Repeating your lies doesn't make 'em true.
Ron Paul underestimates the nature of the Muslim threat, but he doesn't 'blame' the US. He understands that a significant rationale for the Islamic terrorist assault is our military presence and influence in the Mideast.
There was no Islamic terrorism as we know it when the Soviets were fighting in Afghanistan. We were more concerned with planes being hijacked to Cuba than being blown out of the sky or flown into buildings.
The term Ron Paul uses most often with reference to conflict with the Muslim world is 'blowback'.
From a 1996 piece:
One of the groups that claimed credit for the bombing in Saudi Arabia -- and one that has warned that there will be further attacks -- had participated in the jihad in Afghanistan, as had all three of the groups believed to have been involved in the November bombing in Islamabad. The sheikh and the CIA (and Saudi Arabia) had been obsessed with driving out the Soviets. As a result the CIA helped to train and fund what eventually became an international network of highly disciplined and effective Islamic militants -- and a new breed of terrorist as well.
Speaking of the bombings, a former U.S. diplomat specializing in Saudi Arabia told me recently, "Whether the attacks were carried out by the same or allied Islamic militant groups is not the most important thing. What is far more troubling is that these attacks illustrate the changing nature of terrorism since the Cold War.
...
SIXTEEN years have passed since the CIA began providing weapons and funds -- eventually totaling more than $3 billion -- to a fratricidal alliance of seven Afghan resistance groups, none of whose leaders are by nature democratic, and all of which are fundamentalist in religion to some extent, autocratic in politics, and venomously anti-American. Washington's financial commitment to the jihad was exceeded only by Saudi Arabia's. At the time the jihad was getting under way there was no significant Islamist opposition movement in Saudi Arabia, and it apparently never occurred to the Saudi rulers, who feared the Soviets as much as Washington did, that the volunteers it sent might be converted by the jihad's ideology. Therein lies the greatest paradox of the bombing in Riyadh: it and the explosions in Peshawar and Islamabad could well prove to be part of the negative fallout -- or "blowback," in intelligence parlance -- of the U.S.- and Saudi-orchestrated Afghan jihad.
http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/issues/96may/blowback.htm
I just grabbed this article more or less at random. There is more...much more available on the real history of Islamic terrorism, but you don't seem interested in knowing the ugly truth.
∆∆
| 
