StickyGreen

From Ron Paul's brilliant book 'The Revolution'

One person to consult if we want to understand those who wish us harm is Michael Scheuer, who was chief of the CIA's Osama bin Laden Unit at the Counterterrorist Center in the late 1990s. Scheuer is a conservative and a pro-life voter who has never voted for a Democrat. And he refuses to buy the usual line that the attacks on America have nothing to do with what our government does in the Islamic world. "In fact," he says, those attacks have "everything to do with what we do."

Some people simply will not listen to this kind of argument, or will pretend to misunderstand it, trivializing this profoundly significant issue by alleging that Scheuer is "blaming America" for the attacks. To the contrary, Scheuer could not be any clearer in his writing that the perpetrators of terrorist attacks on Americans should be pursued mercilessly for their acts of barbarism. His point is very simple: it is unreasonable, even utopian, not to expect people to grow resentful, and desirous of revenge, when your government bombs them, supports police states in their countries, and imposes murderous sanctions on them. That revenge, in its various forms, is what our CIA calls blowback -- the unintended consequences of military intervention.

Obviously the onus of blame rests with those who perpetrate acts of terror, regardless of their motivation. The question Scheuer and I are asking is not who is morally responsible for terrorism -- only a fool would place the moral responsibility for terrorism on anyone other than the terrorists themselves. The question we are asking is less doltish and more serious: given that a hyperinterventionist foreign policy is very likely to lead to this kind of blowback, are we still sure we want such a foreign policy? Is it really worth it to us? The main focus of our criticism, in other words, is that our government's foreign policy has put the American people in greater danger and made us more vulnerable to attack than we would otherwise have been. This is the issue that we and others want to raise before the American people.

The interventionist policies that have given rise to blowback have been bipartisan in their implementation. For instance, it was Bill Clinton's secretary of state, Madeleine Albright, who said on 60 Minutes that half a million dead Iraqi children as a result of the sanctions on that country during the 1990s were "worth it." Who could be so utopian, so detached from reality, as to think a remark like that -- which was broadcast all over the Arab world, you can be sure -- and policies like these would not provoke a response? If Americans lost that many of their family members, friends, and fellow citizens, would they not seek to hunt down the perpetrators and be unsatisfied until they were apprehended? The question answers itself. So why wouldn't we expect people to try to take revenge for these policies? I have never received an answer to this simple and obvious question.

This does not mean Americans are bad people, or that they are to blame for terrorism -- straw-man arguments that supporters of intervention raise in order to cloud the issue and demonize their opponents. It means only that actions cause reactions, and that Americans will need to prepare themselves for these reactions if their government is going to continue to intervene around the world. In the year 2000, I wrote: "The cost in terms of liberties lost and the unnecessary exposure to terrorism are difficult to determine, but in time it will become apparent to all of us that foreign interventionism is of no benefit to American citizens, but instead is a threat to our liberties." I stand by every word of that.

To those who say that the attackers are motivated by a hatred of Western liberalism or the moral degeneracy of American culture, Scheuer points out that Iran's Ayatollah Khomeini tried in vain for a decade to instigate an anti-Western jihad on exactly that basis. It went nowhere. Bin Laden's message, on the other hand, has been so attractive to so many people because it is fundamentally defensive. Bin Laden, says Scheuer, has "spurned the Ayatollah's wholesale condemnation of Western society," focusing instead on "specific, bread-and-butter issues on which there is widespread agreement among Muslims."

What bin Laden's sympathizers object to, as they have said again and again, is our government's propping up of unpopular regimes in the Middle East, the presence of American troops on the Arabian Peninsula, the American government's support for the activities of governments (like Russia) that are hostile to their Muslim populations, and what they believe to be an American bias toward Israel. The point is not that we need to agree with these arguments, but that we need to be aware of them if we want to understand what is motivating so many people to rally to bin Laden's banner. Few people are moved to leave behind their worldly possessions and their families to carry out violence on behalf of a disembodied ideology; it is practical grievances, perhaps combined with an underlying ideology, that motivate large numbers to action.

At a press conference I held at the National Press Club in May 2007, Scheuer told reporters: "About the only thing that can hold together the very loose coalition that Osama bin Laden has assembled is a common Muslim hatred for the impact of U.S. foreign policy... They all agree they hate U.S. foreign policy. To the degree we change that policy in the interests of the United States, they become more and more focused on their local problems." That's not what a lot of our talking heads tell us on television every day, but few people are in a better position to understand bin Laden's message than Scheuer, one of our country's foremost experts on the man.

Philip Giraldi, another conservative and former counterterrorism expert with the CIA, adds that "anybody who knows anything about what's been going on for the last ten years would realize that cause and effect are operating here -- that, essentially, al Qaeda has an agenda which very specifically says what its grievances are. And its grievances are basically that 'we're over there.'" The simple fact is that "there [are] consequences for our presence in the Middle East, and if we seriously want to address the terrorism problem we have to be serious about that issue."
Even Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz recognized that foreign intervention could have unintended consequences and that the American presence in the Middle East has bred hostility against our country. On May 29, 2003, Reuters reported: "Wolfowitz said another reason for the invasion [of Iraq] had been 'almost unnoticed but huge' -- namely that the ousting of Saddam would allow the United States to remove its troops from Saudi Arabia, where their presence had long been a major al-Qaeda grievance." In short, according to Wolfowitz one of the motivations of the 9/11 attackers was resentment over the presence of American troops on the Arabian Peninsula. Again, neither Wolfowitz nor I have said or believed that Americans had it coming on 9/11, or that the attacks were justified, or any of this other nonsense. The point is a simple one: when our government meddles around the world, it can stir up hornet's nests and thereby jeopardize the safety of the American people. That's just common sense. But hardly anyone in our government dares to level with the American people about our fiasco of a foreign policy.

Blowback should not be a difficult or surprising concept for conservatives and libertarians, since they often emphasize the unintended consequences that even the most well-intentioned domestic program can have. We only imagine how much greater and unpredictable the consequences of intervention abroad might be.

(continued in next post)

StickyGreen

A classic example of blowback involves the overthrow of Prime Minister Muhammad Mossadegh in Iran in 1953. American and British intelligence collaborated on the overthrow of Mossadegh's populary elected government, replacing him with the politically reliable but repressive shah. Years later, a revolutionary Iranian government took American citizens hostage for 444 days. There is a connection here -- not because supporters of radical Islam would have had much use for the secular Mossadegh, but because on a human level people resent that kind of interference in their affairs.

When it comes to suicide bombing, I, like many others, always assumed that the driving force behind the practice was Islamic fundamentalism. Promise of instant entry into paradise as a reward for killing infidels was said to explain the suicides. The world's expert on suicide terrorism convinced me to rethink this apparently plausible answer. The University of Chicago's Robert Pape, for his book Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism, collected a database of all 462 suicide terrorist attacks between 1980 and 2004. One thing he found was that religious beliefs were less important as motivating factors that we have believed. The world's leaders in suicide terrorism are actually the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka, a Marxist secular group. The largest Islamic fundamentalist countries have not been responsible for any suicide terrorist attacks. Not one has come from Iran or the Sudan.

The clincher is this: the strongest motivation, according to Pape, is not religion but rather a desire "to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from the territory the terrorists view as their homeland." Between 1995 and 2004, the al Qaeda years, two-thirds of all attacks came from countries where the United States had troops stationed. While al Qaeda terrorists are twice as likely to hail from a country with a strong Wahhabist (radical Islamic) presence, they are ten times as likely to come from a country in which U.S. troops are stationed. Until the U.S. invasion in 2003, Iraq had never had a suicide terrorist attack in its entire history. Between 1982 and 1986, there were 41 suicide terrorist attacks in Lebanon. Once the U.S., France, and Israel withdrew their forces from Lebanon, there were no more attacks. The reason the attacks stop, according to Pape, is that the Osama bin Ladens of the world can no longer inspire potential suicide terrorists, regardless of their religious beliefs.

Pape is convinced after his extensive research that the longer and more extensive the occupation of Muslim territories, the greater the chance of more 9/11-type attacks on the United States.

StickyGreen

Most here won't read this because it's from a Ron Paul book... also because it's simply "too long," but you really should take a minute out of your day to read it because it is the truth and something that is important to understand.

Dirty F

Too long. And it's Ron Paul.

StickyGreen

Doesn't really matter who wrote it, it's the truth. You wouldn't know though... you didn't even read it because you have the attention span of a 12 year-old like most people.

u-Bob

shouldn't have mentioned his name until this thread got a couple of replies.

StickyGreen

I wasn't going to post 14 paragraphs from a book and try to pass it off as my own... lol

And like I said, it doesn't even matter who wrote it because it's the truth.

nextri

I agree with a lot of that. American arrogance when it comes to foreign military intervention definitely plays a part in the hatred it receives in return.

__________________
DivaTraffic - Traffic for Models

Coup

Just more proof that Ron Paul is just controlled opposition. A mere tool of the Illuminati.

Everyone knows that 9-11 was an inside job / controlled demolition.

Ramirez

Who is Ron Paul and what happened in 9/11 ?

Coup

He's the guy that played Barney Fife on the Andy Griffith show back in the 1850's.

Cherry7

"Obviously the onus of blame rests with those who perpetrate acts of terror, regardless of their motivation. The question Scheuer and I are asking is not who is morally responsible for terrorism -- only a fool would place the moral responsibility for terrorism on anyone other than the terrorists themselves. "


Just what the Nazis said about the French and Polish resistance.

__________________
My Neighbour Butterfly PORN-The Musical The Long Goodbye


Cinema Erotique

StickyGreen

That doesn't make sense. Care to elaborate?

Dirty F

Orly? Then i assume you have evidence? Please share.

StickyGreen

He was being sarcastic. At least I'm pretty sure he was lol...

Dirty F

A group of muslims hijacked the wtc towers and flew into them. Because of the immense damage 2 huge fucking planes did they later collapsed.
But according to some that is a totally insane ridiculous story which simply is impossible. So they come up with conspiracies that have 1000's of people involved, remote controlled planes, missiles, bombs etc because that's more likely to be true.

Jarmusch

Coup

StickyGreen

This has been posted here before? Doubt it...

Coup

Sarcasm has nothing to do with it.

StickyGreen

And this thread has nothing to do with "conspiracy theorist's" version of 9/11.

People who actually read the first 2 posts will see that it is about why 9/11 happened and why people wish to do us harm.

Coup

GFY has nothing to do with any of this shit. But it ain't slowing you down any

Dirty F

CaptainHowdy

__________________
Tjeezers.cam plus all sites $12.000,00.
Transfer within 24 hours.

Dirty F

Thread fail

PR_Glen

evidence from a blog? seriously? that sucks...

__________________
webmaster at pimproll dot com

Caligari

Ron Paul is spot on about his assessment of terrorism and how it comes to pass, and it is for this very reason (among other painful truths he reveals) that he will never be president, and if by some miracle he was elected, he would be "dispensed with" shortly thereafter.

Foreign interventionism is the key to control/resources, and events like 9/11 are simply considered collateral damage by the governments involved.

.

__________________
ATTN Webmasters Cruel Bucks - LIVE Gonzo Does Not Pay
------------------------------------------------
Animal Rescue Click Here to Feed An Animal for Free

Coup

lol.....

marlboroack

It's a conspiracy

bronco67

I don't know why anyone wouldn't give credibility to extremists reasons for wanting to destroy America. That doesn't mean I don't love America -- but I realize that everyone has their own causes- and in their minds, the US is evil.

That doesn't mean we should let them kill us first.

__________________

Joshua G

although i agree the USA should be more isolationist, suggesting US forces in the middle east was a credible justification for terror is outrageous.

Al queeda were a bunch of pussies who chose primarily soft targets/civilians. any excuse that comes out of their mouths is nonsense, no different then any psycho/serial killer.

Oh, & whats the excuse for the fact that al queeda killed 100x more muslims then so called imperialists.

i will bleed for ron paul. but i do see that some of his stances are crackpot.

pornguy

There. Fixed it for you.

I am American and disagree with 99% of their foreign policy. we have no business in those countries.. Well there is the OIL side of it all.

Otherwise what would we want with countries that are 94% sand.

__________________
PornGuy skype me pornguy_epic

AmateurDough The Hottes Shemales online!
TChicks.com | Angeles Cid | Mariana Cordoba | MAILERS WELCOME!

PR_Glen

if you truly believed that electing a better person wouldn't fix anything why would you continue to live there? It sounds like you have given up long ago.

__________________
webmaster at pimproll dot com

Phoenix

it doesnt matter Jlo has a new bf, and im sure one of will smiths kids will do something super cool soon

carry on

oh and watch the x factor

__________________
Skype Phoenixskype1
Telegram PhoenixBrad
https://quantads.io

blackmonsters

It pretty hard to intervene in something without choosing a side;
therefore, when we intervene and choose a side we have also chosen the enemy.

We blame the monster for what he did at the end of the movie Frankenstein, but
shouldn't we also consider blaming Dr. Frankenstein for creating the monster?

Stop creating monsters because they will rise to kill your ass.

__________________
Make Money with Porn

Joshua G

right. you also think the unabomber & tim mcveigh are blameless as well. it was the governments fault there too. because they said so.



murderers are just murderers pal. it doesnt matter what excuse they use. I guess OJ simpson had a valid reason to cut his wifes throat too?

Dirty F

Funny then how i saw with my own eyes on tv how a person who never flew before was able to fly into the towers using a simulator (those things they train pilots in). And lets not forget those hijackers were trained pilots.

Just shows how much bullshit you conspiracy nuts spread around.
It turns out that every time you pull one of those statements out of your ass it takes no more than 30 secs to debunk it. Everybody can do it but for some reason you nutjobs keep crying about these bullshit theories for 10 years already.

porno jew

qft .....

i think "stickygreen" is a bot or disinfo agent.

Dirty F

Seriously, where the hell do you get the idea that it's near impossible to fly a plane into a big ass tower? Wtf? Where do you people find this stuff? And don't you have any common sense whatsoever?

Joshua G

considering how incompetent airport security was, & still is, why would there be no chance...

i really am not diagreeing that US foreign policy is badly broken, & interferes way too much in other countries affairs.

what im saying is that al queeda cannot use that as an excuse for who they killed. 99% of al queedas victims were innocent civilians, all over the world. africans, indonesians, iraqis, australians, british. the only real political target was the USS cole.

if al queeda limited their attacks to american military targets, i would agree that american policy is a factor. reality is, they bombed hotels & nightclubs & office buildings. Whatever excuse they give is nonsense. they are nothing but organized serial killers.

Dirty F

Virtually impossible to fly into a builing??? Wtf man?
I just had to open this thread again to tell you what a fucking morons you truthers are.
If flying into a builing is virtually impossible than landing on a small piece of landingstrip must be totally fucking impossible right?

Dirty F

Sorry, but are you mentally ill or something? You can't turn around a plane and hit a builing? That is impossible? What?
I really can't believe i'm reading this. What the fuck is wrong with you man?

Dirty F

Ok everyone, only on gfy. You can't turn a plane and fly it into a building. That's impossible.
No really, that's impossible.

Dirty F

Yes, you're right. It's impossible to turn around a plane and hit a huge ass building.
Oh and let's just totally ignore that i saw a guy who never flew a plane before do it. Let's just completely ignore that because it's absolutely not relevant.

Dirty F

The fact that you think it's totally impossible holds more weight than the fact that i saw a guy doing it.

Dirty F

Yeah now you're right. That must be totally impossible.



Ok, this is getting more fucking ridiculous by the minute.

Dirty F

A targeted building? What?

Once again, retardboy, they put the guy in a simulator, a professional one used for training, and let him fly into one of the towers. And he had absolutely no problems doing it.

So you can keep crying all you want all day long but this means that basically anything you say is just total fucking bullshit.

Dirty F

What was nearly impossible ffs??? Where do you get this from??? Stop talking nonsense you fucking idiot.
Jesus.
On ignore you go. I'm a retard for responding to this imbecile.

Shotsie

Why does Michael Scheuer vote republican if he's against the wars in the middle east? I've read his blog; it's pretty insightful. He goes off on borderline racist, anti-semitic and religous rants sometimes( That must be why he likes Ron Paul), but other than that he seems to know his shit when it comes to terrorism.

PR_Glen

i read somewhere that pilots do steep turns and target runways with relative accuracy every day... is that true?

__________________
webmaster at pimproll dot com