The dialogue that happens in the accross half is absolutely halarious.

Blah Blah Blah... it's all our fault...What a simplistic cop-out!

Latest attempted terrorist was from Nigeria... How many drones have "dropped things" on Nigerians?

9/11 terrorists were from Saudi Arabia, a recipient of significant amounts of American foreign aid (how awful of us! We deserve to die for our benvolence!)

So many heads in the sand... I especially like Dr. Paul referencing (again and again and again) how American self-defense is creating more terrorists... That is not the most outrageous concept to cling to, except 1st WTC attack was in 1993, second one was 2001... WELL before the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Well before the age of Gitmo. Well before we "voted for it before we voted against it".

What was the root cause then? Why did sailors die on the USS Cole? Why did so many innocent Africans die in the embassy bombings? What did YOU or I do that we should deserve decapitation?

For all of the brilliant ideas Dr. Paul has regarding our country, I don't see why he doesn't recognize that there IS an enemy, and that direct engagement (militarily and diplomatically) is the only solution. Bringing all of our troops home and hiding out in our caves will not stop Militant Islamic Jihadists from murdering people.

I'm glad Dr. Paul wasn't president in 1941. Otherwise it would have been a real pain to bring Emporer Hirohito, and Admiral Yamamoto to the US to face trial in civilian court...

Which coincidently is EXACTLY what he, and the Democratic talking heads say we're supposed to be doing now...

No one says it's all our fault, nor that terrorism would immediately subside if the US. Moreover, terrorists are not to be "excused," for their murder because of circumstance or incentive.

However, only a jingoist could believe that such an incentive is irrelevant, which is why the CIA openly concedes the relevance of "blowback." If someone bombed people that you had a religious or ethnic affinity with, (much less your own family) and dismissed the dead innocents and maimed children resultant as "collateral damage," would you be upset, Josh?

Stop worshipping the state and start consistently upholding the individual. It's wrong to kill innocents, and these sorts of military occupations and/operations, like all big government projects, have terrible unintended consequences.

"If someone bombed people that you had a religious or ethnic affinity with, (much less your own family) and dismissed the dead innocents and maimed children resultant as "collateral damage," would you be upset, Josh?"

Yes.  And as it happens, this very event has occured many times over.  With one notable exception:  The dead innocents and maimed children are not referred to as "collateral damage", rather they are referred to as the "TARGETS". Understanding the difference is the crux of the issue.

Wow, I was shocked by how good Beinart is in this segment.  When I was interning at the Cato Institute I helped the director or foreign policy prepare for a debate with him on Bloggingheads TV.  While his views, in general, are as bad as most of the mainstream, he seemed like a fairly reasonable - if wholely misguided - person.  In this case the guy was really good - not holding my breath for that to last, but it was nice to see here.

Joshua, you mention that both attacks on the WTC took place before the War on Terror, GITMO, Iraq, torture, etc.  While GITMO and torture have worsened our reputation around the world - and aroused anger against us in the Muslim world in particular - Iraq has been going on well before the invasion and occupation.  After expelling Saddam Hussein from Kuwait the U.S. presided over a sanctions regime that killed hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of Iraqis - which Madeleine Albright said was "worth it" as an attempt to oust Saddam in a "60 Minutes" interview from 1996.  The U.S. also consistently bombed Iraq throughout the decade.  Now, you may believe the actions were justified, but this incited anger - not only in Iraq, but across the Muslim world.  While we might not have considered ourselves at war with Iraq throughout the 1990s, those on the other end of the cruise missiles might disagree.  Ramzi Yousef - the man who bombed the WTC in 1993 - cited these reasons as his motivation for jihad against the U.S. in his subsequent trial for that attack.

Osama bin Laden has used these incidents, as well as the stationing of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia, U.S. support for Arab tyrannies and Israel, and, subsequently, the invasions and occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan, as evidence to support his contention that the U.S. is at war with Islam.  He uses this contention to incite anger in the "Ummah" - or worldwide Muslim community - and get Muslims from across the world to attack the U.S.  There is ample evidence of this reasoning in his public statements and his "fatwa" declaring war against the U.S.  If someone is following this line of reasoning, then they don't need to have lived in a specific area bombed by the U.S. to wish to do it harm - though that would raise the incentives. You don't have to agree with this reasoning, but those are the reasons these people follow.

None of this means the U.S. "deserves" to be attacked, but understanding your enemy is the key to defeating them.  Dr. Paul is trying to point out the "blowback" that we have experienced and will continue to experience if we are not mindful of our actions.  We will continue to create more enemies and live in a state of unending warfare if we continue taking the actions we do to supposedly "combat" terrorism.

And I'm sorry to tell you, but the difference between "targets" and "collateral damage" is meaningless to the victims.  If you bomb urban areas - or areas with heavy civilian populations - you are, by default, targetting civilians.

Um, hey Josh, do you even know WHY World War II happened? If it weren't for our meddling in WWI, there would have been no Hitler in Germany and no Lenin and Red October in the Soviet Union. The only reason why Russia became Communist was because of war and poverty that was a consequence of war. Russians were fed up being hungry and thus they let the Communists take over. Hitler did what he did because of the Treaty of Versailles. It lead the country into hyperinflation, mass poverty and a great amount of debt I believe. Because of the West's treatment of Germany and that treaty is what resulted in Hitlers actions of war. Besides, there is creadible about of evidence that Hitler didn't even want war..stop relying on public school texts for information.

"I'm glad Dr. Paul wasn't president in 1941. Otherwise it would have been a real pain to bring Emporer Hirohito, and Admiral Yamamoto to the US to face trial in civilian court..."

Actually, since that was a declared war, they would have faced trial under military tribunals.

Read Osama's fatwa on why he did 9/11. You might go into denial and then watch reruns of Sean Hannity and Rudy Guliani saying "They tacked Murika cause they hate our fredim!", but it's understandable.

 http://www.mideastweb.org/osamabinladen2.htm

"And I'm sorry to tell you, but the difference between "targets" and "collateral damage" is meaningless to the victims. "

- True, if you're dead, you're dead. But the difference matters greatly to those who survive. Intentionally targeting and killing civilians is a war crime. There is a difference. Is the punishment for manslaughter the same as premeditated murder? No - it's all about intent. (This is the part where someone else rebuts with "intent or not, they're still dead." To save you the trouble, yes we have acknowledged that they're dead.)

That being said, Matt, thank you for a lucid, non-insulting reply.

Mr. Huq- Again, it's all our fault... Every evil being done in the world today can be traced back to some terrible American atrocity.   I especially love this gem: "Because of the West's treatment of Germany and that treaty is what resulted in Hitlers actions of war. Besides, there is creadible about of evidence that Hitler didn't even want war"... Does anything even need to be said about this? (or is everyone afraid to blame the Jews outloud?)

Mr. Beyer-"Actually, since that was a declared war, they would have faced trial under military tribunals." - Maybe technically, but there is the slight inconvenience of actually "arresting" them. I doubt they would have honored a mailed summons to appear before a judge. I bet they still wouldn't even show up if we sent a second, more strongly worded, notice two weeks later.

What Matt seems to get, and Dr. Paul does not, is that there is absolutely no justification (NONE, ZERO, ZIP, ZILCH, etc) for intentionally attacking and murdering innocent human beings. I really don't care how upset you are with Israel and the Great Satan, it does not justify a car bomb taking down a hospital.

Being mad at Russia for their treatment of Chechens (which was brutal) does not give one Carte Blanche to murder 168 children at Beslan.

Being mad at your own government for catering to foreign peaceful tourists does not give one an all-access pass to murder 68 innocent sight-seers (Egypt 11/97)

I could seriously go on and list more terror attacks than any of care to read.

Claiming that America's actions are what triggers terrorist attacks is like saying the rape victim was "asking for it" by wearing revealing clothes. Either that or she was a known supporter of Israel ;p

Could you show me an article, video clip, or anything that shows Ron Paul justifying 9/11? He merely explains why they attacked us.

Have you read the Fatwa yet? Obviously not based on,"Claiming that America's actions are what triggers terrorist attacks is like saying the rape victim was "asking for it" by wearing revealing clothes."  There's no mention of hating our freedom. We occupied their countries and they attacked us as a result. Saying this doesn't mean I'm justifying it. I'm merely explaining why they attacked us.

"There's no mention of hating our freedom." - Well, that's good, since I never said there was...

"We occupied their countries and they attacked us as a result."  Which countries did we "occupy"?

There seems to be a lot of Chamberlain-esque denial going on around here...

"First, for over seven years the United States has been occupying the lands of Islam in the holiest of places, the Arabian Peninsula, plundering its riches, dictating to its rulers, humiliating its people, terrorizing its neighbors, and turning its bases in the Peninsula into a spearhead through which to fight the neighboring Muslim peoples.

If some people have in the past argued about the fact of the occupation, all the people of the Peninsula have now acknowledged it.

The best proof of this is the Americans' continuing aggression against the Iraqi people using the Peninsula as a staging post, even though all its rulers are against their territories being used to that end, but they are helpless. Second, despite the great devastation inflicted on the Iraqi people by the crusader-Zionist alliance, and despite the huge number of those killed, which has exceeded 1 million... despite all this, the Americans are once against trying to repeat the horrific massacres, as though they are not content with the protracted blockade imposed after the ferocious war or the fragmentation and devastation."

Straight from the Fatwa. Our expansive system of military bases and our never ending involvement in their affairs must make them happy. Ya think?

Brian pwned it

Joshua says:

"What Matt seems to get, and Dr. Paul does not, is that there is absolutely no justification (NONE, ZERO, ZIP, ZILCH, etc) for intentionally attacking and murdering innocent human beings. I really don't care how upset you are with Israel and the Great Satan, it does not justify a car bomb taking down a hospital."

I guess unintentionally killing people due to collateral damage is OKAY.  If we simply don't think about it then its peachy.

Claiming that America's actions are what triggers terrorist attacks is like saying the rape victim was "asking for it" by wearing revealing clothes. Either that or she was a known supporter of Israel ;p

The actions of our government often trigger terrorist attacks.  No one is justifying the target of the attacks.  However, if soldiers killed my friends and family, even just one member, I would do all I could to seek revenge.  When we bomb other countries we often kill family members of those who eventually are proselytized into an extremist faction, or, at least that is what i'm guessing.  

For those who can't seem to grasp the obvious, let me put it to you this way.  Our government's meddling in the affairs of other countries is no different than if I were to repeatedly punch you in the face every time our paths crossed on the streets. There's no denying you'd quickly grow sick and tired of me punching you in the face for no apparent reason and you'd eventually do something about it.  The situation is no different in SWA. They have grown sick and tired of foreign governments meddling in their affairs. While I don't agree that attacking and killing innocent people is the answer, it doesn't change the fact that many of the problems we face today are a direct result our interfering and meddling in the affairs of others who neither asked for, nor want America's help.

" Our government's meddling in the affairs of other countries is no different than if I were to repeatedly punch you in the face every time our paths crossed on the streets"

Another, more apt analogy would be " Our government's meddling in the affairs of other countries is no different than if I were to stop someone from raping your children when I have the power to do so."

And Brian, "First, for over seven years the United States has been occupying the lands of Islam in the holiest of places, the Arabian Peninsula" What about terror attacks prior to seven years ago? What is the explanation for that?

But here is the crux, and what I have been waiting for a Paulite to say: "Second, despite the great devastation inflicted on the Iraqi people by the crusader-Zionist alliance..."

Blame the JOOOOOOS!  Yeah, that just about sums it up.