5 votes

Is Ron Paul Absolutely Right, or Is He Absolutely Wrong About Terrorism? A story on the Huffington Post

What causes terrorism? This is more than just an academic question. It has become an important part of GOP presidential candidate Ron Paul's foreign policy position.

How 'cause' is defined is very important. If the use of the word 'cause' compels something, U.S. policy in the Middle East did not cause terrorism. If the use of 'cause' implies influencing or contributing to..., a stronger case may be made.

Many variables should be considered -- frustration; peer influences; religion; employment level; policies; family influences; freedom; liberalism; life stressors; war; seeing a friend or family member killed; invasions; etc. This is not an exhaustive list and the list could certainly go on.

Continued on the Huffington Post website

Is Ron Paul Absolutely Right, or Is He Absolutely Wrong About Terrorism?



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Well, it depends

There are the real terrorist (their weak, so they have weak ways), and then there are the "behind the scenes terrorists".

This is the time where too much truth is just that.

I was pleasantly surprised by

I was pleasantly surprised by some of the comments.

What Causes Terrorism?

As long as we're splitting hairs..... The policies are perhaps the greatest factor motivating the attacks. Terrorism is only the tactic employed in carrying out the attacks. Why do the attackers use terrorism? It's because they don't have a military that can stand up to the US. A determined attacker will use whatever means are at his disposal.

It would be a lot more convenient if the terrorists would don brightly colored uniforms, line up and then attack.

I already pointed out how

I already pointed out how silly his arguments were. He said that the terrorists may be motivated by US foreign policy, but its not the cause. He has it backwards. The cause is the foundation for motivation.

The cause of terrorism is tyranny, period. The culprits vary around the world.

If you disagree with me on anything you are not a real libertarian...

I will read this, but--

first:

terrorism is a ploy in most cases, a 'tool' used by every government, every agency. It's not something isolated to people who feel oppressed.

Terrorism removed the legal Iranian government in 1952 (or was it 53?)--

the "terrorists" were American CIA agents.

Terrorism is a tactic, not an extension of a 'people' or culture.

So, how do *we* discuss something when *we* don't even understand it to that level?

Impossible.

it's hard to be awake; it's easier to dream--

I quit reading after the

I quit reading after the author asserted that Osama Bin Laden didn't identify the root causes behind the attack of the US on 911 properly. How-the-hell would this author know what the actual causes were to 911 more-so than the individual who, supposedly, did it?

If Osama Bin Laden did perpetrate the attack on 911, then I think he would know what his reasons were better than some wanna-be intellectual hack at the Huffington Post.

The concept has nothing to do with actually believing that Osama Bin Laden was behind 911. The issue of consistency; if we are working from the media's explanation of 911, then Osama Bin Laden did it. If Osama Bin Laden attacked the US, then only he and maybe others close to him would know why; what motivated it. If the perpetrator of said attack gave an explanation as to why the attack happened, then no one will, or can, know any different. To make the assumption that Osama Bin Laden didn't even know or recognize what motivated him; is getting close to this author calling himself a psychic.

gaylbaby's picture

And neither is

overeating the single cause of obesity. However, the two go hand-in-hand. Looks like the responsible course of action is to deal with those factors that CAN be identified first.

The tipping point of change in direction is only seen in retrospect. Every action has 'the butterfly effect.'