|
|
|
Dr. Ron Paul Addresses the House of Representatives
Suicide Terrorism, Thursday, July 14, 2005 Reprinted with permission Mr. Speaker, more than half of the American people now believe that the Iraqi war has made the U.S. less safe. This is a dramatic shift in sentiment from two years ago. Early support for the war reflected a hope for a safer America, and it was thought to be an appropriate response to the 9/11 attacks. The argument was that the enemy attacked us because of our freedom, our prosperity, and our way of life. It was further argued that it was important to engage the potential terrorists over there rather than here. Many bought this argument and supported the war. That is now changing. It is virtually impossible to stop determined suicide bombers. Understanding why they sacrifice themselves is crucial to ending what appears to be senseless and irrational. But there is an explanation. Like many, I have assumed that the driving force behind the suicide attacks was Islamic fundamentalism. Promise of instant entry into paradise as a reward for killing infidels seemed to explain the suicides, a concept that is foreign to our way of thinking. The world's expert on suicide terrorism has convinced me to rethink this simplistic explanation, that terrorism is merely an expression of religious extremism and resentment of a foreign culture. Robert Pape, author of Dying to Win, explains the strategic logic of suicide terrorism. Pape has collected a database of every suicide terrorist attack between 1980 and 2004, all 462 of them. His conclusions are enlightening and crucial to our understanding the true motivation behind the attacks against Western nations by Islamic terrorists. After his exhaustive study, Pape comes to some very important conclusions. Religious beliefs are less important than supposed. For instance, the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka, a Marxist secular group, are the world's leader in suicide terrorism. The largest Islamic fundamentalist countries have not been responsible for any suicide terrorist attack. None have come from Iran or the Sudan. Until the U.S. invasion of Iraq, Iraq never had a suicide terrorist attack in all of its history. Between 1995 and 2004, the al Qaeda years, two-thirds of all attacks came from countries where the U.S. had troops stationed. Iraq's suicide missions today are carried out by Iraqi Sunnis and Saudis. Recall, 15 of the 19 participants in the 9/11 attacks were Saudis. The clincher is this: the strongest motivation, according to Pape, is not religion but rather a desire "to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from the territory the terrorists view as their homeland." The best news is that if stopping suicide terrorism is a goal we seek, a solution is available to us. Cease the occupation of foreign lands and the suicide missions will cease. Between 1982 and 1986, there were 41 suicide terrorist attacks in Lebanon. Once the U.S., the French, and Israel withdrew their forces from Lebanon, there were no more attacks. The reason the attacks stop, according to Pape, is that the Osama bin Ladens of the world no longer can inspire potential suicide terrorists despite their continued fanatical religious beliefs. Pape is convinced after his extensive research that the longer and more extensive the occupation of Muslim territories, the greater the chance of more 9/11-type attacks on the U.S. He is convinced that the terrorists strategically are holding off hitting the U.S. at the present time in an effort to break up the coalition by hitting our European allies. He claims it is just a matter of time if our policies do not change. It is time for us to consider a strategic reassessment of our policy of foreign interventionism, occupation, and nation-building. It is in our national interest to do so and in the interest of world peace. Reprinted from Ron Paul's FREEDOM REPORT, VOLUME 9, NO. 8 SEPTEMBER 2005 F.R.E.E., Inc. P.O. Box 1776 Lake Jackson, Texas 77566 979-265-3034 For PayPal payments, use frontiersman@tomc.org.uk.
|
Over a Barrel
Jim Sullivan Have you noticed that the owner's manual for a new automobile instructs you to change oil every 5,000 miles or every five months, whichever comes sooner? Your gas station man and even the car dealer's mechanic says, "Disregard the manual. Change your oil every 3,000 miles or three months." Which is correct? No one seems to know. This dilemma is nothing new. Back in the days, not that long ago really, when manuals started directing car owners to change oil every 3,000 miles or three months, the gas station guy was whispering to customers, "Don't pay any attention to them carmakers and dealers. If you want to keep that new engine purring, change oil every 1,000 miles or every couple of months, if not more often." I've always suspected a tad of self-interest at play here. Oil changes are a gas station's profit-maker. Heck, some stations these days do nothing but change oil. That should tell you something. When someone tells you to change oil more often than the manual recommends, perhaps that person is looking to make a buck or two off you. One way or the other, getting new oil more frequently than the manufacturer suggests certainly can't hurt your vehicle though it will lighten your wallet some. Carmakers, on the other hand, aren't interested in making money from you with oil changes. Therefore, they have no reason to push you into doing so. When I mentioned this logic to my mechanic the other day, he pointed out something to me that I hadn't thought about. "Listen", he said, "the sooner your car engine goes sour, usually from lack of clean lubricant, the sooner you buy another car. Right?" I had to admit he was on to something there: motive. Manufacturers do have an interest in letting you go longer between oil changes than you should. This is really all quite confusing and I still don't know who's right. Recently, I took matters into my own hands. I decided to change my own car's oil and do it half-way between what the carmaker recommended and what my garage man had said. That meant 4,000 miles or every four months. It seemed like a happy medium and a brilliant compromise. My wife worried herself sick watching me crawl under our car that I'd jacked up and put on blocks. But, except for skinning my knuckles when loosening the oil pan bolt and getting that fluid all over my face and head, all went well. What's more, I saved money buying my replacement oil and filter at the discount store. However, I ran into a vexing situation: what to do with the old oil I'd drained out of my car? There was no place to dispose of it without causing pollution and I surely didn't want to drive 20 miles to our nearest landfill. Besides, I'd heard they wouldn't accept oil. In desperation, I sheepishly took the used oil down to my mechanic. He took it, but reluctantly. He informed me, none too gently I might add, "If you don't see fit to have me change your oil, I don't see how I can continue to get rid of any more of your used lubricant!" So I resumed going back to him for my regular oil changes. Naturally, they had to be on his terms: every 3,000 miles or three months, and woe to me if I'm late. He truly has me over a barrel (oil drum to be precise). Would someone please find out who's right about this oil change frequency argument and let me and the rest of the car buying world know? There's a lot riding on the answer. Remember: oil is in short supply. At least that's what the oil companies are saying. Can we believe them? Oil Suggestions
For PayPal payments, use frontiersman@tomc.org.uk.
|
Acknowledgments My thanks to the following: Sir James the Bold, SantaClara Bob, Lady Jan the Voluptuous, CVG, of Tonopah, Arizona, Karl, of Windsor, Connecticut, and ERE, of Soledad, California. — editor
— Science Student
Dear Science Student I don't even know what country they come from. Are they Catholic? Headlines for 2029
Frontiersman Cancellations — If you don't want to keep receiving this newsletter, print REFUSED, RETURN TO SENDER above your name and address, cross out your name and address, and return the newsletter. When I receive it, I'll terminate your subscription. You may also cancel by letter, e-mail, carrier pigeon, or any other method that gets the message to me. Back Issues — Back issues or extra copies of this newsletter are available upon request. Reprint Policy — Permission is hereby granted to reproduce this newsletter in its entirety or to reproduce material from it, provided that the reproduction is accurate and that proper credit is given. Please note that I do not have the authority to give permission to reprint material that I have reprinted from other sources. For that permission, you must go to the original source. I would appreciate receiving a courtesy copy of any document or publication in which you reprint my material. Submissions — I solicit letters, articles, and cartoons for the newsletter, but I don't pay for them. Short items are more likely to be printed. I suggest that letters and articles be shorter than 500 words, but that's flexible depending on space available and the content of the piece. I give credit for all items printed unless the author specifies otherwise. Payment — This newsletter isn't for sale. If you care to make a voluntary contribution, you may do so. The continued existence of the newsletter will depend, in part, on such contributions. I prefer cash, U.S. postage stamps, prepaid telephone cards, and so forth. For checks or money orders, please inquire. For PayPal payments, use frontiersman@tomc.org.uk. I don't accept anything that requires me to provide ID to receive it. In case anybody is curious, I also accept gold, silver, platinum, etc. — Sam Aurelius Milam III, editor
For PayPal payments, use frontiersman@tomc.org.uk.
|
|
|