Paul gets booed at the debate...my thoughts.

Neon

ネオン
Donator
Mar 23, 2008
51,826
18,547
513
Kingdom of Charis
#26
They want to kill Israel regardless of their motivational claims. They never wanted to kill us until we got involved in the Middle East.
I hate to break it to you, chum, but the West has been entrenched in the Middle East far before there was even such a thing as Israelis. The Sykes-Picot agreement that divvied up the Middle East among European powers was signed in 1916 - 32 years before there even WAS an Israel.


This.

What people don't "get" is that while there are extremists that want the "convert, submit, or die" relationship with the rest of the world, without the general populace actually having a tangible negative thing to associate with us (i.e., occupying and bombing their neighborhoods), it's impossible to get enough people to support that idea. 90% of the people in ANY given populace or culture just want to be able to go to work and provide for their families on a day-to-day basis.
How does that explain the Muslim conquest of Spain or massacres of religious minorities in Egypt, Syria, and also in British Mandate Palestine in the 20's and 30's?

They use the West's current actions as an excuse to do something that they want to do anyway. This is just their current cause du jour. Before 1948, Jews in British Mandate Palestine were a small minority concentrated in specific locations. Hardly occupying anyone's land.
 
Jun 2, 2005
15,516
4
0
Dallas
#27
I hate to break it to you, chum, but the West has been entrenched in the Middle East far before there was even such a thing as Israelis. The Sykes-Picot agreement that divvied up the Middle East among European powers was signed in 1916 - 32 years before there even WAS an Israel.
We were involved politically, sure, but we weren't bombing their neighborhoods, supporting Afghanistan against the Russians then leaving them hanging once our agenda was satisfied, etc.

Like OAPC said, you can't motivate the entire populous of a third world country to hate a country 10,000 miles away without some sort of "hits home" example of how they're screwing up your life. We've definitely given them those excuses.

Again, not that we weren't justified in our actions there, I'm simply saying that we've stomped around there enough to motivate them to hate us.
 
Jun 2, 2005
15,516
4
0
Dallas
#28
How does that explain the Muslim conquest of Spain or massacres of religious minorities in Egypt, Syria, and also in British Mandate Palestine in the 20's and 30's?

They use the West's current actions as an excuse to do something that they want to do anyway. This is just their current cause du jour. Before 1948, Jews in British Mandate Palestine were a small minority concentrated in specific locations. Hardly occupying anyone's land.
This would all be very poignant if your average Muslim citizen had ever been to a school with a collegiate history program. They're mostly very uneducated people, so they typically have no idea that any of this ever took place. What they know is what they see happening now, and that's all that I'm saying here.
 

Neon

ネオン
Donator
Mar 23, 2008
51,826
18,547
513
Kingdom of Charis
#29
We were involved politically, sure, but we weren't bombing their neighborhoods, supporting Afghanistan against the Russians then leaving them hanging once our agenda was satisfied, etc.

Like OAPC said, you can't motivate the entire populous of a third world country to hate a country 10,000 miles away without some sort of "hits home" example of how they're screwing up your life. We've definitely given them those excuses.

Again, not that we weren't justified in our actions there, I'm simply saying that we've stomped around there enough to motivate them to hate us.
You are assuming that if the US hadn't done those things, then the preachers wouldn't say: "The US sat by as millions of Muslims starved and suffered. If it were Islamic, this never would have happened. Death to America!" How the fuck can you be so sure of that? Besides, the American "occupation" of Saudi Arabia was done with the consent of the Royal Family. I guess they should have asked Bin Laden's permission personally, right?

Bombing their neighborhoods? Where? When?

Supporting Afghanistan against the Russians and then leaving them hanging? So which is it? Should we help them, or should we let the Soviets butcher them all? So Al-Qaeda wants to kill us because we didn't help Afghanistan ENOUGH? Super logical.

Do you understand that no matter what, ANYTHING can be spun to be America's fault.
 

Neon

ネオン
Donator
Mar 23, 2008
51,826
18,547
513
Kingdom of Charis
#30
This would all be very poignant if your average Muslim citizen had ever been to a school with a collegiate history program. They're mostly very uneducated people, so they typically have no idea that any of this ever took place. What they know is what they see happening now, and that's all that I'm saying here.
Irrelevant. The point is even when the excuses you mention did not exist, Muslims still went out and killed non-Muslims en masse. It was as true 900 years ago as it is now.
 

Josh_R

Registered User
Jan 29, 2005
5,847
458
578
Akron, Ohio
#31
Watch this:
"Hitler killed a ton of Jews because he felt that they were the cause of all of Germany's problems" HOLY SHIT!! THIS JOSHRAWDON GUY JUST JUSTIFIED HITLER'S KILLING OF 6 MILLION JEWS!!!!!!!

Stating the reason that someone did something horrible in no way justifies what that person did, even if those reasons seem somewhat understandable. The reason that Americans cannot accept Ron Paul's explanation is that they can kind of relate to it. If China invaded our country and set up permanent bases, we wouldn't be bombing them because they have slanty eyes and are Communists. This makes Americans uncomfortable and it is more acceptable that those crazy savages are willing to strap bombs to their chests because we have blue jeans, rock music, and porno. Yeah, that makes tons more sense than accepting that dropping bombs from a Predator drone onto civilians tends to upset a few people.

When profilers determined that Ed Gein exhumed dead bodies and did extremely disgusting things to them in part because of his overbearing mother and the abuse that he endured as a child, did they justify all those things that he did? No, they just proposed a theory as to why he took the actions that he did.

[video=youtube;g6cJVEVM7X0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=g6cJVEVM7X0#![/video]

Michael Scheuer Says Ron Paul Understands Cause of Terrorism
by Gary Wood
(conservative)
Saturday, February 23, 2008
According to Mr. Scheuer the real driving force behind terrorism is interventionism. In his interview on Hannity and Colmes yesterday he said, "What they hate us for is the unusually virulent strain of obsessive compulsive disorder that's present in the American governing class, and that's called interventionism. That's what the cause of this war is." This differs from what candidates like Obama, Clinton, and McCain say is the reason. It is not our liberty and freedom that creates the motivation for hating the U.S. it's our foreign policy He continued, "That's what the cause of this war is. And neither Mr. McCain, nor Mr. Obama, nor Mrs. Clinton, nor any of the rest of them who are in the campaign-except Mr. Paul, Mr. Kucinich perhaps-had that idea."

Mr. Sheuer is the author of many books including Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror. As the head of the CIA's bin Laden unit he was among those pointing to our foreign policy as the key reason bin Laden is able to recruit willing terrorists. In his comments he stated, "Mr. McCain is very confident, but he's clueless. Mr. Obama is equally clueless. They continue to tell Americans, 'These people are Islamo-fascists, and they hate us because of our freedoms,' and 'they hate us for our liberties.'"

In a speech before the House of Representatives in July of 2005 Paul said, "Understanding why they sacrifice themselves is crucial to ending what appears to be senseless and irrational." He referred to Robert Pape's Dying to Win and Congressman Paul concluded in his speech, "It is time for us to consider a strategic reassessment of our policy of foreign interventionism, occupation, and nation-building. It is in our national interest to do so and in the interest of world peace."
Why would you take the word of the CIA's former head of the Osama Bin Laden task force?
 

Josh_R

Registered User
Jan 29, 2005
5,847
458
578
Akron, Ohio
#32
Oh, and these are the same people who cheered and clapped at the statement that Texas has the highest execution rate in the country, so I take their judgment on just about anything with a grain of salt.
 

Neon

ネオン
Donator
Mar 23, 2008
51,826
18,547
513
Kingdom of Charis
#33
Watch this:
"Hitler killed a ton of Jews because he felt that they were the cause of all of Germany's problems" HOLY SHIT!! THIS JOSHRAWDON GUY JUST JUSTIFIED HITLER'S KILLING OF 6 MILLION JEWS!!!!!!!
Bad example. Jews didn't actually do anything as a group to anyone. At least in this case, the things extremist Muslims accuse the US of doing are true (except for the various dumb conspiracy theories). The US simply had good reasons to do them.

Why would you take the word of the CIA's former head of the Osama Bin Laden task force?
You mean the task force that took 10 years to find him? The man working for the same agency that got blindsided by 9/11 and thought that Khomeini's White Book was a fake? Yeah, why WOULD I believe him? I'll stick with historians and Middle East and Islam experts, thank you.
 
Jun 2, 2005
15,516
4
0
Dallas
#34
You are assuming that if the US hadn't done those things, then the preachers wouldn't say: "The US sat by as millions of Muslims starved and suffered. If it were Islamic, this never would have happened. Death to America!" How the fuck can you be so sure of that? Besides, the American "occupation" of Saudi Arabia was done with the consent of the Royal Family. I guess they should have asked Bin Laden's permission personally, right?

Bombing their neighborhoods? Where? When?

Supporting Afghanistan against the Russians and then leaving them hanging? So which is it? Should we help them, or should we let the Soviets butcher them all? So Al-Qaeda wants to kill us because we didn't help Afghanistan ENOUGH? Super logical.

Do you understand that no matter what, ANYTHING can be spun to be America's fault.
We're not talking about what might have happened had we done thing differently, we're talking about what actually happened. Of course they might have still ended up hating us and pushing this whole jihadist agenda against us had we done things differently, but why would we talk about that? I'm commenting on things that we did, and their response to those actions. Again, I don't necessarily disagree with our actions, I'm simply pointing out that we have provided the Muslim community with the ammunition to hate us.

And I agree with you on the Afghanistan/Russia thing, it's horribly illogical that they hated us for not helping enough, but I seem to remember there was more to it than that... Like we funded and supported them to revolt, and pulled our support while they were still being slaughtered because of what we inspired them to do... It's been too long since I read up on it, but I remember we did something really shitty because of a leadership change here.

Irrelevant. The point is even when the excuses you mention did not exist, Muslims still went out and killed non-Muslims en masse. It was as true 900 years ago as it is now.
But not America.

I'm trying to keep this as focused as possible, because again, it's a very emotional issue for almost everyone, so the conversation tends to bounce all over the place.

We're very specifically talking about relations between the USA and Muslim extremists in the Middle East.
 

Neon

ネオン
Donator
Mar 23, 2008
51,826
18,547
513
Kingdom of Charis
#35
We're not talking about what might have happened had we done thing differently, we're talking about what actually happened. Of course they might have still ended up hating us and pushing this whole jihadist agenda against us had we done things differently, but why would we talk about that? I'm commenting on things that we did, and their response to those actions. Again, I don't necessarily disagree with our actions, I'm simply pointing out that we have provided the Muslim community with the ammunition to hate us.
You are commenting on things that we did, and I'm telling you that they would have spun anything we did or didn't do to the same ends. I've seen it happen with my own eyes (and I do this shit for a living. Have been for like 10 years now)


But not America.

I'm trying to keep this as focused as possible, because again, it's a very emotional issue for almost everyone, so the conversation tends to bounce all over the place.

We're very specifically talking about relations between the USA and Muslim extremists in the Middle East.
You think that extremist Muslims divide America from Britain and France and Germany? To them, it's "The West." America did everything it did with international support. It all ties together for them as some massive conspiracy. They don't see the Iraq war as being orchestrated by a different entity than the Sykes-Picot agreement. It is non-Muslims trying to fight Muslims in their eyes.


In any case, Ron Paul is wrong. I'm not even sure he believes that himself. It just serves his kooky Libertarian agenda by making it seem like it would be better for America not to intervene. Wake up call - America intervenes abroad so the fight doesn't come to America. World War 2 would have been a much smaller conflict if America was involved from the get go, but it was led by people with Ron Paul's mentality on foreign relations, and it came back to bite America in the ass.
 

Party Rooster

Unleash The Beast
Apr 27, 2005
40,284
7,455
438
The Inland Empire State
#36
How does that explain the Muslim conquest of Spain or massacres of religious minorities in Egypt, Syria, and also in British Mandate Palestine in the 20's and 30's?
Their crusades were retaliations of our crusades.The other stuff is too local, that's my point.
 
Jun 2, 2005
15,516
4
0
Dallas
#37
Again, I don't disagree with anything you're saying, I'm simply saying that Ron Paul accurately identifying how our foreign policy in the Middle East can be used as motivation to get them to hate us does not equal Ron Paul saying they're justified in hating and attacking us.
 

Neon

ネオン
Donator
Mar 23, 2008
51,826
18,547
513
Kingdom of Charis
#38
Their crusades were retaliations of our crusades.The other stuff is too local, that's my point.
What?! The Crusades were English and against the Holy Land. The Muslim conquest of Spain was done by Arabs from north Africa (Morocco) and against Spain. They were 100% unrelated.
 

Neon

ネオン
Donator
Mar 23, 2008
51,826
18,547
513
Kingdom of Charis
#39
Again, I don't disagree with anything you're saying, I'm simply saying that Ron Paul accurately identifying how our foreign policy in the Middle East can be used as motivation to get them to hate us does not equal Ron Paul saying they're justified in hating and attacking us.
But that isn't what he's saying. He's saying it provides the CAUSE of hatred, not an excuse to rile the masses. Also, his idea of what to do about it is also wrong.
 
Jun 2, 2005
15,516
4
0
Dallas
#40
Their crusades were retaliations of our crusades.The other stuff is too local, that's my point.
That too.

For centuries the world has invaded the Middle East for religious reasons, and now that we've all become "civilized" in the past 200 years and stopped with religious crusades, we're shocked that the third world nations haven't civilized along side us and let it all go?

It's a very obtuse point I'm making, I know that, but again, it's just another example of the hornets' nest being kicked by the West.
 
Jun 2, 2005
15,516
4
0
Dallas
#41
What?! The Crusades were English and against the Holy Land. The Muslim conquest of Spain was done by Arabs from north Africa (Morocco) and against Spain. They were 100% unrelated.
So it's Muslim vs the unified West when it fits your purposes, but not when it fits ours?

But that isn't what he's saying. He's saying it provides the CAUSE of hatred, not an excuse to rile the masses.
What's the difference? He's saying that our actions are being used as fuel for the hatred, plain and simple. The nuance between the two things you just differentiated isn't applicable in this context.
 

Norm Stansfield

私は亀が好きだ。
Mar 17, 2009
15,949
4,075
328
#42
Again, I'm not saying we shouldn't have gotten involved in the Middle East, I'm simply stating the fact that they didn't want to exterminate us until we fucked around in their back yard. Edit: And to keep it on topic, that's all Ron Paul's attempting to say as well.
It's pretty obvious that the Islamists' problem is western involvement with Muslim culture, not our existence per se. It's not just military involvement though that's the issue. It's also business interests, cultural influences, the spread of philosophical, political and religious ideas.

The main thing wrong with Paul's description of this state of affairs is his failure to pass moral judgement on the two sides involved. We are the good guys, and the Islamists are the bad guys. Not only that, but the Islamists are also the minority in the Middle East, and they aim to keep us out and rule by terror despite millions of Middle Easterners inviting us in and wanting to deal with us. So it is inevitable that the Middle East is going to continue to adopt Western culture and values, and that fanatics are going to be upset by that.

If Ron Paul made all that clear, while at the same time saying that our involvement is what's upsetting the Islamists, he wouldn't be getting booed. His failure to understand that the West is morally superior and on a collision course with Muslim militants no matter what we do, is the stupid and dangerous part of his ideology that's rightfully getting booed. If I was there, I would've booed him too. His arrogance and stupidity are astonishing.
 

Neon

ネオン
Donator
Mar 23, 2008
51,826
18,547
513
Kingdom of Charis
#43
That too.

For centuries the world has invaded the Middle East for religious reasons, and now that we've all become "civilized" in the past 200 years and stopped with religious crusades, we're shocked that the third world nations haven't civilized along side us and let it all go?

It's a very obtuse point I'm making, I know that, but again, it's just another example of the hornets' nest being kicked by the West.
I'm tired of this argument. If you really think that the Muslim conquest of Andalusia was a retaliation from anything, then I really don't know what to tell you.
 
Jun 2, 2005
15,516
4
0
Dallas
#44
It's pretty obvious that the Islamists' problem is western involvement with Muslim culture, not our existence per se. It's not just military involvement though that's the issue. It's also business interests, cultural influences, the spread of philosophical, political and religious ideas.

The main thing wrong with Paul's description of this state of affairs is his failure to pass moral judgement on the two sides involved. We are the good guys, and the Islamists are the bad guys. Not only that, but the Islamists are also the minority in the Middle East, and they aim to keep us out and rule by terror despite millions of Middle Easterners inviting us in and wanting to deal with us. So it is inevitable that the Middle East is going to continue to adopt Western culture and values, and that fanatics are going to be upset by that.

If Ron Paul made all that clear, while at the same time saying that our involvement is what's upsetting the Islamists, he wouldn't be getting booed. His failure to understand that the West is morally superior and on a collision course with Muslim militants no matter what we do, is the stupid and dangerous part of his ideology that's rightfully getting booed. If I was there, I would've booed him too. His arrogance and stupidity are astonishing.
I agree with you until that last line. He's not arrogant and stupid, he's a nerd. He's a medical doctor with a PHD in Economics. He's socially awkward because he's a giant nerd, that's it.

And again, when he's asked about foreign policy he goes into "Norm Stansfield Robot Mode" and gives the facts without regard to good or bad, right or wrong, or anything related to those concepts. If he is asked who're the good guys and who're the bad guys, do you really think he would side with the Islamists? It's a petty point which should be obvious and go unsaid, and for some reason it does go unsaid for every candidate except for Ron Paul.
 

Owenay

Those who fail to learn from history are doomed...
May 10, 2007
3,666
248
358
Bizarro World
#45
Watch this:
"Hitler killed a ton of Jews because he felt that they were the cause of all of Germany's problems" HOLY SHIT!! THIS JOSHRAWDON GUY JUST JUSTIFIED HITLER'S KILLING OF 6 MILLION JEWS!!!!!!!
Okay, now let's say this Joshrawdon guy followed that up by saying, "how would you feel if the Jews were causing all these problems for your country? Would you be annoyed? If you’re not annoyed, then there’s some problem."

or

"If you were to imagine for a moment how you would feel if Jews were in YOUR country and were the cause of all of it's problems you might begin to understand why Jews upset people so much."

The entire premise is fatally flawed from the get-go.


Oh, and these are the same people who cheered and clapped at the statement that Texas has the highest execution rate in the country, so I take their judgment on just about anything with a grain of salt.
They were applauding the practice of capital punishment for the most heinous of crimes, good for them!


Their crusades were retaliations of our crusades.The other stuff is too local, that's my point.
Huh!?! The 'Muslim Crusades' were started in 630 A.D. when Muhammad invaded and conquered Mecca. Later on, Muslims swept across the entirety of the Middle East, Northern and Eastern Africa and into Spain, Italy, France, etc. The Western Crusades started around 1095 to try to stop the Islamic aggressive invasions. Islamic Crusades continued even after the Western Crusades ended around 1291 and still do to this day.
 
Jun 2, 2005
15,516
4
0
Dallas
#46
I'm tired of this argument. If you really think that the Muslim conquest of Andalusia was a retaliation from anything, then I really don't know what to tell you.
I'm not saying it's a direct response, I'm just saying that it's been the Hatfields and the McCoys for over 1,000 years, and just because we've stopped with the religious crusading doesn't mean they have.

It's not right, but it's what's happening.
 
Jun 2, 2005
15,516
4
0
Dallas
#47
Okay, now let's say this Joshrawdon guy followed that up by saying, "how would you feel if the Jews were causing all these problems for your country? Would you be annoyed? If you’re not annoyed, then there’s some problem."

or

"If you were to imagine for a moment how you would feel if Jews were in YOUR country and were the cause of all of it's problems you might begin to understand why Jews upset people so much."

The entire premise is fatally flawed from the get-go.
The premise is only flawed because the Jews weren't guilty of anything in Germany. The premise works perfectly when you consider we've been dropping bombs and occupying land in the Middle East forever.

Again, not saying I don't agree with most of our actions there, but it doesn't mean that the people in the occupied nations aren't upset about it.

Edit: And just as an aside, wasn't Hitler's motivation really to exterminate all devoutly religious people? I know the Jews had a majority, but weren't millions of Catholics and others also killed in the same fashion? (Honest question, I don't have any give a shit as to the whole Holocaust denier bullshit)
 

Norm Stansfield

私は亀が好きだ。
Mar 17, 2009
15,949
4,075
328
#48
And again, when he's asked about foreign policy he goes into "Norm Stansfield Robot Mode" and gives the facts without regard to good or bad, right or wrong, or anything related to those concepts.
I never ignore Ethics. I dismiss moral systems I disagree with, but not actual right and wrong as I understand it. If Ron Paul thinks he can win over the American Right without addressing the moral aspect of every single issue that comes up, he's in for a rude surprise.
 

Party Rooster

Unleash The Beast
Apr 27, 2005
40,284
7,455
438
The Inland Empire State
#49
Oh, and these are the same people who cheered and clapped at the statement that Texas has the highest execution rate in the country, so I take their judgment on just about anything with a grain of salt.
Not too mention they cheer at poor people dying on the steps of hospitals. :icon_cool

The man working for the same agency that got blindsided by 9/11
They knew. Bush needed his war for oil maaaannnnnn....



:trollol:
 

Neon

ネオン
Donator
Mar 23, 2008
51,826
18,547
513
Kingdom of Charis
#50
Not too mention they cheer at poor people dying on the steps of hospitals. :icon_cool


They knew. Bush needed his war for oil maaaannnnnn....



:trollol:
So you're saying only the people at the top shouldn't be trusted. People like the head of the Bin Laden task force, for example?

:trollol: