Tag Archives: Saudi Arabia

Who is Behind “Al Qaeda in Iran”?

 

Original Article:  http://www.globalresearch.ca/who-is-behind-al-qaeda-in-iran/5332593

US-Canada Claim Iran-Al Qaeda Ties Despite US Funding Al Qaeda in Iran for Years

OsamaTVSpeech

As the FBI reels from what now appears to be revelations it was directly involved in the Boston Marathon bombings, a deluge of FBI “success” stories have been “serendipitously” splashed across Western headlines. Among them was an allegedly “foiled” terror attack in Canada, reported to be the work of terrorists supported by “Al-Qaeda operatives in Iran.” The Globe and Mail, in its report, “Canada joins U.S. in alleging al-Qaeda has operatives based in Iran,” states:

“To many, it came as a surprise that the RCMP is alleging that two terror suspects arrested in Canada on Monday were supported by al-Qaeda operatives in Iran.

The Sunni-based al-Qaeda and Shia Iran belong to different branches of Islam that have been at odds historically. But in recent years U.S. officials have formally alleged that Iran has allowed al-Qaeda members to operate out of its territory.”

Both at face value and upon deeper examination, this assertion is utterly absurd, divorced from reality, and indicative of the absolute contempt within which the Western establishment holds the global public. In reality, the West, the US, Saudi Arabia, and Israel in particular, have propped up and perpetuated Al Qaeda for the very purpose of either undermining or overthrowing the governments of Iran, Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, Algeria, Libya,  Russia, Malaysia, Indonesia, and beyond.

Regarding Iran in particular, Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Seymour Hersh in his 2007 New Yorker piece titled, “The Redirection: Is the Administration’s new policy benefiting our enemies in the war on terrorism?” would state:

To undermine Iran, which is predominantly Shiite, the Bush Administration has decided, in effect, to reconfigure its priorities in the Middle East. In Lebanon, the Administration has cooperated with Saudi Arabia’s government, which is Sunni, in clandestine operations that are intended to weaken Hezbollah, the Shiite organization that is backed by Iran. The U.S. has also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria. A by-product of these activities has been the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups that espouse a militant vision of Islam and are hostile to America and sympathetic to Al Qaeda.

In a follow up, Hersh in his 2008 New Yorker piece titled, “Preparing the Battlefield: The Bush Administration steps up its secret moves against Iran,” spelled out a damning indictment of US involvement in bolstering, arming, and funding terror organizations, not linked to, but described as actually being Al Qaeda.

Of American support for Al Qaeda the report states (emphasis added):

The Administration may have been willing to rely on dissident organizations in Iran even when there was reason to believe that the groups had operated against American interests in the past. The use of Baluchi elements, for example, is problematic, Robert Baer, a former C.I.A. clandestine officer who worked for nearly two decades in South Asia and the Middle East, told me. “The Baluchis are Sunni fundamentalists who hate the regime in Tehran, but you can also describe them as Al Qaeda,” Baer told me. “These are guys who cut off the heads of nonbelievers—in this case, it’s Shiite Iranians. The irony is that we’re once again working with Sunni fundamentalists, just as we did in Afghanistan in the nineteen-eighties.” Ramzi Yousef, who was convicted for his role in the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who is considered one of the leading planners of the September 11th attacks, are Baluchi Sunni fundamentalists.

The report would continue by stating (emphasis added):

One of the most active and violent anti-regime groups in Iran today is the Jundallah, also known as the Iranian People’s Resistance Movement, which describes itself as a resistance force fighting for the rights of Sunnis in Iran. “This is a vicious Salafi organization whose followers attended the same madrassas as the Taliban and Pakistani extremists,” Nasr told me. “They are suspected of having links to Al Qaeda and they are also thought to be tied to the drug culture.” The Jundallah took responsibility for the bombing of a busload of Revolutionary Guard soldiers in February, 2007. At least eleven Guard members were killed. According to Baer and to press reports, the Jundallah is among the groups in Iran that are benefitting from U.S. support.

The manifestation of this insidious conspiracy can be seen playing out across Syria in which US-backed terrorists openly operating under the flag of Al Qaeda are locked in a catastrophic sectarian bloodbath with the Syrian people and the Syrian state’s closest ally, Iran. The conflict in Syria exposes that the machinations revealed back in 2007-2008 by Hersh, are still being carried out in earnest today.

Clearly, US-Canadian claims that Iran is somehow involved in harboring Al Qaeda within its borders, when it has been the West for years propping them up specifically to overthrow the Iranian government, are utterly absurd. In reality, while the West uses Al Qaeda’s presence both within Iran and along it peripheries to undermine and ultimately overthrow the Iranian government, it in turn uses these very terror organizations to induce paralyzing fear across Western populations in order to consolidate and expand power at home.

Additional Reading: For more information on just how much support the US has provided Al Qaeda terrorists in Baluchistan versus both Pakistan and Iran, please see, “US Attempting to Trigger Color Revolution in Pakistan.” For more information on the US’ delisting, arming and training of the terror organization, Mujahedeen e-Khalq (MEK or MKO) versus Iran, please see, “US to Delist & Arm American-Killing Terror Cult.”

Continue reading

Advertisements

Deep US-Saudi rift over Egypt: Abdullah stands by Mubarak, turns to Tehran

DEBKAfile Exclusive Report February 10, 2011, 4:31 PM (GMT+02:00)

In better times

The conversation between President Barack Obama and Saudi King Abdullah early Thursday, Feb. 10, was the most acerbic the US president has ever had with an Arab ruler, DEBKAfile’s Middle East sources report. They had a serious falling-out on the Egyptian crisis which so enraged the king that some US and Middle East sources reported he suffered a sudden heart attack. Rumors that he had died rocked the world financial and oil markets that morning and were denied by an adviser to the ruling family. Some Gulf sources say he has had heart attacks in the past.

Those sources disclose that the call which Obama put into Abdullah, who is recuperating from back surgery at his palace in Morocco, brought their relations into deep crisis and placed in jeopardythe entire edifice of US Iran and Middle East policies.

The king chastised the president for his treatment of Egypt and its president Hosni Muhbarak calling it a disaster that would generate instability in the region and imperil all the moderate Arab rulers and regimes which had backed the United States until now. Abdullah took Obama to task for ditching America’s most faithful ally in the Arab world and vowed that if the US continues to try and get rid of Mubarak, the Saudi royal family would bend all its resources to undoing Washington’s plans for Egypt and nullifying their consequences.

According to British intelligence sources in London, the Saudi King pledged to make up the losses to Egypt if Washington cuts off military and economic aid to force Mubarak to resign. He would personally instruct the Saudi treasury to transfer to the embattled Egyptian ruler the exact amounts he needs for himself and his army to stand up to American pressure.

Through all the ups and downs of Saudi-US relations since the 1950s no Saudi ruler has ever threatened direct action against American policy.
A senior Saudi source told the London Times that “Mubarak and King Abdullah are not just allies, they are close friends, and the King is not about to see his friend cast aside and humiliated.”

Indeed, our sources add, the king at the age of 87 is fearful that in the event of a situation developing in Saudi Arabia like the uprising in Egypt, Washington would dump him just like Mubarak.

DEBKAfile’s intelligence sources add that replacement aid for Egypt was not the only card in Abdullah’s deck. He informed Obama that without waiting for events in Egypt to play out or America’s response, he had ordered the process set in train for raising the level of Riyadh‘s diplomatic and military ties with Tehran. Invitations had gone out from Riyadh for Iranian delegations to visit the main Saudi cities.

Abdullah stressed he had more than one bone to pick with Obama. The king accused the US president of turning his back not only on Mubarak but on another beleaguered American ally, the former Lebanese Prime Minister Sa’ad Hariri, when he was toppled by Iran’s surrogate Hizballah.

Our sources in Washington report that all of President Obama’s efforts to pacify the Saudi king and explain his Egyptian policy fell on deaf ears.
Arab sources in London reported Tuesday, Feb. 8, that a special US presidential emissary was dispatched to Morocco with a message of explanation for the king. He was turned away. This is not confirmed by US or Saudi sources.

The initiation of dialogue between Riyadh and Tehran is the most dramatic fallout in the region from the crisis in Egypt. Its is a boon for the ayatollahs who are treated the sight of  pro-Western regimes either fading under the weight of domestic uprisings, or turning away from the US as Saudi Arabia is doing now.

This development is also of pivotal importance for Israel. Saudi Arabia’s close friendship with the Mubarak regime dovetailed neatly with Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s alignment with Egypt and provided them with common policy denominators. The opening of the Saudi door to the Iranian push toward the Red Sea and Suez Canal tightens the Iranian siege ring around Israel.

Signs of friction between Washington and Riyadh were noticeable this week even before President Obama’s call to King Abdullah. Some American media reported the discovery that Saudi oil reserves were a lot smaller than previously estimated. And Saudi media ran big headlines, most untypically, alleging the US embassy and consulate in Dahran were paying sub-contractors starvation wages of $4.3 a day for cleaning work and $3.3 a day for gardening work.

Copyright 2000-2011 DEBKAfile. All Rights Reserved.

Why the Hell Would Anybody Want to Be Free?

http://www.backwoodshome.com/blogs/ClaireWolfe/2010/12/20/why-the-hell-would-anybody-want-to-be-free/

by Claire Wolfe

That’s what I was going to call this post: Why the hell would anybody want to be free?

Yes, the question would have been rhetorical and no I don’t mean I’m thinking of taking up communism or nihilism instead of the freedomquest.

But seriously. You know from experience that being a freedomista often brings you grief. You get the sorrow of watching your country go to hell. The agony of knowing your children will have it worse than you do. You have to put up with the sneers or uncomprehending stares of people who don’t want to hear perfectly sensible ideas. You hear media morons who know nothing about economics dismiss real money as “weird.” You watch the Bill of Rights crumble to dust, day by day. You know that the policeman is not your friend. That public servants are cruel masters. You know somuch that it hurts.

Your neighbors, who fit in better than you, don’t know or don’t care. And they’re happy.

So why the hell would anybody want to be free? And by that I don’t mean, “Why would anybody rather be free than live in a Soviet gulag?” Or, “Why would anybody rather be free than to be tied up and waterboarded by a neocon puppet?” That’s obvious.

I mean, “Why would anybody rather be truly free than to live semi-free as we live now?” Or, “Why would anybody rather be Bill-of-Rights type free than live in, say, a European welfare state?” Why isn’t it enough to be relatively free? Freer than people in, say, Kenya or Saudi Arabia or even the UK or Massachusetts (sorry, Taxachusettsians).

The chances of achieving the degree of personal and political freedom we desire are slim, so why do we bang our heads when things really aren’t that bad (unless of course you’re Bradley Manning or Cory Maye or somebody else who has had too close an encounter with AUTHORITAH)?

But of course that’s looking at the question backwards.

The real question that dogged me all last weekend, the question whose answer could totally change minds, open eyes, and set spirits soaring is this:

 

What is the One Great Thing?

 

So that’s the new name of this post: The One Great Thing. What one thing about freedom makes it worthwhile for those who seek it? What One Great Thing can make all the struggle worthwhile?

If you could convey to people just one simple thing that makes true freedom better than the alternative — one little thing that even a child could understand — what would it be?



The Arms of King Abdullah

Original Article: http://mises.org/daily/4843

Mises Daily: Wednesday, November 17, 2010 by

Congress was recently notified by the US administration that it would be selling weapons to Saudi Arabia in one of the largest arms sales in history. The $60 billion deal includes advanced military aircraft, new helicopters, and other weapons such as missiles and bombs.

Aside from the fact that the costs of US weapons development are socialized while the profits are privatized, this seems like we’re just selling weapons to another country. It doesn’t really seem like a big deal, considering how much foreign aid we usually provide to everyone so they can fight against each other; but this arms deal has much more to do with foreign policy than meets the eye.

You see, the connections between Saudi Arabia, Iran, and the United States make up the Bermuda Triangle of foreign policy. This twisted three way is deeply confusing for most, and truly disturbing to think about for many others.

We have to look a bit back in history in order to understand the complexity of this relationship.

The Iran-Iraq War is a good place to start. When Iraq invaded Iran in 1980, the United States remained officially neutral while covertly assisting the Iraqi Army. As Iran started to succeed against the Iraqi invaders, the United States increased its support for Iraq, most likely because the United States was still a bit touchy about the events one year earlier, when Iran overthrew the dictator that the CIA had placed in power.

Iraq realized in 1988 that it couldn’t pay back its heavy debts to Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. Saddam Hussein didn’t believe Iraq had to pay back its debts to Saudi Arabia because the Saudis had only supported Iraq in the war due to fear that the new Iran would influence the Saudis’ Shi’a minority, who controlled the majority of oil fields. No agreement could be found, and Iraq proceeded to invade Kuwait two years later. This marks the beginning the Gulf War and the US government’s close relationship with Saudi Arabia.

Once the Iraqi Army was in Kuwait, its proximity was close enough to strike the Saudi oil fields, the fact of which was worsened by Hussein’s verbal — and extremely hypocritical — attacks on the US-supported Saudi state. Eventually the US military sent 543,000 troops into Saudi Arabia in order to protect it.

That is how much we have supported Saudi Arabia; and, due to that support, they’ve allowed us to keep around 5,000 troops in their country since 1992, a number that rose to nearly 10,000 during the recent conflict with Iraq. Saudi Arabia has become our puppet, and this leads directly to our relationship with Iran.

Iran has already experienced what it’s like to deal with a puppet. The Shah brutalized that country to an extent beyond imagination. It’s no wonder why Iranians just want to be left the hell alone.

I’ll be the first to admit that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad says some crazy things from time to time, but, if the Iranian citizens don’t like him, it’s their own problem to deal with, not ours, and they surely are capable of dealing with it. They toppled a previous oppressive regime backed up by an even bigger foreign military. If you don’t see the reflection of our own country’s founders in that mix, you’re not paying attention.

Now, whether or not Iran’s nuclear program poses a threat to the United States doesn’t really matter, because, as we’ve seen throughout the past decade, preemptive wars do not end well; and the only reason Iran would ever attack us is if we were to intervene even further in its affairs.

I mean, the United States continually enforces sanctions against the country, installs military bases surrounding its borders, and supports much more oppressive regimes; and we continue to ask why the Iranians are scared? They have as much right to defend themselves from us as we do from them. Of course, when the US government doesn’t get its way, it has to call in the United Nations.

The most recent of the sanctions against Iran, passed earlier this year, have crippled Iran’s economy in the name of hurting Iran’s government. The United Nations is arrogant for thinking that sanctions hurt governments and not citizens. It is incredibly easier to be poor in the United States, where the economy is at least semifree, as opposed to in a country where imports are impeded by illegal blockades, and thus costs are raised.

So, in essence, the US government likes the Saudis because they allow us to be in their country, and it doesn’t like the Iranians because they don’t want us to be in their country.

But we have to make sure to understand the importance of the depths of these relationships, or else the debate ends up focusing on some kind of nonexistent difference in mentality between Saudis, Iranians, and Americans that we can somehow fix overnight.

We always need to see things from various perspectives. How would we feel if Iran were to set up multiple military bases in Mexico, Canada, and Cuba? The answer is that we’d feel threatened.

A big factor in the equation is that Mecca and Medina, the two holiest Islamic cities, are in Saudi Arabia, where our troops were stationed, which is one of the main reasons for the attacks on September 11th.

It is true that we took out most of our troops from the area in 2003 in order to ease tensions caused by our foreign interferences; but for the United States to supply Saudi Arabia with a massive arsenal near the holy Islamic cities is a disastrous idea. With Iran’s recent insistences on being a sovereign nation, our sale to Saudi Arabia is our government’s way of telling Iran, “We’re not there, but we are.”

This arms deal is aggressive and demeaning; and it in no way protects the interests of the United States. Until our military is completely out of the Arabian Peninsula, we cannot expect to make any peace with foreign nations.

Brian Anderson is a student at Arizona State University, studying genetics and entrepreneurship. Send him mail. See Brian Anderson’s article archives.
This article originally published in Arizona State University’s State Press.
Comment on the blog.
You can subscribe to future articles by Brian Anderson via this RSS feed.

You can receive the Mises Dailies in your inbox. Go here to subscribe.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


There is no water shortage

Canada Free Press

By Dr. Tim Ball Thursday, November 4, 2010

There is no shortage of water. Amounts available vary regionally and change over time as precipitation amounts vary. Demand also changes with increases in population and economic development. Crude estimates indicate water use per person is 15 liters in undeveloped countries and approximately 900 liters in developed countries. Throughout history humans have developed remarkable techniques and technologies to deal with these issues. Few of these attempted to reduce demand, most worked to increase supply.

Some societies went to great lengths. The extent of the Roman Empire is delineated by the construction of aqueducts and lead mines developed to produce pipes to carry their water.

Major advances, considered important turning points in human development, are technological controls over weather. Fire, housing and clothing created microclimates and the ability to live in more extreme conditions. Irrigation was first introduced in the Fertile Crescent (Figure1) driven by a climate change. A region that produced crops gradually became drier with the onset of a warm period called the Holocene Optimum. Besides the decrease in precipitation there is, at least initially, an increase in variability.

image
Figure 1: The Fertile Crescent. Source:

The objective is to stabilize supply so that plants get the moisture they need to suit their growth pattern. The contradiction is that as the supply decreases the demand increases.

One list of the top 20 weather disasters of the 20th century illustrates the contradiction. It was dominated by two extremes, droughts and flooding. Samuel Taylor Coleridge wrote to the contradictions in the Ancient Mariner,

Water, water, everywhere,
And all the boards did shrink;
Water, water, everywhere,
Nor any drop to drink.

It’s the problem for those who claim there is water shortage or that supply is threatened. It’s estimated there’s enough in Lake Superior for total US demand for a year. Compare this with the volume in the oceans, but that’s the Mariners contradiction. Many suggest the oceans have an almost unlimited supply, but this raises the second issue with supply, namely quality. Plants and animals require a certain quality of water, few more demanding than humans. Before we can use ocean water we have to remove the salt. Our tongues are a sensor to protect us from ingesting too much salt with an ability to detect 200 parts per million (ppm), anything above that level is increasingly dangerous. Average salt content in seawater is 34,000 ppm.

One outcome of the Titanic disaster was the shift to desalination plants on ocean going vessels. The Titanic carried massive volumes of freshwater because large volumes of water are a measure of luxury. When the buoyancy tanks designed to keep the ship afloat were flooded it added dangerously to the onboard water volumes. Desalination requires energy to remove the salt. Surplus heat from the engines, usually vented through the funnels, is readily available.

The energy source is important because it determines the cost of the water. Several systems are operating round the world. They are fuelled by oil, nuclear, and until regulations changed, burning garbage. In the 1980s Japan offered to sell water to Saudi Arabia at a lower cost than desalination even with their oil. Interestingly, Saudi Arabia turned the offer down because they didn’t want to depend on a foreign nation for a primary resource. The Saudi’s recently signed a contract with Japan to facilitate water desalination projects.

Solar energy is not a viable alternate energy because it’s intermittent and requires almost 100% backup. However, like some alternate energies it has specialized applications. The Ancient Mariner’s problem of no drinking water faced pilots who ditched in the ocean during WWII.  A simple device was produced to provide adequate water to prevent dehydration. It was an inflatable ring like a child’s paddling pool, but with an inflatable tripod holding up clear plastic panels. Sunlight passed through the plastic, raised the temperature and increased the rate of evaporation. When salt water evaporates it does so as freshwater. This means freshwater condenses on the inside of the clear plastic, where it can trickle down to a collecting channel. Similar vast floating devices could cover stretches of ocean, producing freshwater that is then pumped ashore with energy from solar power. Intermittent energy supply is not a problem because the water is easily stored on land.

Diversion of water through elaborate canals and pipes are the most common systems used by people throughout history. The water system at Machu Picchu, the ancient Inca city high in the Andes, is little known, but one of the most amazing pieces of engineering in a city of engineering marvels. They have also used some amazing ways of tapping into supplies. For example, a series of shafts go down to the water table where they connect a tunnel that taps the groundwater. They are called Qanats and are found from China to the Middle East, and Galeria in Mexico and Central America (Figure 2).

image
Figure 2: Cross-section through a Qanat. Source:

Some Qanats are centuries old and many are being brought back into use or expanded.

Other ideas include using oil tankers to draw fresh water directly from the ocean surface off the coast of Brazil. The volume of flow in the Amazon is so great that there is fresh water up to 200 km offshore.

People living in naturally dry areas usually drive other ideas proposed for obtaining more water. A major part of the population shift in the US is from the wet east to the dry west driven by Horace Greeley’s suggestion to go west young man. Few regions have extended their tentacles further to tap water supply than Southern California. It’s not surprising they were a region, followed by Saudi Arabia and Australia, to investigate towing icebergs from Antarctica. The idea is to carve off pieces of shelf ice, the source of large tabular icebergs. These frequently break away as the glacier advances into the ocean. Estimates are that 50 percent of the glacier would melt in passage.  At its destination it is beached, surrounded with a plastic curtain to contain the melt-water that is then pumped ashore.

There are no water shortages. There are regions of deficit and surplus and these amounts change over time.  Water is not lost. If taken out of the system in one place it is ultimately returned. Israel is one country that has assessed its water supply and done more with technology to maximize use. In most other regions governments have taken pride in providing water without a thought to the real value. It is probably the ultimate entitlement.


Author

Dr. Tim Ball  Bio

Dr. Tim Ball Most recent columnsCopyright © 2010 CFP
Dr. Tim Ball, is a member of CFP’s Speakers’ Bureau

Tim Ball on ClimateGate

Video 1

Video 2

Tim Ball on the Michael Coren Show

“Dr. Tim Ball is a renowned environmental consultant and former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg.  Dr. Ball employs his extensive background in climatology and other fields as an advisor to the International Climate Science Coalition, Friends of Science and the Frontier Centre for Public Policy.”

Dr. Ball can be reached at: Letters@canadafreepress.com



Demagoguing the Mosque

by Ron Paul

Is the controversy over building a mosque near ground zero a grand distraction or a grand opportunity? Or is it, once again, grandiose demagoguery?

It has been said, “Nero fiddled while Rome burned.” Are we not overly preoccupied with this controversy, now being used in various ways by grandstanding politicians? It looks to me like the politicians are “fiddling while the economy burns.

The debate should have provided the conservative defenders of property rights with a perfect example of how the right to own property also protects the 1st Amendment rights of assembly and religion by supporting the building of the mosque.

Instead, we hear lip service given to the property rights position while demanding that the need to be “sensitive” requires an all-out assault on the building of a mosque, several blocks from “ground zero.”

Just think of what might (not) have happened if the whole issue had been ignored and the national debate stuck with war, peace, and prosperity. There certainly would have been a lot less emotionalism on both sides. The fact that so much attention has been given the mosque debate, raises the question of just why and driven by whom?

In my opinion it has come from the neo-conservatives who demand continual war in the Middle East and Central Asia and are compelled to constantly justify it.

They never miss a chance to use hatred toward Muslims to rally support for the ill-conceived preventative wars. A select quote from soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq expressing concern over the mosque is pure propaganda and an affront to their bravery and sacrifice.

The claim is that we are in the Middle East to protect our liberties is misleading. To continue this charade, millions of Muslims are indicted and we are obligated to rescue them from their religious and political leaders. And, we’re supposed to believe that abusing our liberties here at home and pursuing unconstitutional wars overseas will solve our problems.

The nineteen suicide bombers didn’t come from Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan or Iran. Fifteen came from our ally Saudi Arabia, a country that harbors strong American resentment, yet we invade and occupy Iraq where no al Qaeda existed prior to 9/11.

Many fellow conservatives say they understand the property rights and 1st Amendment issues and don’t want a legal ban on building the mosque. They just want everybody to be “sensitive” and force, through public pressure, cancellation of the mosque construction.

This sentiment seems to confirm that Islam itself is to be made the issue, and radical religious Islamic views were the only reasons for 9/11. If it became known that 9/11 resulted in part from a desire to retaliate against what many Muslims saw as American aggression and occupation, the need to demonize Islam would be difficult if not impossible.

There is no doubt that a small portion of radical, angry Islamists do want to kill us but the question remains, what exactly motivates this hatred?

If Islam is further discredited by making the building of the mosque the issue, then the false justification for our wars in the Middle East will continue to be acceptable.

The justification to ban the mosque is no more rational than banning a soccer field in the same place because all the suicide bombers loved to play soccer.

Conservatives are once again, unfortunately, failing to defend private property rights, a policy we claim to cherish. In addition conservatives missed a chance to challenge the hypocrisy of the left which now claims they defend property rights of Muslims, yet rarely if ever, the property rights of American private businesses.

Defending the controversial use of property should be no more difficult than defending the 1st Amendment principle of defending controversial speech. But many conservatives and liberals do not want to diminish the hatred for Islam – the driving emotion that keeps us in the wars in the Middle East and Central Asia.

It is repeatedly said that 64% of the people, after listening to the political demagogues, don’t want the mosque to be built. What would we do if 75% of the people insist that no more Catholic churches be built in New York City? The point being is that majorities can become oppressors of minority rights as well as individual dictators. Statistics of support is irrelevant when it comes to the purpose of government in a free society – protecting liberty.

The outcry over the building of the mosque, near ground zero, implies that Islam alone was responsible for the 9/11 attacks. According to those who are condemning the building of the mosque, the nineteen suicide terrorists on 9/11 spoke for all Muslims. This is like blaming all Christians for the wars of aggression and occupation because some Christians supported the neo-conservative’s aggressive wars.

The House Speaker is now treading on a slippery slope by demanding an investigation to find out just who is funding the mosque – a bold rejection of property rights, 1st Amendment rights, and the Rule of Law – in order to look tough against Islam.

This is all about hate and Islamaphobia.

We now have an epidemic of “sunshine patriots” on both the right and the left who are all for freedom, as long as there’s no controversy and nobody is offended.

Political demagoguery rules when truth and liberty are ignored.

See the Ron Paul File

August 23, 2010

Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress from Texas.

The Best of Ron Paul




%d bloggers like this: