« Sifting Through The Ashes | Main | Fool Britannia »

June 12, 2007



" 9/11 denialist "

Does saying, that one of the reasons of 9/11 was a blowback of US foreign policy in the middle east make you a "denialist"?

What makes that theory like that any less realistic then saying: "they hate USA. really. just look, they hate mickey mouse. how anti-american can you get!"

Read the books on th list Ron Paul gave Guliani, then elaborate on the subject some more...

I really shouldn't care, I'm not American. But I like this Paul guy, cause he is the only candidate, that looks like he read some books in his life [maybe except Obama, but he read the wrong books:)]


The father of american conservatism, Russel Kirkl, adressed, 40 years, ago, the issue of Ron Paul and his ideological clique in an article called "Chirping Sectaries":


By the way, one shall better have a look at Paul's ratings to get a clue about how conservative he is:
- In fact, he's got the lowest rating of all GOP contenders in American for Taxes Reform, the lowest in Citizens Agains Government Waste, one of the lowest in American Conservatives Union but the highest from the National Association of Government Contractors and from all liberal lean interest groups, including ACLU, Alliance for Retired Americans (lobbying for socialized social securty and health) and National Journal - Liberal on Economic Policy, ADA (pro-New Deal) and, of course, 100% from CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations). And he voted against almost any free-trade bill, including bilateral agreements to low tariffs. Freedom, hum? What about my freedom of commerce?

Please, just stop the spamming. You're getting too ridiculous.


sory for double posting, but just one more thing: republicans are going to get their ass kicked, if they will have a pro-war candidate. It's over a year of soldiers dying in Iraq until the election. Well, to bad for the US...

Chef Mojo

ConstantG, the point is that Paul is excusing 9/11 based on perceived US Middle East policy.

Though you are not American, I'll assume that you are from a nation that is industrialized. Whether you or I like it or not, this world runs on oil. Therefore, whether we like it or not, the flow of our lifeblood requires that we have an intrusive Middle East policy that reflects our national interest.

Ron Paul seems to think that if we just made ourselves disappear from the Middle East, all would be sweetness and light.

This simply shows how woefully disconnected he is.

I really could care less about his writings, based on what I've heard him say. He's a theorist who would put his theories to work at the peril of the nation.

If you want to truly understand reality and US foreign policy, I would recommend reading Angelo Codevilla. You might start here at the Claremont Institute. Just scroll down and read his essays. Then explore his other works. His translation and commentary on The Prince is some of the finest ever done.

Chef Mojo


No problem with more comments. As long as everyone is civil, the more comments, the better.

I'm not sure that the Republicans will get trounced. Americans could very well go for a pro-war candidate, assuming that the candidate vowed that there would be no substitute for victory. We Americans hate to lose. If it is imposed upon us, as it was in Vietnam, we retreat to like our wounds, to the detriment of the entire world.

But I digress.

Here's the thing. The Dems don't have much to offer at this point other than Bush Derangement Syndrome. Beyond that, I'm not seeing much. Fred Thompson is about to jump into the race, and I'm thinking he's going to capture people's imaginations in much the same way Reagan did. That's not to say he's Reagan, which is probably a good thing. Reagan was the man for his time. I believe Fred Thompson to be the man for his.


@cordoba: could you please give me some links to place you can find info like that? However I would argue whether >>bilateral<< agreements are really pro-free trade, it's always good to have some verifiable ammo against fake libertarians

@Chef Mojo: right, because oil is our "lifeblood" it is us or them. It absolutely makes intrusive policy just. It's a question of existence, thus we can do anything to protect our national interest.

Think so? Fine. But don't be so surprised when a bunch of brainwashed fanatics flies into a building in New York.

Well, about those writings... Those aren't his. Check them out here, especially item 4. That should clear out what he meant [I hope]



As for the Claremont Institute: those guys are so great specialists in saying why people hate each other. Wow. My favorite quote:

"America's founders counseled us to have as little political intercourse as possible with foreign peoples, not to interfere in their affairs, precisely because we have little control over what others will consider offenses. Mostly however, people hate not because of anything others do, or even because of who others are, but because they tend to blame others for their own unhappiness."

Well, see, I'm from Poland. We had awful here during the communist regeme. We were being brainwashed in shool, we didn't get to learn anything true about our own history until 1989. We were being told, that American saboteurs destroy our industry. That our farmers have it bad, cause the Colorado beetle is beeing... sent from Colorado in airplanes, so we starve to death. We REALLY had it bad, and had every reason to blame you guys. Yet it never happened. We loved the US, it simbolised all the best for us.


Ron Paul is the modern day isolationist. Not willing to keep the U.S. involved in the Middle East or it's turmoil, despite the fact that now, more than ever,involvement need to occur. in that regard, you could call him a liberterian. If he added drug legalization to his platfom, then he would really sink as a fast as a Libertarian candidate.


Wow, such viscous attacks on Ron Paul. Where to begin. First Chief, you state Ron Paul is a 9/11 denialist, yet he voted for Bush to attack Bin Laden in Afghanistan.
Its a bit simplistic to say that (they) muslims hate us for our "freedums". What bullshit. They hate us because Bush is trying to impose the vision of a small cabal of neocons' on their world. Freedoms good enough for them but not the North Koreans. What hypocracy. "Trade" is good enough for Communist China but not little ole' Communist Cuba.

Its strikes me as funny that the Ron Paul haters like to lump his supporters in the same basket. These are people that strongly believe in the Constitution, tired of the same old same old Republican/Democrat(can't tell them apart now adays) big gov, constitution hating, welfare statist.
I don't know why "cordobes" is lying about Ron Paul's vote ratings. All you have to do is go to http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=296 and see for yourself that Ron Paul ranks in the highest percentile of Conservatives in Congress.

Ron Paul seperates the wheat from the chaff when its comes to our Constitution. If you support an increasingly worthless dollar, making future generations of americans foot your bills, love the fact that America is biggest debtor nation on earth, by all means support Fred Tompson, or Gouliani, or any of the myriad of cookie cutter republican candidates.
Ron Paul is not a 9/11 denialist, hes just a man asking questions. He makes hook and line Republicans uncomfortable because as they are dangling by the bait being hauled in to the Republican propaganda boat, they can see out the corner of their eyes a man that has the balls and personal integrety to ignore the bait and save his soul.

Ron has mixed voting record all tied to his belief that the Constitution is not a living,flexible, meable document like most Republicans and Democrates do. He believes in sound money, REAL free trade, and a foreign policy that does not create more problems than it solves.
If Ron Paul is a "theorist", then so was Madison, Jefferson, and several other founders. This country was founded on a theory that if you make government small, and the people supreme, then you might have human progress. But the only thing that has advanced since 1913 has been the size of Government, while it policies of 'good intentions' has lead the country to state its in now.


Ron Paul is not an isolationist. He tried to get congress and the president to go after the people who attacked us many times, but they did not, and Osama escaped. He simply doesn't like needless war against countries which were our enemy's enemy. As many CIA analysts and the 9/11 commission report have indicated, the source of hatred for America in the Muslim world is precisely the kind of military action we are involved in in Iraq. To point that out isn't to "justify" 9/11, it is simply to point out a casual relationship - our actions have consequencies. Not to admit that to the American people in order to get yourself elected seems to me to be simple treachery, given that our government's foreign policies were the prime motivating factors for 9/11.

He's also proposed some decent alternatives to middle eastern oil, such as using our own oil reserves in Alaska and off the coast of Florida. He's also tried to legalize industrial hemp farming, which could replace petroleum in the manufacturing of some plastics.

I don't agree with his stance on the gold standard (although Alan Greenspan did), but I'm glad he doesn't actually want to bring us back to the gold standard at all! He simply wants to legalize currencies other than Federal Reserve notes. The legal tender laws required people to accept Fed notes as payment for debts - it was the only way to get people to accept paper currency (which they deemed worthless) when the government first dropped off of the gold standard. So his policy is not to switch the dollar to the gold standard, but to allow gold and silver (or bank notes thereof) to be used in payment of debts, which is what the constitution allows.

Then of course there is the fact that our government's present-worth liabilities are around 60 trillion dollars when you include social security and medicare. We can't afford to fight the GOP's wars or fund the Dem's social programs even if we wanted to. Our financial situation is so bad, our nation's comptroller of the Government Accountability office (David M. Walker) is on his own campaign to educate the American people (since the politians don't seem to care).

His "theories" are not really unpracticed. They've been tried many, many times. They are in practice now in parts of the world, and have been in practice when the world was far more dangerous than it is now. Free markets (not crony capitalism, which we have in many sectors) work, and socialism doesn't. History speaks clearly and loudly on that subject. Sure, there have been instances of socialism succeeding, especially in mixed economies like western Europe. But by and large you can look at the top countries on an index of economic freedom and you'll probably be looking at the richest (or fastest growing) countries which people immigrate to from socialist nations. Socialized medicine may work - our current mixed system is horrible - but it would be obsurdity to think it would work better than a free market. Free markets provide cheap goods and services to the poor in a way socialism cannot. One has to only look at our school system to see that: The cost of schooling a public school student is about twice the cost of a private school student, who generally learns more. The catch is, taxpayers eat the cost of public schooling...

If you don't want to believe him, believe the others who have echoed his message. Believe George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, nobel-prize winning economist Milton Friedman, and Ronald Reagan (in words, not deeds), amung many others.

Or, I guess you could listen to the people who told us that Iraq had WMDs, and that Muslims blow themselves up because they hate "our freedoms".

And then there is always Hillary.

Chef Mojo

Let me first address the issue of the Founding Fathers as theorists.

Both Chris, G, and other Paulbots have this tendency to hold up Jefferson, Washington and others as idols for Paul supporters; as valid proponents of the United States as a pristine "idea" that should not be deviated from. And yet for all their writings on the American ideal, when these great men came up against the real world, they acted decisively.

Washington and the Whiskey Rebellion. This little kerfuffle was over taxation and, to a lesser extent, debt. Debt, you say? Why yes, the horrible national debt. In a nutshell, with the final adoption of the Constitution came the infant US Government assuming the debts of the States. It was left to Alexander Hamilton to figure out a way to pay down said debt. He reverted to what was tried and true, as well as very English; an excise tax. He placed a tax on distilled spirits, hitting corn farmers in the west hardest. They rebelled against paying this tax. Washington and Hamilton personally commanded a Federal force to put down that rebellion and enforce the tax. Hmm. Makes you think, doesn't it? The exerting of Federal authority is what held this country together. And taxation has always been with us in one form or another. Get over it.

Then there is the old chestnut about "foreign entanglements." How about Jefferson, the Barbary Pirates and the founding of what became the modern United States Navy and Marine Corps? Ron Paul and the Paulbots conveniently forget that this nation grew and expanded and became what it is due to "foreign entanglements." Ever hear of the Monroe Doctrine? Yeah. James Monroe. Another Founding Father and author of that inviolable and rock-solid Constitution.

So what do we have here? Why, the Founding Fathers imposing brutal and unfair taxes through military force, going to war against foreign powers who had not directly attacked the United States and the development of a belligerent policy of creating a functional sphere of influence for the United States in the Western Hemisphere.

It's amazing what happens when "theory" and "ideas" run smack into real world realities.

And yet, somehow, despite all this, we became a great nation.

Here's another little "inconvenient truth" for all you Paulbots; the idea of a pristine Constitution. Say, which Constitution are you talking about? The one that allows slavery? You know, the one without the the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments? Or how about the one without the 19th Amendment; can't have those pesky women voting now, can we? Without tinkering with the Constitution, we'd still have Senators appointed by state legislatures, instead of being able to vote for them directly.

You don't think the Constitution is a "living" document? Too bad, kids, but that train has already left the station.

Chef Mojo

Moving right along. More foreign entanglements.

The Paulbots need to really get down with the following concepts: Dar al Islam and Dar al Harb. Google or Wiki them. It's easy. And when you've actually grasped the meaning of those concepts within the context of Fundamentalist Islam and what they mean in the real world - not the one Ron Paul wishes was real, mind you - you can come back here and explain to me why 9/11 had to do with "foreign entanglements" and the US having a serious jones for oil. Here's a clue: they don't blow themselves up because they hate our freedoms. The blow themselves up because we exist. Wrap your little pea brains around that one for a bit and get back to me. Once you understand what that means, then you understand why going into Iraq was so important - regardless of any stated reason - and why George Bush screwed it up so badly. But I don't expect you guys to "get it."

Ron Paul is not a 9/11 denialist, hes just a man asking questions.

Bullshit. Ron Paul is being a weasel by trying to explain away 9/11 as an aberration due to our actually having a foreign policy based on the national interest, which is based partly on some people's understanding that we are in the middle of an existential struggle and on having oil to run our economy. Remember, we're talking about the real world here.

I keep looking for Paulbots to give me a serious explanation of Ron Paul's delusions concerning the realities of American foreign policy and all I get is crap about industrial hemp being grown to supply some of the the plastics we use.


If you want longer discussions of Ron Pauls economic theories, then I suggest visiting RonPaulForums.com, or at least reading one of the 100 of so articles that Ron Paul has written on it. www.ronpaullibrary.com.

He's my guy.

I did chuckle at the long list of special interest groups who give him low ratings, noting that virtually every one of them would lose my hard earned tax dollar funding if he had his small government.


The Whiskey Tax was largely ineffective in collecting much in the way of taxes, since people eventually just ignored it whenever they could. This, along with the rebellion it caused, eventually led to its repeal. At any rate, there is nothing unconsititutional about a whiskey tax, its something the federal government has the power to do.

No one is saying the constitution should not have been amended in the ways you explain. They are saying it should not be changed unless through the amendment process, since that is an usurpation of power from the proper ways of altering it, and often a usurpation of the legislative branch (in the case of legislating from the bench).

Hamilton's Alien and Sedition Acts, on the other hand, were quite horrible and unconstitutional.

The Monroe Doctrine went both ways. It basically said we'd leave Europe alone if it left America alone. America wanted to expand westward, and didn't want Europe colonizing any part of it while they were doing so. So essentially, the Monroe Doctrine was a non-interventionalist doctrine. Non-interventionism isn't pacifism, it doesn't mean that a country can't protect its interests. It just means

The statement that the terrorists blow themselves up is contrary to every published piece of evidence or explaination I've ever read. Do you have any sources to back up this claim? I can point to Scheuer, the 9/11 commission report, and many other sources. Yes, we all know fundemental Islam is insane. Its been insane for quite a while, and I don't think it will ever not be insane. But religious fervor alone is not enough of a reason for people to come over here and blow themselves up. Read these books if you don't believe me:

Good articles:


"I don't know why "cordobes" is lying about Ron Paul's vote ratings. All you have to do is go to http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=296 and see for yourself that Ron Paul ranks in the highest percentile of Conservatives in Congress."

Ok, let's do it then, and compare Paul's results with those from other GOP contenders:


Ron Paul - 50%
McCain - 35%
Brownback - 15%
Tancredo - 10%
Duncan Hunter - 5%

American for Taxes Reform

National Right to Life:
Ron Paul - 56%
McCain - 75%
Hunter - 100%
Brownback - 100%
Tancredo - 100%

NARAL Pro-Choice:
Ron Paul - 75%
McCain, Hunter, Brownback, Tancredo - 0%

American For Taxes Reform:
Lifetime ratings:
Ron Paul - 71%
McCain - 82,7%
Brownback - 97,5%
Tancredo - 94,75%
Hunter - 88,5%

Citizens Agains Government Waste:
Ron Paul - 69%
McCain - 91%
Brownback - 79%
Hunter - 71%
Tancredo - 88%

National Asssociation of Government Contractors
ROn Paul - 67%
Tancredo - 67%
Hunter - 33%
McCain and Brownback not listed

National Journal - Liberal on Economic Policy
Ron Paul - 54%
McCain - 47%
Brownback - 16%
Hunter - 9%
Tancredo - 44

National Journal - Composite Liberal Score
Ron Paul - 60%
McCain - 41%
Brownback - 20%
Tancredo - 36%
Hunter - 12%

Alliance for Retired Americans
Ron Paul - 63%
McCain - 20%
Brownback - 10%
Tancredo - 10%
Hunter - 0%

Ron Paul - 59%
McCain - 75%
Brownback - 81%
Tancredo - 71%
Hunter - 59%

Republican Liberty Caucus - Economic Issues
Ron Paul - 80%
McCain - 80%
Brownback - 90%
Tancredo - 90%

CATO Institute for economic freedom
Ron Paul - 64%
McCain - 82%
Brownback - 91%
Tancredo - 50%
Hunter - 33%

Ron Paul - 55%
McCain - 33%
Brownback - 25%
Tancredo - 9%
Hunter - 5%

And one could go on indefinitely.. Take notice that these ratings are based on the actual voting record, not on some "issues speak" in LeeRockwell. They're based on reality, on what they actually voted for.

But of course, for Paul supporters these will be the prove that all interest groups found a way of building their analytic models in order to make Paul look bad. It's always the great conspiracy...


"He believes in (...) REAL free trade"

Yeps. He doesnt't want government interference. So the tariffs should go down by themselves and find a way of being eliminated without any government help.


"I did chuckle at the long list of special interest groups who give him low ratings, noting that virtually every one of them would lose my hard earned tax dollar funding if he had his small government."

What about those who give him high ratings, most of them being, incidentally, pro big-government groups?

Swen Swenson

Good one Chef. Ideological purity and seeing everything as black or white is fine for debating societies ans surely provides some warm fuzzies, but won't get you far in the big, bad, mostly gray world.

On the other hand, I don't see much point in getting too worked up over Ron Paul. He and his minions are good for a little comic relief, but despite their pretensions they hardly register on the political radar screen.


Geeze, never let it be said Ron Paul supporters are a googley eyed pack of drones spouting off lunacy*.

(*lest the bomb your blog with a bunch of crap proving, once again, big L libertarians are bat shit fucking insane.)


@Cordobes: Again, could you please post those links I've been asking you before? Didn't you read the comment posted straight for you?

And as for the the elimination of tariffs: thats pure semantics. All the government has to do in terms of tariffs, is to cease doing anything, and say it out loud. [it's a necessity in terms of the non-agression axiom, that sais, that the threat to use force is agression]. I think the word "abolishment" fits quite right.

@Chef Mojo: you still didn't answear my question, so let me rephrase it a bit: What is the difference between the psychology of central european countries, like mine, and of middle east countries? Are they a different breed? Race? Are they not using logic?

And if so, how can anyone tell what are there goals? Should they be exterminated, due to dar al Harb? It's a threat for us all, maybe we should put them into camps, where they can't hurt anybody?

As a specialist on islamofascism you surely don't know what is dar as-sulh, dar ad-dawa, dar al-ahd, dar asz-szahada which are used to call non-islamic territories that are not to be ever attacked...

Speaking about bullshit, you could turn it around and say: oh my God, those Americans divide the world into two parts, the good guys, and the axis of evil... That must mean that they are nuts! What did ever Iran did to them, they invaded Iran, and now Iran is in the Axis?

It's not my point of view, but the existence of concepts like The Houses of Peace and War doesn't mean nothing. There has to be a deeper source to it all.

And that's how we get to the point: why do people go to war? Two possibilties:

1. They were attacked

A war like that is not good, it can be horrific, they could be killing civilians, torture people and do a lot of awful things. Even being provoked is not an excuse. But somebody did start it, by definition.

2. They want something they don't have. Something scarce. Like land, food, gold or other resources.

Thus, they attack first.

The question is: who would I symphatize in a black and white world? Surely with the attacked country. So now we don't have a black and white world. But still we see two things: America doesn't have any rivalrous goods, that middle east countries could want. But America wants something that the middle east has, right?




ConstantG, Chris, and G.

If the 9-11 attacks were mainly driven by US foreign policy why was that bomb set off in the Bali nightclub. Why all the ongoing terror activity in Thailand?

Those countries have not had an expansive foreign policy driven along by a powerful military. Yet they still have terror problems.

Why is this?

Chef Mojo

ConstantG! Yo! You're doing just fine. Keep it up.

Point the first: It's my blog. I don't have to answer your question. Pppphhhtt.

Point the second: Dar as Sulh and Dar al Ahd are interchangeable depending on context, but generally refer to a non Islamic tributary state under Islamic control. By tributary, they are allowed to exist under the concept of ahl al-dhimma. You're familiar with ahl al-dhimma, no? Invoking these houses does not further your argument in my eyes.

Dar al Dawa has no relevance here, as this now refers to the relationship of Muslims living in non-Islamic states. Traditionally, Dar al-Dawa referred to the status of a nation conquered by Islam that had not yet embraced Islam. That it now refers to the status of Muslims in the West is quite telling, isn't it?

But what's your point? That Islam is complex? Complicated? Conflicted? Whatever. What I'm concerned with is the fundamentalist fanatic. He's the one who's got the weapons and, more importantly, the motivation to go to war against the Dar al Kufr. Root causes are meaningless to this man. Only bringing harm to the Kufr has meaning. Your questions are meaningless withing the context of his sense of logic, which is totally unrelated to general Western traditions of logic. You make the common mistake of believing that all people aspire to the same things, and will act "logically" most of the time. This is a fallacy that has been proven wrong again and again throughout history.

Your blather about why people go to war is just that, because you dismiss the cultural variations inherent in such arguments. You insist on imposing your context on another that is completely alien to your experience. That is foolish and completely irrational. It is also a self defeating exercise. The correct question has nothing to do with the whys and wherefores of going to war or who started it. The correct question, assuming you are at war, is this: Are you willing to support your side and do whatever is necessary to achieve victory. If not, then you had better be prepared to enter the Dar al Dawa.

As far as the "psychology" of central European countries and Middle Eastern countries? One similarity that is quite telling?


Which brings me to this point. WTF are you doing commenting on a thread dealing with an American election that you cannot possibly play a part in? Is Ron Paul so desperate that he has to bus people in from Central Europe to prowl the internet?

But that's ok, ConstantG, you've done exactly what I wanted you to do.


The barbary wars...self defense, tripoli was not invaded, no embassy built etc.

The navy (and marines which are a part of said department)performed the letter of their lawfully authorized peace time mission in defending american shipping.

America did not invade and conquer tripoli, hold elections, build embassies and infrastructure, or otherwise meddle in the affairs of what passed for governance there.

Self defense is perfectly compatible with non-intervention.

As for misconstruing that "take to the streets" comment, that refers to getting out and waving signs, proving that they are not all interweb hype or drooling ghouls permanently attached to computers who cant get out and vote and spread the word.

Such neo-con asshatery....

The comments to this entry are closed.


Blog Roll


  • Giveafuckometer


Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 09/2004