VIDEO: Never Tell Non-Muslims the Truth About Why We are Attacked

The USA has been the primary object of opprobrium since the 1950’s when it replaced Great Britain as the superpower. It could be readily argued that the presence of the USA has impeded political and social development in the ME insofar as it has bolstered up unpopular regimes. Both the pseudo-left-wing nationalism and the Islamicist paradigms used the US as the object of hatred and diversion for the populations, neither had an interest in evolving democratic, egalitarian societies and both sought to impose traditional and outdated social hierarchies.
If the US adopts Ron Paul’s Free Trade ideas and withdraws its bases from the Muslim sphere it will not inherently deliver up freedom, security & stability. In fact it is likely to herald region instability as various factions believe that the time has come for them to assert themselves and overthrow the current regimes. As we have seen in Iraq the naiveté of the USA & UK in believing that the Iraqis would emerge from the shadow of the Baath regime and busily build a stable democracy was sorely misplaced. Equally in Mr. Paul’s Free Trade policies the USA will expect complete and unfettered access to ME markets in return for access to US markets, as is the nature of Free Trade. As can be seen from the impact of this on former British imperial economies following the Bretton Woods agreements after WW2, this is likely to severely damage the development of regional economies which already in a very weak state. This in turn will foster further instability and violence.
The presence or absence of the USA will not create the circumstances for a stable region unless the regional populations engage in debate about what kind of future they want for themselves and then set about creating it. The problem is ours and we have to own and devise out own solutions. Neither the elitist pseudo-left-wing nationalists nor the Islamicists have a strategy to meet the challenges of the future, and more than they can create coherence without violence. Too much of these movements are characterised by violence directed against the communities. The ME will never rid itself of the USA and any number of other foreign predators until its strengthens its own societies and take responsibility for itself. Instead of buying more and more weapons, the region should put all resources into education health care, environmental management and regeneration. Until this is done the USA, regardless of which political grouping is in power, will exploit the ME and the rest of the Muslim world.

Only dumb sheep decide to blindly follow all the lies and propaganda being spewed against Muslims. Anyone with a single braincell can tell that there is a anti-Muslim agenda going on to detract from the real issues regarding an unjust foreign policy.

Could there be a Muslim Ron Paul? Mr Paul proposes that all aid donated by the USA should end. In his Free Trade vision countries live & die upon their own ability to promote themselves, innovate, produce and trade with others. For him government has no place interfering the lives of the citizen.
But the vision, that Mr Paul has, is of a USA able to use its economic strength to dominate the world through trade, relinquishing any idea of sharing any part of its wealth with other states. For states that do not mirror his free trade concepts he would block their access to US markets. In the free trade world countries like China would be forced to open their markets to US exports and their currency would have to be allowed float. This would lead to a catastrophe for China and much of the 3rd world as a consequence.
In the past 30 years the emerging nations have vied with each other to secure markets in the West often driving prices down due to oversupply. They have protected themselve to a degree by making US products unavailable in their own markets. In a world where President Paul demands that all markets are open, the little foreign currency that the 3rd world has would quickly end up back in the West. THis would impoverish them further with the attendant social unrest. But instead of the US being there to send aid, Pres. Paul wouldn't - free trade forces would create the circumstances through war and pestillence where surplus 3rd world populations were reduced.neventually equilibrium would be achieved, as the free traders predict, but the cost would be in the millions of lives.
Such ideas, may I humbly suggest, are not in keeping with Islam.

Dear Dapperdan, In what way has anything I have written been part of a Zionists agenda.
The author of the article was very selective in presenting Ron Paul's arguments and thus provides a distorted portrayal of his ambitions. In Ron Paul's (RP) vision the USA would create a laissez faire environment wherein the Zionists could operate in an unfettered way, he is much closer to the hard right wing Zionists than the pro-peace Zionists. Although he proposes that all aid to Israel should be ended, he also proposes that all aid to the 3rd world should be ended which by extension would also include the UNRWA operations. For RP the UN would simply become a means to facilitate the sale and movement of goods around the world.
Despite the superficial reasonableness of RP's position, in fact he envisages a world in which the USA uses free trade to prey upon the weak. In essence it is an extension of Social Darwinianism wherein the weak fall to the strong.
If RP were to become president, the USA could rapidly progress to establishing his aims. The ME and the rest of the 3rd world couldn't. The root of this inability to respond lies in the failure of the 3rd world to invest in education, healthcare, govt administration, evironment & regeneration, and the disproportionate amounts spent on weapons and tools of internal oppression.
I oppose the policy of attacking Israel militarily , not because it is not justified but because the resources are not there to win. To expend what few resources there are on futility is absurd. Far better to use those resources to strengthen the nations and through dialogue benefit from the considerable advances the Zionists have made.
The original 1917 Palestine can be re-assembled through a federated economic union which over time would have the capacity to meet everyone's needs. Shooting at each other or calling for genocide merely defers any resolution.
In fact those that call for the destruction of Israel and proclaim their anti-Zionist credentials do more to bolster Zionism and postpone the emergence of the Palestinian state than those who seek the path of peace and dialogue. The only way to secure ultimate victory against the Zionists is to undermine their core argument that Jews require a safe refuge from the predatory hegemonic natures of both Christianity and Islam. Hamas' charter and the stupidities of writers like Sayyid Qutb simply strengthen Zionist resolve. The reliance upon a Tsarist anti-semitic fabrication as a central plank of a political paradigm is a surefire route to disaster and the evidence of this is called Palestine.