradication?

When Iran’s Supreme Ruler, the Ayatollah Khomeni called for any good Muslim to kill Salman Rushdie on sight, what imperialism had he committed?

Ron’s woefully undereducated comments border on the bizarre, of course. It’s almost as if he’s not getting enough oxygen to his brain anymore. How can you square this non-sequitur: “One of the reasons they attacked us, is we propped up this Sharia government and the fundamentalists hated us for it.”

The Islamic fundamentalists WANT Shariah Law, Ron. You need to sit down and catch your breath, now. You’re embarrassing yourself.

Ron’s also been known to step on that good ship Lollypop known as Jew-hatin’, from time to time in the past. He has good company these days with the American Left, who resent our support of Israel and like to blame all Middle Eastern tension on such, as well. When you hear them use the word neo-con, you know you’re listening to someone who drinks from the same well as the Islamic Fundamentalists who kill Americans any chance they get.

You can chose to believe Ron and his brand of foreign policy that seeks to blame every US soldier’s death from Islamic Fundamentalists on our relationship with a tiny little speck of a nation, surrounded by hostile neighbors that have repeatedly tried to “push them into the Mediterranean” known as Israel (the only democracy in the Arab Empire), but can you answer these questions?:

Is Jemmaah Islamiya attempting to establish an Islamic state in Indonesia because the US supports Israel?

Are the Chechyan jihadists waging Jihad against Russia because the US supports Israel?

Is Abu Sayyef attempting to establish an Islamic state on Mindanao because the US supports Israel?

Are Jihadists attempting to establish an Islamic state in southern Thailand because the US supports Israel?

Have Nigerian Jihadists attacked innocent Christians repeatedly because the US supports Israel?

Is Al Shabaad conducting terrorist attacks in Kenya and Somalia on innocent civilians because the US supports Israel?

Are Jihadists attempting to create an Islamic state in India’s Kashmir because the US supports Israel?

Have Jihadists killed thousands in attacks on innocent civilians in Morocco, Algeria, Argentina, Brazil, the UK, Spain, Jordan and Bangladesh because the US supports Israel?

Are young Jihadis rioting in France because the US supports Israel?

Ron is right on about 99% of what he says concerning domestic spending, in my opinion. But it’s this 1% that completely paints him as your “crazy Uncle Ron” who likes to believe that he can hear aliens transmitting signals through the fillings in his teeth for me. And it’s a shame, too. But at 76 years old, you have to accept a little senility, I guess.

1 comment:

Austin Explorer said...

That's a lot of straw man argument, my friend. I like a lot of your posts, but you're dead wrong about Ron Paul. Ron Paul cites the CIA and Bin Laden as reasons the terrorists did 9/11. You seem to be citing Rush, Mark Levin and Hannity. Who's the real authority?

These US wars are playing into the terrorists hands by bankrupting our country.

So, please re-think Ron Paul unless you want to go through another 4 years of Obama. He's the only Republican currently beating Obama in national polls.
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/The-Vote/2012/0228/Ron-Paul-poll-shocker-He-beats-Obama-head-to-head. Don't fall for the bankster propoganda that owns most of our MSM.

Obama would rather go against Romney than Paul. Paul would seriously cut into his base. President Paul would cut a Trillion dollars his first year and he's the only one with the political balls to create real and good change for our country.