Ron Paul's position on the Threat of Radical Islam

[mbburch]

Look no further than the Iraq War. In 2003, all we heard about was how dangerous Saddam Hussein was. He way buying uranium from Africa, he had all these WMDs, and was going to blow up the world if we didn't stop him. Dr. Paul was the only voice of reason within the Republican party while everyone else was falling for these scare tactics.

Of course, all that propaganda turned out to be a lie. And how many American soldiers had to pay for that mistake with their lives? How many of the trillions of dollars of debt we're drowning in are the direct result of that war?

The political establishment wants us to be at war perpetually. It gives them the opportunity to expand government power. It benefits the government contractors who donate to their campaigns. Americans are starting to wake up to this nonsense, and RP deserves a lot of credit for that.

 

[militant]

Why are there Islamic cells all over eastern Asia? Why are they (possibly) attacking Monaco? Why are they giving the English a bunch of fits at home?

The kind of radicals involved in this are the kind who are stirred up by what WE do, and see the UK as a co-conspirator against them. As for other countries, I would suggest that the overall fire lit by our foreign policy radicalizes whole segments of the Islamic populations.

Notice how abuses by our federal government against us on economic and civil liberties issues encourages and inflates the social conservative fanatics like Santorum. Same thing overseas - we abuse people and give them legitimate grievances, and those are used to great effect in demonizing anything the religious leaders decide. "America is so bad, they bomb so many Muslims, we have to have a war against anything Western or modern because it's a systemic issue, not just a foreign policy issue" ... doesn't sound much different than the religious fanatics here in the US, saying "Look at Waco, look at this or that, see, the whole government and society has gone bad, EVERYTHING must go" ....

 

[cmo4ever]

Is there some real radical Islam out there? Of course, but that ignores what made them radicalized in the first place, which in many parts of the world was the US / NATO. How many times in this past decade alone have we displaced a secular leader and now Radical Islam fills the vacuum? Egypt, Libya, Iraq (Islamic, but the state was largely secular led). We go in, remove a leader or help remove them, and something WORSE takes its place like the Muslim Brotherhood, or in Libya where there is evidence Al Quida is moving in to replace Ghaddafi. Look at Iran in the 50's, a largely non radical society and OUR actions radicalized them into what they are today.

The point is that alot of the opportunities that arose for radical leaders to arouse their nations came from our direct actions. The longer we stay, the worse we make things for ourselves. What are we doing now? Nothing but raising a generation of Iraqi's and Afghans who now rightfully hate Americans for killing their children and families. Did you see the riots in Afghanistan? After 10 years they still HATE us, and just want us gone. Clearly no amount of misled nation-building or military force will ever do well. The best thing we can do is step back, stop meddling in their countries, and let the region decide it's own fate.

We have no real interest in stoping "Radical Islam" if we did we would have gone after Saudi Arabia years ago. Most of the hyjackers, Bin ladin.... all from Saudi. Why not go there? It all revolves around oil and gold. Ghaddafi threatens to sell oil for Gold, he gets taken down. Same with Sadam talking about gold shortly before being removed. This was never about Islam for our government.

 

[No Free Beer]

The kind of radicals involved in this are the kind who are stirred up by what WE do, and see the UK as a co-conspirator against them. As for other countries, I would suggest that the overall fire lit by our foreign policy radicalizes whole segments of the Islamic populations.

Notice how abuses by our federal government against us on economic and civil liberties issues encourages and inflates the social conservative fanatics like Santorum. Same thing overseas - we abuse people and give them legitimate grievances, and those are used to great effect in demonizing anything the religious leaders decide. "America is so bad, they bomb so many Muslims, we have to have a war against anything Western or modern because it's a systemic issue, not just a foreign policy issue" ... doesn't sound much different than the religious fanatics here in the US, saying "Look at Waco, look at this or that, see, the whole government and society has gone bad, EVERYTHING must go" ....

But how does that relate to what is going on in England? I am not talking about the London attacks. I am talking about the problem of multiculturalism and how the Muslims seem to be pushing back against English traditions. This also leads to terrorist actions.

 

[No Free Beer]

And the tweeted thread title helps Grassroots....how?

And your paranoia about twitter helps Ron...how?

 

[DerailingDaTrain]

But how does that relate to what is going on in England? I am not talking about the London attacks. I am talking about the problem of multiculturalism and how the Muslims seem to be pushing back against English traditions. This also leads to terrorist actions.

So you have a problem with Muslims being in a country?

 

[cmo4ever]

As for England, it's not like we went in there alone. NATO and plenty of British forces went into both Iraq Wars, and Afghanistan. Guilty by association and outright helping us.

 

[jmag]

Certainly the tactic of terrorism requires response where appropriate in police action. Using it as an excuse to bomb and invade countries, also without declaring war, is entirely different.

 

[No Free Beer]

Is there some real radical Islam out there? Of course, but that ignores what made them radicalized in the first place, which in many parts of the world was the US / NATO. How many times in this past decade alone have we displaced a secular leader and now Radical Islam fills the vacuum? Egypt, Libya, Iraq (Islamic, but the state was largely secular led). We go in, remove a leader or help remove them, and something WORSE takes its place like the Muslim Brotherhood, or in Libya where there is evidence Al Quida is moving in to replace Ghaddafi. Look at Iran in the 50's, a largely non radical society and OUR actions radicalized them into what they are today.

The point is that alot of the opportunities that arose for radical leaders to arouse their nations came from our direct actions. The longer we stay, the worse we make things for ourselves. What are we doing now? Nothing but raising a generation of Iraqi's and Afghans who now rightfully hate Americans for killing their children and families. Did you see the riots in Afghanistan? After 10 years they still HATE us, and just want us gone. Clearly no amount of misled nation-building or military force will ever do well. The best thing we can do is step back, stop meddling in their countries, and let the region decide it's own fate.

We have no real interest in stoping "Radical Islam" if we did we would have gone after Saudi Arabia years ago. Most of the hyjackers, Bin ladin.... all from Saudi. Why not go there? It all revolves around oil and gold. Ghaddafi threatens to sell oil for Gold, he gets taken down. Same with Sadam talking about gold shortly before being removed. This was never about Islam for our government.

Yes, I know. I addressed this. But, what I am getting at is this...

Could/Is there a real Islamic threat out there? Are there groups trying to go into other countries and force something like Sharia Law onto other nations?

 

[No Free Beer]

So you have a problem with Muslims being in a country?

Absolutely not. I am making a point that there seems to be a problem growing in this world with Islam and its radical sect. I am just trying to answer this question. I have nothing against Muslims whatsoever. But to ignore, in this case, what is going on in England, Australia, and France would be naive.

 

[cmo4ever]

Our point I think is those radicals wouldn't have anywhere near the voice, followers, or support without us stirring up the hornets nest. It is also all blown out of proportion, there are no jihadists under the bed. Islam is just a religion that most adherants can follow without blowing up buildings. There is a small sect, that WE have grown in recent years, that makes things violent. It doesn't mean you can declare war on it, because it's a Religion, which means it's an idea. You can't defeat an idea / Religion via warfare. It has to be a war for hearts and minds, and invading all of these islamic countries sure as hell wont do that.

 

[No Free Beer]

Our point I think is those radicals wouldn't have anywhere near the voice, followers, or support without us stirring up the hornets nest. It is also all blown out of proportion, there are no jihadists under the bed. Islam is just a religion that most adherants can follow without blowing up buildings. There is a small sect, that WE have grown in recent years, that makes things violent. It doesn't mean you can declare war on it, because it's a Religion, which means it's an idea. You can't defeat an idea / Religion via warfare. It has to be a war for hearts and minds, and invading all of these islamic countries sure as hell wont do that.

This is where I agree with you.

 

[bluesc]

But how does that relate to what is going on in England? I am not talking about the London attacks. I am talking about the problem of multiculturalism and how the Muslims seem to be pushing back against English traditions. This also leads to terrorist actions.

*Sigh*. I remember you used to make good posts and lately you have been slipping. Hang in there buddy .

I live in England. I'm not sure where you're getting the news, but if it's from the ultra-nationalistic British press, I would try looking elsewhere. Where I live there are three major demographics - White English, Muslim, and Polish.

They are not pushing back against traditions. They have their mosques and they attend peacefully. There are some who are labeled "extremists" when they protest the wars, but they are only doing what I would do if the situations were reversed.

There are no "terrorist actions". The violence among Muslims isn't higher than Brits. It's certainly lower than the violence between Scottish Protestants and Scottish Catholics.

 

[doremedia]

Militant, interesting stuff...i want to know more about the KKK i thought it was pretty much dead in the water. I don't think it is in the south or I never see any evidence of it.

 

[phill4paul]

And your paranoia about twitter helps Ron...how?

Hardly paranoia though it is a controversial subject and your phrasing in the title connotes that perhaps Dr. Paul's beliefs are wrong. I can think of several others forums that would be more appropriate than Grassroots. Too bad your incapable of such easy determinations.

 

[angelatc]

But how does that relate to what is going on in England? I am not talking about the London attacks. I am talking about the problem of multiculturalism and how the Muslims seem to be pushing back against English traditions. This also leads to terrorist actions.

This is why I hate people. There is so much wrong in that statement that I can't even begin to comprehend how it makes perfect sense to someone else.

Let me ask you this: how do you explain that that Islam's presence in America - the multicultural capital of the world - predates the constitution, and yet we've managed to avoid being routinely beheaded ?

 

[Carehn]

Their are radical Islamist around the world that will hate us for no reason. Their always has been, but are actions are swelling the ranks of those mad men.

You see. Say you live over their and you herd your goats and grow your opium and beat your wife. Well you got an ok life with nothing to think about but the tasks at hand. Once and a wile you will see one of these radical Islamist beating the koran and giving hate speeches but you have better things to concern yourself with. Till one day a bomb drops on your neighbor house by accident and kills his little girl and a coupe of your goats. You suddenly start to take the speeches given by those angry men a bit more into consideration, then they sanction your government delivering crippling financial problems to your goat and opium trade. Then you start seeing them american soldiers setting up check points and searching through your neighborhood.

Eventually you get to the last straw and find yourself becoming one of the terrorists.

Are involvement only helps the true mad men find recruits and this happens uniquely with every individual.


Take for example... I bet someone somewhere in america wants to wipe Canada off the map. But they have no listeners because Canada pretty much minds there own bizz. But say Canada starts sniffing around. Sticking there big Canadian nose up our,,, Well then that crazy just might find more and more like minded people to plot the demise of Canada with.


So yes their are people who hat us. But we don't make it hard for them to do so.

 

[PolicyReader]

http://youtu.be/XKfuS6gfxPY
Ron Paul says this^

The point when talking about blowback and current US international military policy is not a question of whether or not there are dangerous radicals in various nations around the world, the question is how our policy effects this.
What Dr. Paul has been saying throughout is that our policy makes the problems we are facing worse. I don't know of a single source where he says 'militant radicals cannot be a threat'.
Also "radical Islam" isn't a monolith. The radical aspect recruits by using their own version of the "they hate us for our freedom" lie. "They hate us for our culture", which is a much more believable line when there are foreign troops systematically occupying nations 'like yours'.
According to some reports 92% Of Young Afghan Men Do Not Know 9/11 Happened <--- second link from RT, and says 90% a quick internet search can find lots more.

The point: Whatever threat the militant radicals pose is being continuously made worse by current policy.
Paul is focused on the best solution(s) we have to national security issues rather than on whipping up fear debating theories of their degree.


Whatever the threat posed it becomes greater if our nation is bankrupt.
Whatever the threat it is greater with our borders unsecured (as they very much are now).
Whatever the threat is grows exponentially with each nation and each year our troops occupy in undeclared wars with unspecified goals.


It does not matter how grave the threat is if the policy used to address it functions like throwing water on a grease fire, because things will continue to get worse until the policy is changed. (Consider this timeline of events in Iran <-- the video is just under 10 minutes so it's only an overview) Weigh the threat of radicals against the threat of creating/increasing hostilities with nations like Russia, China, and Pakistan etc. as the current policy toward Iran is doing. However my prior statement is actually flawed because the current policies increase radicalism so weighing it against the other effects is a fallacy.

I don't think congressman Paul is mistaken in his response to these issues because of the laundry list of Intelligence Officers (like Michael Scheuer, 22 year CIA operative former head of the Bin Laden unit) who he is quoting when he says it and because our active duty troops and Combat Veterans support the position en mass. (for links on the troops see my sig, the recent march and the various Veterans for Paul pages, which if you want some gritty details would be the place to go)

I'm on a borrowed computer so my resources are currently limited to what I can remember off the top of my head and find links via a quick search. For real answers to how and why Dr. Paul is so correct on this issue I would reiterate that posing these questions to our troops and veterans who have been stationed in one or more of the Islamic nations/war zones is the best method. Listen to what they have to say about being under fire there and supplement that with published analysis from seasoned intelligence agencies.

 

[No Free Beer]

*Sigh*. I remember you used to make good posts and lately you have been slipping. Hang in there buddy .

I live in England. I'm not sure where you're getting the news, but if it's from the ultra-nationalistic British press, I would try looking elsewhere. Where I live there are three major demographics - White English, Muslim, and Polish.

They are not pushing back against traditions. They have their mosques and they attend peacefully. There are some who are labeled "extremists" when they protest the wars, but they are only doing what I would do if the situations were reversed.

There are no "terrorist actions". The violence among Muslims isn't higher than Brits. It's certainly lower than the violence between Scottish Protestants and Scottish Catholics.

Hahahaha.

I am not saying that I agree with what they're saying, I am merely trying to understand the situation better. I am playing devil's advocate. I believe I wrote in the original post that I was afraid the media was probably lying. Your posts has helped me. So, I thank you.

 

[No Free Beer]

This is why I hate people. There is so much wrong in that statement that I can't even begin to comprehend how it makes perfect sense to someone else.

Let me ask you this: how do you explain that that Islam's presence in America - the multicultural capital of the world - predates the constitution, and yet we've managed to avoid being routinely beheaded ?

You must be mistaking my position. I don't nec. endorse the ideas that I wrote in the quote you've used. I am trying to understand the situation. So, please don't take it the wrong way.