12/28/09 Ron Paul “They’re Terrorists Because We’re Occupiers” Larry King Live

Still watching, but 2:15 seconds into the video the guy states how attacks on Osama were 'long overdue'. I find this odd for 2 reasons. 1 - in the 90's, the UN condemned the Taliban (which we set in place in the early 80's - all sides agree on this) for crimes against humanity (this is heavily documented, even on the UN's website), and they asked the US to act. So we tried to missile a few taliban sites. Well we missed our target and even took out some civilians (this to is well documented).

So not only did we make ourselves an enemy of one major political group in Afghanistan in the 80's when we helped the Taliban overthrow it, we then betray the Taliban (which is a well known extremest entity the Al Aqaeda would recruit from) as well.

So when this guy states that 'An Attack On Osama is long overdue', it seems like its met to make a preemptive statement to get an immediate reaction from US against him. Any other explanation I have come across just doesn't make sense.

Whoa another post by me that seems completely out of place. I'm not too sure why I posted this video, but I'm glad you watched it davids80. Somewhere in this Frank Gaffney even admits that they didn't even know that 9/11 was carried out by Osama bin Laden, but then again, how could they have known? It was only a few hours after the buildings were blown up!

These lunatics were just calling for war with every Muslim country right off the bat, pretty much what Ben Stein was doing here.

My thoughts exactly - the creation of entities that have power over the American people without the vote of the American people is an utter disgrace, and goes against nearly every single principle and reason this country was founded to begin with.

And I do not care if you like Ron or not - at least he uses facts and examples in context when he brings them up to help educate others. This particular issue is well addressed in his book Revolution: A Manifesto in the chapter on the Constitution.

Not quite - At first we suffered for our own reactions to those in response to the rest of the world. We suffer more because no one wants to take the time to understand how the poor reactions made things worse. So we do what we always do, and instead of just stopping or abolishing bad ideas and actions, we make them bigger by constantly refining their perceived flaws while ignoring the root cause.

Yep, a speech writer for NIXON. How dripping with evil was that job?

Read the link -

http://www.peacefreedomprosperity.com/?p=2622
- it is a decent summary of our involvement in the 'middle east' since 1917 on up to present.

You said 'What were the remarks about going in and taking the oil? If I recall, most Arabian gulf countries are right at the top of the list of most wealthy countries, highest per capita income, highest numbers of Rolls Royces sold per capita etc., etc. We are not taking the oil, .'
List your source- this contradicts everything I have read on Afghan, Iraq, Iran, and even our own history. We do buy oil from them, and we have used embargoes as a tool to manipulate their system since its inception.

'but we should be for defending their asses and having to pay to rebuild their countries'
Come again - its called the Monroe Doctrine - learn it - it is not our job to play world police, and only someone ignorant of foreign cultures and history would dare say otherwise.

'They need our money for their oil, but they need us to defend them against their brother Muslim neighbors.'
First off, they do sell us oil. Second, I agree that they should use all the money they have to furnish their own protection and rebuilding, not ours. Yet the idea of being defended against their 'Muslim Neighbors' is to generalized for my taste.

'Who would kill them and take the profits in a minute, and adopt the dreaded Western Ways that the developed Arab countries have. '
Thats because the profits were unfairly reaped to begin with brought on by heavy coercion and force. The 'dreaded western ways' spoken of by so many in that area, are not the ones we see so much here at home, but rather the militaristic enforcement that betrays its own allies every few decades or so - of course they dread it!

But the ones that are farming rocks in the desert seem to be the ones that are convinced it's all our fault. '
No one farms rocks. And they would not be so down trodden if their country wasn't ruined by nation after nation coming in and toppling one govt after another, which was never what they had to begin with.

Hey Davids80, their neighbors, who happen to be Muslims, would destroy most of the other "developed" Arab nations, if they had the chance. Too generalized? I truly believe that the Muslims are trying to rule the world. It is going to come down to nukes pretty soon, either Isreal or Pakistan or any of the other basically "Third World" nuclear capable nations, and I include Isreal because, although they control a lot of the money, their attitude is just as bad as the Muslims, if you aren't one of us, you are inferior and don't have a right to live, one of these dumbasses is going to launch a nuke.

Of course, half of the Muslims seem to hate the other half, or sects. I'll just refer to them as cults. If we weren't there, and I believe we should just let them kill each other, and defend our selves, they would blame us for everything wrong in their country anyway, like they do know.

You seem to be a student of the Middle East. I'm not, and I don't intend to be. But on the surface, it sure looks like the Muslims are behind all the shit going on.

Like I said, bring our guys home, let Isreal sink, if we weren't there, Isreal would cease to exist, and then the Muslims would target another group, probably the US. Even more than they do now.

That's a great book by Chalmers Johnson.

Maybe, maybe not - the events that led to the placement of the extremists into power in the middle east happened long before the first gulf war. If you wanted to get technical about it, it was many of Clinton's little UN enforcements like bombing the very same powers that we put in place in the early 80's that really got the ball rolling so to speak...please reference the following link for more info:

http://www.peacefreedomprosperity.com/?p=2622

awesome, as usual: you destroyed all of the misconceptions, or lies, about him, in an easy statement. i know he is in no way homophopic (also a misused term), or anti-semetic, racist, or misogynst. if people would just come to the table and just listen to what he espouses, you might get a clue.

RP got a little too real for Ben and it blew his mind so he had to call RP an anti-Semite, lol!

My favorite though is:

RP- "Why are they terrorists?"

Ben- "They're terrorists because they're psychos."

LOL

Talk about conspiracy theory......

A misogynist gynecologist. :) I just like the sound of it.

Do you have examples of each of these claims?

No she has no examples nor proof nor evidence and she knows it that's why she never responded.

Wow that's a harsh indictment... I'd have to see some proof.

And what is it with everyone who isn't pro-homosexual is "homophobic"? A phobia is an unfounded fear, one could easily point out who tends to carry/spread more of things like HIV/AIDS; astonishingly it's not heterosexuals. What's worse you got all these "Bi" people that are the sexual bridge between the homo and non-homo communities that can certainly put a heterosexual person at a way higher risk from perceived less risky behavior. Not only that even from an evolutionary stand point, homosexuality doesn't work, I think for some people it's a genetic anomaly or whatever fine (I'm not going to hate anyone for being a homosexual, I'm just not going to promote it). Then there is the whole rebellion aspect, you DO have young people who don't know there ass from a whole in the ground but they know being "GAY" would really piss of their parents. Look at Ellens' ex-wtfe, apparently she wasn't a Lesbian there was she. And that kind of thing is typical; "Oh it was a phase.".... But none of that is what really bugs me about it.... It's the homosexual dude talking like a "valley girl", it's the bull-dyke looking like she's got a bigger pair than myself; it's the acting, forcing yourself to talk differently pretending to be something your not...(for the record I dislike fake titties too).... I've known and appreciated a couple homosexuals, you know why? Because unless they told you, you would have no idea they were homosexuals. One I remember one would agree with me on all of this, and didn't feel oppressed by acting "normal"...

But you know what I'm sure that little rant somehow makes me a "homophobe"... I'm almost equally sure that you have about the same or less verification that Ron Paul is a homophobe.

So all that about Run Paul being, homophobe, racist, misogynist, anit-semetic; just go ahead and provide some proof.

Thanks for elaborating. :)

well clearly, the problem has not been solved WITH our physical presence there either--and Russia didn't fair too well in Afghanistan before we got there....hmmm, maybe it's time to try a different strategy besides warfare, but of course there is so much opportunity for fortune building with warfare.

Albert Einstein -- “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results”.

Here is a little blurb i wrote in the matter a while back - let me know what you think :-)

http://www.peacefreedomprosperity.com/?p=2622

Just a brief history of our involvement in the area.

Religion as a whole has a bad history, why are we going to war with fairy tales

Religion as a whole is indeed the cause for many inhumane acts. The sick part is, all those religions have all been advocated by people who never took the time to study and learn the principles in them. The exception is a good deal of those who did read and understand, but chose to use their knowledge to exploit ignorance.
In short, the religion in many cases (in its purest form anyway), isn't the problem. The problem is its ability to be easily exploited to influence others to do the wrong thing.

" The problem is its ability to be easily exploited to influence others to do the wrong thing." - -
*Ahem,* according to the Islamic Qur'an, it is their purpose to do the 'right thing' according to Allah, and it is seemingly easy to persuade the 'faithfull' to murder in the name of Allah with the "promise" of 72 virgins as their reward. . . such a deal yeah?

"*Ahem,* according to the Islamic Qur'an, it is their purpose to do the 'right thing' according to Allah, and it is seemingly easy to persuade the 'faithfull' to murder in the name of Allah with the "promise" of 72 virgins as their reward. . . such a deal yeah? "

You mean like catholicism, the spanish inquisition, the crusades, and the Salem witch trials? All in the name of mis-interpreted religion. Also, where in the Quran did you read about the 72 virgins? I am personally a christain, and I read the Quran because I wanted to see what the other side was all about - I was not at all surprised to see it as misquoted and taken out of context as the bible.

Sorry, I need a more compelling argument other then 'well I believe'.

I couldn't agree more, you'd think he still works for Nixon....

You sound anti-semitic April.

Hitler blamed "jewish bankers" too, you might want to check your bigotry and prejudice at the door next time.

Who owns the banks? The Arabs? The Catholics?

It's funny to see that people like unimatrix consider something like this to be anti-semitic, but having Muslims and Arabs, who are the true semitic peoples, line up in their own airport line not anti-Semitic. Why are people like unimatrix so quick to throw around the anti-Semite tag?

I agree with you completely that people are often labelled antisemitic in situations where it is completely irrelevant much like this one but I'm not sure exactly why you brought up the bankers? It was a complete non sequitur, entirely irrelevant to your argument. It seems as if just wanted to bring up the ethnicity of some bankers for no reason.

At the end of the day it's the banks who will benefit from these staged events!

"Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes it's laws". —Mayer Amschel Bauer Rothschild. "

Whoa no more drunk posting on Current for me I started my New Years celebrations way too early. I have no idea what I was trying to imply here as my comments here are completely in left field.

I don't know about all the wars being funded in full by "Jewish bankers" but I know for a fact that the heads of all central banks (World Bank, Federal Reserve, IMF ect) just happen to be Jewish!

LOL. If you change your mind, i will look forward to what you have to say tonight. Drunken rambling are amusing. :)

I disagree. While it does seem that we are at war with Islam, who started the war, and why? Invasions to capture oil and other resources, huge trade imbalances, and civilian deaths have pushed some of those within the middle east Islamic community over the edge. How would you like it if soldiers dropped from the sky onto your street, claimed the resources in the ground for themselves, and killed many of your fellow citizens with air strikes and shoot-outs? If this ever happened, Americans would likely be very unhappy with the situation and likely do the same acts of terrorism that we hear about from Afghanistan.

I too don't agree of our presence in the East, however I understand our reason and purpose for doing so.
To ignore the history of Islam leads to failure to comprehend and understand the geo-political under-currents and dynamics that drive the current worldwide dilemma of its presence.

Yet, the typical short-sighted response such as yours. . . ignore the content of fact in defense of your opposition of our presence there. . . and somehow the problem is solved if we have no physical presence there?

Wrong. Islam practitioners in Nigeria, most of northern Africa in fact, the middle east, and all over the world are crying for peace. Jihad is not central to the faith of Islam, it is central to the faith of extremists. Extremists are, for lack of a better word, insane; though that is not always the case. As with the boy who was apprehended in Detroit they feel alienated from others, and when they find a group that 'accepts them' they are willing to do anything. Religion is only a small factor, it provides only the choice. It is the individual who makes the choice.

How can you be at war with an ideological concept? What would you fight it with? The thought police?

exactly. it's like the war on terror, or drugs. a war against a word will fail every single time.

'To ignore the history of Islam leads to failure to comprehend and understand the geo-political under-currents and dynamics that drive the current worldwide dilemma of its presence.'

Ummm ok. Is that why Islam came under attack during the great crusades? Because they were 'such a threat'?
The problem here is not Islam in its pure form - and as I have seen several others point out already, it is the extremist side of Islam that fuels terrorism, just as Christianity during the great crusades.
Just read the article I posted already - If you can explain to me after reading it that you still believe this whole thing is about Islam gone awry, then I just cannot take you seriously, and I do not want that.

No you cannot wage war on an ideal or 'word' as I saw someone here say. The same person wisely compared the same philosophy to the 'War on Drugs'. I do not know their reasoning, but from what I can tell, this is because people will always have their ideals of what should be and what shouldn't. The truth is, its not a war or at all, but the result of one nation or entity trying to force its beliefs and principles on another. This is compounded even worse when the country which we take such actions against, were molded that way as a result of nation building dating all the way back to 1917.

Islam is a lie, and truth exposes it as so. I do not care if you take me seriously or not. . . rest assured that I give any who think that Islam is not a theological cancer upon mankind no credence whatsoever.
To ignore the evil roots that founded this mental disease, and the barbarous history of it presence wherever it is since being established, to me clearly defines the epitome of denial and willful ignorance.

Ok.

I digress. Being of curious mind, I wish to know your sources and read them for myself. I know full well that I am not the be all end all of anything, and have often admitted it when I am mistaken. It is my personal belief that everything must be examined from an objective viewpoint with no personal bias - as such, I am curious as to your sources.

In addition - I am not saying that Islam itself is not what we would consider today a 'barbarous' concept - I have little enough training in such things except for a study on the Quran, and am not arrogant enough to make such a call. However, until we opened the can of worms by invading their country first, they never once in history proved a threat to us. On the contrary, after the crusades, they still kept their people and religion contained to their country with the exception of the Barbary Pirates that was put to rest in the early 1800's. From then to about 1917, the rest of the world really didn't hear much from them.

So it may indeed be a barbaric religion as you put it. But it was not until our meddling with their affairs did they come to hate us. in point of fact, we didn't even meddle until we threw our hats in with the League of Nations and made our biggest mistakes of all after that. Such policies went against our nations founded principle. The idea that we can play the 'worlds police' simply because we think a nation is 'barbaric' is irrational and to this day, has led to nothing good. It comes of no surprise at all that the more we try, the more damage we do that makes their 'barbarism' as you put it, pale in comparison.

Islam is no more a disease than is misogyny, racism, or sadism. In fact it hardly can compare, and if you believe Islam is a disease then you suffer from the latter two.

You can just as easily say Christianity or patriotism or nationalism is a disease. People commit horrid crimes in the names of those things. But to say that we must wage some kind of war on anyone and everyone who believes in one of them is completely absurd and insane. You need some serious help and so does anyone who agrees with you.

The thing that eludes you who think this way is that it is not Islam that is at fault for bad behavior, it is the person who commits the act. It is a psychological problem not a sociological one. You can not seriously believe than anyone and everyone who believes in Islam is a criminal. Your entire argument falls apart unless you make this distinction.

In fact I do believe that Islam that is at fault for bad behavior (actually according to the tenets of the Qur'an it is 'good' behavior) and therefore I think that those who embrace Islam are in fact a pathological and sociological problem.

I do in fact seriously believe than anyone and everyone who believes in Islam is a 'potential' criminal (for crying out loud, they use women and children as suicide bombers for "Allah's sake) should they embrace the dictates as laid out in the Qur'an, and imho anyone who examines the Qur'an with anything more than a cursory glance can easily see the undertones of bigotry and violence that permeates the entire book and its intolerance of any theology other than its own.

What westerners simply are unable to comprehend and comes to terms with is the fanaticism with which the 'good and faithful' embrace to fulfill the purpose and intent of Islam. And what is incredible is that there are legions of Immans (the generals of jihad) who teach that the Qur’an not only calls Muslims to submit to Allah, it also commands them to subdue people of other religions until they are in a full state of submission to Islamic rule.

And you know what is insane Jon? . . It is politically incorrect to say we must war against Islam, yet ignore that it is Islam that is at war upon all who stand against it. Ironically you call me insane because I dare to declare it is a bane upon mankind. . . go ahead and ask me if I give a shit!

So tell me, outside of the examples given, when has 'Islam' ever goine to wage war outside of its borders?