1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Martin: Paul's 9/11 explanation deserves to be debated

Discussion in 'Political Debate & Discussion' started by James_Newman, May 18, 2007.

  1. Rufus_1611

    Rufus_1611 New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2006
    Messages:
    3,006
    Likes Received:
    0
    He blames Osama for 911. He blames US foreign policy for being ignorant of the concept of cause and effect.
     
  2. 2 Timothy2:1-4

    2 Timothy2:1-4 New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2006
    Messages:
    2,879
    Likes Received:
    0

    He believes that our actions have caused the 911 attacks. This is not seperate from blame.
     
  3. Rufus_1611

    Rufus_1611 New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2006
    Messages:
    3,006
    Likes Received:
    0
    The argument is about whether or not our enemies believe they are attacking us because of foreign policy decisions or because they "hate our freedom and our way of life". The first argument can be backed up by the testimonies and actions of our enemies, the later argument is empty hyperbole.

    “Know thy enemy and know thy self and you will win a hundred battles.” - Sun Tzu Wu​
     
  4. 2 Timothy2:1-4

    2 Timothy2:1-4 New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2006
    Messages:
    2,879
    Likes Received:
    0

    The first is an excuse used to cover up their relgion. the second can be backed up by the Koran. What does this have to do with what you just asserted? You said Ron did not blame the US. Naming the US as a cause is to lay blame. Address that.
     
  5. Rufus_1611

    Rufus_1611 New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2006
    Messages:
    3,006
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ron Paul is not saying that Dick and W conspired to take down the towers. Ron Paul has layed the guilt for the attacks at the feet of Osama Bin Laden and voted to authorize the president to go after Osama (who was let go after being surrounded in Tora Bora) and has said he will pursue Osama when he wins the presidency. The criminal in this case is Osama and those who supported him.

    A secondary issue is motive. If your enemy declares war on your country, is it not wise to understand his motive? If millions more are now joining your enemy should you not desire to understand their motive? If they say the motive is because they want us to stop bombing their countries, stop occupying their countries and get our military out of their holy lands, is it not reasonable to consider the implication of those confessed motives?

    Once those motives are identified, should we not then weigh the costs and benefits in taking those actions. How does it directly benefit the interests of the citizens of the United States of America, to give hundreds of millions of dollars in foreign aid to these countries and spend trillions in military actions, the expenditure of American lives and the loss of freedoms at home? We should consider whether or not it benefits us to "stay the course" or get out of their business, it is a discussion quite worthy of debate.
     
  6. 2 Timothy2:1-4

    2 Timothy2:1-4 New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2006
    Messages:
    2,879
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'm getting dizzy. You said " If you are saying that Ron Paul was talking about "we ourselves" is our foreign policies, then I agree." Since the US made thses policies then "we" are to blame according to Ron. Either way it is idiotic.

    I do not care what they say when their religion contradicts what they say. It is true however that they do not like our support for Israel. And that is just to bad. They want to drive Israel out into the sea. They do not want to live in peace. This is all about Israel.

    Once those motives are identified, should we not then weigh the costs and benefits in taking those actions. How does it directly benefit the interests of the citizens of the United States of America, to give hundreds of millions of dollars in foreign aid to these countries and spend trillions in military actions, the expenditure of American lives and the loss of freedoms at home? We should consider whether or not it benefits us to "stay the course" or get out of their business, it is a discussion quite worthy of debate.[/quote]
     
  7. James_Newman

    James_Newman New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2004
    Messages:
    5,013
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think some people need to learn to dissasociate themselves from the Washington policy makers. 'We' didn't make those policies. They did. If you want to own every boneheaded decision that comes from Washington, then fine, you precipitated the attacks by placing troops in Saudi Arabia and bombing Iraq for 10 years. I had nothing to do with it.
     
  8. 2 Timothy2:1-4

    2 Timothy2:1-4 New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2006
    Messages:
    2,879
    Likes Received:
    0


    What a complete mischaracterization of what we did.
     
  9. Rufus_1611

    Rufus_1611 New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2006
    Messages:
    3,006
    Likes Received:
    0
    We didn't place troops in Saudi Arabia? We didn't bomb Iraq for 10 years?
     
  10. carpro

    carpro Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    25,823
    Likes Received:
    1,167
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I think what Mr. Paul meant to say, and may never do so, is that he believes that if we drop our support of Israel, then the muslims will love us.

    Muslim hate for America centers around two things, Israel and oil. They now control their own oil production. That just leaves Israel.

    That is a problem we can most likely never solve.
     
  11. JGrubbs

    JGrubbs New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2004
    Messages:
    4,761
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ron never said that we invited the attacks. This was a lie. He said the US foreign policy was a "contributing factor" in why they attacked us, a fact which only a fool or a liar could deny. Giuliani then went on to say that he has never "heard that before" – a statement that testifies to the extent of the blackout on this question.

    [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Ron Paul was invited to respond, and concluded as follows:[/FONT]
    [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]"I believe very sincerely that the CIA is correct when they teach and talk about blowback. When we went into Iran in 1953 and installed the shah, yes, there was blowback. A reaction to that was the taking of our hostages and that persists. And if we ignore that, we ignore that at our own risk. If we think that we can do what we want around the world and not incite hatred, then we have a problem. They don't come here to attack us because we're rich and we're free. They come and they attack us because we're over there. I mean, what would we think if we were – if other foreign countries were doing that to us?"[/FONT]
    [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Wow, he broke the great taboo in American political life! Why this should be a taboo at all is unclear, but there it is. But now that it is finally out in the open, this shocking theory that the terrorists were not merely freedom-hating madmen but perhaps had some actual motive for their crime, let's think a bit more about it. [/FONT]
    [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]It is a normal part of human experience that if you occupy, meddle, bully, and coerce, people who are affected by it all are going to get angry. You don't have to be Muslim to get the point. The problem is that most of the American people simply have no idea what has been happening in the last ten years. Most Americans think that America the country is much like their own neighborhood: peaceful, happy, hard-working, law-abiding. So when you tell people that the US is actually something completely different, they are shocked. [/FONT]

    [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Why would anyone hate us? The problem is that the military wing of the US government is very different from your neighborhood. After the Soviet Union crashed, US elites declared themselves masters of the universe, the only "indispensable nation" and the like. All countries must ask the US for permission to have a nuclear program. If we don't like your government, we can overthrow it. Meanwhile, we sought a global empire unlike any in history: not just a sphere of interest but the entire world. Laurence Vance has the details but here is the bottom line: one-third of a million deployed troops in 134 countries in 1000 locations in foreign countries. [/FONT]

    [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]All during the 1990s, the US attempted to starve the population of Iraq, with the result of hundreds of thousands of deaths. Madeleine Albright said on national television that the deaths of 500,000 children (the UN's number) was "worth it" in order to achieve our aims, which were ostensibly the elimination of non-existent, non-US built weapons of mass destruction. Yes, that annoyed a few people. There were constant bombings in Iraq all these years. And let us not forget how all this nonsense began: the first war in 1991 was waged in retaliation for a US-approved Iraqi invasion of its former province, Kuwait. Saddam had good reason to think that the US ambassador was telling the truth about non-interference with Kuwait relations: Saddam was our ally all through the Iran-Iraq war and before. [/FONT]
    [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Ron spoke about complications of the Middle East. One of them is that the enemy we are now fighting, the Islamic extremists, are the very group that we supported and subsidized all through the 1980s in the name of fighting Communism. That's the reason the US knows so much about their bunkers and hiding spots in Afghanistan: US tax dollars created them.[/FONT]

    Source: http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/paul-said-it.html
     
  12. Rufus_1611

    Rufus_1611 New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2006
    Messages:
    3,006
    Likes Received:
    0
    Why Ron Paul's Answer Terrifies Them

    ..........
     
  13. James_Newman

    James_Newman New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2004
    Messages:
    5,013
    Likes Received:
    0
    They may still have an ace in the hole...
    http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55825

     
  14. carpro

    carpro Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    25,823
    Likes Received:
    1,167
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Mr Hornsberger is over reacting as well.

    "FoxNews commentator John Gibson and columnist Michelle Malkin somehow reached the warped conclusion that Paul was suggesting that U.S. officials had committed the 9/11 attacks. After bloggers pointed out the inherent contradiction between that claim and Paul's point that foreign terrorists motivated by U.S. foreign policy had committed the attacks, Malkin quickly issued a retraction."

    What Paul is really suggesting is that we should conduct foreign policy out of fear. In this case, fear of the reaction of radical religious zealots. Hardly a consideration for a soveriegn nation.

    I believe it still comes down to just one thing, Israel. It's kind of fun to watch both sides tiptoe around that particular elephant hiding in plain sight.
     
  15. Rufus_1611

    Rufus_1611 New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2006
    Messages:
    3,006
    Likes Received:
    0
    What an upside down world for you to say Paul is suggesting we conduct foreign policy out of fear. Our current foreign policy is entirely based on fear. Iraq might have WMDs...shock and awe 'em. Iran might have a nuclear weapon and might use it...nuke 'em. Pre-emptive war based on what others might do is entirely a fear-based foreign policy.

    I agree regarding Israel, but this is one of those topics that is enormously difficult to have rational discussions about, particularly with the Christian Zionists. Thus, the elephant just sort of sits there.
     
  16. Rufus_1611

    Rufus_1611 New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2006
    Messages:
    3,006
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hornsberger not overreacting

    Once upon a time the United States made the middle East safe for dictatorships, now it is making it safe for democracy. I wonder what will happen in future decades?

     
  17. carpro

    carpro Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    25,823
    Likes Received:
    1,167
    Faith:
    Baptist
    If a poll was taken of Americans asking if we should drop our support for Israel to mollify the muslim world, what do you think the percentages for and against that proposal would be?
     
  18. Rufus_1611

    Rufus_1611 New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2006
    Messages:
    3,006
    Likes Received:
    0
    If it was worded in the slanted manner you suggest it would likely be favorable towards continued support. If it was worded, "if the support of Israel was fatal to the existence of the United States of America would you still desire to support Israel", perhaps the results would be different.
     
  19. 2 Timothy2:1-4

    2 Timothy2:1-4 New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2006
    Messages:
    2,879
    Likes Received:
    0

    So you are suggesting to "slant" it another way. It would be foolish and wrong not to support Israel.
     
  20. Rufus_1611

    Rufus_1611 New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2006
    Messages:
    3,006
    Likes Received:
    0
    ..........
     
Loading...