On This, Ron Paul is Wrong

It’s a shame, because on so many things recently Ron Paul has been absolutely, positively right.

As much as I share his perspective on our nation’s and government’s departure from its constitutional roots, and as much as I see the value inherent in his isolationist tendencies, when Dr. Paul comes out and makes the Carteresque assertion that radical Islamic terrorists want our severed heads on a platter because we are “occupying” Iraq and Afghanistan, he damages the credibility which he has built over the past year by being absolutely, positively right on pretty much everything else.

And it’s not just that he’s wrong on this. He’s absurdly, egregiously wrong. Radicalized Muslims have been attacking us not because of our military activity, but because we draw breath as free, God-fearing men and women. To say anything otherwise is to ignore history.

Radical Islamic jihadists were killing Jews in Munich in 1972. They killed approximately 60 American Marines in Lebanon in 1983. We were not “occupying” anything. Radical Islamic jihadists bombed the World Trade Center in 1993. They bombed our embassies in East Africa in 1998. We were not “occupiers” then, either.

Heck, we fought two wars off the North African coast in the early 19th century against Muslim pirates. We weren’t occupying anything during Thomas Jefferson’s administration, either.

I’m a big, big fan of the good doctor from Texas. While I thought him a little kooky during the GOP primary debates leading up to the 2008 presidential election, upon going back and looking at transcripts and video I was absolutely shocked at how right he was, at how differently he comes off knowing the happenings of the first year of Barack Obama’s presidency. If Congressman Paul wants to maintain that credibility, he either needs to understand that radical Islamic jihadists attack Americans because they want to kill infidels, not occupiers. And if he cannot look at the facts and at history and understand that their anger is inbred, instilled over a lifetime and generations of lifetimes of hatred for the West, then he’s better off just shutting his mouth on this issue and sticking to the issues for which he has been so prescient.

Share

Comments

  1. Semper Fi says:

    From the halls of Montezuma, to the shores of Tripoli, these damn barbarians have been harassing us forever. Let’s get it over with. Go away Ron Paul.

  2. Boston Blackie says:

    Another Presidential Wannabe with hoof in mouth disease. Talk about playing right into their hands, what an arze.

  3. Jeff Schreiber says:

    I don’t think he’s playing into their hands per se. He’s an isolationist libertarian, not a Republican.

  4. Boston Blackie says:

    Jeff, I mean he is playing into the terrorists hands and they will his remarks as a propaganda tool. Wait and see, his comments will be used against us all over the world – probably starting with you know who, who’s surfing and golfing as we speak.

  5. Jack says:

    1. RP doesn’t blame “America” – he blames the government.
    2. US Government intervention starts much earlier than the 70s or 80s.
    3. If this security service of intervening in other countries is something you are interested in purchasing, then purchase it from a seller. But don’t advocate locking up people who won’t pay for the government service.

  6. Psydog says:

    Jeff I agree that Ron Paul is very,very wrong on this issue. Let’s clear up another fact. If strict Koran teaching is adhered to, Jews and Christians are not Infidels because they are followers of “The Book”, which is the Torah and is also part of the Koran. All other religions are considered “Infidels”. The view that Jews and Christians are ‘Infidels’ comes from a radicalized Muslim view.

  7. Michelle Zhang says:

    I wouldn’t say it is completely wrong though. It is true that without the occupation we would still be dealing with it, but the “occupation” certainly doesn’t help and probably does fuel the hate of some people who otherwise would not have been so enraged without the “occupation.”

  8. Alex Tenerife says:

    If indeed we pull out of Iraq and Afganistan as well as pull our troops in other countries like Korea and Japan and Germany. Because he also believes that no US presence should stay in one sovoreign country in peace time. And what if terrorism continues, we get hit again. What will his excuse gonna be this time? Let’s not have a military! Maybe that will appease the Radical Muslims?

  9. Spot on. These thugs hate America…..whether we are “occupying” countries or not. Paul’s position(s) on the war is one thing that has always bugged me about him.

  10. William A. Rose says:

    Whatever mankind does concerning any aspect of this terrorist, um, infestation, it will not ever be completely stopped. I do know when it will be completely stopped. It will happen when the sheep and the goats are permanently separated.

    Just my thoughts.

  11. Steve Clark says:

    Dr. Paul’s position on our foreign involvement has bothered me as well. However, after reading the Federalist Papers earlier this year and reading our founders positions on foreign involvement, I find Ron Paul’s position much more in line with the founders than with current reality. Jefferson did slap the Muslims around a bit but he didn’t stay.

    What we’re doing now doesn’t appear to be working so perhaps we should not shut ourselves off to what Ron Paul is saying so quickly keeping in mind that his position is much more in line with our founders than with our politicians and I think he is perhaps keeping better company. I believe we should give it more thoughtful and deeper consideration.

    We have, for a long time, taken what parts of the Constitution and advice of our founders suit our current needs and discard the parts that conflict and you can see where that has led us. I’ve come to believe the Constitution must be accepted by citizens as a fundamentalist Christian accepts the Bible as the direct and absolute word of God.

    Personally, I would much rather have our troops home to help us take our government back than scattered about the world doing things for other countries they should be doing themselves and at our expense. We are in the midst of a coup and we had best be attending to preserving our freedom here free of distractions that we may very well be able to simply dispense with.

    I’m not rejecting anything written here outright. This subject has bothered me greatly for the past year and I’m at least able to understand where Ron Paul is coming from and can’t discount his position outright either. Madison warned us, Washington warned us and Jefferson warned us to avoid foreign entanglements and now Ron Paul is warning us. You know, these guys may just be right.

    And while you’re rethinking this,if you’re rethinking this, keep in mind that we’re the country that elected Obama as our leader; we could be wrong about some other things too.

  12. Janet Nopoledancer says:

    Madison, Jefferson and Washington didn’t have to worry about international jet travel, nuclear suitcases, etc… etc… etc….. oh for the good ol days.

  13. Steve Clark says:

    Janet,
    Circumstances change daily and we adapt to those changes. Look how far we have adapted away from the Constitution. Every deviation is justified with a change of circumstance.

    Changing to adapt to new circumstances is critical to survival. However, changing the principles you base your life on in an effort to adapt to new circumstances can only lead to confusion and is detrimental to survival.

    Would you excuse adultery because your spouse had to be out of town for a month? After all, circumstances changed so a principle was cast aside to meet an immediate need.

    I don’t pretend to know the answer, however, I’m certain philosophical flippancy won’t bring me any closer to the answer. I’m not ready to say either Jeff or Ron Paul is wrong but logic leads me to believe one of them is. I find no comfort in the middle ground of this argument.

  14. Vibe says:

    Sorry. Ron is right again. That is what is driving the terror surge – but you too are correct in that this “reason” is just another of the straws being grasped at to find ANY reason to eliminate and persecute non-muslim “infidels”. Any interaction at all can be construed as meddling, and will be, IF it suits their purpose.

  15. PEACEMAKER says:

    Rather than ‘occupy’, would it make more sense to tactical nuke em???? One way or the other the heathens have to be dealt with.

  16. 2010, 2012 says:

    Paul is entitled to err every now and then and perhaps he will be back with an adjustment to his statement that views his conclusion as an added excuse that radical Muslims might use for their actions, etc., etc., etc.

    inherent in the Muslim faith is the desire to make everyone on earth a Muslim, quite obviously in whatever brutal manner they deem necessary. so lets all do the math – and the answer is???

  17. Jackson Pearson says:

    Everyone on this thread is missing the point, including Ron Paul. Islam has been at war since the 7th century, and will continue it’s battle with the world, until they subjugate every corner of the earth. Islamic wars last forever. e.g., Bosnia and Kosovo were invaded in the 13th century, and are still being contested.

  18. Alex Tenerife says:

    Steve,
    have you forgotten that we are at war with extremist ideas. This is not a battle against occupiers with the same judeo-Christian backgrounds. These people believe that all other faith can be and are labeled INFIDELS! They do not believe in our right to Life. They value life so poor that is why they can take it away without any regret. They not only want our way of life gone but they also want you and me exterminated. Our fore fathers opponents can be persuaded by hearts and emotions. They also obeyed mans law. This is not a matter of subjugating us like the British did. This is about preserving life. And until we change their belief, I’m afraid our beloved constitution is just a paper to them.

  19. REMEMBER THE COLE says:

    Ron Paul, Obama, and several posters in here feel if we behave a certain way the nutjob fanatics will leave us alone. Insanity.

  20. Steve Clark says:

    Alex, I understand that. This is just another in a long line of foreign excursions and it seems they continue to get more complicated, more dangerous and more corrosive to the Constitution. At some point, we must simply stop. There are billions of these people and we can’t kill them all. Even the EPA placed an order with Winchester for only 200 million rounds of 9mm ammunition – I suppose for the attack of the tailpipes but not nearly enough for all the Muslims.

    They will never change their beliefs and we are much to PC to scare them away. What we are doing will never work so why waste the money, effort and blood?

    Perhaps we should just try protecting ourselves here for a change?

    My heart is with blowing them all away but logic tells me otherwise.

  21. IT AIN'T ME BABE says:

    Jack at 8:53, funny, thats exactly how I feel about your beloved Obama’s healthcare.

  22. Alex Tenerife says:

    The idea that we can appease these Radical extremist by pulling our troops is ridiculous. It’s like having No border fence thereby giving the illusions for the illegal aliens that they are still in Mexico or Canada. So hoping that they get tired walking and decides to go back instead because they can’t seem to find the border. That’s the real argument here. How can we affect their ideology? Eventually they will strike again whether we have our troops pulled back or not. There are not a Billion of extremist out there but there are a Billion Muslims afraid of a few thousand extremist Muslims.

Trackbacks

  1. [...] If you’re wondering about the title of this piece, it’s because a few days before the new year, when Congressman Ron Paul said that Al Qaeda terrorists are targeting the United States of America because we are “occupiers,” I titled another piece On This, Ron Paul is Wrong. [...]

Speak Your Mind

*