Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 9 of 16

Thread: Ron Paul says Islamic terrorists fueled by U.S. presence

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Olympic Champ
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    It's a long way from East Colorado
    Posts
    3,740

    Default Ron Paul says Islamic terrorists fueled by U.S. presence

    WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Longshot Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul (news, bio, voting record) on Thursday gave front-runner Rudy Giuliani a list of foreign-policy books to back up his contention that attacks by Islamic militants are fueled by the U.S. presence in the Middle East.

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070524/...litics_paul_dc

    Hey, isn't that exactly what Ward Churchill said in his infamous essay?

  2. #2
    Olympic Champ
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    On the forums
    Posts
    8,345

    Default Re: Ron Paul says Islamic terrorists fueled by U.S. presence

    US current foreign policy is to kill all the abled, dissenting bodies under the banner Al Qaeda, so that the oil can be overtaken without any opposition.
    Last edited by Big; 05-30-2007 at 01:10 PM.

  3. #3

    Default Re: Ron Paul says Islamic terrorists fueled by U.S. presence

    Do you have a link to the Churchill essay?

    Do you think what Dr Paul said is anti-American?

  4. #4
    Olympic Champ
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    It's a long way from East Colorado
    Posts
    3,740

    Default Re: Ron Paul says Islamic terrorists fueled by U.S. presence

    Do you have a link to the Churchill essay?[/]

    No, but I've read most of it, the theme which is clearly expressed by his statement that "the chickens are coming home to roost". It's readily available with a google.

    There are distinctions to be made of course:

    Churchill probably points to capitalism as the underlying cause. Paul would never make such a claim for he is a libertarian. Churchill's audience (academia) and Paul's audience (the general public, especially campaign funders) are distinctly different.

    But their basic premise is the same: terrorism is fueled by U.S. actions. The incongruity for me is that Churchill is widely reviled for his view, but Paul is not. Especially incongruous is the fact that Paul appeals to the right-wing crowd (not moderates).

    Do you think what Dr Paul said is anti-American?

    Of course not.
    Last edited by matclone; 05-30-2007 at 01:52 PM.

  5. #5

    Default Re: Ron Paul says Islamic terrorists fueled by U.S. presence

    Churchill was ripped, and deservedly so for characterizing the victims of the WTC attack as deserving of what they got. His words here...

    As for those in the World Trade Center, well, really, let's get a grip here, shall we? True enough, they were civilians of a sort. But innocent? Gimme a break.
    The whole "Little Eichmann's" deal might have gotten to people as well.

    I know you're not stupid matclone, but its all in the rhetoric, Ron Paul's point, and to a lesser extent I guess Churchill's can be argued (I don't necessarily agree with it) however Churchill's disgusting rhetoric led to his statements being received much worse than Paul's.

  6. #6
    Olympic Champ
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    On the forums
    Posts
    8,345

    Default Re: Ron Paul says Islamic terrorists fueled by U.S. presence

    They all worked at the World Trade center. World Trade upsets many people in other countries. Top that off with the fact that everyone is guilty in a Democracy and I think Churchill is not far off.

  7. #7

    Default Re: Ron Paul says Islamic terrorists fueled by U.S. presence

    Quote Originally Posted by Big View Post
    They all worked at the World Trade center. World Trade upsets many people in other countries. Top that off with the fact that everyone is guilty in a Democracy and I think Churchill is not far off.
    Great, so they deserved to be grotesquely massacred. Glad we've cleared up your feelings on the subject.

  8. #8
    Olympic Champ
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    It's a long way from East Colorado
    Posts
    3,740

    Default Re: Ron Paul says Islamic terrorists fueled by U.S. presence

    I understand, Jensen. Churchill's rhetoric was offensive to many. But it should not be taken outside the context in which it was given (in this case, the theme that chickens were roosting--and the fact it was written for (presumably) an academic audience, instead, or for example, an op-ed piece in the newspaper or a letter to the bereaved). Moreover, the question becomes: what is an appropriate response? Do we fire people for abrasive language when it is not directed to anyone in particular? According to Colorado's then governor, and other state officials, you do. And then, of course, this standard is applied inconsistently. Michael Savage can call Mexicans "scum" and no one will say squat. But the inconsistency, I guess, is the point I'm trying to make regarding Ron Paul. If U of C fires Churchill and he sues on grounds of free speech (which he says he will), some judges are going to have to fashion some interesting arguments if they decide to uphold it.

    If y'all missed part of the story, a university committee that reviewed this before Pres. Brown, recommended a one year suspension (in which presumably Churchill would not take any legal action). Brown, on the other hand, wants dismissal.

  9. #9
    Olympic Champ
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    It's a long way from East Colorado
    Posts
    3,740

    Default Re: Ron Paul says Islamic terrorists fueled by U.S. presence

    Big, that's heresy!

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •