Ron Paul Fundraising pulls in over 2.6 M today alone

[Will938]

How many will be inspired to join their ranks if we pull out of Iraq in abject retreat?

Less than were inspired if we had done nothing at all.

So I guess you believe our withdrawl from Somalia did not inspire the terrorist? That's not what OBL and his buddies have been saying for years. According to many, it was a highpoint that proved we could be directly confronted and ultimately led to 9/11.

I prefer that we listen to what they have to say and then act accordingly. They hate us for what we are, not anything we have done. Their "reasons" are merely anecdotes they use to justify their hatred. You cannot reason with someone who hates you because you exist.

Pulling out of the fight and barricading ourselves behind fences would be like announcing to the world that we are wounded and scared.

Read what I said again. Less than had we not gone at all. Meaning that if we didn't go to Somalia and try to get tough he wouldn't of had those thoughts.

Me too. But who is they? You guys seem to think that the opposition is a large portion of the population. They hate us for what we are, but people join their ranks and attack us because of what we've done. We might be fighting 100,000 people, and we might of killed 40k of them, but they are adapting, gaining strength, and have become more active on an international level. And how do you propose that we eliminate the threat by force? They aren't a nation, they're spread all over. We could shun to world and go where we please, that might help kill even more, but it will never eliminate them.

Lashing out at the world doesn't tell everyone that we're scared? Explain to me exactly what this offensive has done for us.

[Will938]

In case you missed it, The Maginot Line was a failure.

You're comparing an incomplete/obsolete line created to stop armies from crossing to the observation/detainment of handfuls of people crossing our southern border?

[Will938]

Go on and explain why any of this logic is flawed.

I've already done that. You just don't get it. Try re-reading my posts and some of the posts of others. Repeat as needed.

Plus, the instances of flawed logic and reed grasping are so numerous that it would just be too tedius to go through them all.

Sorry.

What you don't seem to get is how much aggravation we're causing. It isn't as simple as killing people when necessary.

I have reread this entire thread; dispite that I wrote most of these in the early morning it still seems to make sense for the most part. If you can't take specific examples and logically explain why they're flawed instead of telling me that I'm wrong because you said so, then I take that to mean you can't explain why.

I swear if you take a couple and explain I'll think about it as neutrally as I can

[seamusTX]

Anthrax mailer, started mailing poisoned letters September 18, 2001. Killed five Americans on U.S. soil. Shut down the Senate office building. Crime never solved.

John Allen Muhammad and Lee Boyd Malvo, killed 16 Americans on U.S. soil in 2002. Is there any question that this was an incident of Muslim-inspired terrorism by people who did not come from the Middle East?

Richard Reid, British citizen and Al Queda member, prevented from blowing up an airliner only because his shoe bomb was defective and passengers piled on him.

Please explain how any amount of U.S. military action overseas will stop five, ten, or 100 terrorists from entering the country legally or illegally, or "disaffected youths" in, say, Dearborn, Michigan, or Paramus, New Jersey, from taking action without direct orders from Osama bin Laden.

Please include a detailed explanation of how action in the Middle East deters terrorist originating in Africa, Asia, and Europe.

- Jim

[frankie_the_yankee]

Anthrax mailer, started mailing poisoned letters September 18, 2001. Killed five Americans on U.S. soil. Shut down the Senate office building. Crime never solved.

John Allen Muhammad and Lee Boyd Malvo, killed 16 Americans on U.S. soil in 2002. Is there any question that this was an incident of Muslim-inspired terrorism by people who did not come from the Middle East?

Richard Reid, British citizen and Al Queda member, prevented from blowing up an airliner only because his shoe bomb was defective and passengers piled on him.

Please explain how any amount of U.S. military action overseas will stop five, ten, or 100 terrorists from entering the country legally or illegally, or "disaffected youths" in, say, Dearborn, Michigan, or Paramus, New Jersey, from taking action without direct orders from Osama bin Laden.

Please include a detailed explanation of how action in the Middle East deters terrorist originating in Africa, Asia, and Europe.

- Jim

Sure. As soon as you establish that these incidents occurred because of American foreign policy, and provide a credible model of what the world situation would be today had that policy been different.

[Lodge2004]

Read what I said again. Less than had we not gone at all. Meaning that if we didn't go to Somalia and try to get tough he wouldn't of had those thoughts.

Me too. But who is they? You guys seem to think that the opposition is a large portion of the population. They hate us for what we are, but people join their ranks and attack us because of what we've done. We might be fighting 100,000 people, and we might of killed 40k of them, but they are adapting, gaining strength, and have become more active on an international level. And how do you propose that we eliminate the threat by force? They aren't a nation, they're spread all over. We could shun to world and go where we please, that might help kill even more, but it will never eliminate them.

Lashing out at the world doesn't tell everyone that we're scared? Explain to me exactly what this offensive has done for us.

We didn't go to Somalia to get tough. We went there to feed people. OBL and his crew confronted the US troops as part of their ongoing effort to gain popular support by constantly kicking dirt at the big dog.

I don't agree that people join them because of what we do, they join because of the hate that is stoked by their religious leaders. Anything and everything we do would feed their hate. It's no different from the "reasons" they hate the Jews: they stole Palestine, they stole the wealth of Egypt when Moses led them away, they make matzo balls from the blood of innocents, etc... You simply cannot reason with people who think that way.

What has this offensive done for us? It has kept us on the offensive. Action always beats reaction.

I don't know the answers, but I do know one of them cannot be to cut and run. That just runs counter to everything I have ever learned about human nature.

[KBCraig]

I don't know the answers, but I do know one of them cannot be to cut and run. That just runs counter to everything I have ever learned about human nature.

Everything about the culture in that part of the world runs contrary to everything we think of as human nature. You simply can't apply our mores and expect anything they do to make sense.

Americans are myopic, with no sense of history. Your average American thinks all the current troubles started on 9/11/2001, and has no idea that we have been intruding on their internal affairs for over a century.

While our high school seniors can't correctly place the century, let alone decade, for the Revolution, Civil War, or even WWII, their teenagers can recite every war of the last 13 centuries. Americans are eager to accept apologies (no matter how insincere), and just move on, because "that's in the past". The Muslim world stays focused on every wrong done to them or their families, every perceived slight, for generations. Sometimes for centuries.

They might even "hate us because we're free", but it doesn't matter why they hate us. They attacked us because we have U.S. forces stationed on Arab land. U.S. bases in Saudi Arabia are just as offensive to them, as a strip club in the Alamo would be to us.

All experts on the region point to blowback from our foreign policy being the primary reason for the WTC attacks (1993 and 2001), the USS Cole attack, the embassy bombings, etc. The idea that "they attacked us because we're free" is simply a political soundbite with no basis in fact.

[nitrogen]

Part of the problem is how the whole debate has been framed.
"Cut and Run" sounds like surrender.

For a second, try and put yourself in their shoes.

Bear with me for a second. This will take some imagination.

Imagine, if you will, our next president, George W Hillary Guliani Clinton takes office, and shortly after, declares martial law. Suspends the constitution; confiscates our guns, forcebly detains people they dissagree with, the whole 9 yards. Our next president then holds on to power for the next 30 or so years, by ruthessly murdering their opponents, killing their own people, and stirring fear into the people.

Then, imagine, our "friend" in Venezuela, Hugo Chavez decides to liberate us from George W Hillary Guliani Clinton.
He also decides to stick around for the next few years, to "help us" realize the socalist paradise that America should be.

Well, we'd be pretty mad, wouldn't we? I'm sure some of us would take up arms against the invaders. Sure, they helped free us from a tyrant, but they'd also be pushing us in directions we may not want to go as a country.

Hugh Chavez would be dumbfounded! His socalist paradise is so perfect, why don't these silly Americans want it?

You see where i'm going with this?

Getting rid of Saddam was a great thing. Trying to turn Iraq into the type of country we want it to be is not. Iran is the type of state it is today precicely because of our meddling there.

Now I realize the opinions given here may be very unpopular; and i'm not trying to start a fight or a debate about the war. All I'm trying to do is illustrate a point.

[Liberty]

All experts on the region point to blowback from our foreign policy being the primary reason for the WTC attacks (1993 and 2001), the USS Cole attack, the embassy bombings, etc. The idea that "they attacked us because we're free" is simply a political soundbite with no basis in fact.

They hate us because we aren't of their faith and we are infidels. Conversion at the end of a sword is part of the core to their beliefs and principles of Jihad

Political reasons for their hatred begin with our support of Israel. If we turned our backs on the only friends and only Democracy in the entire Middle East. I don't understand the resistance of us setting up bases in the middle East. It is the only thing that has ever worked there. The Turks made it work and so did the Brits It is how we had success in South Korea, Europe, and Japan. We the United states are to be a World Leader or a second rate Nation. There is nothing wrong with being a second rate nation I guess until one realizes who those are that wish to take over our place in world leadership and the damage they will do to free peoples. Our biggest problem with foreign policy is that we don't follow through with our promises and threats. There was a lot of meaning behind the words of "Speak softly, but carry a big stick" Ronald Reagan understood it and Former Soviet Union understood it.

We live today prosperous and free, because we had men of courage who understood what it took to be a free people. Today a tiny little war that we didn't start is a test of our resolve.

Saturday I posted a link to a picture from my web site, It was a of a pair of moslems and a pair of Christians mounting a cross together on a Christian church. It to me symbolized not only what we are fighting for, but the victory that we can not afford to throw away. Today is Veterans Day, Its a good day to remember not only the Veterans and their sacrifices, but to remember what they had won for us, and what they were fighting for. I believe that they are fighting for much of the same things today.

[frankie_the_yankee]

All experts on the region point to blowback from our foreign policy being the primary reason for the WTC attacks (1993 and 2001), the USS Cole attack, the embassy bombings, etc. The idea that "they attacked us because we're free" is simply a political soundbite with no basis in fact.

So the first basis of our foreign policy should be to approach bin Laden and other jihadists and ask them to give us a list of things we shouldn't do (or they will launch terrorist attacks on us)? This would include which other countries to support, defend, or trade with. Then we should scrupulously adhere to the wishes of the jihadists so that they do not attack us again.

Is that about right?

[Lodge2004]

All experts on the region point to blowback from our foreign policy being the primary reason for the WTC attacks (1993 and 2001), the USS Cole attack, the embassy bombings, etc. The idea that "they attacked us because we're free" is simply a political soundbite with no basis in fact.

Then I believe "experts on the region" are the ones who do not understand history.

In 1786 Jefferson and John Adams went to negotiate with Tripoli's envoy to London, Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdrahaman or (Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja). They asked him by what right he extorted money and took slaves. Jefferson reported to Secretary of State John Jay, and to the Congress:

The ambassador answered us that [the right] was founded on the Laws of the Prophet (Mohammed), that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have answered 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 Mussulman (or Muslim) who should be slain in battle was sure to go to heaven

[KBCraig]

They hate us because we aren't of their faith and we are infidels. Conversion at the end of a sword is part of the core to their beliefs and principles of Jihad

And this differs from GWB's foreign policy... how, exactly?

[KBCraig]

All experts on the region point to blowback from our foreign policy being the primary reason for the WTC attacks (1993 and 2001), the USS Cole attack, the embassy bombings, etc. The idea that "they attacked us because we're free" is simply a political soundbite with no basis in fact.

Then I believe "experts on the region" are the ones who do not understand history.

They understand it exactly correctly, and your cite further confirms it.

In 1786 Jefferson and John Adams went to negotiate with Tripoli's envoy to London, Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdrahaman or (Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja). They asked him by what right he extorted money and took slaves. Jefferson reported to Secretary of State John Jay, and to the Congress:

The ambassador answered us that [the right] was founded on the Laws of the Prophet (Mohammed), that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have answered 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 Mussulman (or Muslim) who should be slain in battle was sure to go to heaven

Jefferson, coming from the perspective of the English concepts of "high seas" and "international waters", displayed an innocent type of arrogance that still continues today: that Americans should be able to go wherever and do whatever they want. Even the best of intentions ("We bring you free trade, and democracy!"), don't matter to someone whose traditions to the contrary are just as long, and whose convictions just as strong.

In short, they weren't seeking out our ships because we were infidels -- they were attacking our ships because we were in their waters. Sound familiar?

By the way, you should cite that link to the Wikipedia entry on the Barbary pirates, especially when copying and pasting.

[seamusTX]

Please explain how any amount of U.S. military action overseas will stop five, ten, or 100 terrorists from entering the country legally or illegally, or "disaffected youths" in, say, Dearborn, Michigan, or Paramus, New Jersey, from taking action without direct orders from Osama bin Laden.

Sure. As soon as you establish that these incidents occurred because of American foreign policy, and provide a credible model of what the world situation would be today had that policy been different.

I asked a simple question and I don't see an answer.

Alternativee history is fascinating but not germane to this forum or topic.

- Jim

[Charles L. Cotton]

All experts on the region point to blowback from our foreign policy being the primary reason for the WTC attacks (1993 and 2001), the USS Cole attack, the embassy bombings, etc. The idea that "they attacked us because we're free" is simply a political soundbite with no basis in fact.

So the first basis of our foreign policy should be to approach bin Laden and other jihadists and ask them to give us a list of things we shouldn't do (or they will launch terrorist attacks on us)? This would include which other countries to support, defend, or trade with. Then we should scrupulously adhere to the wishes of the jihadists so that they do not attack us again.

Is that about right?

If anyone can convince me that this thread is now remotely on point with anything in the forum's rules, I'll unlock this thread. Remember, there is a reason we have not set up an Off-Topic sub-forum.

Chas.

11. Off-topic posts/threads: We do not have an off-topic forum because they tend to cause the most problems for any board. We have gotten rather lenient in allowing off-topic posts, but this has become a problem in recent months. At this point, we are not going to prohibit off-topic posts, but please observe these guidelines. Off-topic posts must be at least remotely related to one of the topics listed in the titles of the sub-forums or their descriptions. This does not apply to prayer requests or LEO Bloopers, but it does apply to LEO Encounters. If a LEO encounter didn't involve a CHL matter, then don't post it. (This has been one of our more troublesome subjects in recent months.) We will continue to evaluate the off-topic post issue in the coming months.