|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
 Posted: Wed May 16, 2007 6:04 pm Post subject: Ron Paul was Wrong. |
 |
|
I would like to thank Ron Paul for this opportunity.
Giuliani was wrong when he repeated the silly claim that Al Qaeda hates us for our freedoms (well they do hate us for them but that is not the reason the US was attacked on 9-11) but Ron Paul was also wrong.
It wasn't cause the of US and Iraq.
Let us not forget that in Iraq the US was protecting muslims both Shia and Kurds from Saddam . Let us not forget that the US got Saddam out of muslim Kuwait . No one forget either that Bin Laden himself made war on muslims in Afghanistan ( what religion was the Northern alliance? )
Al Qaeda fights for the Caliphate by their own words. They want the Mideast so they can conquer it for themselves. But it will not stop there- the Mideast is only the first step. They also demand North Africa and South East Asia.
Destroying Israel is only one step for them- They consider it to be necessary but not sufficient. What are you going to do when they demand that that the US stops supporting India?
It doesn't stop there . Al Qaeda also demands Spain . What are you going to do when Al Qaeda demands the US not have relations with Spain?
One thing that is left out i sthat Bin Laden complains that the US supports China�s oppression of Muslims and Russia �s actions in Chenchnya . This is completely false. He blames the US for low oil prices. I would not be shocked if one day he claims that Alternative energy is a plot by the US against Muslims
The real truth is that Bin Laden blames the US for anything that he doesn�t like in the world which suits him just fine cause the objectives of Al Qaeda are to gain the Caliphate. The mideast won�t be the end of it.
Sorry but the anti war movement seems not to know the difference between necessary and sufficient.
Last edited by Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee on Thu May 17, 2007 6:25 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Wed May 16, 2007 8:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
You keep saying that. I don't think you know what it means.
You have almost completely mischaracterized what he said.
What a surprise. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
| Posted: Wed May 16, 2007 8:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Joo,
We all know that I'm not exactly a big fan of islam...
But Ron Paul was right. OBL said 9/11 was to "push the kuffar from the land of mecca". If no American soldiers in saudi, no 9/11.
But that is not the only reason that obedient muslims tend to despise the West. You are right, that Spain, Singapore and others are part of dar-al-islam and must be brought back into the fold by means of jihad.
But Ron Paul was right. 9/11 was "blowback" for years of American meddling in that region.
Isolation is the best foreign policy. Let the crazies fight it out. If they attack us, end them. Don't try and spread democracy to a culture that will not accept it. End them. But we must keep to ourselves unless provoked. 9/11 wasn't provocation, it was retaliation. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Wed May 16, 2007 9:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
You keep saying that. I don't think you know what it means.
You have almost completely mischaracterized what he said.
What a surprise. |
Question for Dennis Kuchinch or Ron Paul.
Does Al Qaeda fight for the Caliphate?
| Quote: |
| CAIRO (AP) — Al-Qaeda's No. 2 leader issued a worldwide call Thursday for Muslims to rise up in a holy war against Israel and join the fighting in Lebanon and Gaza until Islam reigns from "Spain to Iraq." |
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2006-07-27-zawahri-warning_x.htm
Last edited by Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee on Wed May 16, 2007 10:20 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Wed May 16, 2007 10:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| BJWD wrote: |
Joo,
We all know that I'm not exactly a big fan of islam...
But Ron Paul was right. OBL said 9/11 was to "push the kuffar from the land of mecca". If no American soldiers in saudi, no 9/11.
But that is not the only reason that obedient muslims tend to despise the West. You are right, that Spain, Singapore and others are part of dar-al-islam and must be brought back into the fold by means of jihad.
But Ron Paul was right. 9/11 was "blowback" for years of American meddling in that region.
Isolation is the best foreign policy. Let the crazies fight it out. If they attack us, end them. Don't try and spread democracy to a culture that will not accept it. End them. But we must keep to ourselves unless provoked. 9/11 wasn't provocation, it was retaliation. |
I would bet you that Osama Bin Laden would object to the US keeping solders in the Kurdish areas of Iraq, despite the fact that the majority of Kurds would welecome it. Why ought the US allow AQ a veto over US policy?
Moreover Bin Laden blames the US for Russia action in Chechnya and for Chinas actions against muslims - even though the US has nothing to do with either.So 9-11 was blowback for Iraq but also blowback for things the US had nothing to do with whatsoever.
Forcing the US out of the mideast so AQ can conquer it is necessary but not suffient . it wouldn't stop there first Afghanistan and Iraq. Then the gulf states then Israel , then India. it keeps going. The US can't appease Al Qaeda away.
The Bali bombing was cause of Timor. Al Qaeda has a lot more in their sites then just the Iraq , Afghanistan or the mideast. While it would be hard to imagine then being sucessful anytime soon , it is also fair to say that Al Qaeada and those like them will not stop fighting until they get what they want.
If/ When AQ ever got the mideast then they would move on to India or where ever .Then they woudl say if the US doesn't stop supporting India then AQ wll attack. This of course is far off if ever but it is in AQ's game plan.
AQ wants the US out of the mideast so AQ can conquer it for themselves , then move on from there. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Wed May 16, 2007 10:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| BJWD wrote: |
| 9/11 was "blowback" for years of American meddling in that region... |
This is too simplistic, BJWD.
Consider this: "American meddling" in the Middle East certainly occurred -- and as early as Jefferson's wars against the Barbary Pirates who held American ships and crews for ransom along the early-nineteenth-century North African coast. But the twentieth-century interventions occurred in a context involving Soviet threats or perceived threats, regional instability and decolonization crises as British influenced waned -- particularly after the 1960s -- and above it all, at the behest of the British, who practically begged us to take over as their imperial power collapsed, starting as early as the early-1950s, and those locals who invited us in, like Gulf-State elites, the Saudis, the Shah of Iran.
Remember, we moved to break the old, European-derived colonial relationships, especially at Suez. And I am not sure that the Palestinians have had better friends, anywhere and at any time, than in the Carter and Clinton Administrations.
It also occurs to me that bin Laden and the others who concur with his "America-brought-this-on-itself" finger-wagging miss the point that Jean-Francois Revel made very well in Anti-Americanism...
| Publishers Weekly wrote: |
| In 1972, Revel shocked the world with his best-selling book, Without Marx or Jesus, in which he defended America against global denunciation. Thirty years later, Revel is back with the same purpose. His latest book, a bestseller in France, comes at a crucial time. It seeks to explain the root cause of the world's and particularly Europe's obsession with hating America. He does not pretend that America is perfect. But he argues that the daily denunciations exceed the bounds of reasonable criticism. Furthermore, Revel says, European critics are quick to point fingers when they should be looking in the mirror. Rather than mock America's 2000 presidential election, he notes, Europeans should have been examining their own abysmally run European Union. He attributes such inconsistencies to Europeans' desperate desire to "project our faults onto America so as to absolve ourselves." Revel further finds fault with the antiglobalization movement. Though the movement claims to oppose inequality and poverty in underdeveloped countries, its true anathema is liberal capitalism, whose chief representative is the United States. The barrage of attacks will make it impossible for the United States to confer with European officials or take any criticism seriously. It is in Europe's interest, Revel says, to put aside its envy and consider a more constructive relationship with the United States. As a French citizen, the author laments the sorry state of his home country; he believes that careful consideration of American principles will strengthen Europe. [emphasis added] |
If these criticisms are true for Western Europeans, BJWD, they are doubly-true for Middle Easterners.
Moreoever, if the antiglobalization mob targets globalization mainly because they are Marxist-Leninists who despise liberal capitalism, then the antiAmerican Middle Easterner -- bin Laden and his followers, for instance -- oppose America because it threatens to modernize the premodern, precapital, Islamic-Fundamentalist Middle East that they want to perpetuate indefinitely.
That is, there is far more to understanding 9/11 than "American meddling." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
| Posted: Wed May 16, 2007 10:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Gopher,
I do not believe that 9/11 would have happened if American troops had not been in saudi. Other terrorist attacks many have happened, I don't know. Buy from my view in a comfortable armchair, the reason obl did that was very clear. His real enemy was the "house of saud", and he felt (correctly) that they were being propped up by the Americans. It doesn't matter if propping up the saudis is good or bad. It did cause 9/11.
Of course, the story does not start and stop at American involvement in Saudi, but that is the fundamental reason that 9/11 happened.
Ron Paul was right. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Thu May 17, 2007 12:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
| BJWD wrote: |
| I do not believe that 9/11 would have happened if American troops had not been in Saudi. |
I take your point, BJWD. At least inasmuch as the American military presence in Saudi Arabia certainly had a lot to do with it.
I do not take your point that we can reduce 9/11 to this, however. America had been in Saudi Arabia for decades -- and on friendly terms with the govt. I refer to ARAMCO, among other things, including military agreements.
What changed was the Fundamentalist revolutions that enflamed militant xenophobes like bin Laden. His worldview is beyond simplistic. He has scapegoated us for everything that he does not like in world affairs. Chechnya, for example. bin Laden cites Chechnya as a casus belli as well as the American military presence in Saudi Arabia.
Sure, America has intervened in Middle-Eastern affairs since the British pulled out after the Second World War. But so many people intervene in others' affairs, BJWD, that reducing peoples' gripes to "America's meddling" strikes me as an egregious pot-calling-the-kettle-black -- especially when Middle Easterners and Western Europeans criticize us for this.
I trust you know how many people were intervening in the Soviet-Afghanistan War, to cite but one example.
Besides this strategic mess where everyone is involved in everyone else's affairs to one degree or another, bin Laden is simply insane. He is a terrorist. He hijacked airlines and sent them into the Twin Towers. He approves crude decapitations -- and the filming of same to multiply their effect. And Ron Paul shows no sign of accounting for this "insanity" variable, BJWD. His analysis treats bin Laden as a rational actor.
If we meet someone like bin Laden's demands today, all of them, he will produce ten more tomorrow -- and based on ten more pretexts like "Chechnya" or American military bases in this or that country that he claims to speak for on religious grounds.
This is because he and his coreligionists will settle for nothing less than an Islamic planet.
Last edited by Gopher on Thu May 17, 2007 12:36 am; edited 4 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Thu May 17, 2007 12:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| BJWD wrote: |
Gopher,
I do not believe that 9/11 would have happened if American troops had not been in saudi. Other terrorist attacks many have happened, I don't know. Buy from my view in a comfortable armchair, the reason obl did that was very clear. His real enemy was the "house of saud", and he felt (correctly) that they were being propped up by the Americans. It doesn't matter if propping up the saudis is good or bad. It did cause 9/11.
Of course, the story does not start and stop at American involvement in Saudi, but that is the fundamental reason that 9/11 happened.
Ron Paul was right. |
Other terrorist attacks would have happened at and some point somethig like 9-11 might very well have happened anyway cause Bin Laden has a very large definition of meddling.
To Al Qaeda "meddling" is anything that they don't like such as
* having relations or doing business with goverments - AQ doesn't approve of.
* Publishing what AQ doesn't t approve of. The Cartoon s
* voting at the UN in ways that AQ doesn't approve of.
Anyway how exactly does the US prop up the house of Saudi?
The US does help train Saudi security forces and sells weapons to them and buys oil from then.
But even if the US didn't do those things it is very probable that the Saudi government would stll be in power.
Moreover some of Al Qaedas biggest supporters are part of or friendly to the Saudi government. When the son of a radical cleric who called for Jihad against the US went to fight the US in Iraq the same pro Al Qaeda cleric asked Saudi Securty forces to save his son, and they got his son and retured him.
And there is one more thing nowadays relations between the US and Saudi Araba are not very good . Why? Cause the US has been presurng the Saudi governmet to crack down on Al Qaeda. And in response to the pressure Saudi Arabia asked the US to remove its forces from Saudi Arabia. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Thu May 17, 2007 12:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
Note to thread participants: Paul did not say what Joo said he said. He used 9/11 as one example of blowback and our presence in Saudi as *one* example of what caused the blowback.
This thread: pointless. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Thu May 17, 2007 1:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
Rep . Kucinich ,
Rep . Paul.
thank you for coming here tonight.
First question :
Does Al Qaeda fight for the Caliphate? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ontheway
Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere under the rainbow...
|
| Posted: Thu May 17, 2007 8:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| The answer is: NO, they do not fight for the "caliphate." The caliphate is merely a tool. It's political propaganda intended to scare some and recruit others. Nothing more. Don't be fooled by rhetoric or dogma. Read between the lines. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Summer Wine
Joined: 20 Mar 2005
Location: Next to a River
|
| Posted: Thu May 17, 2007 4:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
The answer is: NO, they do not fight for the "caliphate." The caliphate is merely a tool. It's political propaganda intended to scare some and recruit others. Nothing more. Don't be fooled by rhetoric or dogma. Read between the lines.
|
Please explain and state what you think he is fighting for. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Thu May 17, 2007 5:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ontheway wrote: |
| The answer is: NO, they do not fight for the "caliphate." The caliphate is merely a tool. It's political propaganda intended to scare some and recruit others. Nothing more. Don't be fooled by rhetoric or dogma. Read between the lines. |
Thank you.
This is what global security says about Al Qaeda. How is it that they are so wrong?
| Quote: |
General Overview
Al-Qaeda is an international terrorist network led by Usama bin Laden [the "Osama" spelling is deprecated, because there is no letter "O" in Arabic). Established around 1988 by bin Laden, al-Qaeda helped finance, recruit, transport and train thousands of fighters from dozens of countries to be part of an Afghan resistance to defeat the Soviet Union. To continue the holy war beyond Afghanistan, al-Qaeda's current goal is to establish a pan-Islamic Caliphate throughout the world by working with allied Islamic extremist groups to overthrow regimes it deems "non-Islamic" and expelling Westerners and non-Muslims from Muslim countries. |
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/para/al-qaida.htm
from the May 10, 2006 edition - http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0510/p01s04-wome.html
The Caliphate: One nation, under Allah, with 1.5 billion Muslims
By James Brandon | Correspondent of The Christian Science Monitor
| Quote: |
| "A few years ago people laughed at them," says Zeyno Baran, a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute and the leading expert on Hizb ut-Tahrir. "But now that [Osama] bin Laden, [Abu Musab al-] Zarqawi, and other Islamic groups are saying they want to recreate the Caliphate, people are taking them seriously." |
| Quote: |
| But unlike Al Qaeda, Hizb ut-Tahrir believes it can recreate the Caliphate peacefully. Its activists aim to pursuade Muslim political and military leaders that reestablishing the Caliphate is their Islamic duty. Once these leaders invite Hizb ut-Tahrir to take power - effectively staging a military coup - the party would then repeat the process in other countries before linking them up to form a revived Caliphate. |
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0510/p01s04-wome.html
What was Al Qaeda fighting for in Afghanistan? What was the Bali bombing about?
Who is Jemaah Islamiyah?
| Quote: |
Jemaah Islamiyah[1] (JI, Arabic phrase meaning "Islamic Group" or "Islamic Community") is a Southeast Asian militant Islamic organization dedicated to the establishment of a Daulah Islamiyah[2] (Islamic State) in Southeast Asia incorporating Indonesia, Malaysia, the southern Philippines, Singapore and Brunei[3]. JI was added to the United Nations 1267 Committee's list of terrorist organizations linked to al-Qaeda or the Taliban on 25 October 2002[4] under UN Security Council Resolution 1267.
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jemaah_Islamiyah |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Thu May 17, 2007 9:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Maybe this was in another thread, but its applicable here.
This is what Ron Paul really thinks.
| Ron Paul wrote: |
| The worst thing that could happen to Al Qaeda is if we walked out of there. |
| Ron Paul wrote: |
| There is one reason why the enemy, and they are our enemies, want to kill us. That is occupation. |
| Ron Paul wrote: |
| [According to our current Mid-East policy] we have two suggestions to the people to whom we try to do so much good: we go over and tell 'em, 'you do it our way or we're going to bomb you.' And then if they do it our way, then we subsidize them. What about the alternative of neither bombing nor subsidizing, and trying to get along with people, talking to people, trading with people. |
| Ron Paul wrote: |
| I believe that one of our problems has been that we have had Presidents that want to do to much. People in this country like a strong President. [Presidents] got to thinking, well how can I run a foreign office like this and say, 'Well I wanna be a weak President.' The answer to that is, we should have a strong President. Strong enough to resist the temptation of taking power that a President shouldn't have. |
Joo, you have to understand, not only is Ron Paul advocating that our aggressive policies in the region are having blowback, he himself is a demonstration of it.
Ron Paul himself is electoral blowback from Executive mismanagement and corruption. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
