Infinite Monkeys

Too many Republicans "licking bush and sucking dick" as I read earlier. I'd like to see Ron Paul as President and I am campaigning for him but I do believe it is a long, long, long shot.

Of course Giuliani got the attention, but Tom Tancredo had the best response to Ron Paul: The founding of Israel, the no-fly zones over Iraq and all of that doesn't make a bit of difference as to why we're at war today. The conflict is an old one, as Michael Oren's book makes clear.

I don't think it's completely correct to say those things don't "make a bit of difference" but:

1. The kerfuffle wasn't over "why we're at war today," but over whether or not blowback was a factor in the 9/11 attacks.
2. The primary causes of our Middle East policy do, in fact, go back pretty far, but every move we make further complicates the situation and makes us a bigger target.
3. It's naive to trivialize the impact neo-Israel has on the region, from all sides. It is a constant catalyst for conflict.

None of these statements, by the way, are meant to represent a position on the right of Israel to exist, nor a statement that Americans (civilians, in particular) "deserved" the WTC tragedy. Recognizing the reality of blowback does not mean supporting its effects.

After watching some of the post-debate analysis on FNC, I should add:

4. Sean Hannity makes it his mission to completely misrepresent Paul in the individual candidate interviews.

Hannity is an insufferable jack ass. He's smart enough to know Paul didn't say that "our policies caused 9-11" but he deliberately asked Paul "when did you stop beating your wife?"-style questions to muddy the waters and position him as a crackpot.

Never, never, never watch the post-debate analysis. Unless you are dead.

Lesson learned.

Our interventionists policies, as you put it, have absolutely nothing to do with the attacks on 9/11. Islamic states have been attacking the rest of the world for as long as there have been Islamic states. If Mohammad had any clue that America existed, he would have tried to get his armies here 1400 years ago.

Muslims have been trying to conquer the western world their entire existence. Attacking us because we had a presence in Saudi Arabia is asinine. We've had bases in Turkey, another Islamic state, since WWII. Why didn't they attack us for those?

The simple truth is that they hate us for our freedoms, not for anything that we have done. They will not rest until the entire world lives under Sharia law. You have to look no further than their Saturday morning "children's" shows and the kind of filth they teach to see that.

Sorry, Frank, but I don't think your statements are justifiable. Saying "Islamic states have been attacking the rest of the world for as long as there have been Islamic states" is like saying, "Western states have been attacking the rest of the world for as long as there have been Western states." It's accurate, but it's over-simplistic and completely misses the point. Imperial conquest (what Mohammed and Alexander engaged in) is profoundly different from Wahabbist terrorism.

When you say that, "Attacking us because we had a presence in Saudi Arabia is asinine," what is your justification for ignoring the specific mention of this in OBL's fatwa? Turkey and Saudi Arabia are not the same. For one thing, Mecca isn't in Turkey. But more importantly, Turkey was, for most of the 20th century, a secular democracy. It is a much an "Islamic state" as Ireland is a "Catholic state." Saudi Arabia, on the other hand, IS an Islamic state, AND an oppressive monarchy. OBL and the 9-11 hijackers were disaffected Saudis, not Turks.

I've got friends who are missionaries in the United Arab Emerites, which is incidentally a case study in how taking care of your citizens rather than oppressing them is a great way to reduce or eliminate terrorism. They were quite clear that Western meddling in the middle east, and particularly our support for Israel, are the things that get disaffected Arab young men worked up in their hatred for America. Even the children's programming you cite (having been in the news lately) aims its vitriol at Israel. Sick and evil as it may be, it offers precious little substantiation for the claim that, "the simple truth is they hate us for our freedoms, not for anything we have done."