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

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-37 last
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]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-37 last

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