Ron Paul Supporters Have Me Puzzled?

Am I missing something here?

Almost everybody who claims to believe that 9/11 was a conspiracy involving the U.S. government is coming out supporting Ron Paul, and his statement during the debate that, "They attacked us because we've been bombing them for 10 years," or whatever he said. I've even seen some of the most adamant CTers claim that finally Ron Paul told the truth about why 9/11 happened!

How can anybody support Ron Paul for cementing into the public's mind that "THEY" attacked us on 9/11? Worse yet, his statement is linking Iraq to the 9/11 attacks, which justifies the Bush decision to go to war in Iraq.

I am truly puzzled by this...

If people truly do believe 9/11 was a criminal conspiracy created by parts of the U.S. government I don't see how they could support the system as it is to begin with. The entire political system would be compromised as a result.

Those who think the conspiracy through should come to the logical conclusion that supporting any U.S. presidential candidate without first getting the conspiracy solved actually supports the perpetrators by continuing the compromised government.

I don't think he was blaming Iraq for 9/11, merely pointing out that the trouble now being faced by US troops in Iraq is blowback from the years of bombing prior to the 2003 invasion.
Also, the targeting of US assets by Middle Easterners is a direct result of the USA's meddling in ME affairs over the last few decades. All seems perfectly reasonable and logical to me.

nick7261

You gotta understand how he means it. He is talking about 'them' as in the entire Middle East region, he mentions the building of military bases.

He is granting the argument for arguments sake. Besides no-one at this point knows for absolute certain if 9/11 was allowed to happen, or was their direct involvement by criminal elements within the gov.

So let me paraphrase what he is saying.

'you guys keep thinking that they attack us for no reason, but they do it because we keep attacking them'.

He illustrates this by talking about the bombing of Iraq for 10 years, however he isn't saying IRAQ attacked us, he is saying the ARAB anger and resentment can be seen because of IRAQ, because of SAUDI ARABIA and whole list of other things that have happened as a direct result by sloppy policy.

I don't think RON PAUL actually believes the gov planned 9/11, and for that he shouldn't be attacked. Everyone man is entitled to his own opinion.

But I am pretty sure he doesn't trust the CIA and he does believe there is a cover-up at the highest levels.

So, he is granting them the idea of people attacking us, but then showing how the policy to go after these people has been the culprit all along.

So in essence he is attacking their IDEA by using the IDEA against itself. This often done in many circles of debate and logical discussion.

[edit on 20-5-2007 by talisman]

Originally posted by Britguy
I don't think he was blaming Iraq for 9/11, merely pointing out that the trouble now being faced by US troops in Iraq is blowback from the years of bombing prior to the 2003 invasion.
Also, the targeting of US assets by Middle Easterners is a direct result of the USA's meddling in ME affairs over the last few decades. All seems perfectly reasonable and logical to me.

I didn't see the exact quote, but I thought Paul said something like, "They attacked us because we've been bombing them for 10 years."

Then Guliani challenged him about blaming the U.S for 9/11, etc.

I'm not sure what he said exactly, but the impression I got was that Paul wasn't referring to the U.S. troops being attacked in Iraq now, but to 9/11. Does anybody have a link to the exact quote?

Originally posted by talisman

So let me paraphrase what he is saying.

'you guys keep thinking that they attack us for no reason, but they do it because we keep attacking them'.

He illustrates this by talking about the bombing of Iraq for 10 years, however he isn't saying IRAQ attacked us, he is saying the ARAB anger and resentment can be seen because of IRAQ, because of SAUDI ARABIA and whole list of other things that have happened as a direct result by sloppy policy.

I understand you're point, but paraphrasing what he said is much different than what he actually said. I still don't have the exact quote in front of me, so I can't comment precisely. However, it seemed pretty clear that a) he was referring to THEY being the those who attacked the U.S. on 9/11, and b) linking the attacks to Iraq.

If this is true, he is making a clear connection between Iraq and the 9/11 attacks which is exactly what Bush tried to do. At best Paul is saying that the U.S. was attacked because of the U.S. policy in Iraq. From here it's not a far leap to argue that Saddam was complicit in aiding the 9/11 attacks, and therefore Bush's reason to go to war starts to take on some credibility.

In other words, Paul's entire point fits nicely within the Bush template for 9/11 and Iraq. The only difference being that the U.S started the trouble, not that Islamic fundamentalists simply hate the U.S.

No, Ron Paul was saying that our foreign policy is what instigated the attack. Not just Iraq, but occupying Saudi Arabia and such. He talked about it later, the debate only gave him 30 seconds he said.

Fox News - I think it was - reported Ron to be linked with Alex Jones. That's why many think he has questions about the official story.

However, Ron is not only running for President, he's running for President with the GOP. It goes without saying that the first time he says the US government planned 9/11 he'd be out of the race.

Ron obviously seems to have a legitimate concern and takes issue with our foreign and domestic policies. As long as he continues with his honest and upfront approach, he's got my vote.

Here he is asked a few questions by Wolf Blitzer, on the show The Situation Room.
Dr Paul explains what he had said to Wolf.



This is from his web site www.ronpaul2008.com...
Educating Rudy


FoxNews Hit Piece Ron Paul, Alex Jones and 911 Truth May 16


I have to be fair can't forget Fox

You can't conclude that we weren't attacked. Paul obviously supports a renewed investigation into 9/11, but as of right now most of the evidence points to the possibility that it was indeed Al-Qaeda that destroyed the World Trade Center by crashing into the two buildings with jet liners.

isn't there a worldwide consensus that 9/11 happened because of western interference in the middle east? Why are people shocked when someone tells them?
how bizarre.
If it was an inside job, they (US shadow gov) could just use this premise to justify whatever happened that day. Even though bin laden denied any involvement and the taliban strongly condenmed what happened.

peace,
mr. Jones

Well, "caused" is a stronger word than is needed. Led to or instigated is more what the truth is. The U.S. didn't force people to attack us, but it was practically asking for it through its foreign policy.

Originally posted by Sublime620
No, Ron Paul was saying that our foreign policy is what instigated the attack. Not just Iraq, but occupying Saudi Arabia and such. He talked about it later, the debate only gave him 30 seconds he said.

I've watched the videos now, and I stand by my original post. Ron Paul is said that U.S. actions in Iraq led to al-Qaeda attacking the U.S. on 9/11. There's no need for people to continue to try to explain what he meant. This is what he said more than once.

This is the worst type of propaganda because it presupposes three facts that are directly counter to learning the truth about 9/11.

- that the 9/11 attacks were done by al-Qaeda,
- that al-Qaeda's motives are directly tied to U.S. policy in Iraq,
- that the 9/11 Commission Report is a legitimate source for facts,

These facts, if true, legitimize the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and lend support to those who agree with Bush's foreign policy.

I would encourage EVERYONE to watch this particular clip in which Ron Paul connects Pearl Harbor, The Gulf of Tonkin, ect. as well as 911 in a Congressional speech in 2003.

This is only 9of11 (pretty strange coincidence if you ask me). Watch all of these videos as Ron Paul NAMES those who are destroying our country.



[edit on 20-5-2007 by hoochymama]

[edit on 20-5-2007 by hoochymama]

The problem is that America supports Israel, right or wrong. It supports Israel when it is absolutely clear the greatest problem, is Israel itself, and its "Chosen people, and "Promised Land" fairy tale. Our ignorant support of Israel and its insanity lead to 911. Ron Paul only stated its the U.S. foreign policy that lead to 911, which is the ultimate truth.

I personally don't care if he believes 9/11 was an inside job or not. I've seen him before say that he believes there have been cover-ups in the past, over Kennedy's assassination, for example, and he said he would move for re-investigation, but said that any federal investigation is going to be covering up something.


I like the guy so damned much because he's reasonable! He's not another Bush, Kerry, Giuliani, McCain, etc., but he's a constitutionalist, and a libertarian, a REAL republican. And from what I've seen of him, he's not stupid to globalist agendas such as what PNAC and the CFR are pushing, and he knows these kinds of institutions are huge lobbies across the country today.

Here is why he has my support....



He has never voted to raise taxes.
He has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.
He has never voted to raise congressional pay.
He has never taken a government-paid junket.
He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.

He voted against the Patriot Act.
He voted against regulating the Internet.
He voted against the Iraq war.

He does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program.
He returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year.

Originally posted by nick7261
Am I missing something here?

Almost everybody who claims to believe that 9/11 was a conspiracy involving the U.S. government is coming out supporting Ron Paul, and his statement during the debate that, "They attacked us because we've been bombing them for 10 years," or whatever he said. I've even seen some of the most adamant CTers claim that finally Ron Paul told the truth about why 9/11 happened!

How can anybody support Ron Paul for cementing into the public's mind that "THEY" attacked us on 9/11? Worse yet, his statement is linking Iraq to the 9/11 attacks, which justifies the Bush decision to go to war in Iraq.

I am truly puzzled by this...

Yes sir you are missing a whole lot.. well not alot but a little here let me explain.. Ron Paul only read the reports, and stated a fact.
He is not blamming America for the attacks.. Its the news media and Rudy who twisted his words and said this, Not Ron Paul!!
Ron Paul didnt say 911 happened becasue of America!! No he stated correctly that the policy we have keeping troops, road blocks, and bombings in that region had something to do with 911.. He would be right on the money my friend.
He didnt say, let me stress this, ITs all americas fault we got 911!!
NO thats progaganda..
Ron Paul is that last good egg out of many bad eggs in power..
I personally will vote for him and support him with all my due efforts..
And Nick I wouldnt be so egar to listen to the lies about Ron Paul, its all good tho, your lucky you have found a place like ATS where you can come and learn the truth about stuff like this..
Ron Paul doesnt blame the american people, or america for its problems overseas, and 911. He stated that problems we face are from the policy that keep our men and women there.. ITs the policy! Not america!~

These people who smear Ron Paul are trying to twist and turn his words making others think he hates America or blames america.. And honestly its getting old hat for me..IF you dont buy into the Governments version of what ever, your either unamerican, or a terroist.. Please give that # a break its getting very old....

Originally posted by nick7261
Almost everybody who claims to believe that 9/11 was a conspiracy involving the U.S. government is coming out supporting Ron Paul, and his statement during the debate that, "They attacked us because we've been bombing them for 10 years," or whatever he said. I've even seen some of the most adamant CTers claim that finally Ron Paul told the truth about why 9/11 happened!

Fair point. Fox spun it as somehow 911 Truth-oriented, but it's not even a 9/11 Conspiracy issue, is it? He didn't touch on complicity, failed defense, or anything, just a kind of left-Democrat-sounding analysis of cause-and-effect for the official story, interventionist imperialism, etc, something even the 9/11 Commission couldn't dismiss out-of-hand.

I think some people are genuinely confused what exactly they feel or think. Personally I support Paul on another level. He's not taking the hard line on 9/11 (tho he's expressed some guarded agreements), his statements were just pretty common sense. And I agree with him on other issues, like US meddling in the Ukrainian "Orange Revolution." Not that I ultimately trust politicians at all very much, but as they come, he's pretty darn cool. Seeming at least.

How can anybody support Ron Paul for cementing into the public's mind that "THEY" attacked us on 9/11? Worse yet, his statement is linking Iraq to the 9/11 attacks, which justifies the Bush decision to go to war in Iraq.

Because it's alreay pretty well-cementd anyway, it's political suicide to do otherwise, etc. His specifically linking it to Iraq is odd IMO. That's one example, but he shoul've just said ME or the Muslim world or something more vague. Almost a curious blunder I guess...

Originally posted by Caustic Logic

How can anybody support Ron Paul for cementing into the public's mind that "THEY" attacked us on 9/11? Worse yet, his statement is linking Iraq to the 9/11 attacks, which justifies the Bush decision to go to war in Iraq.

Because it's alreay pretty well-cementd anyway, it's political suicide to do otherwise, etc. His specifically linking it to Iraq is odd IMO. That's one example, but he shoul've just said ME or the Muslim world or something more vague. Almost a curious blunder I guess...

I like Ron Paul too! I think he's the only candidate I've seen that I'd trust to ride my kids to soccer practice.

I should have been more clear in my original post. I'm not sure why many CTers (or Dems for that matter) applauded Paul for finally telling the truth about Iraq. For 4 years I've been trying to explain to my right-leaning friends that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, and in 5 seconds Ron Paul undid all my hard work!

Being a firm believer that nothing happens in politics by mistake Ron Paul's continued presence in this campaign has to make me wonder just what purpose is he there to serve. He is surounded by the biggest bunch of kool-aide drinking wafflers I've ever seen in any campaign.Perhaps the GOP has drifted so far into CYA mode that any rational talk becomes radical. If Paul does survive much longer , I would have to view him as a divisive entry to help pave the way for Hillary ultimately. I view the Reps and Dems as similar to choosing between the Gambino and Castellano Families. Same tool , different wrapper!.....He at least is a breath of fresh air in a very toxic forum.