Posted on 12/29/2009 7:54:16 PM PST by Federalist Patriot
I like Ben Stein on economic issues; however this short clip is a cheesy example of leftist character assassination. While I am not really sure on Ron Paul’s whole world philosophy, yet what he said was not anti-Semitic and was clear on the rhetorical point as to reasons those in the Middle East have declared and use as an argument to blame America or Western nations of being in the region. As we are not occupiers or conquerors, I cannot say the same for those in the Middle East whose wholesale slaughter of different populations they do not like, such as Hamas, PLO and the many other insurgent movements which are occupiers enslaving local, regional populations and in some cases have become defacto nation/states supported by the Foreign Nations Association who have fanned the flames of this whole mess for profit and political gain; the record is clear!
not that rockwell
My ignorance is showing. Whom do you mean?
Abolish the Federal Income Tax is NeoLeft?
Lew Rockwell, one of the fringe neo nazi loons
R-U-N Paul needs to spend some time learning the history of the Middle East and Islam (and pre-Islam). You want to speak of occupiers R-U-N? Let’s talk about the Persians and the Babylonians, shall we?
Islam is a religion which evangelizes by the sword. They conquer and kill everyone who will not become one of them.
They will eventually take over the world unless they are stopped. We are free and most of us Christian or Jewish because we stopped them.
We should give thanks to our ancestors such as Charles Martel who stopped the Muslims.
Finally, a article that proves I was right about this friggin nutcase Ron Paul. He is a terrorist appeaser and he always will be, but I am sure the ronbots will be here shortly to defend him, just the same.
No. It was a discussion about Paul's insane 9/11 logic and foreign policy which mirror that of the NeoLeft. I earlier remarked that he was like McGovern when it came to his foreign policy.
You catch the story about when we hit Yemen with cruise missles? It was like a week or 2 ago?
Who could have possibly imagined that the people in Yemen wouldn’t like being hit with cruise missles? Those Muslims must be crazy animals, not like being killed and all.
They must hate our freedom. Us killing them with the missles had nothing to do with it. And you must be an anti-semite to think that the Muslims shouldn’t like being shot at with USA missiles in their own country.
CALLER: I want a complete, impartial, and totally independent investigation of the events of September 11, 2001 . I’m tired of this bogus garbage about terrorism. Ask Michael Meacher about how he feels about this bogus war on terrorism. Can you comment on that please?
HON. DR. RON PAUL: Well, that would be nice to have. Unfortunately, we don’t have that in place. It will be a little bit better now with the Democrats now in charge of oversight. But you know, for top level policy there’s not a whole lot of difference between the two policies so a real investigation isn’t going to happen. But I think we have to keep pushing for it. And like you and others, we see the investigations that have been done so far as more or less cover-up and no real explanation of what went on.
Well, I happen to disagree with you on some policy matters. I do realize that his foreign policy, especially regarding terrorism, really has turned a lot of people off (most) here on FR.
Most here cannot or will not accept in any fashion any discussion at all about “blowback”. I personally can try to wrap my head around that. Most here do say 100% no to any of that. I recognize this. Ron Paul would do well to steer clear of “blowback” discussions.
I’m finding antiwar Dems these days even rejecting the blowback theory now that Obama is basically doing the same stuff as Bush on the antiterrorist front. They didn’t like it when Bush did it, but now that Obama is doing it, it’s ok.
However, on foreign policy, the guy is just plum crazy. And he says Democrats will do a better job at investigatory oversight? Are you kidding me?
Essentially, his remarks on September 11 can be distilled to read, “we had it coming to us so we deserved what we got.”
Amazingly enough, a Paul foreign policy is blind to the fact terrorists want to kill us at any cost (and despite that), America is not entitled to protect her sovereignty through a strong defensive posture or offensive reprisal.
Well, I’m going to assume that what you’re writing is true.
Yeah, Ron Paul is not strong on 9/11 matters. Because if Ron Paul said that, it seems that, yeah, “more or less cover-up” does tend to support truthers.
On the other hand, there’s “blowback” which doesn’t fit with “more of less cover-up”.
Basically, there are 3 possible positions 1) “more or less cover-up” 2) “blowback” 3) crazy muslims hate our freedom.
The official FR position is 100% #3, it certainly was during the Bush administration, and there seems to be no change as of now. The official FR position is that positions #1 and #2 are crazy, unhinged, off the reservation, etc.
Ron Paul does seem to have taken, at various times, elements of #1 and #2, neither of which is liked at all here.
Interestingly, as to 9/11 #1 and #2 are incompatible. #1 says that it might not have been exclusively muslims. #2 says that it was exclusively muslims. The difference between #2 and #3 is under #2 the muslims reasons are examined and under #3, the examination goes just as far as to say muslims are crazy.
If I was to guess, I would say that your quote was pre 2007, or, if it was from 2007, it was prior to the summer. That’s just a guess. During the debates in 2007, Ron Paul was solidly behind the “blowback” explanation. I don’t think he was switching back and forth between conspiracy theory and blowback at that time. I could be wrong.
Well, I’d cut him a break on the Democrats / oversight, personally. He wasn’t saying the Democrats are better at oversight in all cases, at least in my analysis. I think he was saying basically was that Democrats do a better job of oversight of Republicans than Republicans do. I’d assume that he’d say that Republicans do a better job of overseeing Democrats than Democrats do. It’s more a commentary on the 2 party system than anything else.
The particular comment, the quote from the Malkin article really doesn’t boil down to “we had it coming” The “cover-up” line leads to “it was a conspiracy”, not “we had it coming”. Paul has used both arguments, or, Paul’s arguments have been twisted to make people believe that Paul was making those arguments.
But, it is true that on FR, people believe that Paul makes those arguments.
As I mentioned, early on I thought Ron Paul was someone I could support (esp. fiscal and monetary matters), yet the more I learned about his shocking sentiments and feelings regarding September 11, national security / and his apparent nonchalance about our sovereignty, I became more wary and alarmed.
I have read many of Paul’s own comments, his you tubes and
sites.
Have also talked face to face with many of his supporters.
The views are NeoLeft as I mentioned earlier.
This is why so many 9/11 Truthers back him.
His anti war, we drove the Muslims to do this,
His “American Imperialism” rants, anti Israel.
His son who is runing for the senate in KY is no different.
He has a bit of a different spin to get Republican votes
but his son’s views are the same.
All loons.
Muslims are taking over Europe simply because THEY ARE INVITED.
Unstopped.
I do not for one split second believe that Ron Paul is nonchalant about our sovereignty.
Safety, maybe. Security, maybe. There are reasonable arguments on both sides. Ron Paul believes strongly in sovereignty. Our sovereignty, and also the sovereignty of other countries. It might not increase our safety to respect the sovereignty of other nations, it might not increase our security to respect the sovereignty of other nations, but Ron Paul wouldn’t do something to allow another country to bomb us and then say “what are you complaining about, you violated the sovereignty of many other nations. We’re just doing to you what you did to many other countries.”
But, people here are unlikely to understand that argument. If people in other countries are considered crazy for disliking being attacked by cruise missiles, and crazy for doing something in retaliation, (that is the argument that is called “blaming the US”) I assume that other countries wouldn’t be considered merely returning the favor if they decide that some people here in the US were doing something that they could stop by lobbing in a few cruise missiles.
Here’s a little quiz - A) or B)?
A) People in foreign countries like it when the US fires cruise missiles into their country, killing their people.
B) People in foreign countries do not like it when the US fires cruise missles into their country, killing their people.
I haven’t been to many foreign countries. I don’t really know what people in foreign countries think. I’m really just guessing here. But, and this is critical. B) is often true. Not just A). Sure, there are obviously a lot of people who are just waiting around hoping we’d just hurry up and get over to their country with our kick-ass cruise missiles and kill them, but, there are some people (we call them crazy) who believe B). They do not like it when we kill their countrymen with cruise missiles.
My recommendation to Republicans, Democrats, people here on FR and people anywhere else is to recognize that there are people in both group A - those who like seeing their countrymen killed by the US and group B - those who do not like seeing their countrymen killed by the US.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.