RoR: Forum

Post 0

Thursday, May 24, 2007 - 9:41am

Link

Edit

Here is the part of the Republican candidates debate that this article is about.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AD7dnFDdwu0

Post 1

Thursday, May 24, 2007 - 10:23am

Link

Edit

"Representative Ron Paul may well be right to criticize the American government’s Middle East policies but he is clearly wrong to suggest that what bin Laden and his gang did to the 3000 or so individuals who were working in the Twin Towers on September 11, 2001, amounted to a proper, justified "blowback.""

And the strawman is down for the count!

Post 2

Thursday, May 24, 2007 - 12:35pm

Link

Edit

When did Ron Paul say "justified" along with "blowback" in his speech? I guess people hear what they want to hear. Tibor, you also seem to suggest that Rep. Paul does not hold the terrorists responsible for what they did, that he instead holds our government responsible. He never said, or implied any such thing.

I personally believe that all explanations for the attack on 9/11 probably fall short to some extent. Taking Bin Laden's reasons as a given would be naive on our part. Perhaps a major clash between Islam and the West is, and has been, inevitable, and that 9/11 was just another event along the road of escallation to total war, regardless of how good or bad our foreign policy is. Perhaps we'll be arguing that suicide bombers are striking because the Chargers lost the Super Bowl. Even were it true, it would not be "justified".

Post 3

Thursday, May 24, 2007 - 12:59pm

Link

Edit

Bad and disingenuous analysis, Tibor. You're smarter than this.

Post 4

Thursday, May 24, 2007 - 1:18pm

Link

Edit

Aaron,
I reviewed Paul's speech again. Didn't hear him say "proper" either.

Oh, what the hell, we all know he really meant to say:
"I, Ron Paul, believe that the 9/11 attack which killed over 3,000 fellow american warmongers, was a proper and justified response to our interventionist foreign policy, for which our government is largely to blame, but our collective guilt for having empowered our policymakers makes our experience of adverse blowback a just downpayment for the punishment we continue to deserve for being over there".

Now we can label him a wacko and exclude him from future debates.

Post 5

Thursday, May 24, 2007 - 3:29pm

Link

Edit

I have another missive on this that will clear up some of my admittedly incomplete thinking on the topic without, however, letting Paul off the hook entirely. Like in a court of law, when factors apart from one's character and intentions explain someone's behavior, he or she is most often exculpated. (This is why defense attorneys choose to offer such explanations!) But they do not justify the behavior and Paul, pace what I said earlier, didn't, I believe, mean to claim that or believe it, either. But when you explain what bin Laden & Co. did without mentioning their own character and intentions, you come mighty close to giving them a pass.

Post 6

Sunday, May 27, 2007 - 6:59pm

Link

Edit

"But when you explain what bin Laden & Co. did without mentioning their own character and intentions, you come mighty close to giving them a pass."

Exactly.

Post 7

Monday, May 28, 2007 - 11:47am

Link

Edit

During his appearance on Bill Maher's program Ron Paul reiterated his view that 9/11 came about because "we are there." He used the "blowback" idea again, citing some literature where it is laid out in detail. Again, he made no mention of the fact that 9/11 was the murder of 3000 +/- individuals who haven't been implicated in the slightest in the US government's interventionist foreign policy and that this is an inexcusable way to respond to anything amiss with US foreign policy.