Ron Paul: "They're terrorists because we're occupiers"

The occupier accusation is also used to justify the Gaza rocket attacks on Israel, which intensified after the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza. Any land not under Sharia is occupied, including Ron Paul's congressional district.

"the idea that occupation causes terrorism"
i.e., Pape's thesis and that of others, fails when one begins to consider the counterexamples...which turn out to be the rule rather than the exception.

If "occupation" adequately explained terrorist acts of the occupied, then

1. Christians, Jews, Zoroastrians, Hindus, Buddhists, and others living in the Middle East, Northern Africa, and in Central and South Asia would have been carrying out terrorist attacks steadily for the past approximately 1300 years against their Muslim occupiers and oppressors.

2. Non-Muslim Westerners living in neighborhoods (in Europe, North America, and Australia) that have been taken over by violent Muslim immigrants would currently be carrying out systematic terrorist attacks against those Muslim occupiers.

3. Germans and Japanese after WW II would have been carrying out terrorist attacks against the Western occupiers.

---

One must question what "occupation" means in Islam. In Islam, the whole Earth has been given to Muhammad and his followers to establish Islamic worship and rule. In this view, all lands not under strict authentic sharia are currently unjustly "occupied" by infidels, particularly those lands that were once conquered and ruled by Muslims (e.g., Spain). This is of course not what Pape et al. have in mind when they talk about occupation.

This is not to suggest that brutal occupations cannot provoke militant responses including terrorist attacks. Rather, the point is that occupation itself is an overly simplistic and inadequate explanation for terrorist attacks, which occur for a wide variety of reasons, and does not explain Islamically-motivated terrorist attacks in particular.

This is pathetic. What a tool. What Mr. Paul fails to understand is that as long as an infidel occupies breathing space anywhere on this planet, the infidel is a target of Islam. Paul is worse than Obama, I don't think even Obama as feeble as he is has said something as astonishingly ignorant. Can someone check Ron Paul for possible significant campaign contributions from CAIR? This is the sort of remark I'd expect from our Senators from Michigan or Minnesota.

Ron Paul is a fool (he also doesn't understand the Constitution nearly as well as he thinks he does). Sheila Jackson Lee is also a fool (big time; a major political hack too). Ben Stein is not a fool, but when he says we're not at war with Islam, it's clear he has much to learn yet on this issue. Note to Ben: Study what Winston Churchill and Bertrand Russell, among others, had to say about Islam. As for Larry King, never mind.

I have a real problem with Ron Paul. While I agree with many of his libertarian ideas he also espouses views that are usually the provenance of the extreme Left. This is such an instance. He has also shown himself to be very unsympathetic to Israel, and I have no doubt he would abandon the Israelis to the Muslim fanatics in a heartbeat if he had the opportunity.

Ron Paul's followers include a very large number of individuals who are deeply racist and anti-Semitic. I have read their comments on pro-Paul websites and they are vile.

There is a huge controversy over racist content in a newsletter of which Ron Paul was the editor. Paul denies having had any knowledge of this content. Here is a link on the subject: http://reason.com/archives/2008/01/16/who-wrote-ron-pauls-newsletter

I do not believe Paul's story of not knowing. He has a huge racist following and his newsletter printed racist content. I don't need to know any more.

Ron Paul's suggestion that Security should be done by the private sector (paraphrasing) smacks of the kind of Big Brother nonsense from these guys
infragard

As for 'their motivation'.....[Rolls_Eyes]

It's islam, stupid.

Occupiers....Bwahahahahahaha!

Ron Paul is truly an idiot.

http://bit.ly/4rvDVO

Ron Paul is an ultra-libertarian "9/11 was an inside job" kook. He enjoys tremendous support from neo-Nazis, anti-government militias, and Muslims.

AMEN Wellington. What does Ron Paul call the huge New Black Panther HQ in Houston? Is the evil city government occupying their turf? Ron Paul is a more stupid politician than Ross Perot. Ron Paul is to Texas as Ted Kennedy was to Mass.

Ron Paul is neither a Libertarian or a Conservative. His opinions to not conform to either ideologies. He's a Jimmy Carter on steroids. Like Jimmy the Dhimmi, I wish Ron Paul would just go away and shut up.

Ron Paul, modern day America Firster and old school isolationist, is indeed, as Ben Stein claims, an antisemite. His use of the term "occupier," as inaccurate and ridiculous as it is in the context of Yemen, is a code word signifying not only American, but also, more to the point, Israeli "aggression." Even more compelling evidence that Paul is an antisemite: he voted against a recent resolution introduced into the House of Representatives condemning the Goldstone report for its blatant anti-Israel bias. The resolution passed overwhelmingly, with well over three hundred representatives voting for it. Only thirty six (I believe) representatives voted against it, or were not present (either intentionally or otherwise) and did not cast their vote. Even the dubious Darryl Issa voted in favor of this resolution; conspicuous (but predictable) opponents of this resolution included John Conyers, Keith Ellison, and, of course, Ron Paul himself. For the record, Rep. Maurice Hinchey of lower New York State, a politician who ran unopposed in his last election, also voted against the resolution. I live in his district, and despise him; he has allied himself with such groups as MoveOn.org, and has shown himself to be utterly despicable, as has Paul.

It is appalling how none of the participants on the Larry King segment, (King himself, utterly empty, without a thought in his head, will be ignored here) has any real understanding of what motivates Muslims to engage in hostile actions against us. They all, obviously, think that this Nigerian, along with countless other Muslims waging jihad against us, have been "radicalized." They are manifestly oblivious to the fact that there is nothing radical about these individuals' beliefs - they are, simply, members of the Muslim orthodoxy; they are completely mainstream - merely more actively implementing that which Islam calls upon them to do. But Paul's comment, in addition to being stupid, and covertly antisemitic, is arguably seditious to boot.

"...the jihad is a response to various actions of the West..."

This is a factual statement.

The CIA analysis "Global Trends 2015" states of Globalization in general:

"Regions, countries, and groups feeling left behind will face deepening economic stagnation, political instability, and cultural alienation. They will foster political, ethnic, ideological, and religious extremism, along with the violence that often accompanies it. They will force the United States and other developed countries to remain focused on "old-world" challenges while concentrating on the implications of "new-world" technologies at the same time."

And in the Middle East in particular:

"Linear trend analysis shows little positive change in the region, raising the prospects for increased demographic pressures, social unrest, religious and ideological extremism, and terrorism directed both at the regimes and at their Western supporters."

Obviously, violence and terrorism were and are to neoliberals expected reactions, bumps in the road on the way to cultural and economic homogenization. Globalization's implementation or "actions of the West" are indeed the cause of jihad; but, these actions need not be aggressive or even direct. An intense reaction of hatred may erupt from an event as benign as a daughter telling her father she would like to go to school. This girl's statement would obviously seem to the father as coming from some action on the part of the West and a direct attack on his ideology and beliefs. In this light, even the presence of a McDonald's could be seen as an "occupation", the imposition of a Western icon in a Muslim land. Prior to 9/11 (Worry01), American military bases in Saudi Arabia was considered an "occupation" by Al Queda.

More on Ron Paul -

Ron Paul is part of the problem.

Ron Paul says Lincoln started the Civil War.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbOE4Ip7In0

Ron Paul and Don Black
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dcLSLGXypMY
This is from a campaign that boasted of its ability to raise vast amounts of money in minutes over the internet, but doesn't understand a gesture like returning Nazi money.

Ron Paul and secession
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jvliy8rEJDQ

Mealy-mouthed, and dangerous.

Another question that's begging -- why would airstrikes in Yemen grieve a foreigner from NIGERIA so much that he'd want to blow himself up in mid-air? Following Paul and Pape's logic, wouldn't a Yemeni native do it instead? There ain't a lot of folks who would willingly commit suicide for a country not their own.

Unless, of course, there's another tie that binds....

any person whom Alex jones of prison planet backs up l would do a u-turn. alex jones the king of conspiracy loves ron paul. both are antisemites, both blame the Jews for 9-11. what appalls me are stupid Jews who interview this man without asking him his views on who is to blame for 9-11.

I suggest we give Paul's site a jolt of constructive education on the motivation and determination of Islam to creat a worldwide caliphate.

The fight against jihad requires effort on many fronts. Along with a bit of "kookiness", Paul does have a strong following of hard line Constitutionalists. Properly educated, Paul would be a strong ally in fighting unconstitutional, islam friendly laws at home.

Educate his followers here:
http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=30809

"Obama believes essentially the same thing: that the jihad is a response to various actions of the West, which if we stop doing, all will be well."

What makes anyone think that Obama really believes that? His insincerity is like a lighthouse beacon in the dark: it's impossible to miss.

Given all the available evidence, an intelligent person could never believe that canard. So Obama is either insincere, or he's doing an unbelievable job of faking above-average intelligence.

Ron Paul is a true patriot, and represents at least one member of Congress who takes the Constitution seriously. Are you seriously claiming, Wellington, that you know, respect, and uphold the Constitution better than Ron Paul or I do? If so, then please demonstate how. Clearly and specifically. And flimsy, specious court rulings that say things like there's a right to bludgeon our unborn don't count.

Admittedly, I must agree to some extent that Paul is being a bit naive in this area of national security. He needs to understand that there are those who potentially will go to war with us no matter what, not unlike some of the Barbary pirates at the founding of the Republic.

But Paul is correct in the sense that our U.S. misconduct in the region has helped fuel these fires, and has seriously damaged our relations with a Muslim world that is too ambivalent toward us. I strongly doubt those who fanatically want to fight us no matter what would be getting as far as they have if things were otherwise.

I have a real problem with Ron Paul.

He should stick to what he's good at: Getting the Fed audited!

Ron Paul is a complete moron. Pauls action is to question "Why do they hate us? If we could only sit down and reason we could work all this out." asswipe

Lee is a complete sycophant.
"It all be the fault of the evil BUUUUUUSH. Barry is our savior and will solve all the worlds ills. Oh by the way the The Republicans are in league with the Devil." Merde

King is his usual self. Nooding in agreement with the two other stooges on his show.

The only class in this act was Stien. Identified the problem and offered a solution. He was roundly shouted down and accused of hate crimes by the three stooges.

One member of Congress voted against America entering World War II. That was Jeannette Rankin. Ron Paul, the village crank, with his simple-minded nostrums for all that ails us (and there is plenty that ails us) and his obvious antisemitism and his idiocy about Islam (the last two are related, for the former makes one more susceptible to the latter), reminds me a bit of Jeannette Rankin.

He also reminds me a bit of some of the cast of characters in John Roy Carlson's "Under Cover" that had such an electrifying effect when it came out early in the war. Among those Ron Paul makes me think of are the Little Flower of Dearborn, Father Coughlin, and of Agnes Waters, and Elizabeth Dilling, and Lyrl Clark Van Hyning. Look them up. You'll get the idea.

The sad thing about this discussion/debate is that none of these three persons who spoke really knew what they were talking about; Ron Paul said that they (the terrorists) hate us because we're occupiers (actually, they hate us because their Qur'an tells them to). Shelia Jackson Lee said that, in reference to the recent terrorist attack, "We're working on it."; with terrorists attacks, prevention is more important than waiting for the aftermath to start thinking about it. And Ben Stien loudly proclaimed that "We're NOT at war with Islam!!!"; actually, we are at war with Islam or, to put it more precisely, islam is at war with us.

Terrorist attacks are caused by "western occupation", yeah try that crap with the infidels who lived during Muhammed's time who were attacked and murdered because they would not conform to Islam. Tell that to the many Christians and Jews in the lands before Islam took them over by Islamic aggression. Tell that to the Phillipinos who are being attacked in their country by Abu Sayef, an Islamic terrorist group associated with Al-Qeada. Do the phillipines occupy Iraq or Afghanistan? I believe not. Tell that to the Christians in the Middle East who are persecuted and attacked, churches bombed, and Bibles burned for their "sin" of being an infidel.

Weakening Islamism is Vital to Improve US Image in the Muslim world
By Tawfik Hamid
www.tawfikhamid.com

I will post this article, it is very interesting:
In the December 1, 2009 issue of the WSJ Europe, Fouad Ajami - in an Op-Ed entitled "The Arabs Have Stopped Applauding Obama" - argued that President Obama's diplomatic approach to win the hearts and minds of the Muslim world has not been successful. Poll results have shown that unfavorable views of the US are as high as 82%, 69 %, and 70% in the Palestinian territories, Turkey, and Egypt respectively. In fact, the Op-Ed stated that unfavorable views of the US in Pakistan have risen from 63% in 2008 to 68% in 2009 according to a recent Pew survey.

In addition, after President Obama came to office in 2009, the number of home-grown Islamist terror plots inside the US has risen dramatically compared to the previous years. The Year of 2009 represents the highest level of domestic home-grown Islamic radicalism in the US since 2001.

We must question why President Obama's approach with the Muslim world has not succeeded yet in at least having a more positive effect in improving the US image in several Muslim countries or in decreasing the rate of home-grown Islamic radicalism on the home front. One of the main reasons for this lack of success is that US strategic communications with the Muslim world was largely based on the assumption that the problem of Islamic Radicalism and hatred to America is primarily because of the US foreign policy with the Muslim world and thus changing this policy will change the latter. This can only work if the main problem was in the US approach; however, if the main problem was in the Muslim world, such an approach cannot succeed as it will be like trying to change the keys to open a room while the problem is in the rusty lock! In the latter situation, changing the lock - or in other words changing the Muslim world itself - is crucial to solving the problem.

Improving the image of the US in the Muslim world before the proliferation of the phenomenon of Islamism was a very different task compared to trying to improve its image after the phenomenon has proliferated. While traditional approaches of diplomatic, economic and social engagement had the possibility of working with the earlier situation, non-traditional ways to weaken Islamism are now needed for today's situation.

Islamism, or the broad collection of movements to impose intolerant forms of Islamic teachings and practices, has made many in the Muslim world unable to be satisfied with any political system that does not implement Sharia law in some form or fashion. Any Un-Islamic system is seen as an enemy to Islam that must be opposed through violent or even non-violent means. Dr. Al-Zawaherri (second in command of Al-Queda) was clear is his offer for the US to convert to Islam in order to stop terrorism against it.

In addition, Islamism has made many in Muslim societies dream about regaining the superiority of the historical Islamic Caliphate over the world. This is clearly observed on web sites and comments by many Muslims in the Muslim world. In this case, it is hard for many Islamists to accept a country like the US that is viewed as denying this position to the Islamic world.

Furthermore, Islamism has aggravated criticism of the US as it advocates and supports values of freedom and liberty around the world that are seen by Islamists as "Un-Islamic" - particularly the values of freedom of religion, women's rights, gay rights, and more humane punishments for criminals (e.g., not stoning women for committing adultery). Some may argue that Muslims are still very interested to come to the US even if they see it as "Un-Islamic". The answer is simply that many Muslims are attracted by the economical factors rather than the values of freedom and liberty in the US and the West.

The above complex situation illustrates that the US may need to address the challenge of weakening the Islamism phenomenon first in order to improve its image in the Muslim world as this phenomenon plays an important role in creating hatred of America. In other words, removing the obstacle that impedes improving the US image in the Muslim world or at least significantly reducing it is fundamental to succeed in this diplomatic mission.

Trying to satisfy the Muslim world by changing the US will not be effective unless the US is ready to end its values of freedom and liberty and adopt an Islamic Sharia system.

The US administration must realize that the problem of poor views of this country in the Muslim world could actually be predominantly in the Muslim world and not in America. In such a case, changing the latter or the Muslim world rather than the US is fundamental to improving the image of the US among Muslims. This also can lead to the conclusion that the US may need to work on changing the perception of the Muslim world to its foreign policy rather than focusing on changing its foreign policy to win the hearts and minds of Muslims. Sophisticated psychological and behavioral modification methods may be needed to achieve this.

In this context, it is also important to raise the point that the Muslim world is in far greater need than the US to improve its image in the world as its image has been painted by terrorism and barbarism especially in the last few years.

In brief, no matter what the non-Islamic world does - short of submitting to the Islamic Sharia - the Islamists will never be satisfied completely. The US must either change itself to adopt an Islamic system to satisfy the Muslim world or alternatively assist in changing the latter. Weakening the Islamism phenomenon is vital to ultimately improve the image of the US in the Muslim world as Islamism is currently a - if not the - major obstacle to enhancing the US image among Muslims.

Dr. Al-Zawaherri (second in command of Al-Queda) was clear in his offer for the US to convert to Islam in order to stop terrorism against it.

Notice that the Islamic jihadists use the "western" policy syndrome as the means to carry out the attacks, but yet the second in command of al-queda says that if America converts to Islam that the terrorist attacks will stop. So here it seems we have a double-standard. Either it is that America stops with their foreign policy or convert to Islam and the terrorist attacks will stop. So which one is it?

It seems to me that the Islamic jihadists cannot seem to make up their own minds as to what they want the west to do. The muslim world that does not see a nation as Islamic will of course be hostile to that nation. That is because Islam to them must be the dominate religion in the world. Must overshadow any other religion. This is what Muhammed dreamed about when he created this cult, this false belief system. Allah was already worshipped as one of the pagan gods by the arab tribes in Arabia.

Ron Paul has no idea of what he is saying, Nidal Hasan talked to the same radical imam in Yemen before his terrorist attack on Fort Hood. While he never visited Yemen, Abdulmuttalab did. This all had Yemeni connections, but Nidal performed his attack before the US bombing in Yemen, because he did not want to fight his own in Afghanistan, he was very anti-American, and was a muslim first therefore loyal to his faith. Newsflash: Nidal was a psychologist, therefore he would not have had to fight in the war.

President Obama, who in Hawaii, after the foiled bombing of flight 253 from Amsterdam, did not think it important enough or enough of a threat to leave his vacation in Hawaii. Imagine if President Bush felt that way while vacationing at his ranch in Texas. Obama did not fly back to D.C. after this, nor did he fly back after the copycat attempt by another somali man, but fortunately it turned out to be nothing.

It seems to me that the Obama adminstration is not taking this threat of radical Islam seriously. Look how long it took him to decide to send more troops to Afghanistan. And Janet Napolitano seemed to feel that this was not a bigger threat, but then retracted her statement.

That this was a "lone wolf" and no other connections even before the investigation was started. Even in the case of Nidal Hasan, it was not a terrorist attack but just a shooting spree with no ties to terrorism, until the initial investigation showed otherwise.

This is just an attempt for political correctness to filter through the cracks. In a recent poll, many Americans feel that we are losing the war on terror and that the Obama administration is not doing enough.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 30% of voters think the terrorists are winning the War on Terror. That’s the first time the number holding that pessimistic view has reached 30% since October 2007.

Just 18% believed the terrorists were winning the week President Obama took office in January. At that time, 55% said America and its allies were on top. Now, just 36% say the United States and its allies are winning the War on Terror. Only once since July 2007 have voters had less confidence.

This is frightening. The balm of political correctness that has been allowed to permeate throughout our nation are allowing the jihadists to be successful.

We did not defeat nazism and the japanese by political correctness. We defeated them with the knowledge of what we were up against and the courage and determination to not cower in the face of oppression, tyranny, and aggression. We did not hunker down, we were not afraid of being called a racist, nor a nazi phobeist. We did not have terms like Naziphobism or Naziphobia.

When Ben Stein says that this is not a war against Islam, even he is being afraid to state the truth and of being called an Islamophobe. Even Sheila Jackson Lee is a mouthpiece for the Obama adminstration.

Maybe they have not been listening to our enemies statements of wanting to establish Islamic supremecy all over the world.

They need to take some history lessons and learn the history of Islamic tyranny of the last, oh let us say, 1400 years.

Who is occupying Yemen, I believe it is al-queda.

You know, a funny thought just hit me. Saudi Arabia is being threatened by al-queda, had terrorist attacks perpetrated against them, (like the saudi prince of counter-terrorism there, who unfortunately survived his terrorist attack), and had them thwarted. It seems to me this is poetic justice, the country that has funded radical islam, paid off al-queda to not attack them, and has even gone so far as to send its radicalized imams to mosques all over the world, are getting a taste of their own medicine. Oh how sweet it is, the chickens are coming home to roost.

After 9/11 the saudi king who gave 10 million dollars to then mayor Guiliani, said America deserved 9/11 and Guiliani gave back the check. Well Saudi Arabia, tit for tat, you are getting what you deserved.

What comes around goes around.

Sending terrorists to Saudi to be "rehabilitated" would have been like sending the German spies back to Nazi Germany to be rehabilitated. Oh the absurdity. And to show that Obama is serious about fighting radical Islamic terrorism, he ordered gitmo closed, which the majority of Americas oppose but hey they can be rehabilitated. Just like the ones before them who have gone back to terrorism and one who is now the leader of Al-queda in Yemen. Our so called friends in Yemen as Ben Stein had so graciously admitted, we need to help.

Ron Paul you are a moron. You have so graciously failed to see the bigger threat and believe Abdulmuttalab, that you yourself believes it is because of our attack in Yemen. Not that Abdulmuttalab was radicalized in mosques and that he was going on a "religious" journey. Not that he planned this before the attack on Yemen, much like Nidal Hasan.

"Blessed are the idiots, for even they can be forgiven."

"I am the truthsayer, and I approve of this message."

I read this with many mixed feelings. I've actually met Ron Paul and shaken his hand. While I have strong feelings against racism, Dr. Paul did not show any sign of despising my not-quite-white family or making me feel anything less than a man.

Further, I have long doubted the wisdom of an interventionist, almost Messianic, foreign policy for quite some time. Had it been up to me, we would have dealt with a slightly enlarged Iraq after 1991, rather than embroiling ourselves in an international intervention which denied our troops the comforts of their various non-Muslim religions while protecting those duplicitous Sa'udi bigots.

Domestically, Dr. Paul's libertarian stance is a needed corrective to an undisciplined, unprincipled system of buying votes by robbing other Americans that passes for "government" in these United States.

However, if what is reported in this story is all that Ron Paul had to say about our problems with the Islamic world, I daresay he needs a bit more education on the issues.