Thursday, 28 Jun 2007
By Aaron Kinney
PAUL: No, non-intervention was a major contributing factor. Have you ever read about the reasons they attacked us? They attack us because we’ve been over there. We’ve been bombing Iraq for ten years. We’ve been in the Middle East [for years]. I think [Ronald] Reagan was right. We don’t understand the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics. Right now, we’re building an embassy in Iraq that is bigger than the Vatican. We’re building 14 permanent bases. What would we say here if China was doing this in our country or in the Gulf of Mexico? We would be objecting.
MODERATOR: Are you suggesting we invited the 9/11 Attacks, sir?
PAUL: I’m suggesting that we listen to the people who attacked us and the reason they did it, and they are delighted that we’re over there because Osama bin Laden has said, “I’m glad you’re over on our sand because we can target you so much easier.” They’ve already now since that time have killed 3,400 of our men, and I don’t think it was necessary.
GIULIANI: That’s really an extraordinary statement. That’s an extraordinary statement, as someone who lived through the attack of September 11, that we invited the attack because we were attacking Iraq. I don’t think I’ve heard that before, and I’ve heard some pretty absurd explanations for September 11th. And I would ask the congressman to withdraw that comment and tell us that he didn’t really mean that.
Notice how when Paul states American policy can actually provoke attacks (OMG!) Giuliani jumped all over him, cowering behind his record as mayor of New York City during the 9/11 Attacks. The sheer ignorance of these people infuriates me. Giuliani’s been doing this for the last 5 years, and this is the only reason he has any support; he was “the savior of New York.” At least, that’s what they want you to think.
If you discount Giuliani’s record as Mayor of New York, he hasn’t a single positive asset going for him. And even if you didn’t, what’s being Mayor of the largest city in the country have to do with foreign policy?
By defending 9/11 victims, Giuliani is getting some applause. But is that really what he’s doing? The man’s an opportunist; a careerist. And a very good crook. He’s fooling a lot of people.
Now, let’s go on and analyze a few quotes (verbatim) from sources that can back up their expertise, unlike Rudolph.
From Chalmers Johnson, author of Blowback:
The suicidal assassins of September 11, 2001, did not “attack America,” as our political leaders and the news media like to maintain; they attacked American foreign policy. Employing the strategy of the weak, they killed innocent bystanders who then became enemies only because they had already become victims. Terrorism by definition strikes at the innocent in order to draw attention to the sins of the invulnerable. The United States deploys such overwhelming military force globally that for its militarized opponents only an “asymmetric strategy,” in the jargon of the Pentagon, has any chance of success. When it does succeed, as it did spectacularly on September 11, it renders our massive military machine worthless: The terrorists offer it no targets. On the day of the disaster, President George W. Bush told the American people that we were attacked because we are “a beacon for freedom” and because the attackers were “evil.” In his address to Congress on September 20, he said, “This is civilization’s fight.” This attempt to define difficult-to-grasp events as only a conflict over abstract values–as a “clash of civilizations,” in current post-cold war American jargon–is not only disingenuous but also a way of evading responsibility for the “blowback” that America’s imperial projects have generated.1
Who are you going to trust? Giuliani or an academic?
According to Wikipedia:
Blowback is a term now broadly used in espionage to describe the unintended consequences of covert operations. Blowback typically appears random and without cause, because the public is unaware of the secret operations that provoked it.
“Broadly used” doesn’t include the most intelligent, and popular Rudy Giuliani. Also, I’d say “covert operations” can be broadened to include bombing Iraq and installing puppet governments in Iran. Now let’s look at the 9/11 Commission Report (the official report, by the way, released by the U.S. government, which Rudy Giuliani should be very well acquainted with), p. 48:
In August 1996, Bin Laden had issued his own self-styled fatwa calling on Muslims to drive American soldiers out of Saudi Arabia. The long, disjointed document condemned the Saudi monarchy for allowing the presence of an army of infidels in a land with the sites most sacred to Islam…
July 2nd, 2007 at 1:35 pm
I sure wish I could edit this, and get rid of extra-long link. Could you do this for me, Katelyn?
July 3rd, 2007 at 10:38 pm
I’m not sure about “saviour” but Rudy was the censurer of New York. You don’t get a Lifetime Muzzle Award for nothing.
July 4th, 2007 at 8:13 am
The man got put on the cover of Time. He was hated before 9/11.
July 7th, 2007 at 11:10 pm
Yeah, I’ll try to edit it.
July 7th, 2007 at 11:22 pm
Thanks.
July 8th, 2007 at 12:07 am
Actually, what I have heard from listening to people who are from Iran is that the people there at least are angry not because the US had too much involvement, but because the US had too little. We didn’t keep our promises and support them.
That said, it doesn’t seem like Ron Paul has analyzed very far below the surface. First, China has a very different record than the US regarding human rights, so having them be a “police force” is slightly ridiculous. Of course, people will make the argument that the Middle East views the US in the same way that we view China, but those people in the Middle East are wrong in their views of the US.
Secondly, assuming it is true that Osama bin Laden said something to the effect of “I’m glad you’re over on our sand because we can target you so much easier.”, that is no reason to assume that these are his true feelings. If bin Laden was scared to be attacked, do you really think he would admit it? For instance, “I am surprised by the force of the US. I don’t know if we can win.” Of course not. Thus, what bin Laden says can only be valued as something that he wants others to hear.
I don’t think it’s really that fair to call others “ignorant ignoramuses who don’t want to hear the truth” when the only truth you present is from one politician and one author, both obviously biased proponents of the same idea. The excerpt from Wikipedia cannot be used as evidence, because it only defines the idea of blowback and does not support it. Yes, you did use the 9/11 report, but that only states that bin Laden doesn’t like American soldiers around him. No duh. However, is this because it is threatening his terrorist actions? If so, that’s GOOD.
Lastly, I can understand the idea that people are mad because of things that the US has done in the past. However, if the “crimes” of the US are stopping terrorism/dictators, then it seems to me that the people that are complaining are the very people we should be against. It’s like the drug dealer getting angry about having these darn police around all the time.
July 8th, 2007 at 1:15 am
Regarding Iran, I don’t think we should have installed Reza Shah Pahlavi there in the first place. Yes, Iran bordered the USSR at that time and that may have been of some importance to us then, but having a U.S.-friendly government installed in a then-powerless Middle Eastern nation would’ve somehow benefited us. When the Muslim fundamentalists seized power in 1979, they kicked our puppet out. That’s not surprising, as they didn’t want us in their country. Now, you’re proposing we aggravate the hostilities by getting involved in their business. For some reason I’m not seeing how this would heal the Iran-U.S. wounds.
China does have a different record. But our record is not completely clean either. Just because we’re Republicans doesn’t mean we can’t examine our own actions here. Everyone is accountable (even Mr. Libby, which Bush doesn’t seem to agree on), even the U.S. This is not treachery. In the long-run it will help us because if we don’t find ourselves at fault, others will punish us for our mistakes and failures. Abu Ghraib and Guantanomo Bay aren’t exactly havens for “human-rights.” And let’s not split hairs here, terrorists are humans, too, and I think we can punish them humanely. Without torture. Perhaps they may even see the light one day.
No, the definition from Wikipedia doesn’t support blowback, even though it clearly states blowback DOES occur, random and without cause. This means Giuliani is incorrect when he states the terrorists attacked us because of “our freedoms.”
“However, if the “crimes” of the US are stopping terrorism/dictators, then it seems to me that the people that are complaining are the very people we should be against.”
I am one of those people, Katelyn. It’s not the job of OUR country to coup and oust every leader if we see fit, especially if they are democratically elected. It’s not moral, it’s nor fair (if you want to bring up the issue of fairness) and it certainly does not bolster our image. If every country ousted leaders it hated, Bush would be out of office, perhaps hanged like Hussein (considering the barbarity of some peoples) and the government we currently have in office, the one you seem to be enamored with, would be out of office. And we probably would never have the opportunity to vote fairly again. For a very long time, anyway. The Iranians haven’t had a fair election in over 50 years, thanks to our meddling in their affairs. That is not democracy.
It’s very difficult to stop terrorism. You can’t stop it by invading countries, especially if those countries have little or no ties to terrorism at all. You stop terrorism by analyzing your own decisions and find the root cause of terror, then you do what’s necessary to stop it. If you fail then, terrorism cannot be extinguished.
I presented evidence from one author: that is true. But I also recommended two more scholarly titles which agreed with that same one politician’s opinion, quoted the Report (which was only partially debunked by your argument, because bin Laden could have been truthful or it couldn’t have, but only he knews that), quoted a transcript and mentioned an encyclopedia article. But yeah, I guess my argument was not convincing enough. Even though the gist of it went thus: Rudy Giuliani’s a liar and a crook who’s only out for his own hide. And I’d also like to recommend that link to Rudy’s Muzzle Award, for limiting free speech, that Dylon kindly offered us.
It seems that most the population, more often than not, agrees with the worst possible candidate, and I just wish they could see the true “man-behind-the-lisp.” Not to necessarily promote one, as I also find Mitt Romney acceptable, and Dennis Kucinich. I’m an independent, I don’t see parties. If they are moral and honest and have good intentions, then I support them. And that’s what I see in Ron Paul. You don’t have to agree with everything he says (like I do), but you can at least admit he’s honest, has courage, and is a good politician. That’s rare these days.
July 10th, 2007 at 1:35 pm
All I’m saying about Iran is that the people from Iran that I have talked to say that we should have been involved more. Thus, staying out of a problem is not the solution.
I’m not saying our record is completely clean, but it is much better than that of China. Also, there is a major difference between Abu Ghraib and China- China’s abuses are sanctioned by the government, Abu Ghraib’s were not. As for Guantanamo Bay, it depends on who you believe, and what kind of torture you are refering to. Both the prisoners and the government have the ability and the reasons to lie. Nevertheless, it’s pretty obvious that, for the most part, China has a very different record.
I don’t understand how the Wikipedia definition of blowback means that Guiliani is incorrect.
You say, “It’s not the job of OUR country to coup and oust every leader if we see fit, especially if they are democratically elected.” Right. But it is the job of OUR country to stop the leaders who are threatening our freedoms. That’s the job of the government by Locke’s definition. That’s not “every leader we see fit”, and almost never someone who is democratically elected.
Concerning image, one should only try to please those that one respects. Trying to please idiots (individuals or countries) for the sake of being approved of, only makes you an idiot yourself.
Your comment about what would happen if every country ousted leaders it hated doesn’t make sense. First, this is not about leaders that are disliked, but those that threaten our country’s freedom. Secondly, the groups that are against us are already trying to get rid of us and our leader. Not anything new there.
It makes sense that terrorism cannot be stopped by invading countries with little or no ties to terrorism at all. That’s why we don’t do that. I suppose you were refering to Iraq? If so, Iraq under Saddam most definitely had ties to terrorism. I can elaborate if this was what you were refering to.
Your idea of stopping terrorism by analyzing your own decisions is like getting beat up by the school bully and then saying, “Well, guess that was my fault for trying to walk across the playground today.” Wouldn’t you agree that terrorists are the ones responsible for terrorism? Now, to continue my analogy, it would be true to say that school “terrorism” would be temporarily lessened by taking a different path. However, the bully is still there, growing stronger while no one opposes him. That’s what US isolationism does.
I heartily agree with your opinion of Guiliani, but just not your reasoning on the origins of terrorism. For the most part, Ron Paul seems ok, but I fear that he takes certain positions simply for the sake of being independent.
July 12th, 2007 at 5:29 pm
I’m not going to talk about anything else here. My main point was that it’s not our job to shape the world to our liking. Deciding who threatens our freedoms is subjective, as we saw in 2004 with Iraq. Mainly because Iraq had a few biological weapons, but those were more than a decade older and could do no harm to us. It’s not like Iraq had nukes.
I still hold my position that Iraq had no ties to al-Qaeda at all. Of course terrorists were in Iraq, but that’s not making any points, because there are terrorists there now.
I’m not an idiot, and I don’t think scouting for the world’s approval makes people idiots. Pissing off world leaders makes one an idiot, because that hurts foreign relations and only leads to hostility. I don’t believe in that. Our foreign policy under Clinton is one to model ours on, but of course no conservative, harline Republican will do that.
It’s okay you don’t understand the definition, that’s fine by me. I now conclude my discussing this issue with you, Katelyn. I’ve been in Missouri for the last week and now I’d rather not, well, “extend this ‘debate’.” I guess you could call it that.
July 13th, 2007 at 11:33 am
I know you aren’t planning to respond to this, but I wanted to point out somethings that seem very important to the discussion. Also, I by no means intended to call you an idiot. I just meant that if one does things simply for approval of other countries or other people, one can be led astray. If it is a choice between doing what is right and doing what is approved of, it is always better to do what is right.
I would agree that deciding who threatens our freedom is subjective. There are obviously varying degrees of threats. But it is also very obvious that the regime in Iraq most definitely was a threat to not only our freedom but that of the people in Iraq and the surrounding areas.
First, Iraq was a training base for terrorists around the world, especially against the US. Here’s part of a transcript from one of Iraq’s former top officials:
Furthermore, here is a great article on Clinton’s view of the Iraq and Al Qaeda connection. Since you agree with Clinton’s foreign policy, it follows that you should agree with his view that there is a connection.
About the definition. I understand the definition totally. However, I do not understand how simply defining an idea automatically makes it applicable and true in this case.
Finally, I understand that you don’t want to continue, but there is still a lot here to think about.
July 13th, 2007 at 12:43 pm
They are good links, and I took a look at them.
September 4th, 2007 at 12:00 am
http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/
hey friends. Have u seen this?…so many footages i havent seen before, even as i did research on what u call “conspiracy theories”…..
please ignore the Christianity part if u want, and skip to the 911 part.