Video: Rudy blasts Ron Paul’s apology for 9/11

posted at 11:16 pm on May 15, 2007 by Allahpundit

Ahem.

The smartass reply would have been to ask Paul whether, if in fact conditions in Iraq precipitated 9/11, it wasn’t perfectly appropriate then to take extreme measures to try to remedy those conditions afterwards. A more thoughtful response would have been to ask him what his studiously noninterventionist “constitutional” option would have been when Saddam invaded Kuwait. But that’s all gravy; Rudy’s answer suffices as an expression of the palpable disgust most Americans (or at least most conservatives) felt at that moment for that Bircheresque crank, which is why he got the reaction he did. You can hear Mitt at the end over the din demanding that Rudy not be given the extra 30 seconds he requested, and with good reason — he might have walked away with the nomination right there.

I tacked on a bit from the post-debate interview with H&C for good measure. I like the analogy Rudy draws between Paul and another terror apologist he once encountered.


Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

I hate to be the one to remind you but we didn’t “intervene” in Iraq until after 9/11.

Enforcing sanctions and bombing the shat out of them on a regular basis from 1991 to 2003 certainly qualifies as “intervention”, even if you don’t buy the lefty argument that we were wantonly killing Iraqi children and thus “had it coming” on 9/11.

Lehuster on May 16, 2007 at 8:39 AM

Ron Paul merely said that the reasons for 9/11 (as given by the people who planned it) were our interventionist foreign policies. That won’t get you on H&C or a country music song like “they hate us because we’re free” will, but it’s the truth. Paul also said that their politics are irrational (by quoting Reagan). That’s hardly terrorism apologetics. That’s just realism.

As Allah points out, it was about 18 months after 9/11, before we intervened in Iraq. The sanctions were placed against Iraq up until that point, by the United Nations. As President Bush said in his declaration of war, the UN failed to fulfill its obligations, so now, “we rise to ours”.

amerpundit on May 16, 2007 at 8:40 AM

Lehuster on May 16, 2007 at 8:39 AM

Except al Qaeda continually says they want us to stay in Iraq, to fight them.

amerpundit on May 16, 2007 at 8:42 AM

That’s just realism.

Mark Jaquith on May 16, 2007 at 4:20 AM

There is an element of blowback with these islamo-fascist attacks on the US. But that’s like saying the Japanese attacked us at Midway because we bombed Tokyo.

Ron Paul has drank the neocon conspiracy theory kool-aid presented in a lengthy video (that I can’t find right now, but was a topic on HA) that lays out a timeline of events starting in the early 20th century. The piviotal event was the installation of the Shaw in the 50′s.

I call BS, because the islamo-fascist religion teaches that there will be no peace in the world until all the world is Muslim. And that take over is, in the final analysis, a violent take over. Muslims are instructed to offer conversion to the infidel. If that fails, the infidel is punished through cruel treatments of various sorts. If that fails, the infidel is killed. That IS NOT the fault of the so called neo-con agenda.

csdeven on May 16, 2007 at 9:09 AM

Let me say this once and for all. WE DID NOT MAKE OSAMA BIN LADEN CRAZY, HE DID THAT ALL BY HIMSELF. First off, if there was anyone specifically that made him go Jihad, then it was the Soviet Union. Secondly, do you really think there is one event or even a series of events that made him want to kill us? There was no point in his life where he woke up one morning a sane billionaire’s son and went to sleep a death crazed jihadist because of what he saw on the news. Its them that see this as a last man standing war of culture, West versus East, not us. They’ve been wanting to do this to us ever since they were defeated at the Gates of Vienna and then kicked out of Spain. All they need is an excuse. If its not bombing Iraq or air bases in their Kingdom, its going to be cartoons and ham steaks. There is nothing that is going to stop them from wanting to kill us other than a 5.56 mm Full Metal Jacket. There is no root cause, and there is only one solution.

BohicaTwentyTwo on May 16, 2007 at 9:11 AM

Where do the founding fathers deal with the idea of commercial airliners being used as wmd’s and that the second amendment can prevent that from happening?
csdeven on May 16, 2007 at 2:13 AM

So, decoy256 decides he wants to engage me, I ask him the above question, and then he runs off like a child. What am I supposed to think about that?

csdeven on May 16, 2007 at 9:13 AM

I think Paul is, on the whole, right (if impractical) about constitutional issues. Unfortunately, he seems to have a very 18th century view of national security. If 9/11 taught us anything, it’s that we can’t sit back and wait for threats to come to us. That’s what Iraq is about, more than anything else. It sucks that we have to be there, and it sucks that our soldiers have to die over there, but we have to be doing something to keep stuff from happening over here. Paul seems not to understand this.

I know this is going to mark me as a big nerd, but every time I hear these guys, I think of the exchange between Aragorn and King Theoden in Lord of the rings:

Theoden: I would not risk open war.

Aragorn: Open war has come to you, whether you would risk it or not.

Farmer_Joe on May 16, 2007 at 9:26 AM

The sanctions were placed against Iraq up until that point, by the United Nations.

Oh, pshaw. The UN sanctions were put in place – and kept in place despite French and Russian pressure to lift them – at US insistence. Moreover, US forces were doing the great majority of the sanctions enforcement. Nobody, least of all Osama, was stupid enough to believe it was the UN and not the US who should be blamed for the sanctions.

Except al Qaeda continually says they want us to stay in Iraq, to fight them.

So? When we weren’t in Iraq, Osama could get the jihadis all fired up about us occupying Saudi and bombing Iraq. Now, we’re not in Saudi but we are in Iraq, and Osama can get the jihadis all fired up about that. If we had left Saudi but not invaded Iraq, he would have called that a win, too.

Lehuster on May 16, 2007 at 9:28 AM

The whole “they hate us for our freedom” bit is a lie.

It isn’t a lie, it is just poorly worded.

If you said “they hate us because they are jealous of our freedom” it would be more accurate.

liberrocky on May 16, 2007 at 10:03 AM

All you Paulsies I have a question…when has isolationism ever worked in the last 500 years? You can’t build the Great Wall to keep out the hordes.

Technology has made isolationism the buggy whip of foreign policy.

We need to get more active not less.
We need to spread western culture not apologize for it in fits of Paulist self flagellation.

liberrocky on May 16, 2007 at 10:15 AM

liberrocky on May 16, 2007 at 10:03 AM

I think they hate us because our freedoms are a shining light on a hill and it threatens their culture of oppression and death as the way to stay in control of their women and communities in general.

csdeven on May 16, 2007 at 10:15 AM

Technology has made isolationism the buggy whip of foreign policy.
liberrocky on May 16, 2007 at 10:15 AM

BUGGY WHIP! That was the analogy I was looking for to describe the fact that parts of our way of life has rendered some of the founding fathers ideas obsolete.

csdeven on May 16, 2007 at 10:17 AM

Mark Jaquith on May 16, 2007 at 4:20 AM

I couldn’t agree more with your feelings about Rudy. I flipped to the debate as this exchange was taking place and was instantly nauseous. Would it be humanly possible for Rudy to milk 9/11 for political gain more than he currently is? Has any other candidate for President in history ever based their entire candidacy on where they were on one day? Are you so blinded by 9/11 itself that you really can’t see the exploitation that is happening here?

If I were to make a 9/11 joke (gasp!) I would be destroyed here, possibly even banned; but you cheer Rudy on when he openly exploits the tragedies from his own gain; when he castigates anyone who challenges him on the matter because he was there, he has absolute authority. I laugh at 9/11 jokes because I know some people use humor to deal with tragedy; I cringe at Rudy because he exploits 9/11 and uses its power to pander to those who fear more attacks. It’s sad and pathetic…if Rudy ever becomes President his first executive order will surely be to declare 9/11 National Rudy Giuliani Day.

JaHerer22 on May 16, 2007 at 10:23 AM

Would it be humanly possible for Rudy to milk 9/11 for political gain more than he currently is?

Not humanly possible but Rudy is a superhuman so…yes.

If I were to make a 9/11 joke (gasp!) I would be destroyed here, possibly even banned;

Go ahead funny man let’s see your chops.

when he castigates anyone who challenges him on the matter because he was there, he has absolute authority.

It is about time someone on our side had the absolute moral authority card. For awhile I thought Cindy Sheehan had the whole deck.

liberrocky on May 16, 2007 at 10:33 AM

All you Paulsies I have a question…when has isolationism ever worked in the last 500 years?

Works well enough for Switzerland. Though I agree times have changed and due to our history we have no choice but to continue. Though I would prefer we not do something like Iraq again. There is no point in spreading democracy to a country if they won’t accept it. I also think military actions like Kosovo should be avoided. We can’t be the police of the world, not to say we shouldn’t kill the terrorists whereever we find them. Bush has done some dumb things, but he doesn’t get the credit he deserves for dismantling terror networks.

America should not go to war unless it intends to win at all costs.

Keljeck on May 16, 2007 at 10:34 AM

Ron Paul is correct.

We did get attacked at least in part because of Iraq and our bases in Saudi Arabia:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/terrorism/international/fatwa_1998.html

Now, that said, who would want a leader that bases decisions on how some lunatic islamofacist in a cave somewhere will perceive our actions? Apparently thats is who on Paul is. He cowers before Osama and goes further in then asking how “we would like it” if someone did this ‘to us’. Apparently we are analagous to Saddam’s Iraq now too.

I’m glad Rudy blasted him. He should thank Paul for serving up that meatball that anyone could hit out of the park. All the candidates wanted in on that action, but it was pretty much tailor made for Rudy.

Dash on May 16, 2007 at 10:37 AM

Works well enough for Switzerland.
Keljeck on May 16, 2007 at 10:34 AM

Ok huge difference between neutrallity and isolationism.

Switzerland might have been neutral but they were hardly isolated.

Their neutrallity was a defense against the fact that they could never be isolated.

Though I would prefer we not do something like Iraq again

I agree cause we should have done it bigger. The whole reason we have problems in Iraq is cause we did not take out Syria and Iran. If there is one lesson in Vietnam we did not learn is that if you want to defeat an insurgancy you have to deny it outside support.

liberrocky on May 16, 2007 at 10:48 AM

The more I see of Guiliani the less I am impressed…I saw him speak at CPAC and had high hopes.So indignant that he has to interrupt? What,on the behalf of America? PLEASE! Let’s call up Toby Keith and play on emotion a little more. All of the other candidates stood there while they were being personally blasted…this was encouraged so they obliged.They all had to bite their tongue…such is a debate. But Rudy “This is my abortion stand take it or leave it-whoops let me change it uhhh” Guiliani is so superior he does’nt have to go by the rules.His stunt of course worked on many but most of the conservatives here in DC I’ve talked to this morning were not impressed. Ron Paul is kind of kooky but he did have some valid points that need to be looked at.I don’t think he meant that we directly caused it although he let Rudy spin it that way.Paul;like Tancredo,knows he does’nt stand a chance…but if he can get the issues he wants to get out there his campaign will have been a success.Huckabee was impressive last night(FAIR TAX!) and showed that he deserves a job in Fred’s! administration(LOL-just had to add that for our Rudy McRomney supporters ;)).

DCJeff on May 16, 2007 at 10:58 AM

I agree cause we should have done it bigger. The whole reason we have problems in Iraq is cause we did not take out Syria and Iran.

While that would have solved some of the problems we have today, I sincerely doubt it would be good in the long run. The problem is that the Iraqis do not seem to be embracing democracy as much as we would hope, and that has to do with their culture. The problem isn’t that we aren’t beating them enough, as it is that they are resistant.

Also, I don’t think Ron Paul is isolationist as much as he’s non-interventionalist. Though I admit his submitting to conspiracy theories makes me question whether he’s for free cultural exchange as much as he’s for free markets. I also think he’s wrong, I don’t think the U.S. can afford to be non-interventionalist, at least not for awhile.

Keljeck on May 16, 2007 at 10:59 AM

The problem is that the Iraqis do not seem to be embracing democracy as much as we would hope, and that has to do with their culture. The problem isn’t that we aren’t beating them enough, as it is that they are resistant.
Keljeck on May 16, 2007 at 10:59 AM

They don’t trust us and they shouldn’t. People want to back a winner. In the Iraqi’s case it maybe a life or death choice. In a year we maybe gone but syria and iran (and AQ) will all be there.

Also, I don’t think Ron Paul is isolationist as much as he’s non-interventionalist.

I find non-interventionalism morally bankrupt and short sighted. Orwell said “Pacifism is objectively pro-Fascist”
I say that non-interventionalism is objectively pro-Jihadist.

liberrocky on May 16, 2007 at 11:11 AM

On a totally different subject,if you have’nt watched Michelle’s Vent please do…it is absolutely horrifying…

DCJeff on May 16, 2007 at 11:19 AM

They don’t trust us and they shouldn’t. People want to back a winner. In the Iraqi’s case it maybe a life or death choice. In a year we maybe gone but syria and iran (and AQ) will all be there.

Islam means Submission. Muslim means One Who Submits. The islamic mind is not used to democracy. Democracy itself is considered weak. Using brutal force to make them be democratic seems the opposite of democracy to me. The time was not ready and now we are in a predicament I wouldn’t wish on any president, because you are right. When we leave Syria and Iran will be there.

Keljeck on May 16, 2007 at 11:19 AM

If we moved troops back, would the numbers of terrorists potentially die down?

What evidence do you have that the numbers have increased?

Blacklake on May 16, 2007 at 11:25 AM

What evidence do you have that the numbers have increased?

Attacks have been becoming more and more common. That leads me to believe there are more people willing to blow themselves up.

Keljeck on May 16, 2007 at 11:27 AM

The islamic mind is not used to democracy. Democracy itself is considered weak. Using brutal force to make them be democratic seems the opposite of democracy to me.
Keljeck on May 16, 2007 at 11:19 AM

Ugh are your going to make me drag out the old Japan trope?
I guess you are. People said the same thing about the Japanese, Koreans, and the Chinese(Taiwan).

The time was not ready and now we are in a predicament I wouldn’t wish on any president

The time was sept 12th 2001. But that ship has sailed.
So we lost our chance to be brutal and must now be clever, but interventionalist none the same.

liberrocky on May 16, 2007 at 11:30 AM

Works well enough for Switzerland.

It has worked in the past for Switzerland by sole virtue of the physical protection afforded by the Alps. Early in the 20th Century it might have seemed a plausible notion that the Atlantic and Pacific served the US similarly, but that notion was laid to rest decisively on December 7, 1941.

Blacklake on May 16, 2007 at 11:33 AM

I don’t care if maniacs give “reasons” for being maniacs.

They need to be killed-off as maniacs.

What do they propose for the world as opposed to our vision?

That’s what needs to be contrasted.

A global theocratic gulag terror state-

versus

A democratic republic struggling to preserve human liberty.

The rest is just cowardice posing as wise-ness.

(I wouldn’t debase the word “wisdom” in this context.)

If you will not defend human liberty, but chose to undermine it… by any rationale (“why they hate us” ad nauseam)… you’re useless to this fight.

Paul is one more tool of the soft (headed) jihad.

Making excusing for theocratic terrorists.

Instead of saying: whatever the costs, these jihadists must be destroyed, because the price of our defeat is the end of our Civilization.

Still looking at the small-picture.

profitsbeard on May 16, 2007 at 11:37 AM

Attacks have been becoming more and more common. That leads me to believe there are more people willing to blow themselves up.

Keljeck on May 16, 2007 at 11:27 AM

Don’t ever lose sight of human nature. Suicide bombing is a fad. Someday the bloom will be off the suicide bombing rose.

liberrocky on May 16, 2007 at 11:38 AM

It has worked in the past for Switzerland by sole virtue of the physical protection afforded by the Alps.

I’m sure the Alps could be scaled all the same, the difference is that they don’t piss anyone off. That won’t work for America though. I also don’t suggest we take it, i think it would be suicidal. My point is that non-interventionism is a viable foreign policy. Just not for us at this time. I also wouldn’t want us to. I have this strange way of agreeing while making it seem like I disagree…

People said the same thing about the Japanese, Koreans, and the Chinese(Taiwan).

There is a big difference between Oriental Culture and Islamic Culture. The latest National Review has a great story by Michael Knox Beran about the troubles we face in bringing Islam to democracy. I’m not saying it’s impossible, I’m saying the time is not right. Japan had a respected leader in Emperor Hirohito who told them they needed to become democratic. There is no such leader in Iraq who can bring people under the banner of democracy, we picked the wrong place and the wrong time to stage our conflict.

Keljeck on May 16, 2007 at 11:42 AM

Attacks have been becoming more and more common. That leads me to believe there are more people willing to blow themselves up.

That’s simply not valid reasoning. Even granting your premise, the same result could be achieved by a reduced number of people who were willing to blow themselves up, who were simply pursuing a more aggressive strategy of actually following through with the option.

And the premise itself is dubious. Are there more suicide attacks taking place? Relatively few of the insurgent attacks against US forces involve suicide at all, but rather the remote detonation of explosives.

It’s certainly conceivable that battles against Jihadis serve as the basis for the recruitment of more Jihadis. But you seem to have no reason to believe that this is in fact the case.

Blacklake on May 16, 2007 at 11:43 AM

That’s simply not valid reasoning. Even granting your premise, the same result could be achieved by a reduced number of people who were willing to blow themselves up, who were simply pursuing a more aggressive strategy of actually following through with the option.

Exactly. They may still maintain their hatred, but they wouldn’t act on it.

But as I have repeatedly said, I don’t think we should attempt it, I don’t think it’s viable for us. The way to deal with the Islamic world is a meaningful victory followed by withdrawl.

Keljeck on May 16, 2007 at 11:47 AM

Oh, pshaw. The UN sanctions were put in place – and kept in place despite French and Russian pressure to lift them – at US insistence. Moreover, US forces were doing the great majority of the sanctions enforcement. Nobody, least of all Osama, was stupid enough to believe it was the UN and not the US who should be blamed for the sanctions.

Any member of the UN Security Council can veto a sanction, and it’s over. How dare we enforce sanctions against a country looking to, or already having acquired, nuclear weapons, who would use them against us and our allies.

amerpundit on May 16, 2007 at 11:48 AM

CONVERSATION CIRCA 50,000 B.C.

Og: (to Grog) Hitting people with clubs is a fad. Someday the bloom will be off the ‘hitting people with clubs’ rose.

Grog: But, my dear fellow, isn’t intinctive predatory human nature merely a permanent matrix for the use of whatever weaponry comes to its hand? Whether ‘club’ or, in some far-flung future, perhaps a method for blowing oneself up- like a portable volcano- in close proximity to others, in order to kill an entire group of enemies in one fell swoop? I mean, until you find the key to the anatomy of human destructiveness, what does it matter, ultimately, which tool they use?

Og swings club, killing Grog.

Og: Evolve beyond your britches with me, will ya!

profitsbeard on May 16, 2007 at 11:49 AM

I said:

That’s simply not valid reasoning.

And Keljeck replied:

Exactly. They may still maintain their hatred, but they wouldn’t act on it.

I point out that your argument was logically invalid, and your response is “exactly”??? And then proceed as if that somehow reinforces your point?

It’s a bit hard to reason with a person who doesn’t seem to appreciate the law of contradiction. (Though I suspect you do; what you actually did was ignored the refutation, then changed the nature of your claim entirely.)

Blacklake on May 16, 2007 at 12:00 PM

I love how you ignore my point and go for something inconsequential, perhaps I shouldn’t have quoted that portion.

I’m not disagreeing with the idea they hate us and have hated us for a long time, that much is clear. What we are seeing is more people acting out that hatred. In Iraq, in Israel, in Europe.

The answer is that they have more motivation now than previously. If anyone denies that they are simply fooling themselves. Should we take that motivation away? No, because they’ll be motivated regardless.

Keljeck on May 16, 2007 at 12:04 PM

You do understand that the government they rave about, and want to rule the world by, is an oppressive government of torture and terror, where women have no freedom, and men have just a little? See, now, to me, that would mean hating freedom.

My point is not that they don’t ultimately hate freedom (individual freedom, that is) as implied by their culture. It is that our freedom isn’t the reason they hate us.

From the horse’s mouth:

I will explain to you the reasons behind these events, and I will tell you the truth about the moments when this decision was taken, so that you can reflect on it. God knows that the plan of striking the towers had not occurred to us, but the idea came to me when things went just too far with the American-Israeli alliance’s oppression and atrocities against our people in Palestine and Lebanon.

[...]

Terrorism against America deserves to be praised because it was a response to … the continuous injustice inflicted upon our sons in Palestine, Iraq, Somalia, southern Sudan, and … Kashmir.

[...]

[t]he ruling to kill the Americans and their allies civilians and military – is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque (in Jerusalem) and the holy mosque (in Makka) from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim. This is in accordance with the words of Almighty Allah, ‘and fight the pagans all together as they fight you all together,’ and ‘fight them until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah‘.

[...]

While I was looking at these destroyed towers in Lebanon, it sparked in my mind that the tyrant should be punished with the same and that we should destroy towers in America, so that it tastes what we taste and would be deterred from killing our children and women.

OBL

And just so he wasn’t misunderstood:

If Bush says we hate freedom, let him tell us why we didn’t attack Sweden, for example.

OBL

If terror was his goal, regardless of what we did, why wouldn’t he say so? That’s a far greater threat than “we hate you because you invade our nations and interfere in our affairs” and it would certainly cause more fear.

If you said “they hate us because they are jealous of our freedom” it would be more accurate.

I don’t think they’re jealous of our individual freedom, just national freedom. When they talk about freedom, they mean freedom from foreign intervention.

I hate to be the one to remind you but we didn’t “intervene” in Iraq until after 9/11.

Bush I intervened in Iraq (with U.N. authority, but still). Clinton intervened in Iraq. Not saying the interventions weren’t justified, but they happened.

And what do we get from Ron Paul? In so many words, “we deserved it.” That’s the real subtext of what he’s saying.

I think there’s a difference between cause and effect and just deserts… between self-examination and self-flagellation. I don’t really know Ron Paul well enough to know what he believes, but I’m sure if he said that we deserved 9/11, you’d have linked to that instead.

Mark Jaquith on May 16, 2007 at 12:04 PM

Gah I hate it when I have to do this. If you look at what I stated previously you made no contradiction to my original premise. My original premise was that there are more people doing attacks. Not that more people hated us. You took that to mean more people are hating us, hense saying that my reasoning is invalid. Then I said exactly, showing that I agree the reasoning you imagined I was using was invalid, and showed that I agreed with your premise. What we are seeing is the same people taking a more proactive step, and being more successful in recruiting others to do so.

Keljeck on May 16, 2007 at 12:07 PM

profitsbeard on May 16, 2007 at 11:49 AM

Funny stuff!

I mean, until you find the key to the anatomy of human destructiveness, what does it matter, ultimately, which tool they use?

But suicide bombing it is not about human destructiveness. It is about status seeking*.
It is about getting on TV, pleasing mom and dad, in short it is about being cool.

Sure some are true believers but the increase we see in Jihadism has all the signs of being a fad.

*or money if you are being payed

liberrocky on May 16, 2007 at 12:14 PM

Question: Do people really believe that if we didn’t do all the things that made Osama angry, that he would have remained sane? Let’s say that we didn’t play a part in installing the Shah of Iran, that we didn’t help Israel, that we didn’t oppose Saddam, that we didn’t put bases in Saudi Arabia. If none of that happened, then Osama would have been a happy, well-adjusted billionaire, content in taking a part in his father’s corporation? There would be no Al Qaeda, no Islamic extremism, no Jihad, no desire for a world wide Islamic Caliphate?

BohicaTwentyTwo on May 16, 2007 at 12:17 PM

BohicaTwentyTwo on May 16, 2007 at 12:17 PM

Seeing as I feel that I have to defend my GOP credentials, I don’t believe that at all. There will always be a hatred of the West in the Islamic World. I do think that there wouldn’t be such an urgency, and less people would be on board.

But looking at Europe, I agree it would happen regardless.

Keljeck on May 16, 2007 at 12:21 PM

My original premise was that there are more people doing attacks.

Your premise was that more suicide attacks were taking place. You deduced from this the conclusion that there has been an increase in the number of jihadis, which was the salient point.

Your premise was questionable, and your conclusion cannot necessarily be deduced from it anyway. The latter point makes your argument logically invalid. I did demonstrate this, by pointing out a different condition which would produce the same result. This is pretty basic stuff.

Blacklake on May 16, 2007 at 12:24 PM

This is what I said:

Attacks have been becoming more and more common. That leads me to believe there are more people willing to blow themselves up.

And let’s amend that to people have been more and more willing to kill westerners. Now, does this suppose that there are more Jihadis? Only if you define Jihadis as those who have already acted. I define Jihadis as those who believe they must wage Jihad against the west. This applies to many people who support the effort and have not necessarily done anything themselves. There is an increase in jihadi’s acting on their prejudices.

Has the number of Jihadi’s increased? Maybe. Has the number of attacks increased? From the Iranian Revolution till now, only a fool would disagree.

Keljeck on May 16, 2007 at 12:31 PM

I don’t think they’re jealous of our individual freedom, just national freedom. When they talk about freedom, they mean freedom from foreign intervention.
Mark Jaquith on May 16, 2007 at 12:04 PM

No they are jealous of our personal liberty. Their repressive culture makes them seeth at open one. Man this was all covered in “Footloose”

liberrocky on May 16, 2007 at 12:34 PM

The rest is just cowardice posing as wise-ness.

profitsbeard on May 16, 2007 at 11:37 AM

BEST line of the entire thread!

Mentally buying you a well-deserved beer now.

thirteen28 on May 16, 2007 at 12:38 PM

No they are jealous of our personal liberty. Their repressive culture makes them seeth at open one. Man this was all covered in “Footloose”

I really don’t think they’re “jealous”. I think they see our freedom as immoral.

Farmer_Joe on May 16, 2007 at 12:39 PM

Not all libertarians are insane peaceniks.

I agree that the constitution should be and should have been followed.

But I feel that Ron Paul’s surrender mentality is horribly craven.

Dar Al Islam has thrown the first real punch.

We didn’t start this fight. We can and should be the ones to finish it. If it can’t be done with conventional weapons, then we should go nuclear.

As a libertarian, I call for a declaration of war against Dar Al Islam. They can surrender or die …

Kristopher on May 16, 2007 at 12:48 PM

I really don’t think they’re “jealous”. I think they see our freedom as immoral.

Farmer_Joe on May 16, 2007 at 12:39 PM

I am sure that they do.

liberrocky on May 16, 2007 at 12:48 PM

JaHerer22 on May 16, 2007 at 10:23 AM

But you certainly don’t mind the Jersey Girls et al. using 9/11 when it’s convenient for scoring points against Bush, do you?

Goose, gander, you know the drill.

thirteen28 on May 16, 2007 at 12:49 PM

Any member of the UN Security Council can veto a sanction, and it’s over.

And why didn’t that happen? Not because “the United Nations” decided to punish Iraq. There was no veto because the United States twisted arms and sweet-talked the other UNSC members out of casting their veto.

The United Nations couldn’t pour piss out of a boot if the instructions were written on the heel. Everything that happened to Iraq from 1991 to 2003 was US policy dressed up with a UN figleaf and backed with US military muscle. No other reason!

How dare we enforce sanctions against a country looking to, or already having acquired, nuclear weapons, who would use them against us and our allies.

I didn’t say sanctions were a bad thing. They were good and necessary. But everyone in the Middle East understood perfectly that the US was the driving force behind them. Without the US, sanctions would have come off in a second.

Lehuster on May 16, 2007 at 1:05 PM

That’s hardly terrorism apologetics. That’s just realism.

Mark Jaquith on May 16, 2007 at 4:20 AM

Gosh, what a surprise! Mark likes Ron Paul’s reasoning…

Jaibones on May 16, 2007 at 1:10 PM

Attacks have been becoming more and more common. That leads me to believe there are more people willing to blow themselves up.

And let’s amend that to people have been more and more willing to kill westerners. Now, does this suppose that there are more Jihadis? Only if you define Jihadis as those who have already acted.

I just took your word at face value and assumed you were talking about “people willing to blow themselves up.”

Blacklake on May 16, 2007 at 1:11 PM

I just took your word at face value and assumed you were talking about “people willing to blow themselves up.”

No you didn’t, you misinterpreted what I said for whatever reason, maybe it’s because you wanted an argument. You can hate the west and still not be willing to blow yourself up or fight. For example, there are still racists in this country, but not every racist lynches, or even acts on their racism. Same principle in effect.

I thought I had made that clear in my previous posts, but apparently I have to be more lucid.

Keljeck on May 16, 2007 at 1:19 PM

Well, I retract my earlier statements regarding Paul’s nominal sanity. Blow back? Have you lost your mind? The 1979 hostage crisis was a response to our “installment” of the Shah? The man needs to revisit his premises.

spmat on May 16, 2007 at 1:58 PM

If Mr. Paul is going to try that angle, he should have at least tried to blame Carter and Reagan for letting the Taliban and the jihadists take over Afghanistan after we helped them get rid of the USSR. That is the entire reason why we have to stay in Iraq until the job is done, so that we don’t repeat that same exact mistake we made in the 1980s.

Leaving behind a power vacuum and hoping for the best is irresponsible and can have grave consequences. 9/11 was one of the consequences from our hands-off approach back then, it can be argued.

Seixon on May 16, 2007 at 2:58 PM

Ok, Keljeck, this is how I’ve seen it progress. You wrote:

Al Queda is not only spinning the reasons as hatred to us, but they are using the hatred against us to recruit. Now is it possible that there is an increased amount of Jihadists because of our visiblility?

Fair enough, that’s just a question. Then this:

If we moved troops back, would the numbers of terrorists potentially die down?

Also just a question. But when asked “What evidence do you have that the numbers have increased,” you replied (emphasis mine):

Attacks have been becoming more and more common. That leads me to believe there are more people willing to blow themselves up.

Did you mean “That leads me to wonder if” instead of “That leads me to believe”? Typically, when one says one has been “lead to believe” something, he is at least expressing an inclination towards believing it. If that wasn’t your intent, and you were merely speculating about possibilities, I don’t think we have much of a disagreement. It is indeed conceivable that confronting Islamists has enabled them to recruit more fighters than we’ve managed to kill. It’s also conceivable that we’ve killed more than they’ve been able to recruit. Many who advance the isolationist argument (and I don’t presume to accuse you of such), however, take the former proposition as a given, and scoff at the latter. I’ve yet to see any actual evidence that terrorist recruitment is outstripping terrorist losses (or vice versa).

Blacklake on May 16, 2007 at 3:46 PM

If that wasn’t your intent, and you were merely speculating about possibilities, I don’t think we have much of a disagreement.

I was just speculating about possiblities. If you read closely I never said what you thought I said. Now as to my “it leads me to believe” that is true, I do believe there are more people willing to use terrorist tactics now than there were before the Iranian Revolution. Now is this because of our presence or because Radical Islam gained prominance?

I say a mixture of both, but if Radical Islam loses prominence the attacks will go down definately.

Keljeck on May 16, 2007 at 3:53 PM

Accidently clicked the submit…

The primary reason is because they hate our culture, the incitement to kill is because we are there (which would also arrive if they were here), and the reason it happens more is because we let Radical Islam take a stronghold.

Any disagreements?

Keljeck on May 16, 2007 at 3:55 PM

The primary reason is because they hate our culture, the incitement to kill is because we are there

Keljeck on May 16, 2007 at 3:55 PM

Is it possible to hate something that isn’t there?

liberrocky on May 16, 2007 at 5:08 PM

Richard Dawkins manages it every day.

BAA-ZING!

But in all seriousness, it is impossible.

Keljeck on May 16, 2007 at 5:11 PM

Richard Dawkins manages it every day.
Keljeck on May 16, 2007 at 5:11 PM

Nice one

liberrocky on May 16, 2007 at 5:28 PM

Paul sounding like D’Souza

Nonfactor on May 16, 2007 at 9:08 PM

Ron Paul is right, Rudy is an idiot. They did not attack us out of jealousy as Rudy said. They (Bin Laden/Al Qaeda) attacked us because of Desert Storm! Yep, do some reading. This nebulous they hate our freedom is BS.

Oh Rudy! You are going to try to ride the 9/11 coat-tail all the way baby! Good luck with that. America is not buying. (Did you know Rudy did nothing in his 8 years as NY mayor to fix all the known problems from the WTC bombing in 1993, like no common radio communications or joint agency and department drills, coordination for high rise fires. Their plan was 30 years old. He also ignored advice to put the NY command and control center in the WTC. Doha! Real winner, not to mention 6 marriages between him and wife #3 and Bernard Kerk, cop and mob graft taker who Rudy recommended to Bush for homeland security chief. Nice, if he wins you can bet he will have great nominees and appoints not based on competence by politics like Bush: Dick “last throes” Cheney, won’t last 6 months Rumsfeld, I forgot (70 times) Gonzalez, bank-head with no banking experience Wolfowitz, Great Job Katrina Brownie-FEMA, John (I hate the UN) Bolton……. (the list is long).

Also Rudy has a lisp that drive me crazy and gosh he is ugly. He sounds a little retarded. Can you imagine Rudy saying the state of the union, like Elmer Fudd saying the Gettysburg address. I love Rudy trying to explain and all the stuttering. He’s a real confidence builder. Plus his cross dressing, gay loving, gun hating will be a real winner with the right wing wacko’s.

Rudy was almost giddy with joy he got to talk about terror and not abortion to Hannity. So that is all it takes to win the Republican nomination is be in denial, say a few obvious things like they hate us, with no understanding of the reality of the Arab world, while spewing nationalistic BS. Wow you are easily pleased. He should have slammed his fist down and said to Paul, you sir are no patriot, you are a coward and a Nazi appetizer. That always gets the republican base riled up, invoking the N word. No Nazi you Macaca, but the other one works too for republicans. Hire Imus! Our favorte racist.

The theory they attacked the USA because of jealously of our “Freedoms” or religion and woman (as Rudy said) is BS.

I get the Ron Pauls point, Don’t go into war so carelessly. Hummmm sounds like good advice. Ron Paul is also right about WHY they attacked us.

The reason Osoma Bin Ladin gave was the USA set-foot onto their precious land with military force in Desert Storm, EVEN THOUGH WE ARE THE GOOD GUYS HELPING Kuwait! It does not matter, Arabs did not want us there and still don’t.

There’s NO rational explanation for 9/11. The reason is very clear: radical, fanatical, Islamic fundamentalist, aka Religion!!!! OK that is what its all about.

This macho Bush in a flight suit idea of, F.U. where Team America, and where here to help whether you like it or not, is wearing thin in the world. I am just stating fact. Its the continued arrogance and denial of the US government that does what it wants unilateral and messes it up to high heaven and makes no apology that makes the world hate us! Ron Paul is right.

Fair or not (I think not but they are irrational) Bin Laden’s reason, because we went into Iraq in 1990 with the Desert storm. Western folks (infidels) in the heart of Mesopotamia, Islam, is an insult. Also the way we destroyed the Arab army was also a source of shame, that they must avenge. It does not matter to them we where helping Kuwait, the good guys, which we are.

THESE PEOPLE HOLD A GRUDGE AND WILL FIGHT YOU FOR A 1000 or 2000 YEARS. Its in their DNA to hate an enemy forever. There is no forgiveness in the Arab Muslim world, only permanent hate for non Muslims. We can try to wipe them off the face of the earth or try to protect our self with strategic attacks, intel, isolate and suppress them and most important NOT BUY THEIR MOTHER F-ing OIL, but “hanging out in Iraq” is not a winning plan.

No matter how long we stay they will never love us. Some people don’t want American Democracy; deal with it. They look at our ways and would rather live in dirt floored huts and pray three times daily to Allah. More power to them. We should NOT try to change them under some faults pretence like we care. We care about the OIL they are living over, that is it. Be real.

First WTC bomb Feb 1993, so there was BLOW back. It was never jealously for “Our Freedom”. These people don’t care about freedom, they thrive in an oppressive religious fundamental world. That’s what they love and to hate Americans and Jews. The idea we can change them by attacking, invading and occupying is the greatest blunder of all time. I confess my ignorance back in March 2003, but the administration knew and was advised. What did The Decider do? Ignore all advice like Rudy, McCain and Mitt will. The Lock Step pandering partisan politicians will do what it takes to get the JOB, The White house, for their big fat ego’s place in history.

A lack of understanding by our government and these so called Presidential Candidates is the real threat. Let the Arabs have their OIL. We need political, economic and world condemnation and pressure to put them back in the stone ages; bombs not needed if they have no food and money to wage war. The problem is Bush told the world F.U., we’re Team America damn it! Great, but that is why even moderate Arab countries like Jordan now hate us. We need to STOP people hating us not making more and helping terrorist recruitment’s.

Once Rudy got his big ZINGER in, than all the other little boys with their bright shinny faces wanted to pile on, with their hands up going ohhh, ohhh, ohhh pick me Mr.Carter, so they can get their sound bite. PATHETIC.

The GOP will use 9/11 and fear mongering to get into office, but the american people are not buying it. It worked in 2004 but Bush has worn that pony out.

The secret is out, Republicans are clueless and no better equipped to handle terrorism than the Democrats. Case in point the last 4 years of GOP control. What is scary these debate idiots bring up Jack Bowers of “24″ like he is real. They don’t live in the real world. They’re like big kids with huge gigantic egos.

The Republicans want to make the Al Qaeda sound like the most powerful enemy to ever exist to scare people, basically doing the terrorists work. The Dems may not be better but NO one can be worse then the Bush gang, but at least they sound like they are thoughtful and thinking, not just pulling some BS scenario out of “24″.

gmcjetpilot on May 17, 2007 at 8:36 AM

gmcjetpilot, You just submitted so many straw man arguments and inaccuricies that I could write a book in refuting these, but I’ll keep this short.

Islamic extremists have given America problems since Jefferson was President, Ron Paul only succeeded in getting conservative political activists energized, and those democrats who actually believe there are terrorists wanting to kill Americans offer NOTHING on dealing with the WOT except for the surrender option.

Your effort was wasted. Maybe you could sell that in France?

DannoJyd on May 17, 2007 at 9:23 AM

Isn’t it interesting that the people who consider Dennis Kuchinich to be a centrist think Paul is pretty great.

LegendHasIt on May 17, 2007 at 5:01 PM

Earlier today I posted this at Digg on the article about Rosie’s support for Ron Paul.

Top 5 Reasons Why I dont like Ron Paul:

5. Hates The Government That He is Part of
4. Thinks We Can Rationally Deal With Terrorists
3. Blames America First
2. Isolationist
1. Truther

I am currently at -35 diggs and dropping.

BohicaTwentyTwo on May 18, 2007 at 2:02 PM

DannoJyd wrote:
gmcjetpilot, You just submitted so many straw man arguments and inaccuracies that I could write a book in refuting these, but I’ll keep this short.

Islamic extremists have given America problems since Jefferson was President, Ron Paul only succeeded in getting conservative political activists energized, and those democrats who actually believe there are terrorists wanting to kill Americans offer NOTHING on dealing with the WOT except for the surrender option.

Your effort was wasted. Maybe you could sell that in France?

I love it when people write good replies. Yes I was being a little ironic, but the fact is there is not a good reason that we where attacked. Its evil. As humans we want a reason to make sense of the senseless. Who cares what they say or any politician says, especially presidential candidates. The are all big bags of wind, all of the, Dems included. Blaaa blaaa blaaaa. I don’t know Ron Paul but I am sure he is an idiot, but at least he reads. Most of the other stuff is sound bites and rhetoric.

However surrender is a stupid word for you and the GOP to use. You sir are the traitor and embolden the terrorist. What are we surrendering? Iraq? It does not belong to us. Are we being forced out? No we WON, we did everything we set out to do and more. VICTORY MY FRIEND!! It is the Iraq people that don’t want to stand up. We have reached diminishing returns. Mission accomplished. A strategic re-deployment is NOT surrendering. We are not giving up. We are not pulling out of the region. This stupid sound bite BS in this case really is as bad as RON PAUL or Reed saying we LOST. You need to shut you all with the surrendering thing. That is just plan retarded. That is what Hannity says on Fox. Or the “slow bleed”. Hey that is what we are doing. Lets save the 9 billion a month and 100 soldiers for better things. Al Qaeda is not all powerful and we are in the right and have the most power in the world. We will win. Stop being a chicken little, little girl. We are going to win, just not all in Iraq.

gmcjetpilot on May 18, 2007 at 3:58 PM

Boy, that 9/11 Truther, Bircher, nut-job, Paul Wolfowitz. Sheesh, how crazy can a person get, eh? Boy oh boy.

[Wolfowitz to Vanity Fair in 2003]:

“There are a lot of things that are different now [that the U.S. occupies Iraq], and one that has gone by almost unnoticed – but it’s huge – is that … we can now remove almost all of our forces from Saudi Arabia. Their presence there over the last 12 years has been a source of enormous difficulty for a friendly government. It’s been a huge recruiting device for al Qaeda.

“In fact if you look at bin Laden, one of his principle grievances was the presence of so-called crusader forces on the holy land, Mecca and Medina. I think just lifting that burden from the Saudis is itself going to open the door to other positive things.

“I don’t want to speak in messianic terms. It’s not going to change things overnight, but it’s a huge improvement.”

Drum on May 18, 2007 at 4:09 PM

Their presence there over the last 12 years has been a source of enormous difficulty for a friendly government. It’s been a huge recruiting device for al Qaeda.

Paul Wolfowitz agrees with me!

Keljeck on May 18, 2007 at 8:41 PM

ron paul and blowback..bWuhahahahhahhahahha

Rudy, kick his ass. What a dumbass.

Highrise on May 20, 2007 at 2:01 AM

gmcjetpilot

You are an idiot.

Highrise on May 20, 2007 at 3:04 AM

Comment pages: 1 2