Was Ron Paul right about 9/11 never happening if the US hadn't fought in the 1st Gulf war?

Question

Bin Laden has stated that the reason he started his "Jihad" or "holy war" against the US was because of tens of 1000s of US troops residing on Saudi soil during the 1st Gulf war which ultimately led to his attack on the US on 9/11.

So was Ron Paul right?

Answer 1

He was closer to the truth than any other explanation I have heard from the right. Ron Paul advocates moderation in foreign policy, not a popular stance with most conservatives.

He's got my vote if he makes it on the ticket.

Answer 2

Sorry, long post here!

Well kinda. There are many factors that came together that allowed 911 to happen starting from long before the Gulf war of 1991.

Hatred already existed long before the first gulf war as the USA overthrew a democratically elected leader in Iran in the 1950's. They installed the Shah and this created a huge groundswell of resentment against the USA. This resentment had been tempered for a long time as the enemy saught to gain from the West's fight with communism.

When the Soviets invaded Aghanistan, the US helped to set up the Pakistani intelligence services the ISI and funneled arms and equipment and money to the Jihadists in Afghanistan. Many of these came from Saudi, Egypt, Algeria and other places that had a population that contained an extremist Islamic element. These extremists where helped by the west, (not just the USA, But Britain, France, Germany and yes even Israel)

Islamist extremists groups where being trained and funded right up to the year 2000. In Kosovo, we were funding and training the Kosovo Liberation Army, an armed militia fighting against the Serbian occupation of Islamic Kosovo. (Alson known as Kosovan terrorists) We were arming and training them alonside other groups including groups "linked to" Al Queda. This is how the US foreign policy helped to create the enemies we face today. Certainly it is true that having American troops on Saudi soil added to the hatred of the USA amongst some extremist groups. Imagine how the far extreme right wing christian fundementalists in the USA would react to Iranian soldiers being stationed in Washington?

How did 911 actually happen? Well conspiracy theories about inside jobs aside, the hard and known facts are as follows. In June 2001, The standard operational procedure for shooting down a hijacked civillian airliner was changed. No longer could a General order a shoot down, the order (from June) had to come from the defence secretary, the vice president, or the president. All these three where busy on 911, preventing any shoot-down order being given.

Coincidentally on 911 there were five drills happening that morning that meant that the normal aircover and defence of the eastern seaboard of the USA was dramatically reduced.

The Administration had recieved many detailed threat assessments refering to airliners being attacked, hijacked and used as weapons (despite what Condi Rice falsely claimed) and the targets being given as the twin towers, the pentagon, and the Capitol Building. The French and German intelligence agencies and the Russians had warned the US administration during the Summer of 2001 that America was going to be attacked. This was whilst President Bush was on one of his many vacations that summer.

Now I am not suggesting here that there was any conspiracy, But that the on-going interventionalist foriegn policy created the motive and the incompetence of the new administration (Yes I am being kind) all created the opportuinity and the means for the 911 attacks to happen.

So Ron Paul is largely correct in his assesment that the USA brought those attacks on themselves. Without the USA playing the part they did in creating the means, motive and opportunity, those attacks could not have happened!

He never meant the USA deserved those attacks, nor did he imply that the attacks where in anyway justified, but that the attacks happened because of a series of unfortunate events, many of which, the USA is responsible for.

Much like a kid filming himself jumping off his roof into a swimming pool, 'jackass style', to post on youtube. He misses and breaks his leg. Would that kid be right to blame whoever built the pool and how they did not build it close enough to the house? or, would you say he was a dick and the leg break was his own fault?

Some people think that the USA should be allowed to invade any country, kill as many people as it likes and the civillian populations of those countries should be grateful for the privilige of being invaded. But then some people think jumping off a roof is a clever thing to do also.

I agree with Ron Paul. An ethical, non intervetionist, kind, trading relationship with other countries is what is required.

Answer 3

Ron Paul's statements were misunderstood. He wasn't suggesting that the terrorists had any sort of justification for what they did, far from it. He was saying that allowing ourselves to be completely ignorant of their viewpoint, justified or not, isn't a good way to protect ourselves from future attack.

He IS right about his other point with regard to our having so many bases in so many foreign countries.

I love how Rudy seized the opportunity to grandstand on 9/11. 200-300 firefighters died that day in large part because they didn't have working radios. In the eight years prior to 9/11 Rudy NEVER got them the updates in equipment that they needed even though they requested it EVERY YEAR he was in office.

Ron Paul will not win because 90% of his supporters are 18-25 and they typically don't vote. This is why I have very little respect for that age group. If they weren't so lazy Ron Paul could very well be the next POTUS.

Answer 4

Not surprisingly, Ron Paul is NOT right. Even without the Gulf War, Bin Laden and the US were on a collision course.

First of all, that's only one of Bin Laden's stated reasons for attacking the U.S., and I'd like to emphasize the "stated" part of that. There's also our support of Israel, our support of regimes like Jordan and Saudi Arabia that Bin Laden hates, and well, any number of other things. The 1st Gulf War was an issue, but if it hadn't happened, Bin Laden would have found some other reason to attack us.

Secondly, the origins of the Al-Qaeda go all the way back to Afghanistan in the 80's. This is an organization built to fight. Guerilla warfare against the Soviets, terrorism against the US and other countries. The organization is just here to fight. They have their rhetoric to justify to themselves what they do, but that rhetoric has changed over time as their targets change. The goal isn't to achieve the rhetoric, it's to fight the fight. If they were to achieve all of their stated goals, they'd just find something else to fight about.

Answer 5

Ron Paul was right in saying that the foreign policy and the agressive expansionist stance of the US had created the 'backwash' or backlash from Islamist extremesists. However, his statements were skewed and spun by the FOX spin machine to sound like he's unpatriotic. It's a typical media spin tatic to skewer the truth. He didn't get enough time to explain himself - the media goons were trying hard to make him look foolish. Any independent thinker would understand what he's trying to say. Rudy totally tried to upstage Ron Paul's answer, but Rudy is just using public ignorance to gain support.

Answer 6

We have been under attack from the fanatical fascist Muslim radicals since the Carter Administration. To think that the Dessert Storm was somehow a motivating factor is silly. There were thousands of US troops on Saudi Soil with Saudi permission liberating Kuwait. Psychotic killers like Osama Bin Laden will always find something to justify their evil acts.

So Ron Paul is an idiot if he thinks that. Bin Laden would have attacked us no matter what he needed to use as justification. We are the only thing that is currently guaranteeing that the terrorists efforts will not succeed.

.

Answer 7

He didn't mean that our foreign policy caused 9/11. US foreign policy is a contributing factor to terrorism. It's like you poke an angry bear with a stick and he attacks you. Same thing with our policies in Middle East: we poke sticks at already angry and backward group of religious fanatics. That's what he meant. And he is not your typical pinko liberal communist, he is a real conservative who is committed to defending individual liberty and free market. I love Ron Paul!

Answer 8

Oddly enough, people DO react to hostile activities in their own backyard.

It is looked upon as trespassing.

All of the death and carnage that parallels these tresspasses, is not entirely welcomed, either.

People are just too sensitive, I suppose.

Answer 9

No, it goes much farther back than Desert Storm.

Answer 10

No,

Paul was wrong. Bin Laden had already exiled himself from the House of Saud and his own family before Gulf War 1. Bin Laden has always maintained that supplying oil to the west is an evil thing for the house of saud to do, and would still have assaulted America because we are the no.1 customer of the house of saud.

Ron Paul was wrong, and that is why even here in texas, most of us do not like him.