Bear with me and I'll tie this back to the thread topic.
First, let's look at the attacks before the 1993 WTC bombing. Our government (yes, the same one that claims to spread freedom and democracy throughout the world) removed the elected president of Iran, who wanted to remain neutral in the US vs USSR cold war, and put an unelected prince that the Iranian people did not want into power. Remember, Iran is a Shiite country. Then our government armed a Sunni government (Saddam) in a conflict against Iran. Notice most, if not all, of the attacks in this period are Shiitte or Iranian. Also notice the targets are government/military in middle eastern countries.
Meanwhile, our government was arming Sunni groups to fight the Soviet army in Afganistan.
Then the Iraqi military, which our government helped build, invades Kuwait. For whatever reason, we must go liberate Kuwait. Suddenly we have a huge military presense in Saudi Arabia, a Sunni country which also happens to be the origin of the Islamic faith. Not much later, the 1993 WTC bombing happens. The US military operations continued there (which I was a part of). Smaller attacks continued and then the big one came in 2001. We all know what happened from there.
Ron Paul's position is that overly aggressive foriegn can lead to really bad consequences for us. Neither Ron Paul nor I condone terrorism. The question is: do we want to minimize terrorism or do we want to use it as an excuse for more aggressive military action.