ron paul is the republican presidential candidate i would be most likely to support at this point, if i were to support someone from one of the two major parties. i honestly was not aware of his presence until the south carolina debates a couple of weeks ago, when his response to a question about 9/11 drew the ire of rudy guiliani. i have my own opinions as to what actually happened on 9/11, but, for the sake of argument, let’s say that the official story is true, that we really were attacked by arab terrorists. it seems to me that they wouldn’t attack us out of the blue, just because they ‘don’t like us’. as this article states, it seems that we were given a warning of things to come from bin laden himself:
Osama bin Laden in his declaration of war in the 1990s said it was U.S. troops on the sacred soil of Saudi Arabia, U.S. bombing and sanctions of a crushed Iraqi people, and U.S. support of Israel’s persecution of the Palestinians that were the reasons he and his mujahideen were declaring war on us.
Elsewhere, he has mentioned Sykes-Picot, the secret British-French deal that double-crossed the Arabs who had fought for their freedom alongside Lawrence of
Arabia and were rewarded with a quarter century of British-French imperial
domination and humiliation.
Almost all agree that, horrible as 9-11 was, it was not anarchic terror. It was political terror, done with a political motive and a political objective.
again, i think there was a political motive and objective to what happened that day, but it goes beyond what is being referred to in the above quote. because of those motives, i think the good vs. evil story line was a rather convenient way to get the american people behind this ineptly planned war. nevertheless, because of course there are things i obviously don’t know, it is possible that at least part of the story happened as is being told to us. in this case, it still seems implausible to me that the u.s. would be attacked without a legitimate reason. and if this is the case, then what paul is saying seems to be right on to me. guiliani’s response to paul saying, in effect, ‘i was there; how dare you!’ was no response at all. paul was not minimizing what happened on 9/11; he was pointing out a possible, legitimate cause, and the fact that this cause was not taken seriously then, nor now, speaks volumes about the (lack of) quality of the front running candidates.