Thoughts, essays, and writings on Liberty. Written by the heirs of Patrick Henry.

“The First Amendment says nothing about your getting paid for saying anything. It just says you can say it. I don't believe that if a corporation pulls all the money out of you or a network pulls their money away or you get fired, you're being censored.”     Penn Jillette

May 17, 2007

Ron Paul and Rudy Giuliani, Who’s Right?

by Kevin

The slapping match between Ron Paul and Rudy Giuliani at Tuesday night’s Republican debate has ignited a debate on foreign policy. Ron Paul made his controversial remarks ,which I have to disagree with my fellow contributor Doug about, that can be interpreted by a reasonable person as showing moral equivalence between the enforcement of the no fly zones by bombing anti-aircraft positions and radar towers in Iraq from 1991-2003 and the mass murder of over 3,000 civilians in the World Trade Center on 9/11. Having said though, I do not believe that Ron Paul was trying to show moral equivalence instead he was making his point about blowback but was very inarticulate, to say the least.

Ron Paul’s position on the causes of terrorism, to paraphrase, is that terrorism is the result of American intervention in the Middle East. Rudy Giuliani’s position on the causes of terrorism, again to paraphrase, is that terrorism is the result of religious fanatics who hate our freedoms. Suffice to say, both men are right on certain aspects and both men are wrong about other aspects.

To examine Al-Qaeda’s casus belli we need to examine a document, Osama Bin Laden’s first fatwa against America. In this document, he lays out several grievances he has against the United States as paraphrased by James Joyner:

1) The end of U.S. aid to Israel and the ultimate elimination of that state

2) The removal of U.S. and Western forces from the Arabian peninsula

3) The removal of U.S. and Western military forces from Iraq, Afghanistan, and other Muslim lands

4) The end of U.S. support for the oppression of Muslims by Russia, China, and India

5) The end of U.S. protection for repressive, apostate Muslim regimes in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Egypt, Jordan, et cetera

6) The conservation of the Muslim world’s energy resource and their sale at higher prices

Just by these demands alone, we can dismiss Rudy Giuliani’s rhetoric of “they hate us for our freedom” as absurd. We can further dismiss the rhetoric by pointing out that there have been no terrorist attacks in Canada, which is even more socially liberal than the United States; and only isolated incidents in places like Holland which is one of the most hedonistic countries on the Earth. By this lack of depth on such a serious subject, Rudy Giuliani is simply not qualified to be president.

Al-Qaeda is motivated by a jihad ideology that calls for the following:

Jihad ideology separates humanity into two hostile blocs: the community of Muslims (Dar ul-Islam), and the infidel non-Muslims (Dar ul-Harb). Allah commands the Muslims to conquer the entire world in order to rule it according to Koranic law. Hence Muslims must wage a perpetual war against those infidels who refuse to submit. This is the motivation for jihad. It is based on the inequality between the community of Allah and the infidels, as was re-emphasized in the Cairo Declaration. The first is a superior group, which must rule the world; the second must submit.

Only by learning the ideology can we study the grievances more in depth. We can dismiss the fourth grievance out of hand. The United States has not supported China, India, or Russia in their actions against Islamic insurgencies in their countries. The purpose of the fourth grievance is the same as the grievance against the UN sanctions on Iraq, even though Saddam and UN bureaucrats siphoned off money that should have gone for food and medicine. It is a propaganda ploy designed to increase recruitment from the Arab street.

While we do need to point out that there are legitimate grievances against American foreign policy (mostly the support for tyrannical Arab regimes); the main reason why Al-Qaeda is targeting the United States is that the United States is the only country that can stop them from forming the Islamic Caliphate they want. As long as the United States supports “moderate” Arab regimes and Israel, Al-Qaeda will fail to topple them.

The question is, should we step out of the way of Al-Qaeda. The answer is clearly, no. To do so will condemn in the short term, the Jews in Israel to another Holocaust and secularists and non-Muslims in the Arab world to virtual slavery. In the long term, Al-Qaeda intends to reconquer first the lands previously held by the Islamic world and then conquer the remaining nations of the House of War. Ron Paul is absolutely wrong when he suggests we should withdrawal from the world, because as the lessons of Pearl Harbor show, the world will eventually come to us.

Finally, to leave the Middle East to Al-Qaeda will only tell others that you can change American policy by committing mass murder against American citizens. While you may have grievances against American policy, mass murder is never an acceptable means of expression. That’s what Ron Paul is saying, even though he may not mean to, when he suggests the only solution for terrorism is to give in to terrorist demands. For these naive views of the world, Ron Paul is simply not fit to be president.

America, like all nations, has the right to act in its own self-interest and according to its own values. Defeating Islamofascism is in America’s best interest because they will not stop until they rule the world. Just listen to them. However, Ron Paul is correct when he says we cannot be the world’s policeman. We must factor that in when developing the post-Cold War foreign policy.

TrackBack URI: http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2007/05/17/ron-paul-and-rudy-giuliani-whos-right/trackback/
Read more posts from
• • •

81 Comments

  1. “America, like all nations, has the right to act in its own self-interest and according to its own values.”

    Sure, yes and if you look at the information from the CIA, “Confessions of an Economic HitMan” and the WorldBank/IMF – we have tried to use the rest of the world for our own self-interest and by using those organizations/systems/methods tried to assure that any and all negative consequences of our self interest fall on the rest of the world, not us.

    We could not go along using a disproportionate percentage of the world’s resources and forcing our POV on legal, moral and economic issues on to everyone else without the grapes of wrath growing and eventually spilling back on to us. _Effective_ “Islamofascism” did not spring forth spontaneously on its own, we grew it. I content that a decent standard of living for the world’s poor would go a long way to fight terrorism, others disagree because it would mean admitting that some of the roots of the fight come from the disparity in the standard of living.

    Comment by Ann E. Mouse — May 17, 2007 @ 2:51 pm
  2. Ann E. Mouse,

    We could not go along using a disproportionate percentage of the world’s resources and forcing our POV on legal, moral and economic issues on to everyone else without the grapes of wrath growing and eventually spilling back on to us.

    The reason why we use a “disproportionate” percentage of the world’s resources is because we are wealthier than most of the world. We became wealthier than most of the world because we have not regulated our economy to the extent the rest of the world has. Not because we have stolen resources.

    I content that a decent standard of living for the world’s poor would go a long way to fight terrorism, others disagree because it would mean admitting that some of the roots of the fight come from the disparity in the standard of living.

    Why aren’t poor people from Mexico and the rest of Latin America and even Asia lining up to fly airliners into skyscrapers? Why are the only ones committing terrorism from mostly middle class backgrounds from Islamic countries?

    Comment by Kevin — May 17, 2007 @ 2:59 pm
  3. Getting into everybody else’s business has been proved not to be viable, nor it is very conservative by the way –and I supported the Iraq intervention without any doubt, but I don’t buy that anymore. Whenever forced to, “declare war, got to war, win the war and get back home… ” don’t give a s**t until next time.

    That said, it doesn’t mean we stand still; we can do a lot against terrorism without the need of the military force all the time.

    Comment by maelcumx — May 17, 2007 @ 3:09 pm
  4. from:

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/engelhardt/engelhardt17.html

    “It should by now be generally accepted that the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan on Christmas Eve 1979 was deliberately provoked by the United States. In his memoir published in 1996, the former CIA director Robert Gates made it clear that the American intelligence services began to aid the mujahidin guerrillas not after the Soviet invasion, but six months before it. In an interview two years later with Le Nouvel Observateur, President Carter’s national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski proudly confirmed Gates’ assertion. “According to the official version of history,” Brzezinski said, “CIA aid to the mujahidin began during 1980, that’s to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan. But the reality, kept secret until now, is completely different: on 3 July 1979 President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And on the same day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained that in my opinion this aid would lead to a Soviet military intervention.”"

    Islamic fundamentalism was itself brought to you by the CIA. That sort of smudges the distinction you’re trying to make here.

    There’s been an enormous amount written on this subject. Try Googling ‘CIA blowback “Islamic funamentalism”‘ for instance. Or check out the CIA’s main Obama expert for years, Michael Scheuer.

    Comment by Chuck — May 17, 2007 @ 3:38 pm
  5. Whether or not Osama’s grievances are correct isn’t entirely relevent. The problem is that America’s actions in the Middle East prove to everyday Muslims, who would ordinarily be minding their own business, that Osama is correct. While we know he is not correct, and America is not out to destroy Islam, it is hard to convince that to the Muslims of occupied countries.

    You are correct in that al Qaeda does wish to establish fundamentalist regeims in the Middle East, of course. They’ve stated as much. But nothing says they wish to spread such things here, or anywhere outside of their lands. Most don’t really want to conquer the world. I don’t have time to explain it here, but if you read Michael Scheuer’s books, they explain everything well. He’s probably the most qualified author on the subject, so I don’t see much of a reason not to trust him. Even if they are crazy enough to try to conquer the USA, they could never do so without the support of the normal, sane Muslim population we are turning into America-haters with our foreign policies. Just like in the USA, their leaders need to “sell” a war to the people, who often just want to get on with their lives.

    Ron Paul does not actually wish to give into the demands of the terrorists. He wishes to kill the terrorists, and has spoken out, on the House floor, of the need to resume the chase for bin Laden instead of being bogged down in Iraq. A military occupation of a country not related to 9/11 is not at all required to go after the terrorists. The fact that Dr. Paul wishes to withdraw from the Middle East is circumstantial, since he’s been advocating his non-interventionalist policies (in the Middle East and other places) since long before 9/11.

    As for Perl Harbor, I see what you mean, but its not quite accurate to say we were minding our own business when that happened. The Japanese attacked Perl Harbor because of our oil and scrap metal embargo (which were in response to some of their atrocities during their imperial age). Not having any real natural resources of their own, their ability to make war could be crippled by the international embargo. In many ways, sanctions and embargos are acts of war, though I certainly wouldn’t argue the Japanese didn’t deserve it, in that case.

    Comment by G — May 17, 2007 @ 3:58 pm
  6. Chuck,

    Islamic fundamentalism was itself brought to you by the CIA. That sort of smudges the distinction you’re trying to make here.

    Nonsense. Islamic fundamentalism is well, as old as Islam itself; just as with all religions and political ideologies.

    As for Al-Qaeda being funded by the CIA, that’s hogwash.

    Comment by Kevin — May 17, 2007 @ 4:10 pm
  7. LEWROCKWELL YOU ARE 100% CORRECT BUT IVE GOT MORE TO ADD BEHIND THE CIA IS [THE MULITIZILLIONAIRE BROTHERHOOD PULLING ALL THE STRINGS .LIKE STRATEGO OR LIKE A INTENSE GAME OF CHESS!!!!

    Comment by GLENN — May 17, 2007 @ 5:09 pm
  8. The Japanesse came to us after we intervened and cut off there oil.

    Comment by Eli Rothrock — May 17, 2007 @ 5:17 pm
  9. Eli,

    The Japanesse came to us after we intervened and cut off there oil.

    So you’re for doing nothing in the case of atrocities like Rape of Nanking?

    Comment by Kevin — May 17, 2007 @ 5:28 pm
  10. >> _Effective_ “Islamofascism” did not spring forth spontaneously on its own, we grew it.

    WOW! The history of Islamofascism goes back to about the year 622. It was old when Thomas Jefferson decided that the US had given in to the terrorists long enough, and when he became president, he attacked the Islamofascists known then as the barbary pirates.

    From WikiPedia: In 1786, Thomas Jefferson, then the ambassador to France, and John Adams, then the ambassador to Britain, met in London with Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja, the ambassador to Britain from Tripoli. The Americans asked Adja why his government was hostile to American ships, even though there had been no provocation. The ambassador’s response was reported to the Continental Congress:

    That it was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman [Muslim] who should be slain in Battle was sure to go to Paradise.[3]


    Sound familiar?

    I’m skoffing at the unbelievable ignorance of some people, especially Ron Paul. They attacked americans when the US was just a few years old. Was that because we supported Israel?

    Comment by Gunnar — May 17, 2007 @ 5:29 pm
  11. Ron Paul does not advocate “leaving the Middle East to Al-Qaeda”. He has a clear record of supporting the hunting down and elimination of Al-Qaeda as a threat to American interests.

    He does not approve of the war in Iraq which had nothing to do with Al-Qaeda, but rather non-existent weapons of mass destruction, and more likely, oil.

    Ron Paul has never suggested that, “the only solution for terrorism is to give in to terrorist demands.” That is absurd!

    Comment by Joe — May 17, 2007 @ 5:34 pm
  12. Ron Paul is 100% correct.
    The TRADITIONAL CONSERVATIVE position was always non-intervention. If you meddle in other nation’s affairs, prepare for consequences. We need a return to a Nationalist America First foreign policy based on the principles of George Washington’s farewell address. The Problem is that the republican party now kow tows to AIPAC and is in the hands of people who put the interests of Israel first.

    Comment by Joseph Fields — May 17, 2007 @ 5:45 pm
  13. [WOW! The history of Islamofascism goes back to about the year 622. It was old when Thomas Jefferson decided that the US had given in to the terrorists long enough, and when he became president, he attacked the Islamofascists known then as the barbary pirates.]

    FYI, it was Europe that suckered the US into joining their crusade against the Moslems. Eurpeans knew that the US could not afford to pay the tarrifs levied against it to sail in Moslem waters. Europe, however, continued to pay those tarrifs on behalf of their maritime fleet and the US took the bait and propaganda that no one should have to pay to sail there. That was how Europe goaded the US to get involved with their 1000-year war with Moslems. They were pretty sneaky and we’ve been fighting Europe’s wars over there ever since. BTW, there were no ocean treaties back then and the “Barbary Pirates” were tax collectors.

    Comment by Robert Moore — May 17, 2007 @ 8:18 pm
  14. Robert,

    Europe, however, continued to pay those tarrifs on behalf of their maritime fleet and the US took the bait and propaganda that no one should have to pay to sail there. That was how Europe goaded the US to get involved with their 1000-year war with Moslems. They were pretty sneaky and we’ve been fighting Europe’s wars over there ever since. BTW, there were no ocean treaties back then and the “Barbary Pirates” were tax collectors.

    That little “bait and propaganda” that Europe “goaded us into” was the simple fact that American ships, while under the British Empire, were protected by British treaties with the Barbary states. When America declared independence, American ships were free to be boarded by the Barbary Pirates until Congress agree to pay ransom and tribute to the Barbary States. Jefferson stopped paying ransom and tribute and forced the Barbary States to allow American ships to sail at peace in the Mediterranean.

    The Barbary Pirates were hijacking American and other ships in open waters, therefore making them pirates not tax collectors.

    Comment by Kevin — May 17, 2007 @ 8:44 pm
  15. I gave up on the GOP years ago. No one eats their own like the Republican Party establishment when someone comes along who actually practices independent thinking and individualism. McCain learned that for Bush in 2000. Malcolm Forbes learned it from Bush 39 and Dole when suddenly being a “rich Republican” was temporarily a bad thing until the Forbes campaign was disposed of.

    Now comes Ron Paul, perhaps the most honest guy to put his hat in the ring in a long, long time. I certainly don’t agree with him on everything. But the guy is honest and principled. Two qualities the neo-con establishment can’t – and won’t – tolerate.

    The fact is the those on the margins of this election, most notably embodied in the form of Paul and Kucinich – are the ones telling the truth about the war. Two polar opposites who, nonetheless, are close in their opposition to the neo-conned failure in Iraq.

    Paul could have made his point more artfully. What I am certain he was saying was “after years of forcing our will on the middle east we are no longer viewed as either fair, objective, or an honest broker. What the Fox folks and other media con men like Chris Matthews have done is impute to Ron Paul’s statement the notion that somehow our actions in the past provide a moral justification or excuse for the alleged Al Queda attacks. In other words, morally we’re to blame.

    That is not what Paul meant and we all know it and so do Paul’s critics. A note of caution. The “Rosie” comments today are not helpful. Her remarks which the establishment media has quickly merged with Ron Paul’s, will offend most Americans because they appear to attach some notion of guilt on our military. That will not sell in this country and will discredit honest efforts like those of Ron Paul, to tell the truth.

    I have mixed emotions about Rosie. Her recent skepticism about the “official” 9/11 story is a major breakthrough for 9/11 truth. However Rosie is a double-edged sword because she is a lose cannon. Opponents of truth will use her to discredit more thoughtful commentators and candidates who they can and do fear.

    Comment by Bob W Ryley — May 17, 2007 @ 9:22 pm
  16. I just wrote to Malkin and Gibson:

    Ron Paul has nothing to do with the 911 truth movement and what he is saying is completely different from what they are saying AND YOU KNOW IT.

    On a recent visit of Ron’s to NH I was present at Ron’s side when some people asked him about this 911 stuff and his exact words were that there would be nothing to gain by wasting money on trying to find out if anything like that happened. He basically blew them off. He is not interested in such theories.

    Shame you Michele Malkin and John Gibson for smearing Dr. Paul who is a true conservative, with connnections to Rosie O’Donnell, one of the most despicable people anywhere.

    And you Malkin, have just made yourself irrelevant for having Pajamas Media link on your site…they are 12 year old boys running that site who don’t know how to code a valid poll, then accuse people of stacking it. It’s a set-up. They are dishonest and so are you.

    Everyone else’s polls, including FOX’s cell phone and MSNBC’s are valid and can’t be fudged.

    I used to be a fan of both Gibson’s and Malkin’s, but now I realize Malkin is just another neocon robot…not a real conservative.

    Comment by NH — May 17, 2007 @ 9:58 pm
  17. NH,

    What does your screed have to do with my post?

    Comment by Kevin — May 17, 2007 @ 10:01 pm
  18. History doesn’t support the notion that the jihad resulted only from Muslims hating our freedoms. Let’s go back 200 years. I don’t recall a jihad in 1807. How about 100 years. No, no jihad in 1907. It seems jihad started around the same time that we became involved in the region. That shows Ron Paul has a better grasp of history than Benito Giuliani and his goose stepping neo-cons.

    Comment by Jean-Paul Marat — May 17, 2007 @ 11:35 pm
  19. The first terrorists after World War II were the Zionist Terrorist Insurgency in Palestine. This Zionist Insurgency began while the world was occupied with the Nuremburg Trials at the end of WWII. It had been planned since 1897 and they were waiting for an opportune time. The United States continues to support this Terrorist insurgency with Billions of dollars in Financial
    and Military aid despite the fact that they have unregulated nonconventional arsenals.

    Comment by Anton Grambihler — May 18, 2007 @ 12:06 am
  20. Ron Paul’s approach to foreign policy is the only conservative option out there- so he probably shouldn’t be running for the Republican nomination, since the Republicans are becoming more and more a radical fringe group, bent on torture, fixing elections, and world domination.

    I ask, what did any of you, as citizens get for your tax dollars that went to Manuel Noriega, Saddam Hussein, Osama Bin Laden, or the $250,000+ per month that was going to Ahmed Chalabi?? Why is it in our national interest to befriend and pay this scum?? And we do it again, and again, and again.

    And some of you just don’t get it at all, what I heard from Paul is like, if a drug dealer in the toughest neighborhood got attacked randomly by some stranger, wouldn’t you counsel that guy that maybe he should be in church, or playing ball, or working in a legitimate job, or at home with his family, and if he was, he probably wouldn’t get attacked (though he might). Fox News/Rudolph Guiliani mentality would be that he got attacked because his attackers hated his success, and the fact that he is in the streets dealing drugs is irrelevant. He needs to get back on the streets and smoke out his attackers and kill them, which will solve all his problems and lead to a peaceful neighborhood. And, of course, that is bogus, because if he weren’t in the streets dealing, his attackers wouldn’t care what he was doing. And if he went out to squash them, how does that ever turn out? Any cop or military guy who has reached an intermediate level of training knows a cardinal rule, backed up overwhelmingly by history, is that violence is contagious.

    Comment by kevin h. — May 18, 2007 @ 12:19 am
  21. Kevin,
    It’s true that Jefferson attacked the Barbary pirates, but keep a few things in mind. The pirates were capturing U.S. ships, an offense against our nation, and John Adams and Thomas Jefferson took action. When all was said and done, the Barbary States no longer presented a threat, and you admit yourself that U.S. ships sailed peacefully in the Med thereafter. We fought two wars against the Barbary States, we won, and that was it. We did not occupy the Barbary States, nor did we set up bases there and try to impose “democracy” on the region.

    Ron Paul is for non-interventionism, but he is not a pacifist, and if a legitimate threat did emerge against the U.S., he would be all for military action. What Ron Paul does not support is nation building, policing the world, and giving money to foreign regimes. He also does not support a war that enforces U.N. resolutions, since the U.N. Charter is not compatible with the U.S. Constitution.

    Comment by Bill — May 18, 2007 @ 12:23 am
  22. The Rebus turned into the party of the facist imperialists.

    God Bless Ron for trying to bring the real Republicans back, most of the real ones fled to Democrats or went independent.

    Comment by Robert — May 18, 2007 @ 12:53 am
  23. Go Ron, GO!

    Dr. Ron Paul for President of the Free World!

    Comment by DONT TREAD ON ME — May 18, 2007 @ 7:46 am
  24. See also:

    Rudy Giuliani vs. Ron Paul II
    http://themoderatevoice.com/politics/12881/guest-voice-rudy-giuliani-vs-ron-paul-i-online-scoring/

    The Ron Paul Internet Dilemma
    http://themoderatevoice.com/politics/12850/guest-voice-the-ron-paul-internet-dilemma/

    Comment by Alex Hammer — May 18, 2007 @ 8:22 am
  25. Pirate, tax collector.

    Po-tay-to, po-tah-to.

    Comment by mark — May 18, 2007 @ 11:13 am
  26. “The first terrorists after World War II were the Zionist Terrorist Insurgency in Palestine. This Zionist Insurgency began while the world was occupied with the Nuremburg Trials at the end of WWII. It had been planned since 1897 and they were waiting for an opportune time. The United States continues to support this Terrorist insurgency with Billions of dollars in Financial and Military aid despite the fact that they have unregulated nonconventional arsenals.”

    The Jews had Palestine before the British, before the Turks, before the Romans, before the Greeks, and before the Arabs. When ancient Israel was founded, the Jews ruthlessly killed everyone in the land except for a few groups which were not modern-day Arabs. Saying that the State of Israel is a terrorist organisation and should give its land to the Arabs is as ridiculous as saying that the United States should immediately give all its land to the Native Americans because they were there first and even more ridiculous since the Arabs were not the original owners of the land. Also, Israel manages its country much better than its neighbors.

    “Israel is considered the most advanced in the region in terms of freedom of the press,[7] business regulations,[8] economic competition,[9] economic freedom,[10] and overall human development.” -Wikipedia

    Comment by Phil — May 18, 2007 @ 9:26 pm
  27. God! who even reads Malkin or Gibson anymore? There insecure and shady. Here’s a link to exactly what RP was trying to say, but it’s so hard given a 30 second sound and a nut case yellin back at you. Watch!

    http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=RonPaul2008dotcom

    He’s a rock star now. Deal with it neo-cons! Thanks Judi

    Comment by Pat — May 19, 2007 @ 3:18 am
  28. A couple of things. If we pulled out of the Middle East, we would not be “leaving it to Al Qaeda”. Besides the hatred for non-Muslims, there is the ongoing intranecine battle between Shiite and Sunni. By backing away militarily while remaining engaged in non-threatening ways (commerce), we will watch them hash out their internal differences. And by denying them some of the propaganda points for their recruiters, they are more likely to become secularized and less fanatical. The fanatics, at any rate, are a minority, and will remain so as long as the others are interested in commercial opportunities with the rest of the world. In short, going head-to-head is rarely the best long-term solution.

    Second, saying that Ron Paul’s solution is to “give in to terrorists demands” is a complete misunderstanding of what he has said, as many of the earlier comments have pointed out.

    Comment by Dwight — May 19, 2007 @ 6:59 pm
  29. >> I don’t recall a jihad in 1807. How about 100 years. No, no jihad in 1907. It seems jihad started around the same time that we became involved in the region. That shows Ron Paul has a better grasp of history than Benito Giuliani and his goose stepping neo-cons.

    Actually, just the opposite. There has been violent Jihad since 622, and there was certainly Jihad in 1807. Read my post in this thread: Gunnar — May 17, 2007 @ 5:29 pm

    Read the response of the Islamic guy to the continental congress. It’s pure Jihad. So, they were neither pirates nor tax collectors, they were jihadi terrorists.

    It’s ironic that when it comes to “listening”, some people prefer to selectively listen, ignoring what Osama actually said, and to ignore what the ambassador said altogether.

    Osama 92 fatwa: ‘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’

    ambassador’s response was reported to the Continental Congress: That it was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman [Muslim] who should be slain in Battle was sure to go to Paradise.[3]

    >> If we pulled out of the Middle East, we would not be “leaving it to Al Qaeda”.

    Totally false. It’s an undeniable fact that victory in battle breeds confidence, and greatly inspires recruitment. Defeat in battle does the opposite. The current crop of Islamic radicals were greatly inspired, but not because of the US, it was the Russians.

    Russians were considered hard by the islamics, not to be messed with. The americans were considered soft, since they always retreated from battle, even Reagan. Not so with the Russians. They occupied and oppressed about 6 islamic countries. They responded to kidnappings by sending kgb to kill the families of the kidnappers.

    Then, they invaded Afghanistan. Many Islamics did gather to fight the invader. Had the soviets quickly prevailed, the islamics would have been demoralized.

    However, it wasn’t going well for the soviets, and when they pulled out, the Islamic world rejoiced, and this GREATLY inspired them to further Jihad.

    Compared to the russians, the americans should be no problem. Of course, the russians themselves never considered the americans to be “no problem”. Now, the islamics found out what the russians already knew.

    One cannot help but be defeated, if the other side can claim undisputed victory. If we pulled out of the mideast, simply because they chose to fight us, then they will claim victory with enormous jubilation. And THAT would increase the recruitment to near 100%.

    All mideast regimes would fall, and Israel would be destroyed. Europe would be islamisized, who would put up a fight, if even the US retreated. And then they would attack us here in the US, until we either decided to fight, or surrender, perhaps with several large cities in nuclear ruin.

    Comment by Gunnar — May 21, 2007 @ 1:03 pm
  30. For all of your references to “Fatwas” “Sharia law” etc. you seem to be completely ignorant of the hate toward Christ and Christian civilization contained in the jewish Talmud. I suggest you visit http://www.come-and-hear.com and also http://www.thetalmudunmasked.com
    The threat is from aliens with an alien agenda USING the U.S. to meddle in world affairs for THEIR alien interests. There are no “Muslims” running the U.s. government….but there ARE plenty of neokahns and their agenda is based on what’s best for Israel….NOT America. We have been propagandized into making THEIR enemies OUR enemies…and THAT is why we have a “terror” threat. We behave as Israel’s junkyard dog…and now the Fox news types would have us continue the policies that have gotten us into this mess to begin with.
    http://www.americanfreepress.net

    Comment by Joseph Fields — May 23, 2007 @ 1:28 pm
  31. CORRECTION:
    To the link mentioned above…the correct url is:
    http://www.talmudunmasked.com

    Comment by Joseph Fields — May 23, 2007 @ 1:31 pm
  32. What’s your basis in reality for these claims:

    1) neocons are running the govt. Bush/Cheney certainly aren’t neo-cons, they have always been conservative.

    2) how fighting terror is not in US interest

    3) why helping a democratic US ally is not in our interest

    4) please provide any support for the silly notion that anyone alien (extra-terrestial or simply foreigners) is running the US.

    The big question is “why are you so filled with Jew hatred?”

    Comment by Gunnar — May 23, 2007 @ 3:25 pm
  33. Gunnar
    1)Bush is not fiscally conservative. He does not protect the border. He has grown government not shrunk it. He has more in common with Dondero neo-libertarians than he does paleoconservatives like Pat Buchanan.

    2)If only Bush and his clones were interested in fighting the war on terror. He couldn’t get a 4 star general to be his war czar. One of them said the government didn’t know what the hell it was doing. Instead of getting an ulcer he declined the invitation.

    In my opinion we need one of those pragmatic 4 star generals or someone like Ron Paul for president. If we are going to continue picking a fight with the whole region then lets get someone that can do more than sing “bomb, bomb, bomb Iran,” or bragging how great a torturer they will be if elected. Don’t get me started on the Democrat front runners who pretend to not like Bush’s war or power. If we want to just go after the people who attacked us and have Congress declare war then Ron Paul can do that. Eisenhower (5 Star General) solved our immigration problem when he was president.

    3)Protecting Taiwan, dragging ourselves in a terrible war is not in our interests. We watched Tibet be taken and did nothing.

    4) http://letsibeledmondsspeak.blogspot.com/

    According to Sibel Edmonds (her allegations were investigated and found true but not released to the public) the Jewish\Turkish lobbies are nothing more than front groups for the Military-Industrial-Congressional-Complex.

    Comment by uhm — May 23, 2007 @ 4:23 pm
  34. 1.) Depends on your definition of “conservative.” Frankly, it’s a term that has lost most of it’s old meaning….and there is little worth “conserving” in today’s America. What we need is a Nationalist who puts the best interests of his nation first. Bush and Cheney are internationalists….old time conservatives always considered internationalism as subversive. Not so our modern “conservatives.” Cheering on the take-over of your nation by third world illegal aliens is also hardly “conservative.” We need people like Robert Taft…he was a TRUE conservative. I’ll elaborate on this theme in the future if you would like…
    2.)Fighting Terror….HOW do you fight a TACTIC?
    As Ron Paul stated so eloquently….they DON’T “Hate us ’cause we’re “free” ( AND WE ARE NOT free….thanks to Bush and his Orwellian Police State)but because we stick our noses where they don’t belong. If we followed the advice of George Washington in his farewell address, we wouldn’t be hated. If they hate freedom, WHY didn’t they attack Switzerland?
    Both columnists Charlie Reese and Paul Craig Roberts have done a very good job exposing this phony “war on terror.” You need to trust the government and media a lot less than you do….
    3.)Israel is our “ally” in the same way a tick is the “ally’ of a dog. See http://www.ussliberty.org ….is THIS the action of a “friend?” Another reason they hate us….and RIGHTLY so, is that we enable the Israelis to continue their occupation and suppression of the Palestinians. Israel has NO RIGHT to exist….every square inch of that land was STOLEN from the Palestinians.
    4)By “alien” I mean alien to the best interests of the American majority ( unamerican with a FOREIGN agenda) The names surrounding Bush and driving US foreign policy…and Mideast policy in particular, read like the names at a jewish wedding….see http://www.nomorewarsforisrael.com They are aliens with a primary allegience to an ALIEN country (Israel)
    As for being filled with “Jew Hatred”…..should I ask you why you are so filled with “Arab hatred?”
    It is now open season on Arabs and Muslims because the jewish run media says it is….conversely, any information put out that is non-adulatory or critical in terms of Israel or the wider jewish agenda, is labeled “jew-hatred” “anti-semitic” etc. This has worked for a long time now, cowing people into ignoring and even denying the obvious…but it’s starting to wear thin, and Ron Paul’s candidacy may just open the floodgates to an OPEN discussion and a return to an “America First” foreign policy….and it’s about time.
    For an in-depth study on how the old American conservative movement was subverted and taken over by “former” Trotskyite jews,( neo-cons) read “The Judas Goats” by Michael Collins Piper, available at http://www.americanfreepress.net

    Comment by Joseph Fields — May 23, 2007 @ 4:56 pm
  35. CORRECTION!!!
    I apologize…again…the correct url metioned above is: http://www.nowarforisrael.com

    Comment by Joseph Fields — May 23, 2007 @ 4:59 pm
  36. >> Gunnar, 1)Bush is not fiscally conservative. He does not protect the border. He has grown government not shrunk it. He has more in common with Dondero neo-libertarians than he does paleoconservatives like Pat Buchanan

    Uhm,

    I agree, bush is not a very strong conservative. My only point is that he’s not a neocon. I believe ‘neocon’ refers to folks (perhaps jewish)who were previously left leaning, suddenly (and justifiably) turning to the right, in reaction to 9-11, and the anti-americanism from the left. I welcome neocons.

    I don’t particularly like Bush, my choice was Alan Keyes. However, I can’t help but notice that he is somewhat masterful. The way he got the nomination was clearly well planned out. I got the same feeling about the great judge nominations. I got the feeling that he planned that whole Harriet Miers thing to get Alito on the bench. 
    However, we need to go the mattresses over the immigration issue.

    >> little worth “conserving” in today’s America. What we need is a Nationalist who puts the best interests of his nation first. Bush and Cheney are internationalists….old time conservatives always considered internationalism as subversive

    Joseph,

    Conservative in America means conserving the vision and political philosophy of the founders. It is certainly worth conserving. And they definitely did not consider internationalism subversive. Right or wrong, they set the standard of an aggresive non-idealistic foreign policy that supported US national interests. Starting with using France to defeat Britain, and then using france to get a peace treaty with Britain, and then distancing ourselves from France within hours of it’s signing.

    >> Israel has NO RIGHT to exist….every square inch of that land was STOLEN from the Palestinians.

    Wow, you are really crazy. And you are quite incorrect. This land has been the traditional jewish homeland for some 3000 years. Jews still lived there when european jews began returning in the early 1900s. The area was mostly uninhabited. The people who lived there were a mix of different nationalities, but very few arabs. The jews started brought a new vigor and jobs, that attracted arabs to the area. There are no such people as “palestinians”. That was made up (perhaps by the Mufti).

    There is no separate “palestinian” language or culture. They are simply arabs who evacuated prior to the 1948 war that was supposed to destroy Israel. Then, instead of allowing these people into their countries, the arab regimes made them refugees.

    >> As for being filled with “Jew Hatred”…..should I ask you why you are so filled with “Arab hatred?”

    You didn’t answer my question. You need to answer that, or you will be exposed.

    I certainly do not “hate arabs”. I hate the nazi idealogy. It is pure evil. I define the nazi idealogy as Nationalism, Socialism, Dictatorship, and Jew Hatred. The arab regimes sided with Nazi Germany in WW2. The Mufti Al Husseini was an extreme Nazi, and a major advocate of the “final solution”.

    The main reason for US hatred in the region is that within a few short years, the US entered the war and defeated their beloved Nazi Germany, crushing their dreams. The Mufti escaped to Egypt to spread the evil nazi idealogy and inspired the terror movements that we are still grappling with.

    Comment by Gunnar — May 24, 2007 @ 7:45 am
  37. here is a good summary of the mid-east situation: http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=28450

    The reality is that Ron Paul is so wrong about this.

    For him to be right would require this statement to be wrong: “bad things happen when good people do nothing”.

    Some people think that WW1 and WW2 started when the US entered the war, and that all events in this short century are disconnected. They are wrong. In both WW1 and WW2, isolationism kept the US out of the wars for too long, which allowed evil to strengthen, and caused many more deaths.

    Ron Paul doesn’t seem to understand that the idealogical war from WW1 and WW2 is still going on. In WW1, the US defeated the Ottoman empire. Even if Ron Paul doesn’t know any history, islamo-fasicsts do, which is why Osama Bin Laden frequently mentions this event as a wrong to be corrected. Apparently, Ron Paul believes that we shouldn’t have entered WW1.

    WW2 had been going on for 10 years before the US entered the war. In WW2, the US defeated Nazi Germany. Even if Ron Paul doesn’t know any history, islamo-fasicsts do, and they hate the US for dealing their idealogy such a major setback. Apparently, Ron Paul believes that we shouldn’t have entered WW2.

    Comment by Gunnar — May 24, 2007 @ 10:02 am
  38. isolationism kept the US out of the wars for too long

    Ron Paul is not an isolationist.

    Apparently, Ron Paul believes that we shouldn’t have entered WW2.

    How does that conclusion follow from any of your premises? Ron Paul has stated clearly, that if the USA wants to get into war, the Congress should fulfill its Constitutional duties and declare war. As he has pointed out, WW2 was the last war in which the Congress actually declared war.

    Try again, though…

    Comment by js290 — May 24, 2007 @ 10:27 am
  39. >> How does that conclusion follow from any of your premises?

    Ron Paul clearly stated that we should disengage from the mideast. That we would not be threatened by islamo-fascists, if we would retreat in defeat. This idea is so false, it disqualifies him from serious consideration for any political office, let alone the presidency. In order to for the US to have avoided this threat, we would have had to avoid entering WW1 and WW2.

    >> Ron Paul has stated clearly, that if the USA wants to get into war, the Congress should fulfill its Constitutional duties and declare war

    First of all, congress did declare war. The constitution DOES NOT require that the words “declare war” be used. The fact that Ron Paul thinks that it does shows that he is completely delusional, and incapable of conceptual thought.

    However, the bigger point is not this technicality of the words “declare war” not being used. The important point is that he doesn’t think that 23 reasons are enough for the US to go to war. And the important point is that he doesn’t understand that a US retreat means US defeat, which the bad guys would proclaim loudly as victory. Then, recruitment would increase dramatically.

    nice try, but maybe you should look into some resources on “critical thinking”.

    Comment by Gunnar — May 24, 2007 @ 10:58 am
  40. Gunnar, “A neo-conservative (abbreviated as neo-con or neocon) is part of a U.S. based political movement rooted in liberal Cold War anticommunism and a backlash to the social liberation movements of the 1960s and 1970s.”
    http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Neo-conservative

    Alan Keyes was the best candidate the Republicans had in 2000.

    Ron Paul wants to bring Osama to justice.

    Gunnar but what will we do against 1.2 billion Islamo-Fascist (guessing that is the number)?

    Empires create problems. We should have killed those Nazis (Salafi/Wahhabi/Muslim Brotherhood) but no we send them to Saudi Arabia and use them as a tool against the Soviets. What stupidity, resulting in Blowback!
    http://www.navyseals.com/community/articles/article.cfm?id=4328

    Comment by uhm — May 24, 2007 @ 11:02 am
  41. I’d like to point out that there were good arguments for not getting involved in either World War.

    Certainly our involvement in WW I, which I believe to have been absolutely unnecessary, resulted in a disastrous outcome. Rather than both sides fighting each other into exhaustion and then arranging a reasonably equitable end to the hostilities, US involvement ensured a crushing allied victory.

    The victory made the allies very bold. England maintained the “starvation blockade” for 9 months after the shooting stopped. The reparations and allied interventions in Germany wrecked Germany’s economy and destroyed any stabilizing political institutions.

    The end result was a decade of privation, upheaval and insecurity that was exploited by the Nazis in their rise to power.

    Incidentally it was U.S. intervention in Japan in the 1870′s that began the chain of events culminating with the attack on Pearl Harbor. Commodore Perry’s bombardment of Tokyo, forced the Japanese emperor to begin politically interacting with the European empires. Faced with the choice of becoming an expansionist empire or being reduced to a colony as had happened to China he chose empire.

    As despicable and as evil the Japanese and German empires were, they were not the most evil empire involved in that war. The Soviet Union, our ally, not only killed more innocent civilians in their network of concentration camps than the Germans did, but also were part of the original conspiracy that started the hostilities, they joined with Germany in invading and subjugating Poland.

    To me World War II is not an example of a “good war”. I must admit that I am conflicted over whether the United States should have fought in it at all.

    But it is also clear to me, that the seeds that grew into World War II were either planted, or heavily fertilized by U.S. foreign policy. If we had not attacked Japan, not involved ourselves in the useless Great War, I think the 20th century would probably have been a century of peace and prosperity.

    Comment by tarran — May 24, 2007 @ 11:02 am
  42. Wikipedia: The fact that the use of the term “neoconservative” has rapidly risen since the 2003 Iraq War is cited by conservatives as proof that the term is largely irrelevant in the long term. David Horowitz, a conservative author, offered this critique in a recent interview with an Italian newspaper:

    [Neo-conservatism] is a term almost exclusively used by the enemies of America’s liberation of Iraq. There is no “neo-conservative” movement in the United States. When there was one, it was made up of former Democrats who embraced the welfare state but supported Ronald Reagan’s Cold War policies against the Soviet bloc. Today “neo-conservatism” identifies those who believe in an aggressive policy against radical Islam and the global terrorists

    >> Ron Paul wants to bring Osama to justice.

    It is foolish to think that a single person is responsible. A single person in a cave isn’t capable of this. Some people actually believe the myth that Osama financed the entire Al Quaeda operation with his personal fortune. In reality, his so called fortune would only be enough to finance the network for about 2 days. He came out of the Sudan broke, with fighters leaving the movement. He met with Saddam, and is suddenly flush with money. The 19 hijackers all had false saudi IDs. Faked in way that only a state can.

    >> Gunnar but what will we do against 1.2 billion Islamo-Fascist (guessing that is the number)?

    First of all, it’s a battle of ideas. We need to deal with the core of the issue. Step 1: establish religious freedom Step 2: establish democracies Step 3: establish free economies. Step 4) There aren’t that many “evil” people, so the best thing would be to lure them into confronting the US military, instead of sitting back and waiting for them to attack our civilians.

    Wait, the Iraq operation does all these things. Wow!

    >> I’d like to point out that there were good arguments for not getting involved in either World War

    Then, you are certifiable. In one statement, you just condemned myself, my family, and all the good people in Europe to nazi oppression.

    >> Incidentally it was U.S. intervention in Japan in the 1870’s that began the chain of events culminating with the attack on Pearl Harbor. Commodore Perry’s bombardment of Tokyo

    Oh really? I just read the Wikipedia article on him, and it doesn’t say he bombarded Tokyo. Besides, he would not have sailed to Japan, if it weren’t for his brother helping to save the US from the british in 1812. So, it was the british. No, if the US had not declared independence, then this whole sequence of events would not have happened. That’s really what you’re after.

    >> To me World War II is not an example of a “good war”. I must admit that I am conflicted over whether the United States should have fought in it at all.

    By your logic, we should disband the police force and court system, since your brand of disengagement shouldn’t be limited by the US border.

    Comment by Gunnar — May 24, 2007 @ 12:26 pm
  43. Tarran, With all due respect, you cannot be serious that World War II was an “optional” war. We can argue that the U.S. could have stayed out of the first World War but not the second (which America did stay out of WWI until the Germans thought it would be a good idea to sink some American merchant ships). The attacks on Pearl Harbor demanded a response. Do you really think that Roosevelt should have just shrugged and said “oh well”?

    Involvement in the European theater is only slightly trickier. I guess it depends on if you believe it would have been perfectly okay for the Nazis to conquer Europe or not.

    This is where Libertarian thought gets a little dicey: are we only responsible for our own liberty or do we have any obligation to help those who are being oppressed? I’m not quite sure where I come down on this because clearly we cannot involve our military in every nation where there is a despot. The consequences of not helping sometimes mean that we will be next. If there is a legitimate fear that the Nazis are coming to conquer us next, then its better to depose them while the threat is small than if the threat is imminent. Or do you believe we wait until the enemy is rolling tanks down Broadway, NY?

    Comment by Stephen Littau — May 24, 2007 @ 2:19 pm
  44. Gunnar,
    It’s clear from the way you argue that you are absolutely STEEPED in neokanservatism, Fox News and the History channel. You couldn’t be further from the truth.
    As for jews and Israel, a little thing happened called the Crucifixion…the act of DEICIDE…that was punished in 70 A.D. under the Roman Emporers Titus and Vespatian, who carried out the judgement of God as prophesied by Christ Himself. Modern day “Israel” is the result of a deal between the Rothschild international banking cartel and lord Balfour during World War II. In return for jewish financial aid to Britain, and the bringing of America into the war, the “Balfour Declaration” was to cede a portion of Palestine ( then a British protectorate)to the world zionist movement.The movie “Lawrence of Arabia” shows Brit double-dealing in their dealings with the Arabs. “No Palestinian people or culture?” You show yourself to be ignorant and completely reliant on one-sided zionist propaganda. See http://www.deiryassin.org for a background on the ages old ( and in many cases CHRISTIAN) culture of the Palestinian people. As a matter of fact…some of the first victims of zionist terror were Palestinian Christians. Again…see http://www.deiryassin.org WHO were the British to give away land that was NOT theirs in the first place? What’s more…when the Brits didn’t turn other people’s land over to the jews fast enough, the Irgun and Stern TERRORIST organizations turned on them and began attacking them, killing innocent civilians in the process. Do the names Count Folke Bernadotte and the King David Hotel mean anything to you? Google them!
    As to the “evil Nazi Ideology” what about the evil COMMUNIST ideology that Roosevelt and Churchill CAME TO THE AID of????
    White Christian Europeans were murdered in the MILLIONS by this ideology that was JEWISH through-and-through….where are your crocodile tears for THEM? AGAIN….you need to get your history from OTHER sources than the establishment. I suggest http://www.barnesreview.org as a start. World Wars I & II were avoidable…and if you think about it…you should MOURN at the results of BOTH. World War I was a result of international bankers, freemasons, jews and communists overturning the OLD “Conservative” Catholic monarchies of Europe….NOT a “conservative” move…but a move to subvert and destroy Europe and turn it over to communism and international high finance. World War II was another victory for the same forces. Germany fought VALIANTLY against COMMUNISM…and peoples from all over Europe who were ANTI-COMMUNISTS and commited to the survival of the West joined Germany in her crusade against Bolshevism. What did America do under Roosevelt…( whose entire administration was riddled with communists?) we AIDED the butcher Stalin who murdered MILLIONS of Christian Europeans. Think about it.
    There is nothing “evil” about wanting your nation to survive and not cow-towing to jewish interests. In many ways…you and others like you make my point for me. You are judeo-centric. Any person or ideology that is “jew-friendly” is ok…but anyone or anything that opposes them is “evil.”
    I am on the other hand “Euro and Christo-centric.” My world doesn’t revolve around a small percentage of people that has shown an inability to get along with other peoples from time immemorial.
    The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem was a PATRIOT…an anti-communist, and looked out for the best interests of his people….that the jews didn’t like him is actually to his credit. It means he didn’t sell out to them.
    AGAIN…I challenge you to read the Talmud ( http://www.come-and-hear.com ) and you will understand that a people that arrogantly considers itself “chosen” and treats others as beasts to be crushed and exploited cannot expect to be “loved” by those they treat so horribly. As the old saying goes…”If you want to be loved, be lovable.

    Comment by Joseph Fields — May 24, 2007 @ 2:41 pm
  45. >> As for jews and Israel, a little thing happened called the Crucifixion…the act of DEICIDE

    No true Christian blames anyone for that. Christ laid down His life willingly. No true Christian hates. Love your enemies!

    >> “No Palestinian people or culture?” You show yourself to be ignorant

    Tell me about the palestinian language, literature, music and culture prior to 1948.

    >> Germany fought VALIANTLY against COMMUNISM…and peoples from all over Europe who were ANTI-COMMUNISTS and commited to the survival of the West joined Germany in her crusade against Bolshevism

    Nazi germany attacked and invaded countries, killing millions. Nazi troops took my grandfather’s house for barracks. Nazi artillery is still just a few yards away from the house. Were they protecting us from a soviet invasion?

    >> As to the “evil Nazi Ideology” what about the evil COMMUNIST ideology

    Yes, Communism is also evil. Communism and Fascism are two sides of the same coin. They both involve the wholesale violation of human rights.

    However, you simply deflect the charge of “evil Nazi Ideology”. I can only conclude from this that you are a Nazi.

    >> The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem was a PATRIOT

    Ok, that settles it, you are mad.

    >> people that arrogantly considers itself “chosen”

    If God exists, then the only party who would be angry about the Jews being “chosen” is Satan. If God does not exist, then who cares about them being “chosen” by a non-existent God?

    Comment by Gunnar — May 24, 2007 @ 3:07 pm
  46. Stephen,

    Involvement in the European theater is only slightly trickier. I guess it depends on if you believe it would have been perfectly okay for the Nazis to conquer Europe or not.

    Your premise has a major flaw, the Nazis declared war on the United States; making your premise irrelevant.

    Comment by Kevin — May 24, 2007 @ 3:29 pm
  47. >> are we only responsible for our own liberty or

    Whichever it is, it has to transcend national borders. Morality cannot be nation specific. Whatever you decide, be prepared to apply the same principle in your town as well.

    >> do we have any obligation to help those who are being oppressed?

    The key is in distinguishing between an obligation and a right. If walking down your street, you see a mugging, you are not obligated to intervene, but if you if you choose to intervene, you are morally right.

    >> I’m not quite sure where I come down on this because clearly we cannot involve our military in every nation where there is a despot

    based on the above, it’s not all or none. We can choose to intervene when our own security is at risk, even if it’s long term. There is no right to violate people’s rights, so sovereignty does not trump human rights.

    Comment by Gunnar — May 24, 2007 @ 3:34 pm
  48. Pat Buchanan: “Who are the neoconservatives? The first generation were ex-liberals, socialists, and Trotskyites, boat-people from the McGovern revolution who rafted over to the GOP at the end of conservatism’s long march to power with Ronald Reagan in 1980.”
    http://www.amconmag.com/03_24_03/cover.html

    Why don’t we attack Saudi Arabia and lure them there? It is terrorist capital #1. Islamo-Fascism is the number one faith in Saudi Arabia according to Wikipedia. Wikipedia says it is the Official faith how about that?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status_of_religious_freedom_in_Saudi_Arabia

    National Review article says 40 percent of Saudis are Islamo-Fascist.
    http://www.nationalreview.com/interrogatory/interrogatory111802.asp
    http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/gulf/wahhabi.htm

    Did we attack Saudi Arabia? No we attacked Iraq. We broke Iraq, wasting our money on fixing it ignoring the elephant in the room. Bush can surge all he wants but the problem is the Iraqi Government doesn’t seem like it is going to appease the Sunni insurgents. I think it is stupid having the honey pot in Iraq because of the different feuding factions. What happens is Sunni insurgents kill Shiites and out of revenge the Shiites kill Sunnis. They all love to shoot our soldiers in the back. Bush Administration invented the Sunni insurgents too with the de-baathification.

    Who is the next target? Is it Saudi Arabia? No it is Iran.

    Gunnar we aren’t going to bring these people out of the Dark Ages. I don’t think your Wilsonian fantasy will become a reality sadly.

    Comment by uhm — May 24, 2007 @ 3:34 pm
  49. Gunnar,
    I am of Croatian heritage. The Germans helped my people in their struggle against both Serbian imperialism AND communism. Should I hate those who were friends and benefactors of MY people because they ran up against the agenda of another people? But this is just a personal digression, in response to your vignette about your grandfather. Do you deny that millions of non-German Europeans WELCOMED the Germans as liberators and joined them in the struggle against communism???
    As for my statement on Deicide…I am a Catholic, and this has been the position of the Catholic and Apostolic Church down thru the ages…but you are probably ignorant of that also, seeing you live in an insulated philo-semitic world. The Palestinian people are also some of the first and oldest Christian communities on earth. Many of them are Catholic…as was the late Yassir Arafat’s wife. Some of the first atrocities commited by the Zionists in 1948 were against Palestinian Catholics. Many reports were made at the time by Catholic Bishops and priests…particularly about jewish desecrations of Catholic Churches, convents, etc. Did you check out http://www.deiryassin.org ? If you did…you’ll see how the jews slaughtered old men, women and children, ripping the unborn children out of women’s stomachs and throwing the bodies down wells, after which they went around in “sound trucks” threatening those who didn’t abandon their properties with the same. How would you feel if you were forced off of your property…your wife and kids murdered in front of you, and your home bull-dozed? Would you accept it because some former denizen of the lower east side of New York told you he was “chosen” to “return” to a land he claims to have a divine right to?
    Do you analyse ANY of this, or just come back with your pre-packaged answers? So far I see only ad-hominem coming from you, and NO facts.
    FYI…Stalin WAS planning to attack Germany and the West…Hitler beat him to the punch. Again…I suggest a subscription to The Barnes Review http://www.barnesreview.org
    Germany simply took back land STOLEN from her at Versailles…the Danzig corridor, etc. The invasion of Poland came after the murder and terrorist raids on ethnic germans in western Poland, and Hitler offered many times a peace settlement with the allies that would have included the return of polish territory…but they would have none of it. BTW….We keep hearing how evil it was for Hitler to invade Poland, etc…..BUT The moron Bush is ivading sovereign nations right and left….what makes it EVIL for Hitler but OK for Bush???
    I’m “mad” because I disagree with your take on a historical figure??? Where is MY freedom to disagree?
    This is a political forum, so I’ll keep my discussion of Theology to a bare minimum, but as for “chosen” I AGAIN challenge you to READ the Talmud…then tell me whether or not you consider it “hate literature” directed against ALL non-jews….Christian and Muslim alike. http://www.come-and-hear.com
    Again, as for any one people being “chosen”….that all went by the board after Christ established the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostoloc Church….the only “Chosen” of God are now baptized and practicing Catholics around the world.

    Comment by Joseph Fields — May 24, 2007 @ 3:43 pm
  50. >> Why don’t we attack Saudi Arabia and lure them there? It is terrorist capital #1. Islamo-Fascism is the number one faith in Saudi Arabia

    Saudi Arabia wasn’t a threat, wasn’t harboring about 5 major terrorist figures. Saudi Arabia hasn’t invaded it’s neighbor, or had an active WMD program, didn’t gas it’s citizens.

    They may be muslim, but they are not islamo-fascists.

    Comment by Gunnar — May 24, 2007 @ 3:56 pm
  51. “John Chrysostom, bishop of Constantinople (ca. 398-407), was the first to accuse Jews of being “Christ-killers” but his reason for doing so was that his Christian congregants were continuing to attend the local synagogue, no doubt because the rabbis were more learned than many priests and were better biblical preachers!”

    http://news-info.wustl.edu/news/page/normal/711.html

    Comment by uhm — May 24, 2007 @ 4:03 pm
  52. >> am a Catholic, and this has been the position of the Catholic

    You are so wrong about the Catholic position. A true Christian would be called upon to love your enemies. Good Catholics, including the Pope, hid jews from the Nazis. So much so, that the rabbi of Rome converted to Catholicism after the war.

    Comment by Gunnar — May 24, 2007 @ 4:07 pm
  53. Yes they are Islamo-Fascist and Saudi Arabia is a threat. They peddle their violent beliefs worldwide.
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A31402-2003Oct1?language=printer

    If Wahhabist/Salafi are not terrorist than the War on Terror is a lie.

    Comment by uhm — May 24, 2007 @ 4:12 pm
  54. Gunnar,
    Do a little research on the TRADITIONAL Catholic position on Judaisn PRE- Vatican II…Popes, Cannonised Saints and many Councils….Holy Scripture and Christ Himself condemn them St. John 8:44, for example. This all took place before your sanitized politically correct little world came about, of course….

    Comment by Joseph Fields — May 24, 2007 @ 4:18 pm
  55. Uhm,
    It sure looks to me like the U.S. and Bush are the ones calling for ENDLESS war and violence….look at the sabre rattling and bullying of Iran as an example…WHO does Bush think he is? God? Who is HE to tell a SOVEREIGN NATION it can or cannot develop any kind of weapon it wants to protect itself? Of course Bush and his jewish handlers are concerened because they can’t allow ANY nation in the region to be a ballance and cheque on Israeli agression…

    Comment by Joseph Fields — May 24, 2007 @ 4:22 pm
  56. >> Yes they are Islamo-Fascist and Saudi Arabia is a threat. They peddle their violent beliefs worldwide

    What about the other things I listed? You’re right, they peddle beliefs, therefore, we should peddle counter ideas. We should actively fight ideas with ideas. The govt of SA is not a physical threat to the US at this time.

    Comment by Gunnar — May 24, 2007 @ 4:25 pm
  57. Father Leonard Feeny, S.J. on the Invasion of the Holy Land:
    http://www.fatherfeeney.org/point/58-sep.html

    Comment by Joseph Fields — May 24, 2007 @ 4:30 pm
  58. More on the Church and the jews:
    http://www.fatherfeeney.org/point/57-nov.html

    Comment by Joseph Fields — May 24, 2007 @ 4:35 pm
  59. The Desecration Of Churches and Holy places by the Zionists:
    http://www.fatherfeeney.org/point/57-apr.html

    Comment by Joseph Fields — May 24, 2007 @ 4:38 pm
  60. The Holy Land and the Jews:
    http://www.fatherfeeney.org/point/55-apr.html

    Comment by Joseph Fields — May 24, 2007 @ 4:41 pm
  61. And Finally…The Church Militant and The Jews:
    http://www.fatherfeeney.org/point/56-oct.html

    I think I’ve proved my point, but lots more if you require it…..

    Comment by Joseph Fields — May 24, 2007 @ 4:43 pm
  62. >> I think I’ve proved my point, but lots more if you require it

    Except that he was ex-communicated.

    http://www.romancatholicism.org/feeney-condemnations.htm

    Comment by Gunnar — May 24, 2007 @ 5:13 pm
  63. I just think if we are going to fight them over there it should be on Saudi Soil.

    We aren’t going to win the war on ideas when the whole Muslim world sees us in a negative light. They see everyday Iraqi children blown to bits. We don’t see the human suffering our media blocks that out. We don’t see the suffering of coalition forces or the Iraqis.

    The Muslim news is all about the Israeli military killing Palestinians. It is about Americans killing Iraqis. It is about “Occupation.” Muslims watching Al-Jazeera are as informed as people who watch our news media. The news media is a business it puts out what is politically correct in a given society. I personally feel sorry for the Israeli and Palestinian civilians who just want to co-exist peacefully.

    We don’t know our enemy. Our leaders don’t have a clue.

    “The very fundamental issue is, they don’t know where the hell they’re going,” said retired Marine Gen. John J. “Jack” Sheehan, a former top NATO commander who was among those rejecting the job. Sheehan said he believes that Vice President Cheney and his hawkish allies remain more powerful within the administration than pragmatists looking for a way out of Iraq. “So rather than go over there, develop an ulcer and eventually leave, I said, ‘No, thanks,’ ” he said.
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/10/AR2007041001776.html

    I don’t like the idea of Iran getting the bomb but it isn’t going to be the end of the world. Pakistan has it and it is an unstable country. The Islamo-Fascist are hiding out in Pakistan. They were allowed to regroup in Pakistan… some ally.

    Comment by uhm — May 24, 2007 @ 5:14 pm
  64. Also Bush preached about “spreading democracy” yet I wasn’t thrilled to see Hamas win the Palestinian election.

    Comment by uhm — May 24, 2007 @ 5:25 pm
  65. Gunnar,
    That was on another matter altogether, and is subject to debate. it takes NOTHING away from the historic documents, councils, etc. that he quotes in his articles.

    Comment by Joseph Fields — May 24, 2007 @ 5:33 pm
  66. Gunnar,
    Here is a website that can provide more info on Father Feeny:
    http://www.catholicism.org/
    He was NOT officially “excommunicated” as the Book “The Loyolas and The Cabots” explains. He was a staunch defender of the Faith, and already identified, back in the 1940′s the watering down and weakening of the Faith by liberals and compromisers. He is a Saint and true hero. Because of the weakness of Rome we subsequently got the heretical Vatican II Council. which subverted the Church from within. See the book “Plot Against The Church” by Maurice Pinay, available from Omni Christian Books http://www.omnicbc.com

    Comment by Joseph Fields — May 24, 2007 @ 5:44 pm
  67. Here’s more on Father Feeny and his so-called “heresy” and “excomunication.” His only “crime” was defending a dogma of the Catholic Faith against liberals and traitors from within, as this brief bio will tell you:
    http://www.fatherfeeney.org/other/athan1.html

    Comment by Joseph Fields — May 24, 2007 @ 5:50 pm
  68. >> We aren’t going to win the war on ideas

    You can only fight a war of ideas WITH ideas. And what ideas have we been putting out there? Our MSM is actively supporting the terrorists point of view, encouraging them. Our MSM is Al Jazeera light.

    >> They see everyday Iraqi children blown to bits

    Unlike the MSM, most Iraqis aren’t so stupid as to believe that Americans are blowing people up. Read Iraq the Model

    Comment by Gunnar — May 24, 2007 @ 6:06 pm
  69. >>heretical Vatican II Council

    By definition, a church council cannot be “heretical”. However, claiming so is probably heresy, which causes automatic excommunication.

    >> He was NOT officially “excommunicated”

    Yes, he was: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,822681,00.html?iid=chix-sphere

    Now, since I’ve determined that you seem to be both a Nazi and a heretic, I won’t waste my time with your posts anymore.

    Comment by Gunnar — May 24, 2007 @ 6:28 pm
  70. Our news media is transnationalist run by a bunch of socialist and neo-idiots.

    My point is they aren’t going to listen to us as we continue to support countries like Saudi Arabia, and occupy Muslim land. We send foreign aid (tribute) to these countries of all places.
    http://www.gopusa.com/opinion/aw_1021.shtml

    Iraq the Model is this?
    http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/

    Comment by uhm — May 24, 2007 @ 6:37 pm
  71. Gunnar,
    No you won’t “waste your time” with my posts, because you have no valid ARGUMENTS…only ad-hominem attack. If I am a “heretic” then so are all of the Catholics down through the ages…they practiced a Faith VERY different from the one calling itself “Catholic” today. I am a Traditional Roman Catholic and attend Mass at a Chapel run by the Society of St.Pius X ( see http://www.sspx.org Many loyal Catholics who have a sense of history have recognized the chasm between the Church teaching of the ages and the V-2 sect, therefor many have joined the Traditionalist movement ( Mel Gibson is a good example) As for being a “Nazi”…just another name thrown around by jews and those who revolve around them.
    You don’t bother reading or thinking…that much is obvious from the way you argue…and others can see that too from reading your posts.

    Comment by Joseph Fields — May 24, 2007 @ 7:18 pm
  72. Gunnar,
    I know you won’t bother reading anything that challenges your pre-conceived notions, but here is a place you can go to compare the ages old and UNCHANGING teachings of the Church, to the novelties and heresies of the V-2 marrano council: http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/
    also see http://www.catholiccounterpoint.com
    BTW…You send me liberal ESTABLISHMENT links like CNN and Time Magazine to prove a case??!!! GET REAL!

    Comment by Joseph Fields — May 24, 2007 @ 7:28 pm
  73. Kevin:

    “Your premise has a major flaw, the Nazis declared war on the United States; making your premise irrelevant.”

    That’s a very good point. I asked the question because I was trying to understand where Tarran was coming from. Once one nation declares war against another, its completly appropriate to respond with a declaration of war.

    Gunnar:

    I tend to agree with your answers to my questions.

    Comment by Stephen Littau — May 24, 2007 @ 11:37 pm
  74. “The growth of the official and unofficial Saudi and Jordanian support for the militants is one of the most worrying developments,” a senior British officer has told me privately after a visit to Iraq.
    http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/index.php?menuID=1&subID=1147

    We need to take the honey pot to Saudi Arabia.

    Comment by uhm — May 25, 2007 @ 4:27 am
  75. Ron Paul and a former top agent for the CIA educate Rudy Giuliani on the realities of “Blow-back: http://www.propagandamatrix.com/articles/may2007/250507Educating.htm

    Lesson is…if you don’t want trouble, don’t go looking for it.

    Comment by Joseph Fields — May 25, 2007 @ 1:30 pm
  76. A short article on just ONE reason “they” hate us….and our “feedom” (sic) has absolutely NOTHING to do with it…..
    -J.F.-

    The 60 Year Old Bleeding Ulcer
    Posted by Lewis Doherty on: 2007-05-25 17:57:07 in category: General [ Print]

    Photo: Palestinian refugee shows key to his house which the Jews seized from him. Imagine telling the Jews that all of the property they left behind during World War II was “abandoned” and that they had no right to it which is what the Jews tell the Arabs. Or, imagine stating that these European countries would return Jewish property when the Jews return Arab property. That would be a laugh.

    The television news has been running the battles between the Lebanese army and the militants in the Palestinian refugee camps with voice overs about the “extremists.”

    Some viewers sit there and actually wonder, refugee camps, what is this all about?

    These camps are the populations driven out of Israel/Palestine by the Israelis. The Israelis won’t let them return home.

    While Rice complains about extremists destabilising democratic governments, one must ask who is actually destabilising the governments and preventing democracy from operating.

    The Palestinians in the camps don’t see themselves as Lebanese and the Lebanese don’t see them as Lebanese. They are displaced people by the actions of the Jews.

    The Jews won’t let them return because they have stolen their land. If the Palestinians do return, eventually Israel would have a majority Arab government.

    So this fight in a refugee camp is “news,” for America, not because it is really important to the average American, but because it is important to the Jews who dominate the media. The Jews make it important to America by hyping it.

    After 60 years, the Jews have been unable to live with the non-Jewish populations in their areas. Is this any surprise given their history? Of course, they indicate the problems are caused by everyone else in the world, not them.

    The Jewish dominated media in the U.S. and groups like AIPAC make sure that the problems the Jews cause become the problems of the U.S.

    Media Link

    News Source:

    Comment by Joseph Fields — May 25, 2007 @ 1:44 pm
  77. [...] The Liberty Papers »Blog Archive » Ron Paul and Rudy Giuliani, Who’s Right? May 17, 2007 Ron Paul and Rudy Giuliani, Who’s Right? The slapping match between Ron Paul and Rudy Giuliani at Tuesday night’s Republican debate has ignited a debate on foreign policy. Ron Paul made his controversial remarks ,which I have to disagree with my fellow contributor Doug about, that can be interpreted by a reasonable person as showing moral equivalence between the enforcement of the no fly zones by bombing anti-aircraft positions and radar towers in Iraq from 1991-2003 and the mass murder of over 3,000 civilians in the World Trade Center on 9/11. Having said though, I do not believe that Ron Paul was trying to show moral equivalence instead he was making his point about blowback but was very inarticulate, to say the least. Ron Paul’s position on the causes of terrorism, to paraphrase, is that terrorism is the result of American intervention in the Middle East. Rudy Giuliani’s position on the causes of terrorism, again to paraphrase, is that terrorism is the result of religious fanatics who hate our freedoms. Suffice to say, both men are right on certain aspects and both men are wrong about other aspects. To examine Al-Qaeda’s casus belli we need to examine a document, Osama Bin Laden’s first fatwa against America. In this document, he lays out several grievances he has against the United States as paraphrased by James Joyner: 1) The end of U.S. aid to Israel and the ultimate elimination of that state 2) The removal of U.S. and Western forces from the Arabian peninsula 3) The removal of U.S. and Western military forces from Iraq, Afghanistan, and other Muslim lands 4) The end of U.S. support for the oppression of Muslims by Russia, China, and India 5) The end of U.S. protection for repressive, apostate Muslim regimes in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Egypt, Jordan, et cetera 6) The conservation of the Muslim world’s energy resource and their sale at higher prices Just by these demands alone, we can dismiss Rudy Giuliani’s rhetoric of “they hate us for our freedom” as absurd. We can further dismiss the rhetoric by pointing out that there have been no terrorist attacks in Canada, which is even more socially liberal than the United States; and only isolated incidents in places like Holland which is one of the most hedonistic countries on the Earth. By this lack of depth on such a serious subject, Rudy Giuliani is simply not qualified to be president. “Al-Qaeda is motivated by a jihad ideology that calls for the following: Jihad ideology separates humanity into two hostile blocs: the community of Muslims (Dar ul-Islam), and the infidel non-Muslims (Dar ul-Harb). Allah commands the Muslims to conquer the entire world in order to rule it according to Koranic law. Hence Muslims must wage a perpetual war against those infidels who refuse to submit. This is the motivation for jihad. It is based on the inequality between the community of Allah and the infidels, as was re-emphasized in the Cairo Declaration. The first is a superior group, which must rule the world; the second must submit.” Only by learning the ideology can we study the grievances more in depth. We can dismiss the fourth grievance out of hand. The United States has not supported China, India, or Russia in their actions against Islamic insurgencies in their countries. The purpose of the fourth grievance is the same as the grievance against the UN sanctions on Iraq, even though Saddam and UN bureaucrats siphoned off money that should have gone for food and medicine. It is a propaganda ploy designed to increase recruitment from the Arab street. While we do need to point out that there are legitimate grievances against American foreign policy (mostly the support for tyrannical Arab regimes); the main reason why Al-Qaeda is targeting the United States is that the United States is the only country that can stop them from forming the Islamic Caliphate they want. As long as the United States supports “moderate” Arab regimes and Israel, Al-Qaeda will fail to topple them. The question is, should we step out of the way of Al-Qaeda. The answer is clearly, no. To do so will condemn in the short term, the Jews in Israel to another Holocaust and secularists and non-Muslims in the Arab world to virtual slavery. In the long term, Al-Qaeda intends to reconquer first the lands previously held by the Islamic world and then conquer the remaining nations of the House of War. Ron Paul is absolutely wrong when he suggests we should withdrawal from the world, because as the lessons of Pearl Harbor show, the world will eventually come to us. Finally, to leave the Middle East to Al-Qaeda will only tell others that you can change American policy by committing mass murder against American citizens. While you may have grievances against American policy, mass murder is never an acceptable means of expression. That’s what Ron Paul is saying, even though he may not mean to, when he suggests the only solution for terrorism is to give in to terrorist demands. For these naive views of the world, Ron Paul is simply not fit to be president. America, like all nations, has the right to act in its own self-interest and according to its own values. Defeating Islamofascism is in America’s best interest because they will not stop until they rule the world. Just listen to them. However, Ron Paul is correct when he says we cannot be the world’s policeman. We must factor that in when developing the post-Cold War foreign policy. [...]

    Pingback by I am not drinking the Kool-Aid for GB anymore - Page 2 - TDR Roundtable — June 3, 2007 @ 4:19 pm
  78. “Pearl Harbor” was also a set-up. Roosevelt GOADED Japan into attacking, KNEW exactly when and where the attack would occur, and let it happen because the American people were overwhelmingly AGAINST involvement in the European war. 911 was another set-up, and an INSIDE job.
    see http://www.prisonplanet.com and http://www.americanfreepress.org

    Comment by Joseph Fields — June 4, 2007 @ 1:43 pm
  79. whether each was a set-up is irrelevant to the point above. Even if George Bush planned 911, it still doesn’t change the reality of OBL, and Al Queda Terrorists that are attacking US interests in foreign lands and in the case of 911 at home. Because of this threat, the US must act in its interest and attempt to quell these fanatics before they butcher all of Israel.

    Comment by someguy — June 4, 2007 @ 5:50 pm
  80. sorry, accidentally pushed the wrong button and posted that.

    As a final humorous memento, I found it interesting to hear some people trying to justify FDR and Perl Harbor, and then, if they believed that GB caused 911, condemning him.

    Comment by someguy — June 4, 2007 @ 5:52 pm
  81. First of all, The US “interests” in foreign lands????
    If we want to maintain OUR sovereignty we need to respect the sovereignty of OTHERS. Kind of a “golden rule” that applies to Nations as well as individuals.
    Second….who CARES what happens to Israel? What have they done for us lately???? An aniversary is coming up in a few days….se http://www.ussliberty.org
    Holding water for a foreign country is unamerican and NOT conservative. Let’s put America first….

    Comment by Joseph Fields — June 4, 2007 @ 6:18 pm

Comments RSS

Subscribe without commenting

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Powered by: WordPress • Template by: Eric • Banner #1, #3, #4 by Stephen Macklin • Banner #2 by Mark RaynerXML