All Episodes
Previous Next
May 5, 2015 - Ron Paul Liberty Report
10:12
ISIS In Texas?

Is the recent incident in Garland, Texas the work of ISIS, or has the media jumped to conclusions? Is there anything else to the story they are not telling us? Is the recent incident in Garland, Texas the work of ISIS, or has the media jumped to conclusions? Is there anything else to the story they are not telling us? Is the recent incident in Garland, Texas the work of ISIS, or has the media jumped to conclusions? Is there anything else to the story they are not telling us?

|

Time Text
Isis In America? 00:08:14
Hello everybody and thank you for tuning in to the Liberty Report.
With me today is Daniel McAdams who is the executive director of the Institute for Peace and Prosperity.
Daniel, good to see you today.
Thank you so much.
Well good.
We have a subject today that's in the news.
It's been there for the last two days and that has to do with Garland, Texas.
There's been an attack and a lot of headlines about ISIS in America, ISIS in Texas.
There's a tack on and it's stirring up a lot of interest and a lot of headlines.
One thing I've learned over the years is that the immediate reaction by most individuals are wrong on these incidents and that's what we would like to do on this program is to sort sort this out.
And of course the biggest headline came when ISIS said they did it.
They were in charge and more to come.
And I have a little bit of question about that.
Do you think there's justified reason for us to at least sit back and look at this a little bit slower and find out just what really went on?
Yeah, you're right.
You know, thinking about the power of propaganda, every newspaper, every website, ISIS takes responsibility.
But buried, you know, several paragraphs, if at all, even in the article, it's always according to this site intelligence group, which is a privately run intelligence service in Washington run by a woman, Rita Katz, who is a very controversial figure.
She's an Israeli American, very much in favor of the U.S. being involved in the Middle East.
And she's been the one who has been supposedly given all these bin Laden videos in the past.
So that part isn't in the headlines.
It's just the...
And, you know, if this is a stretch, which it may well be, who might benefit from this?
The people who would like us to be, what, a little more engaged in the Middle East?
I think the neocons would certainly be pushing the president with this headline, you've got to put troops on the ground, you've got to redouble your efforts.
And it's interesting, just as, you know, the fight against ISIS was flagging, you know, we talked recently about this oil field in Iraq that was taken over.
So it's kind of convenient in a way.
I don't want to be conspiratorial, but that this is happening now.
Yeah, and you know, the individuals involved aren't just newcomers.
They just didn't pop out of nowhere.
It looks like our $100 billion of spying on people, they actually knew about these two individuals, and the FBI has talked to them all, which doesn't answer questions as much as it raises questions on if they knew so much about them.
Why did it even get this far?
Fortunately, this turned out to be if somebody was really out to do harm, it turned out to be about a fizzle.
You know, one policeman got wounded in the leg, which is horrible, but there were no bombs and no mass killing.
And that's why you just wonder whether people should get hysterical over this and think, you know, ISIS is coming, ISIS is coming.
But what do we know about these two individuals?
They've been watched by the FBI for a good while.
Apparently one of them, Elton Simpson, has been watched since 2006.
He's been monitored.
And you're right, it does make you wonder because every one of these high-profile arrests and attacks or thwarted attacks have involved an FBI informant or an FBI officer who's been involved in filtrating the groups or goading the groups on.
And so he's been under their watch since 2006.
I think he was arrested in 2009 for telling an FBI informant that he was going to go to Somalia to fight.
And they've been watching him ever since.
Yes, and you know, they've been building up fear for a long time.
And there have been others who have tried to calm down the fear because people overreact when there is this tremendous amount of fear.
But whether it's economic fear or international fear, people are more likely to give up their freedoms.
But the fear that is being expressed, I think up to now at least, has been way overboard.
It has been said, and this statistically said, that the odds of you and me, any American being killed by al-Qaeda is about 55 times greater by our American police.
And that, of course, is very disturbing.
You know, that's a different problem, and that doesn't mean you dismiss anything.
But, you know, lightning is a lot more dangerous.
And one thing is a lot more dangerous.
Really, I got a little bit of a chuckle out of this, that a major financial crisis in this country is more likely to cause deaths than al-Qaeda.
So the Fed should be on the watch list.
Yeah, maybe we should.
But, you know, innocent people, you know, can be killed if somebody comes over here and nobody wants any of this.
But the people who want us to go over and use this as an excuse, well, we have to be more aggressive.
We told you ISIS is gaining on us.
I wish they'd quit giving them some weapons is what I wish and inciting them.
But, you know, we say the police kill more people than al-Qaeda in this country, but it never seems to cross the minds of a dedicated neoconservative about the hundreds, thousands, hundreds of thousands, even a million people in the last 10 or 15 years, innocent civilians who have died at the hands, you know, of our bombs, you know, our cruise missiles and our bombs that we send over there.
That to me, if that's not understood, I think we'll continue to overreact with this.
So we must be concerned about that, but I still believe the most important thing is an adequate explanation, not to jump to conclusions.
If the FBI knows something about them, maybe that should be the angle the press ought to be after.
Go find out what did the FBI really know about these individuals and how did they get that far?
And I think there was a statement made by somebody about, wasn't the reaction by the guards a little bit unusual as they marched up as they drove up to the gate?
Yeah, it was strange that they, you know, if they were going to create a terrorist attack on this event, which was an anti-Islamic event put on by another notorious Pamela Geller, a notorious anti-Muslim activist.
But it's strange if you're going to have a jihad, you stop the guard and you ask him for directions, and then you shoot him.
He seems like you'd cooperate with the guards so you could get inside.
So there must be either very hapless or something else.
But you know, it struck me, I think you're right, we should be concerned.
But I remember you've always said, you know, they come over here because we're over there.
And remember, you were ridiculed a few years ago in a debate about that.
And of course, you were backed up by Mike Scheuer, you know, career CIA analyst, saying that that's exactly right.
But it seems to me that they're going to once again draw the wrong conclusions even if there is a threat.
Yeah, because we don't know how this came about, whether sometimes I think our FBI agents are watching people and they figure, how far am I going to let them go?
And then we're going to stop them and then we're going to be heroes.
We stopped another one.
Wasn't there a report out not too many years ago of 50 events that had been stopped?
And the president even looked into it and said that wasn't true.
Yeah, exactly.
Virtually every major one of these events were not.
All these times they're saving us.
But you know, I think it still goes back to the old principles.
If you become fearful and think the government's role is to make perfect safety for us and perfect safety nets economically speaking, the government can attempt to do it.
They're never successful, but they always do it at the sacrifice of liberty and rarely achieve their goals of, say, a better economy or a safer world.
Message to Government 00:01:56
Because I think our policy is going to eventually lead to a lot more harm to us.
Because I don't think, even without this, I think the pressure is very, very great to send more troops.
And because what we're doing is failing over there, whether it's in Syria or whether it's in Yemen.
Right now, I think ground troops are moving into Yemen, you know, from Saudi Arabia.
And if they get cornered and about to lose that completely, and our bombs aren't taking care of it, I would think that there will be a time, just as we slipped into these many other wars, whether it's Korea, Vietnam, or Iraq, Afghanistan, it just escalates.
Right now, I believe the American people's sentiments are on the right track because the message they're sending to our government, no troops are to be killed.
They haven't said quit killing other people, but they said no American troops should be killed, which is a good idea.
But I firmly believe that a policy of non-intervention will guarantee that we will have a lot less of our troops killed, a lot less threat of al-Qaeda, and also it would serve for a more peaceful world.
Does that mean there will be no radicals in the Middle East fighting?
No, but I think there would be less because the radicals are fighting, and you have the Shia fighting, the Sunnis, and the different factions.
So we always go in and we want to help the moderates, and we send them money, and we send them guns, and guess what?
The war escalates.
So maybe someday we're going to get the American people to send the message to Washington.
So far, they haven't heard it, but the message ought to be a pro-American non-interventionist policy, which is designed, by the way, for peace and prosperity.
And that's why people should go and look at the Institute for Peace and Prosperity and find out exactly what that policy would entail.
Export Selection