Many of you have wanted to help Ron Paul in one way or another, but you are not allowed to donate to Ron Paul’s campaign, or you may have maxed out your allowable contribution. Well, here is an easy way to help, which may benefit you in more than one way: Sell all your NWS stock.
Teach FOX News a lesson. Make them bleed green until they put Ron Paul back into the debates.
Probably coincidental, but it need not be if people start selling now. Even if people are skeptical that it has anything to do with Ron Paul supporters, it would be smart to sell your NWS stock just to be safe.
We issue 200,000 student visas a year. One of the hijackers had an F-1 student visa. The majority had tourist, business, or visit visas.
So if you are looking to protect the country, a more logical thing to do is ban (1) male (2) Saudi Arabians (3) between the ages of 21 and 43 (4) religious (5) possibly training in flight school.
And, yet, an irrational “strategy” as such would foment more terrorism:
It is necessary to note that relative deprivation
creating exclusion is a comprehensive phenomenon. It
is not merely a socio-economic driver. In fact, relative
deprivation in terms of political space and human
dignity is often even more significant than socioeconomic
factors. The Palestinians in Israel-occupied
territories, whose mobility is curtailed by the Israeli
defence forces, feel deprived of dignity. The Tamils in
Sri Lanka, who have to give up their linguistic advantage
and political balance of power because of constitutional
changes, feel deprived. The Acholis were socioeconomically
deprived for years but it wasn’t until the
Musevini government began to target them specifically
that they took up arms. The Moros of the Philippines
who see migrants from other parts of the country
dominating their economy feel relatively deprived not
just in an economic sense but also in a political and
cultural context. The Iraqis who see their country
overtaken by an external force feel relatively deprived
irrespective of the economic condition of any
particular citizen.
Another reason why “terrorism” is a poor qualifier. We define terrorism to suit our “needs”.
It is possible for any ideology, delivered by
determined and able leaders, anywhere in the world, to
transform those feeling excluded from their society
into terrorists or extremists. In public discourse,
however, there is an unfortunate effort made to
emphasize certain forms of terrorism. As the global
power structure is dominated by the West, attacks on
Western interests are defined as terrorism. The attacks
that do not target the United States and its allies are
defined as acts of ethnic conflict, freedom struggle, or
mere violence
Terrorism is vague and ill-defined. A “terrorist nation” is too, by consequence.
Western discourse on terrorism, with a focus on
Islamist extremism, is therefore neither entirely about
terrorism nor about Islamist extremism. It is not
entirely about terrorism because it does not include
terrorism practised by several national, sub-national
groups, labeling some of them as liberation
movements. It is not entirely about terrorism because
it hardly considers rural-based revolutionary
organisations, responsible for killing thousands of
people in Asia and Latin America. It is not entirely
about Islamist extremism because it blames the groups
in the Middle East that have no ambition to alter the
international order, while giving inadequate attention
to the specific organisations that want to establish a
Caliphate by violent means and that are positioning
themselves to succeed Al Qaeda in the International
Islamic Front for Jihad against Jews and Crusaders. In
ignoring the threats of terrorism around the world
from nationalist, sub-nationalist and revolutionary
groups that commit violent acts and ignoring the threats
posed by Central and South Asian Islamist
organisations to the global security, Western discourse
is selectively focussed on the Middle East. It is more
about the strategic interests of the West in a particular
region than the threats to humanity emanating from
the ideologies of mass destruction.
The media manipulates the focus and definition of terrorism by framing.
The mutually obsessive discourse in Western and
Islamic societies is manipulated by the media, either
by design or otherwise. If North Korea tests a nuclear
weapon the news disappears from the front page of
most newspapers within a couple of days. If Iraq or
Iran is suspected to have even the most elementary
capacity to develop such a weapon, this is major
news for months after months. If Lord’s Resistance
Army forces children to kill their siblings in thousands,
it is a human interest story that appears only
occasionally in the inside pages. If Iran’s President
threatens Israel, it is major news and the subject of
endless op-ed analysis.
In short, terrorism exists on exclusion. Especially unfair exclusion and perceived loss of dignity.
What do you suppose a disproportionate and ignorant measure like banning students from “terrorist nations” accomplishes?
It gets ignorant people to feel good about their safety. It excludes more people who are already living under conditions that fuel terrorism, and it completely misses the point.
Rarely has a more ignorant proposal been advanced – and it is made even worse by the fact that this is Ron Paul we’re talking about.
To begin with, it is odd, indeed, for a libertarian to be invoking the concept of collective guilt: is every citizen of these unnamed “terrorist nations” to be declared persona non grata on account of the actions of a minuscule number of their countrymen?
Secondly, just which nations is Rep. Paul talking about? Fifteen of the 9/11 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia: two were from the United Arab Emirates, one was Egyptian and another one hailed from Lebanon. Is Paul seriously saying that we should deport the thousands from these countries studying in the US? And why stop there? Why allow anyone from these so-called “terrorist nations” entry into the US for any reason whatsoever – just to be on the safe side?
This is pandering to the worst, Tom Tancredo-esque paranoia and outright ignorance (or do I repeat myself?) and is not worthy of Dr. Paul. I have the utmost respect for the candidate, but in using this unfortunate term, “terrorist nations,” the Good Doctor undermines his non-interventionist foreign policy stance.
I have received a lot of criticism for not remaining quiet on the issue, but I’m not going to play to the “sheep” stereotype that some Ron Paul supporters are fomenting.
If Ron Paul wants to run ads that contradict his rhetoric, he better be prepared to be criticized by supporters like myself who have been campaigning for him since he tore Giuliani into shreds on the very topic of terrorism.
I know Ron Paul is trying to capture the attention of Tancredo’s former supporters, but labeling nations as “terrorist” goes against everything Ron Paul has said about foreign policy. Denying student visas for students from “terrorist nations” is intellectually dishonest. This is the same kind of propaganda the GOP uses to justify the war on terror.
Mr. Speaker, my guess is that in the not-too-distant future so-called
proof will be provided that Saddam Hussein was somehow partially
responsible for the attack on the United States, and it will be
irresistible then for the United States to retaliate against him. This
will greatly and dangerously expand the war and provoke even greater
hatred towards the United States, and it is all so unnecessary. It is
so hard for many Americans to understand how we inadvertently provoke
the Arab Muslim people, and I am not talking about the likes of bin
Laden and his gang. I am talking about the Arab Muslim masses.
Thornton says that it ‘is difficult to predict how long bubbles will last,’ but the geoclassical half of the geo-Austrian theory does provide an indication. Historically, the real-estate cycle has had a duration of 18 years, aside from the interruption of World War II. That puts the next real estate bottom around 2008 [link mine]. If past patterns continue, and so far they are right on schedule, we can expect the next recession to take place towards the end of this decade.
Fighting terrorism the way Bush wants to fight it is stupid. IF you want to fight terrorism, the best way to start is to stop creating terrorists, and furthermore, to stop giving them reasons to attack us.
If you don’t think about why they attack us in the first place, regardless of whether it has to do with us or not, YOU WILL NEVER ADDRESS THE ROOT OF THE PROBLEM.
In psychology there is a phenomenon called selective perception. We perceive Iran as a terrorist regime. But how are we different? Tancredo would nuke Mecca. Bush initiated a “shock and awe” campaign, and gave Saddam a 48-hour ultimatum. Giuliani is politically illiterate. What do they have in common? Their political rhetoric sounds the same as Ahmadinejad’s.
A lot of the justification for attacking and provoking Iran is the premise that Iran is a terrorist regime; that Ahmadinejad a terrorist for threatening to “wipe Israel off the map”. Perhaps this view is accurate. However, if we view Iran as a terrorist regime, then we ought to take a closer look at our leaders and foreign policy.
ter·ror·ism [ter-uh-riz-uhm]
1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.
2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.
ter·ror·ist [ter-er-ist]
–noun
1. a person, usually a member of a group, who uses or advocates terrorism.
2. a person who terrorizes or frightens others.
3. (formerly) a member of a political group in Russia aiming at the demoralization of the government by terror.
4. an agent or partisan of the revolutionary tribunal during the Reign of Terror in France.
–adjective
5. of, pertaining to, or characteristic of terrorism or terrorists: terrorist tactics.
Under that definition many of our presidential candidates are terrorists, especially Giuliani and Tancredo, who would gladly turn the Middle East, and in particular, Mecca, into glass.
If you compare the speeches of political leaders around the world, you’ll find that they all sound very similar. When Bush threatened Saddam by telling him he had 48 hours to leave Iraq, that is terrorism, too.
The “Shock and Awe” invasion of Iraq resembles terrorism as well. The point of shock and awe was to promote fear and terror.
If you look at psychological studies, you’ll notice that Bush sounds like a terrorist to them, just like Ahmadinejad sounds like a terrorist to some of us.
Let’s not forget we’ve have organized various coups d’état that could be characterized as acts of terrorism, around the world, including Iran.
This is why a war on terrorism is a double standard, and a play on vague words. Should we truly be concerned with terrorism around the world, we’d take a closer look at our foreign policy. The political rhetoric of our leaders sounds the same as that of the world leaders they demonize.
References:
terrorism. (n.d.). Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Retrieved November 24, 2007, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/terrorism
terrorist. (n.d.). Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Retrieved November 24, 2007, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/terrorist
It appears our military backs Ron Paul in the most important issue facing the United States: Terrorism and our foreign policy. For the second time in a row, Ron Paul receives more donations among Republicans. Data for Democrats is not yet available, but Ron Paul crushed Democrats in this statistic last quarter as well.
This data is sourced from FEC Reports for Q3 and was compiled here by jfletch and RP4.US
*This list uses donators who listed their employer as some variation of Air Force, Army, National Guard, Navy, Marine Corps, Coast Guard, Retired Vet, Veteran, Civilian Military employee, or Military (no branch indicated). This is preliminary data and may contain insignificant errors.
Hillary is a pro-war Republican. And not far behind, Obama. According to Gravel at yesterday’s MSNBC Democratic debate, Hillary voted yes on a bill put forth by Joe Lieberman, which among other things, will designate the Iranian Revolutionary National Guard a terrorist organization. The amendment, in effect, grants president Bush a justification for starting a war with Iran. Obama didn’t even show up to vote for said vote.
Also at the debate, none of the so-called top-tier candidates promised to end the war by the end of their first term. In essence, Edwards, Obama, and Hillary are towing the neoconservative line.
The only senators running for president who voted against this bill were Biden and Dodd.
(1) that the manner in which the United States transitions and structures its military presence in Iraq will have critical long-term consequences for the future of the Persian Gulf and the Middle East, in particular with regard to the capability of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran to pose a threat to the security of the region, the prospects for democracy for the people of the region, and the health of the global economy;
(2) that it is a vital national interest of the United States to prevent the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran from turning Shi’a militia extremists in Iraq into a Hezbollah-like force that could serve its interests inside Iraq, including by overwhelming, subverting, or co-opting institutions of the legitimate Government of Iraq;
(3) that it should be the policy of the United States to combat, contain, and roll back the violent activities and destabilizing influence inside Iraq of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, its foreign facilitators such as Lebanese Hezbollah, and its indigenous Iraqi proxies;
(4) to support the prudent and calibrated use of all instruments of United States national power in Iraq, including diplomatic, economic, intelligence, and military instruments, in support of the policy described in paragraph (3) with respect to the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran and its proxies;
(5) that the United States should designate the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps as a foreign terrorist organization under section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act and place the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps on the list of Specially Designated Global Terrorists, as established under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act and initiated under Executive Order 13224; and
(6) that the Department of the Treasury should act with all possible expediency to complete the listing of those entities targeted under United Nations Security Council Resolutions 1737 and 1747 adopted unanimously on December 23, 2006 and March 24, 2007, respectively.
As usual, when confronted by a tough question, or in this case, a relevant accusation, Hillary resorted to pausing, laughing maniacally and then dancing around the question.
Then she refused to answer relevant hypothetical questions. If she doesn’t want to answer questions, they should revoke her time and give it to another candidate who will answer the questions asked.
“Making it even easier for the terrorists. Prelude to the North American Union. The Teamsters Union said it has been told by officials in the Transportation Department’s Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration that the first Mexican trucks will be coming across the border on Saturday.”
Yeah, because Mexican Trucks = terrorism.
Oh, and the world is going to end soon.
Here is some rational analysis, to counter your irrational xenophobia:
The short answer according to Pat Buchanan: “Who is pushing for attacks on Iran? Israel and its lobby: Cheney and Lieberman”. Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps are a strategic and hypocritical excuse. Sensational intelligence is irrelevant. If we go to war, it will be based on Cheney’s whim.
Who is pushing for attacks on Iran? Israel and its lobby. Vice President Cheney. Sen. Joe Lieberman, who has been calling for air strikes on al Quds camps for months. And a War Party facing lasting disgrace for having lied the country into an unnecessary war and for having assured the American people it would be a “cakewalk.”
The arguments for war on Iran are both strategic and political.
Israel is terrified Iran will end its nuclear monopoly in the Middle East and wants an all-out U.S. war on Iran to prevent it. The War Party fears Iran may acquire a nuclear weapon, which would inhibit U.S. freedom of action in the Gulf and convince the Arab states that the United States is yesterday, and they must appease Iran or go nuclear themselves.
If you recall from a previous article on Irrelevant Intelligence, a war with Iran requires no basis in intelligence. According to Gabriel Kolko:
The function of intelligence anywhere is far less to encourage rational behavior–although sometimes that occurs–than to justify a nation’s illusions, and it is the false expectations that conventional wisdom encourages that make wars more likely, a pattern that has only increased since the early twentieth century.
We have made the strategic decision to label Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist organization for “supplying the weapons that are killing a growing number of American soldiers in Iraq”. This gives the illusion of a just war, since we are “technically” (read: semantically) at war with all terrorist organizations. Such are the wonders of a vague war on terrorism - a vague noun, incidentally.
But there is no good reason to go to war with Iran. If you recall the recent capture of British soldiers at the edge of Iranian waters, it seems that Iranian forces had more legitimacy in that area than the British soldiers did. After all, it is Iran’s neighborhood. If Iran was patrolling the border of American waters, you can be sure we’d capture and question the offending soldiers. Better yet (and I mean this in all sarcasm) we’d place them in a tripled Guantanamo and tested ‘enhanced interrogation’.
While there is no excuse for Iran’s actions, it is hypocritical to be outraged by them. And equally hypocritical is our use of Iran’s little proxy war - allegedly supplying weapons to Iraqi insurgents - as they are trying to protect their sphere of influence. According to Pat Buchanan, we did the same when we aided France during the Pastry War in 1846.
It’s only natural to want to maintain the status quo or influence in your neighborhood. This is not an good excuse to go to war with Iran.
Don’t pay attention to new sensational intelligence; it won’t make a difference in the long run. Cheney has incessantly pushed for a war with Iran, and any future problems we have with Iran can be solved by (1) ceasing our needless intervention and (2) looking for other options. If the law of averages - the tendency for a variable to remain stable in the long term - is any indicator, there is no need to be afraid of Iran. Only Cheney and Lieberman’s trigger-happy mindset.
