Your Email:

Subject:

Message:
Entry: The Revolution and the Right Link: http://www.takimag.com/site/article/the_revolution_and_the_right#17547 Post contents: I have always admired Professor Gottfried's courage and brilliant writing style; however, I don't agree with much of what he wrote in this particular article. The two wings of the Establishment bird enjoyed dismissing Ron Paul's theory of blowback, and smeared him as someone who is "unpatriotic" and "blames America" for 9/11. However, those that dismiss the notion of blowback, and attack Ron Paul, would be remiss if they didn't first read all of the information related to the December 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103. It is generally awknowledged that this atrocity -- which resulted in the deaths of over 250 people -- was conducted by a radical Islamic organization (with loose ties to Libya and/or Iran) in retaliation for the U.S. shootdown of an Iranian civilian airliner earlier that year. Iran Air Flight 655 was shot down by U.S. missiles fired from the U.S. Navy's guided missile cruiser -- the U.S.S. Vincennes -- in July 1988 over the Strait of Hormuz. All 290 passengers and crew aboard this plane were killed. Both the civilian airliner and the U.S.S. Vincennes were inside Iranian territorial waters at the time of the attack. The captain and the crew of the U.S.S. Vincennes have been blamed for being reckless and exhibiting aggressive behaviour in a tense environment; however, the United States never apologized for this attack. Then, as now, the American government was obsessed with the mercantalist policy of protecting "their" supply of oil, as well as, provoking an attack by the Iranians; therefore, providing the impetus for "regime change" in Tehran. Likewise, the 1983 bombing of the U.S. marines barracks in Beirut by Hezbollah was in retaliation for the presence of American (and other Western troops) on Lebanese soil, which many Lebanese (both Christian and Muslim) saw as legitimizing the Israel invasion and occupation of their country. Ron Paul was correct to point out that, after President Reagan withdrew American troops from Lebanon, attacks on Americans by Hezbollah virtually ended. In addition, he was correct to point out (as he did during the ABC/WMUR debate) that neoconservatives (like Rudy Giuliani and John McCain) are either ignorant or being disingenuous when they attempt to lump all of the Islamic organizations into one broad category as the "enemy" in the so-called "war on terror." Shiites are viewed as heretics by Sunni fundamentalists (inspired by Wahabbists from Saudi Arabia), like Osama Bin Laden and the Taliban. Thus, Hezbollah (despite their leaders' close ties with the Muslim Brotherhood in Palestine -- i.e. Hamas) are viewed as apostates by the leaders of Al-Qaeda, and the relations between Iran and Taliban insurgents in Afghanistan are frosty at best -- with open hostility between the two sides almost resulting in war in 1998. I would also like to provide some further comments with regard to the Ron Paul presidential campaign, and the attacks upon him by his political opponents, as well as, by their minions within the so-called "mainstream media." Giuliani, McCain et al. like to list a number of examples of "Islamic fundamentalist terrorism" around the world to support their counter-argument against Dr. Paul's view that American foreign policy in the Arab-Islamic world has played a major role in heightening anger among the world's Muslims against the United States. One of the examples that Giuliani often mentioned was the 1972 terrorist attack on the Munich Olympics. By bringing up this event, Giuliani illustrated that not only was (and is) he ignorant about the true nature of contemporary events and foreign cultures, but also that he is hopefully ignorant about recent world history; even with regard to a topic on which he is supposed to be an expert. Prior to the early 1990's, the overwhelming majority of anti-American and anti-Israeli violence was directed, not by "Islamic extremist' organizations and individuals, but by either Third-World "national liberation" movements or extreme-left revolutionary groups. In fact, it was Israel that helped create Hamas in 1987 in order to provide a more conservative/traditionalist alternative for Palestinians. To the Israelis at that time, Islamic fundamentalists were considered less of a threat than violent, largely left-wing Palestinians loosely grouped together under the umbrella of the PLO. The most violent Palestinian organizations -- from the late 1960's until the early 1990's -- were not Hamas and Islamic Jihad. They were the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) and its splinter group, the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (DFLP) -- both avowedly Marxist-Leninist terrorist organizations dedicated not only to the "liberation" of Palestine, but also the overthrow of "conservative/reactionary" regimes (like that of Saudi Arabia and Jordan) within the Middle East. Both organizations were also led by nominal Christians --George Habash (with regard to the PFLP) and Nayef Hawatmeh (with regard to the DFLP) -- and their ideological aims, along with their terrorist tactics (airline hijackings and mass murders), made them more Che Guevara and less Osama Bin Laden. The 1972 terrorist attack on the Munich Olympics -- which was constantly brought up by Giuliani -- was not an act of "Islamic fundamentalist terrorism" but an attack by a far-left Palestinian group called "Black September" with close ties to other far-left "revolutionary" groups, like the West German Red Army Faction and the Japanese Red Army. During the time of this attack, and right through the 1970's and 1980's, the Palestinians were generally despised by conservative/traditionalist Arabs and Muslims as being too infatuated with atheistic Marxism and too closely aligned with the Soviet Union, as most clearly exemplifed by the PLO's open support for the Soviet invasion and occupation of Afghanistan. During the bulk of the Cold War years, the Islamic fundamentalists, who are currently deemed "enemies" in America's "war on terror," were allies of the United States; not only in Afghanistan, but also in Pakistan, Turkey, Egypt, Syria and Indonesia. They were utilized by the CIA to commit massacres of actual and suspected communists in Indonesia after the 1965 overthrow of secular-socialist Third-World liberationist, Sukarno, by Suharto. In addition, the United States (along with Israel and Jordan) backed the Muslim Brotherhood in Syria during the early 1980's, as it initiated violent acts against the Baathist regime, and in Egypt, as it waged war against the pro-Soviet, secular-Arab nationalist Nasser. The CIA had no problem cooperating with Islamic fundamentalists inspired by Sayyid Qutb (the same Sayyid Qutb whose name is now casually mentioned by, not only Giuliani, but also the empty corporate suit, Mitt Romney), as long as they were willing to subvert "progressive" secular-nationalists deemed too close to the Soviet enemy. During the same ABC News/WMUR debate, Fred Thompson also scoffed at Ron Paul's assertion that American interference in the Middle East has played a major role in triggering anti-American terrorism, and asked him to provide an example of where the United States had insulted the Arab-Islamic world. Dr. Paul provided the example of American troops and bases in Saudi Arabia, but a better example might have been the long support for the brutal and corrupt Shah of Iran, as well as, the post Gulf War I sanctions against the people of Iraq. These sanctions -- designed to punish Saddam Hussein for his alleged pursuit of "weapons of mass destruction" -- led to the deaths of over 500,000 Iraqi children and the widespread deterioration of Iraq's infrastructure, including its water and sewage systems. In addition, from the end of the first Gulf War until the 2003 invasion of Iraq, U.S. and British airplanes regularly bombed Iraqi cities. Despite his inveterate hostility towards Western-style individualism and democracy, Osama Bin Laden actually offered to have his "Afghan-Arabs" come to the assistance of the pro-American Saudi monarchy after Saddam's invasion of Kuwait in 1990, but was rebuffed in favour of troops from the United States and other Western countries. The presence of these "infidel" troops on Muslim holy land -- and the willingness of the Saudi monarchy to allow this to happen -- played a major role in turning Osama Bin Laden against the United States and its puppet kleptocracy in Saudi Arabia. This, along with the crippling sanctions against Iraq and the open alignment of American foreign policy with Israeli aims, helped fuel the rise and growth of what is now collectively known as "Al-Qaeda." This group -- and other radicalized Muslims -- has the support of many Pakistani military and secret service officers (the ISI) who feel betrayed and abandoned by the United States, after many years of staunch Pakistani support for the United States (in a 1962 address to Congress, then Pakistani leader, General Ayub Khan, referred to Pakistan as America's most "allied ally" in Asia). Ron Paul is one hundred percent correct when he states that the United States doesn't really understand the Middle East, and the myriad of factions, conflicts and resentments that afflict the Arab-Islamic world; therefore, making it imperative that -- if America truly wants to be safe and stop squandering so much blood and treasure -- it should end its long history of political manipulation and interference in the internal affairs of other countries and revert to a Jeffersonian foreign policy based on peace, commerce and friendship with all; entangling alliances with none. What is especially ironic is that Fred Thompson ridiculed Dr. Paul considering that Thompson himself, through his character D.A. Arthur Branch (whose political views and mannerisms are supposed to emulate that of the actor) on "Law and Order," endorsed the concept of blowback during the closing minutes of the episode "Enemy" (Original air date: December 1, 2004; Season 15, Episode 10). Sent at: 2008 05 16