Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Ron Paul says killing Osama bin Laden ‘absolutely not necessary’
Pajamas Media ^ | May 12, 2011 | Bryan Preston

Posted on 05/13/2011 10:23:33 AM PDT by EternalVigilance

He has flirted with blame America firstism before, and even with Truthers a couple of times, but tends to leave himself enough wiggle room so that he doesn’t come off as totally off his nut. That’s gone now.

Asked by WHO Radio’s Simon Conway whether he would have given the go-ahead to kill bin Laden if it meant entering another country, Paul shot back that it “absolutely was not necessary.”

“I don’t think it was necessary, no. It absolutely was not necessary,” Paul said during his Tuesday comments. “I think respect for the rule of law and world law and international law. What if he’d been in a hotel in London? We wanted to keep it secret, so would we have sent the airplane, you know the helicopters into London, because they were afraid the information would get out?”

The fact that at least some elements in Pakistan have to have known about OBL’s whereabouts, and harbored him, and how that would have impacted any joint mission to go get him, is utterly lost on Paul.

This is the fundamental problem with Ron Paul: When it comes to foreign policy, he is not serious and is not credible. He makes no distinctions between real allies like the UK and duplicitous frenemies like Pakistan. And he always always blames America first. That’s his MO.


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: blameamericafirst; morethorazineplease; paul; paulkucinich12; ronpaul; spotthelooney

1 posted on 05/13/2011 10:23:37 AM PDT by EternalVigilance
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

>>Ron Paul says killing Osama bin Laden ‘absolutely not necessary’<<

Ron wasn’t in the room. Just sayin’.


2 posted on 05/13/2011 10:24:52 AM PDT by RobRoy (The US today: Revelation 18:4)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

Obama said that back in 2009 too, Ron Paul.


3 posted on 05/13/2011 10:27:32 AM PDT by newzjunkey (Stay focused: Debt, Deficits, Immigration.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

Hard to see how this candidate could make himself any more irrelevant, but somehow he still manages.


4 posted on 05/13/2011 10:28:32 AM PDT by Valpal1 ("No clever arrangement of bad eggs ever made a good omelet." ~ C.S. Lewis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

I’m sure Fraud Paul would love for Osama or any other enemy in a combat situation, to have access to US Justice System lawyers and courts. Imagine Osama appealing to the US 9th Circuit court.


5 posted on 05/13/2011 10:28:51 AM PDT by mnehring
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

Ron Paul would have apoligised to Osama Bin Laden for 9/11.

And no I’m not making a joke.

If you’re attracked to Ron Paul because of his economic/small-government stance, you should consider that Ron Paul is alson on record that 9/11 was America’s fault; that we were to blame for 9/11.

When it comes to 9/11, Ron Paul and the far left fringe are two pea in the same pod.


6 posted on 05/13/2011 10:29:06 AM PDT by Brookhaven (Ron Paul supports CODE PINK; CODE PINK supports Ron Paul)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Valpal1

He should have been a long time ago, but I thought with his voting for Pelosi’s tax hike bill back in December, it would have killed his chances this go around- but no, his little cult still makes excuses for everything he does.


7 posted on 05/13/2011 10:30:01 AM PDT by mnehring
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

>>but tends to leave himself enough wiggle room so that he doesn’t come off as totally off his nut.<<

Most of us knew he was both on and off his nut for years.


8 posted on 05/13/2011 10:30:22 AM PDT by freedumb2003 (osama gets 72 virgins. We get 72 versions...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
Hard to say, seeing as how I wasn't there, but it sure looks to me like they could have captured OBL if they wanted to. They killed him because they wanted to do that instead. Not like they had to as a practical matter. But I'm not sorry about OBL's death any more than that of any other enemy in war.

9 posted on 05/13/2011 10:30:22 AM PDT by Genoa (Luke 12:2)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
"What if he’d been in a hotel in London"

That's easy. 007 would have killed him.

10 posted on 05/13/2011 10:30:28 AM PDT by ReeseBN38416
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

Ya can’t give credit to the original source for this story when it’s in your own back yard?

http://www.whoradio.com/pages/simonconway.html?article=8557552


11 posted on 05/13/2011 10:30:57 AM PDT by Keith in Iowa (FR Class of 1998 | TV News is an oxymoron. | MSNBC = Moonbats Spouting Nothing But Crap.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
“I think respect for the rule of law and world law and international law. "

Usually libertarians have nothing but disdain for international law. ...and rightly so. But when the subject turns to either Israel or the war on Islamofascism, Ron Paul and his ilk play the "international law" card with abandon. Complete lunatics.

12 posted on 05/13/2011 10:35:18 AM PDT by Mr. Mojo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Keith in Iowa

Whatever.


13 posted on 05/13/2011 10:38:00 AM PDT by EternalVigilance (Negotiating with rabid dogs is stupid,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

Ron Paul is not necessary either,Go Away!


14 posted on 05/13/2011 10:38:41 AM PDT by Cheetahcat ( November 4 2008 ,A date which will live in Infamy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

Whatever indeed... smh...


15 posted on 05/13/2011 10:40:14 AM PDT by Keith in Iowa (FR Class of 1998 | TV News is an oxymoron. | MSNBC = Moonbats Spouting Nothing But Crap.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

If one of his family members had been in the twin towers would he be singing a different tune? Actually - probably not because Ron Paul is hard wired, totally rules-based and ddevoid of common sense. If one can’t reason with Paul on a no-brainer like osama bin laden then clearly Ron Paul can’t be reasoned with.


16 posted on 05/13/2011 10:42:43 AM PDT by plain talk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
As pleased as we all are that he is dead, I must admit, that I am not comfortable with us killing an unarmed people, no matter how evil who posed no threat - if indeed those was the situation.

There are tapes of exactly what happened and I hope he posed some threat to justify the shooting. However, I believe there was a kill order, so it was out of the hands of those brave seal team members.

Hard to tell as this White House has been telling lies starting with the President's announcement and compounding daily. I'm sure they will gin up some self defense story, but it is simply not clear. To date, most of the statements say that he was not armed, did not appear to have a bomb or trigger, but there was a gun in the room. Don't know if that is enough.

The theory that we are at war and are supposed to kill enemies is simply not how we have carried ourselves historically. We capture people who surrender or who are unarmed; we don't kill them unless we are at risk.

This is a big line we crossed here and no telling where it will stop.

This is not a proper view for a solidly conservative citizen, but we are a country of laws, not men, and I believe this violated our laws (if not a threat.)

17 posted on 05/13/2011 10:51:54 AM PDT by dan on the right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

So, he believes Osama was killed by the Obama raid? What a kook


18 posted on 05/13/2011 10:53:09 AM PDT by wilco200 (11/4/08 - The Day America Jumped the Shark)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dan on the right

If you want a war run by lawyers, hand ‘em a weapon and send ‘em on over.


19 posted on 05/13/2011 10:54:18 AM PDT by EternalVigilance (Negotiating with rabid dogs is stupid,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

Paul, you are done! What an as@. The price of one bullet vs the billions of playing around with this mass killer for a years after years is really stupid. You are a crazy man.


20 posted on 05/13/2011 10:56:18 AM PDT by Logical me
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

That guy’s strikeouts by far outweighs his homeruns.


21 posted on 05/13/2011 10:58:24 AM PDT by chopperman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dan on the right
“that I am not comfortable with us killing an unarmed people, no matter how evil who posed no threat “

Horsecrap!!
Our country is LOST if people feel this way. Sometimes men need to be men and do what is needed.
Thanks God for the people who did this to protect our nation and killed this bastard.
Bin Laden needed a bullet in the head and that's what he got.
Anyone wanting a trial for him is completely NUTS.

22 posted on 05/13/2011 11:00:27 AM PDT by HereInTheHeartland (Those who endured Valley Forge didn't make their sacrifice to give us free health care)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: chopperman

Good analogy, homeruns and strike outs.

Funny how his trolls are nowhere to be found when the issue is a guaranteed strike out too.


23 posted on 05/13/2011 11:06:00 AM PDT by C. Edmund Wright (American Thinker Columnist / Rush ghost contributor)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: dan on the right
"The theory that we are at war and are supposed to kill enemies is simply not how we have carried ourselves historically. We capture people who surrender or who are unarmed; we don't kill them unless we are at risk."

Looks like you need a history lesson. Do you have any idea how many unarmed civilians we killed in Germany and Japan in WW2? Many hundreds of thousands.

Would it have made you feel better if an "unarmed" Bin Laden were killed in a drone attack rather than with a bullet to the head in CQB? Or do both scenarios make you uncomfortable?

24 posted on 05/13/2011 11:07:32 AM PDT by Mr. Mojo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
Ron Paul says killing Osama bin Laden ‘absolutely not necessary’

I can think of a list of some 3000 families that would disagree with him.

25 posted on 05/13/2011 11:08:06 AM PDT by theDentist (fybo; qwerty ergo typo : i type, therefore i misspelll)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

Ron Paul says killing Osama bin Laden ‘absolutely not necessary’

I have to agree, but for a different reason. You don’t need to kill a man that has been dead for 8 or 10 years already, just to get Trump, the media, and the birthers, off your Birth Certificate issue.

Evidently it worked because I haven’t heard much about the BC since.

I hope the SCOTUS issues a shall produce order to Zero. He certainly won’t submit that forged thing he gave the people.


26 posted on 05/13/2011 11:08:28 AM PDT by chainsaw (I'd hate to be a democrat running against Sarah Palin.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

DONATE


27 posted on 05/13/2011 11:08:40 AM PDT by TheOldLady
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

This type of stuff just kills any chance for him. Bye, Ron.


28 posted on 05/13/2011 11:08:52 AM PDT by unique
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

If one of his family members had been in the twin towers would he be singing a different tune? Actually - probably not because Ron Paul is hard wired, totally rules-based and ddevoid of common sense. If osama bin laden shouldn’t be killed then you have complete anarchy.


29 posted on 05/13/2011 11:13:00 AM PDT by plain talk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dan on the right
As pleased as we all are that he is dead, I must admit, that I am not comfortable with us killing an unarmed people, no matter how evil who posed no threat - if indeed those was the situation.

Think about it this way from the perspective of the operatives. They were taking part in a military operation in a very hostile environment. They had already taken fire. They are dealing with an enemy who has a propensity to wear suicide belts and philosophically, would rather die than surrender. The only way they knew he would be unarmed during the operation is if they either had complete control over the situation or they have a time machine. With this enemy, even if you have your boot on the guy's neck with another handcuffing him, you still don't know if he is a danger to you and your team (re bomb belts).

These aren't police serving a warrant. This was a military operation against hostile forces.

30 posted on 05/13/2011 11:14:13 AM PDT by mnehring
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

Just when I started to think he might have some viable ideas (on Fed and economy), Paul once again shoots himself in the foot with stupid comments about Bin Laden and legalizing heroin


31 posted on 05/13/2011 11:17:49 AM PDT by PGR88 (I'm so open-minded my brains fell out)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

Props for principled consistency, but please stay in Congress, sir.


32 posted on 05/13/2011 11:19:13 AM PDT by ccmay (Too much Law; not enough Order.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dan on the right

“we don’t kill them unless we are at risk”

If there was no risk, then we did not need to go get OBL in the first place and we were not at war with OBL.

But we were at war with OBL and once we had him in our sites we ended any risk he could directly pose to us. End of story. He was given more warning than the victims on 9/11.


33 posted on 05/13/2011 11:59:39 AM PDT by Wuli
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
paul doesn't know the difference between justice served and justice denied
34 posted on 05/13/2011 12:15:59 PM PDT by paul51 (11 September 2001 - Never forget)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance


This kook, (and his drug-crazed looney-tune cultists), need to just STFU.
35 posted on 05/13/2011 12:31:36 PM PDT by Emperor Palpatine (One of these days, Alice....one of these days.....POW!! Right in the kisser!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dan on the right
"We capture people who surrender or who are unarmed; we don't kill them unless we are at risk."


Tell that to Cols Tom Lanphier and Rex Barber. Intelligence disccovered that Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto was making an inspection trip in April of 1943. A squadron of P-38's was scrambled and flew several hours to Bougainville in the South Pacific where Yamamoto's unarmed Betty transport was shot out of the sky, killing the man responsible for the Pearl Harbor attack. This operation was known as "Operation Vengeance".


36 posted on 05/13/2011 12:45:43 PM PDT by Emperor Palpatine (One of these days, Alice....one of these days.....POW!! Right in the kisser!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

Niether is pushing a “Slinky” down the step,but it sure is fun to do.


37 posted on 05/14/2011 1:50:54 AM PDT by Yorlik803 (better to die on your feet than live on your knees.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson