Let me preface this post by saying that I’d be ok with Ron Paul being president if the president wasn’t also commander-in-chief. I agree with Ron Paul’s agenda of limited government that lives within the constraints of the U.S. Constitution.
He wouldn’t be my first choice but I’d be ok with him.

The thing that eliminates him from being a top tier presidential candidate is his perspective on who caused 9/11. This is typical Ron Paul thinking:

At a campaign stop on Saturday in Winterset, one man asked Paul how terrorist groups would react if the U.S. removed its military presence in Middle Eastern nations, a move the candidate advocates.

“Which enemy are you worried that will attack our national security?” Paul asked.

“If you’re looking for specifics, I’m talking about Islam. Radical Islam,” the man answered.

“I don’t see Islam as our enemy,” Paul said. “I see that motivation is occupation and those who hate us and would like to kill us, they are motivated by our invasion of their land, the support of their dictators that they hate.”

Anyone that thinks that the strain of radical Islam isn’t motivated by their thirst for ushering in a worldwide caliphate hasn’t done their homework. Fortunately, Patrick Poole did his. Read this and tell me if Ron Paul’s theory is solid thinking or insanity:

What Western intelligence authorities know about The Project begins with the raid of a luxurious villa in Campione, Switzerland on November 7, 2001. The target of the raid was Youssef Nada, director of the Al-Taqwa Bank of Lugano, who has had active association with the Muslim Brotherhood for more than 50 years and who admitted to being one of the organization’s international leaders. The Muslim Brotherhood, regarded as the oldest and one of the most important Islamist movements in the world, was founded by Hasan al-Banna in 1928 and dedicated to the credo, “Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. Qur’an is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope.”

The raid was conducted by Swiss law enforcement at the request of the White House in the initial crackdown on terrorist finances in the immediate aftermath of 9/11. US and Swiss investigators had been looking at Al- Aqwa’s involvement in money laundering and funding a wide range of Islamic terrorist groups, including Al-Qaeda, HAMAS (the Palestinian affiliate of the Muslim Brotherhood), the Algerian GIA, and the Tunisian Ennahdah.

Included in the documents seized during the raid of Nada’s Swiss villa was a 14-page plan written in Arabic and dated December 1, 1982, which outlines a 12-point strategy to “establish an Islamic government on earth”, identified as The Project. According to testimony given to Swiss authorities by Nada, the unsigned document was prepared by “Islamic researchers” associated with the Muslim Brotherhood.

Ron Paul’s theory is that al-Qa’ida plotted 9/11 as a response to the U.S. military bases in Saudi Arabia. Those with a willingness to accept verifiable truth, though, are forced to admit that 9/11 had everything to do with a “12-point strategy to ‘establish an Islamic government on earth’, identified as The Project.”

It’s time for Ron Paul to admit he’s been badly wrong about the jihadists for a very long time. If he won’t accept these planning documents as proof that the Muslim Brotherhood is determined to create a worldwide caliphate, then Ron Paul isn’t qualified to be commander-in-chief. PERIOD.

The documents don’t talk about U.S. interventionism in the Middle East. The only thing they talk about is a steely determination to establish a Muslim caliphate that will rule the world.

It’s time for Ron Paul to pull his head out of his ass and accept the truth about the Muslim Brotherhood’s version of radical Islam. If he isn’t willing to admit the truth, then his political career should come to a crashing halt this winter.

We don’t need an ill-informed idiot as commander-in-chief.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , , ,

12 Responses to “Ron Paul’s 9/11 Theory vs. Verifiable Proof”

  • Evil Otto says:

    “We don’t need an ill-informed idiot as commander-in-chief.”

    Well, ANOTHER ill-informed idiot. ;-)

  • Winston says:

    ru paul is mentally unfit for any government job

  • Joseph says:


    You paint a nice story but it doesn’t disprove Paul’s theory that 9/11 was a response to military bases. You want verifiable evidence, see Osama bin Laden’s letter to the American people. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/nov/24/theobserver

    Specifically, “Your forces occupy our countries; you spread your military bases throughout them; you corrupt our lands, and you besiege our sanctities, to protect the security of the Jews and to ensure the continuity of your pillage of our treasures.”

    I am sure that there are groups and individuals that take umbrage with our occupation of foreign lands. The fact that they use Islam for their justification in their “official” 12-point strategy does not make Paul’s view invalid.

    Also, Youssef Nada was never charged of any wrong doing. He was a victim of post 9/11 hatred of Muslims.

    Shame on you for misleading your readers on Ron Paul. You should look at the following stories to start and do some research to find out how wrong you are.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motives_for_the_September_11_attacks (look at the sources)

    The official 9/11 Report also cites our activities in the Middle East as reasons.

  • Joseph says:


    Nice name calling. Way to be an adult. I hope you will be keeping your informed views away from the voting booth.

  • Gary Gross says:

    Joseph, I’ve made it a practice to never trust the public statements of terrorists. I’ve made that my practice because of a Muslim tenet called al-Taqqiya. It’s a tactic that allows Muslims to lie without impunity (in their eyes) if it’s done to mislead the infidels. In fact, it’s foolish to think that a mass murderer who resorts to mass-scale violence when he doesn’t get his way should be trusted.

    The former leader of the bin Laden unit in the CIA was recently interviewed about the original World Trade Center bombing in 1993 had started planning that terrorist attack long before Operation Desert Storm/Desert Shield. In other words, that terrorist attack wasn’t predicated on U.S. troops being in Saudi Arabia.

    Further, why didn’t bin Laden talk about U.S. troops being in Saudi Arabia as the reasons behind the Embassy bombings in 1998 or the bombing of the USS Cole in 2000? What was al-Qa’ida’s motivation for those attacks?

    As for the notion that Youssef Nada being a “victim of post-9/11 hatred of Muslims”, that’s utter nonsense. The U.S. government didn’t take actions because they hated Muslims. They took action to prevent future terrrorist attacks, which is the first affirmative responsibility a commander-in-chief is assigned by the Constitution.

    The 9/11 Commission’s report talked about our siding with Israel in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as contributing to the global war on terrorism. That’s the oldest argument on the books. It’s been discredited because the Palestinians don’t want Israel to exist.

    Please don’t be this naive. Just because Ron Paul is doesn’t mean you should be naive, too.

  • Joseph says:

    If you don’t believe what terrorists say, then by your own logic, you can’t believe the 12 point strategy that was found. Hence you argument is not verifiable.

    Bin Laden didn’t single out troops in Saudi Arabia. He said “occupy our countries.”

    It would be nice if you linked to some verifiable sources that discredit the Israeli link.

    I think the part about the Palestinians not wanting Israel to exist proves that our siding with Israel creates blowback in the region that fuels groups like al-Qa’ida.

    You shouldn’t be so naive to not understand the unintended consequences of America’s actions.

  • Gary Gross says:

    Joseph, your argument would be valid if you hadn’t missed a subtle, important point. Here’s what I said:

    Joseph, I’ve made it a practice to never trust the public statements of terrorists.

    Notice that I didn’t say I’d never trust their statements, just the ones made for public consumption. When I read documents meant only for internal planning, I tend to trust them because that’s when terrorists want to speak clearly.

    Second, the only countries where the US had troops stationed at the time of 9/11 was Saudi Arabia & Iraq.

    Finally, siding with Israel is something that’s always worthwhile. Always. When God made His covenant with Abraham, He said “Surely, I will bless those that bless you & I will curse those that curse you.” Since that time, He’s been faithful to that covenant.

    In the years when the United States’ support for Israel was unwavering, the United States didn’t just prosper. It flourished. Since the time that the United States’ support started wavering, things have been bumpy at best. In my opinion, that isn’t coincidental.

  • Ron J says:


    Why would supporting Israel make the US prosperous? It seems to me that the US supporting Israel and US economic success would be coincidental at best. I can see how US economic success would allow the US to support Israel, but I don’t see it working the other way around.

  • Gary Gross says:

    Supporting Israel is right because of God’s promise to Abraham. “Surely, I will bless those that bless you & I will curse those that curse you.” I prefer staying on the right side of God’s promises. That’s the only consideration I need in the matter.

  • Ron J says:

    While faith is important, it is a poor reason to support a country. Especially since the US is not a homogeneous nation.

  • Sri says:

    Ron – Gary will never get it because he doesn’t want to.
    We all have disagreements with others including politicians; it is the degree of disagreement that matters when we decide to vote/not vote for that politician. I agree with majority of what Ron Paul says.

    1. He is the only guy who WILL bring our troops back. That alone is sufficient for me to vote for him. If Gary had family fighting in Iraq, he will understand. I mention to one of my colleagues about how illegal, immoral and nonsensical the Iraq war is to which she responded. “Are you saying we did the wrong thing by taking out Saddam? Isn’t the U.S. right in spreading democracy in Iraq”. My response “it is none of our business to go to war with another country without being attacked. Especially when we are broke and our people are suffering.” Also, I had to remind her about the original reasoning for the war – the non-existent weapons of mass destruction.
    2. Ron Paul’s biggest mistake is treating all Americans as adults while trying to explain issues like “blow-back”. Just imagine this, I come to your house and shoot your wife and kids saying that I “believe” you have a weapon of mass destruction and may try to kill me. Now that your wife and kids are dead, why wouldn’t you want to blow yourself up and kill me and my family?!

  • Truth says:

    Why US Army fight together with Jihad (Muslim Brotherhood’s version of radical Islam) in Bosnia and Kosovo? Just for politic (M-O-N-E-Y) interests. Just don’t talk about Verifiable Proof.

    Greetings from Serbia.
    We were bombed by US, we, ordinary people who didn’t support Serbian president Slobodan Milosevic (some American politicians are very good friends with him).
    90% Americans (are ill-informed idiots as YOU are) don’t know nothing and don’t want to know except how to make a M-O-N-E-Y!

    Ron Paul R3ution!
    That’s the way to make a better world.

Leave a Reply