Libertarian Hero Ron Paul Blames US for 9/11

Alt+F4 said:
If frustration at bad U.S. foreign policy is at the root of terrorism then why hasn’t the nations of Latin America attacked the U.S.?
Click to expand...


They are invading the US right now:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mara_Salvatrucha

3d85fdb0.jpg
 
The US funded Afghan militants through Pakistan against the Russian, putting the US and OBL on the same side effectively.

The US fought on the same side in Kosovo as OBL was supporting.

The US put a base in Saudi Arabia. Upsetting OBL because........ uh... oh right, we are infidels.

Obviously, US intervention was what caused 911. Mind you "they hate our freedom" is a thin excuse as well but Mr. Paul's explanation is just as simplistic to a person who with a brain.
 
Alt+F4 said:
If frustration at bad U.S. foreign policy is at the root of terrorism then why hasn’t the nations of Latin America attacked the U.S.?
Click to expand...


Have you noted the invasion across the Southern border lately? ;)

DR
 
I haven't read the whole thread, but I just wanted to voice my opinion on what a stupid topic this is, and how the OP (along with Gulliani during debate #2 and Hannity in the post-debate debate) twists Ron Pauls words.

I just don't understand how people who regulary deal with the twisting of facts from woos, can go and do the same things in politics. Since when are there only 2 diametrically opposed options in these situations. It was either not the UStates fault at all, or it was completely the UStates fault??? Come on, I felt stupid even typing that.

Our foreign policy help produce the troubled quagmire that is over there right now. Sure, the vast majority of the blame lies on those countries producing a culture of terrorism, but you can't honestly believe that the US acted like a perfect angel in all of this.

Funny, I was a staunch anti-republican (I think I once told my wife that if I ever voted GOP, that she should shoot me in the head), but Ron Paul's stance on this particular issue is one of the reasons why I am thinking about supporting him for the presidency. He wasn't afraid to say the real reasons, that we are at least partially responsible for the situation over there, and that a noninterventionist foreign policy is a good thing.
 
Darth Rotor said:
Have you noted the invasion across the Southern border lately? ;)

DR
Click to expand...


Somehow this is actually true and I wasn't kidding about the Salvadorian Mara Salvatrucha Gang. I could draw a line between this Gangs extreme violence and United States support for the right-winged party before and after the Salvadorian civil-war, but I don't know all circumstances and the soviet union was also playing around with the guerrillas during this time.
 
Oliver said:
Somehow this is actually true and I wasn't kidding about the Salvadorian Mara Salvatrucha Gang. I could draw a line between this Gangs extreme violence and United States support for the right-winged party before and after the Salvadorian civil-war, but I don't know all circumstances and the soviet union was also playing around with the guerrillas during this time.
Click to expand...

You have a point, but I wouldn't put gang violence in the same category as 9/11 type terrorism.
 
Alt+F4 said:
If frustration at bad U.S. foreign policy is at the root of terrorism then why hasn’t the nations of Latin America attacked the U.S.? Certainly United States foreign policy has been more harmful to the people of those nations than it ever was in the Middle East.

Click to expand...

Perhaps because of the abject poverty of those in Latin America. Don't forget about the financial resources which Bin Laden was able to draw on in order to launch his attacks.
 
Alt+F4 said:
You have a point, but I wouldn't put gang violence in the same category as 9/11 type terrorism.
Click to expand...


That's actually true - even if they are considered as a danger for national security, among others things smuggling Al Qaida into the US, so the lines are somehow blurred:

"The al-Qaida, from what we understand, has been meeting with them in Central America," said Rep. Solomon Ortiz, D-Texas, a member of the House Armed Services Committee, which oversees national security.
Ortiz testified in March that al-Qaida has offered MS-13 about $250,000 to smuggle "high value al-Qaida operatives across the border."

Source:
http://www.terrorismknowledgebase.net/NewsStory.jsp?storyID=84214
 
Last edited:
thinkingaboutit said:
Perhaps because of the abject poverty of those in Latin America. Don't forget about the financial resources which Bin Laden was able to draw on in order to launch his attacks.
Click to expand...

You also have a good point but I was under the belief that OBL's family had cut him off financially years before 9/11, so his personal wealth wasn't that great. In addition, the 9/11 Commission was unable to discover how the attacks were financed.

What would be a bare-bones budget for a 9/11 attack? A computer, 19 plane tickets and a copy of Microsoft Flight Simulator.
 
Alt+F4 said:
You also have a good point but I was under the belief that OBL's family had cut him off financially years before 9/11, so his personal wealth wasn't that great. In addition, the 9/11 Commission was unable to discover how the attacks were financed.

What would be a bare-bones budget for a 9/11 attack? A computer, 19 plane tickets and a copy of Microsoft Flight Simulator.
Click to expand...


As far I know he got a lot of money from Saudi Arabia. But surpise, surprise - this connection didn't make it into the U.S. Congressional Inquiry and the 9/11 Commission Report:

http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/conspiracytheories/saudi.html

A meeting of prominent Saudis occurs in a Paris hotel. Among the attendees is the head of Saudi intelligence, Turki bin Faisal. They meet with a representative of al Qaeda and agree to extend the earlier arrangement made between the Saudi royal family and Osama bin Laden – whereby in return for cash, al Qaeda agrees not to attack inside Saudi Arabia.

The CIA produces an internal report that documents the numerous Saudi charities that are funding terrorists. Osama bin Laden's name is mentioned.
Click to expand...
Eleanor Hill, chief investigator for the Committee, would only confirm that those files dealt with sources of foreign support for the hijackers.

"Because they're classified I can't tell you what's in those pages. I can tell you that the chapter deals with some information that our committee found in the FBI and CIA files that was very disturbing. It had to do with sources of foreign support for the hijackers."
Click to expand...
 
If they dont hate us for our foreign policies...then why do they hate us?

Because we are so big? Because we are a beacon of hope and freedom?

Please. If they hated countries because of freedom, 9-11 would have happaned in Toronto. They would be bombing Norway. Attacks would be taking place in Dublin.

They hate us for our policies..it is that simple.
 
Alt+F4 said:
Then why doesn't 9/11 type terrorism come from Latin America? The U.S. has been messing with them since the 1890s.
Click to expand...

9/11 was pretty exceptional. A lot of places and people are just content to brew a simmering hatred, or simple resentment. Take Vietnam, for example, two million killed in that war, but they are taking a practical approach to relations with the US. Vets are quite free to go back for visits to the country for whatever reasons.
 
Pardalis said:
I think the US is definately responsible for its policies in the Middle East, everybody is responsible for their actions. But I'll be damned if I'm going to say the US is responsible for 9/11.

Al Qaeda is.
Click to expand...

It's hard to fathom anyone with the brains to have been a member of this forum long enough to make 6,800+ posts not knowing that Al Qaeda is the CIA's own Frankenstein monster.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom