what can you say with Ron Paul's statement?

Question

the point at which he was trying to say that america was bombed by the terrosrist because america has long been doing same thing...

Answer 1

And when did he make this statement? I watched that debate, please don't twist his words around.. He suggested we should reevaluate our foreign policy.. Our government's actions have unintended consequences called blow-back, which the CIA HAS CONFIRMED.. all his point was that yes there is a threat from the middle east, but our overseas actions to provoke reactions as well that we need to be cautious of.. I'm not sure if this is what you meant and I apologize if I'm wrong, but your making it sound like "he blames America for 9/11: I just want to clarify that in no way did he suggest that the citizens of the United States have anything to do with it, we are not the government, we don't make the policies they do...

And 9/11 commission report reiterates his argument

From the 9/11 Commission Report
proving Rudy Giuliani and blowback deniers wrong, from: http://ronpaul.typepad.com/my_weblog/200..

•pg. 57- The Persian Gulf War, seen by many as perhaps the most effective military victory in American history, had unintended consequences that American policymakers could never have predicted. When Saddam invaded Iraq, the US gathered a coalition, based out of Saudi Arabia, to liberate Kuwait. At this time, Bin Ladin "proposed to the Saudi monarchy that he summon mujahideen for a jihad to retake Kuwait." The Saudis said no and jumped in bed with the Americans. After further protests, Bin Ladin was booted from his homeland and went into exile. This cemented Bin Ladin's hatred of both the Saudi monarchy and the US, as they were now in partnership desecrating the holy lands.
•pg. 59- Bin Laden's first fatwa against the US (1992) was first and foremost a protest against American occupation of Muslim holy lands, specifically Saudi Arabia. It was not a call to kill Americans because they were rich and free, it was a call to expel American troops from Arab lands.
•pg. 48- Bin Ladin's 1996 fatwa against the United States was not a blanket condemnation of America and a call to arms to destroy the American nation. The fatwa declared the limited aim of driving US soldiers out of Saudi Arabia. The American presence in Saudi Arabia, a byproduct of America's promise to protect the Saudis from Saddam during the Persian Gulf War and beyond, infuriated Muslim fundamentalist because in their eyes, infidels were occupying the holy land. Bin Ladin also spent significant energy condemning the Saudi government for allowing this occupation.
•pg. 49- In discussing the grievances aired by Bin Ladin against the United States, the 9/11 Commission Report specifically calls out "the suffering of the Iraqi people as a result of the sanctions imposed after the Gulf War". Listen again to Guiliani's rebuke of Ron Paul over the idea of our involvement in Iraq playing in part of motivating al-Qaeda to attack America. If this is the most absurd explanation Guiliani has heard regarding the motives behind the planners and implementers of the 9/11 attacks, then I wonder (with dread) what he has been listening to.
•pg. 49- also lists American support of Israel as a major grievance of Bin Ladin.
•pg. 51- al-Qaeda's ultimate ambition is not specifically the destruction of the US- it's the establishment of the Caliphate to unify all Muslims. To Muslim fundamentalists, America's extensive involvement in the internal affairs of sovereign Muslim nations (the Shah, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Jordan, etc) props us secular governments and delays the future ascendancy of the Caliphate. Attacking America is not an end in itself, just a means (one of many) to another end. If they hated countries just for their freedoms, you would expect enormous terrorist attacks in Switzerland, Luxembourg, Iceland, and dozens of other countries. You don't, there's a reason.
•pg. 147- Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the operational mastermind behind the 9/11 attacks and the Bojinka Plot, attended college in the United States and lived here for several years. Obviously, someone who lived here and then later orchestrated a murderous assault on our country hated us because of the freedoms, pleasures, and raunchy behavior we enjoy? No, it was because he hated our strongly favorable foreign policy preference for Israel.
•pg. 362- The Report reiterates that Muslim fundamentalist's hatred for America stems from "grievances stressed by Bin Laden and widely felt throughout the Muslim world." These grievances are absolutely political- US military presence in Arab lands, favoritism towards Israel, and policies perceived as anti-Muslim. The 9/11 Commission Report does not list our freedoms or wealth as a contributing motive for terrorist attacks against our nation.

Answer 2

What cracks me up is the Paulites safeguard this by using asserting he had no concept what the product being bought in his call as though finished incompetence and greenback passing is by some skill a high quality mandatory in a president. Ron Paul, he's not a racist he only hires them!

Answer 3

Gee the first person to agree with Ron Paul's statement is a truther with an Anti-Semitic name... No wonder Ron Paul deserves no respect.

Ron Paul is an idiot, he was born one and will spend the rest of his life as one.

Ron Paul also said the US has never been attacked, again more proof this guy is a a few inches short of a foot. The enemies of this country hate us because we offer people something that would weaken their position, freedom.

It has only to do with them maintaining control of their people or their people realizing they is more to life than living under a tyrant.

Ron Paul needs to shut up and step down along with all his racist truther nut job followers (not all of them are, but there are plenty of them, just look at "Crypto's" full name for proof).

EDIT:hmm looks like the guy I refrence got deleted or ran away...

Answer 4

That one statement will bury him politically as a candidate for president. Even if he believes that, he should have enough brains to keep it to himself. the fact that he doesn't reveals his inadequacies as a leader. He'll make an OK congressman where obscurity will keep his hubris in check, but as president?... a complete disaster coupled with an inability to lead or form rational thoughts and express them without sounding like a senile fool will render him unelectable to any office other than a congressional one. Not to mention that he contributes a column (and has for years) to the leading neo-nazi periodical "American Free Press"

Not a worthy candidate...not at all!

Answer 5

He is to an extent correct. US meddling in the affairs of other countries has brought us many enemies. Those who refuse to acknowledge this only show their own ignorance of US history. He is not a terrorist apologist, he merely understands why they are doing what they are doing. Somehow in this country understanding your enemy is viewed as a flaw and being supportive of the terrorists.

Answer 6

He was basically right. It doesn't make it ok, but until we accept some responsibility for our role in creating the conditions for the possibility of 9/11 we will always be at risk of more attacks.

I don't think we learned a thing from 9/11.

Answer 7

The way he counts babies I would not
trust him with any historical conclusion either,
as everything he sells like from a beauty farm.
It's rather a religiously fanatic oneliner according
to who lives by the sword etc, without real essence.

Answer 8

I only needed to hear him say this one time:

"...I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city (DC) are semi-criminal or entirely criminal,”

Freaky racist libertarians....

Answer 9

These statements are almost traitorous. I'm glad he is a fringe candidate and will not be elected.

Answer 10

Just another example of politicians getting their turds wisted.