Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

BIN LADEN'S FATWA (Why Ron Paul was Factually Correct) (UBL cited Iraq in 1996 Declaration of War)
PBS Online Newshour ^ | Unknown | PBS

Posted on 05/15/2007 8:04:25 PM PDT by Remember_Salamis

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160161-180181-200 ... 261-275 next last
To: Arcy
What the hell does Giuliani know. Being mayor of a city that was hit by a terror attack in no way makes you an expert on foreign policy.

I don't understand why people think he's some anti-terror expert; hardly.

People think he was so involved with getting people out of the towers because he was walking around Manhattan; he was walking around Manhattan because he had the brilliant idea of putting his terror response coordination center in one of the towers--which have been known to be the most likely NYC target for 8 years before that point.

161 posted on 05/16/2007 3:37:26 AM PDT by Remember_Salamis (A nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master, and deserves one!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: oldleft
OK; I'll refute more of your logic:

Russia - Ever heard of Chechnya? It's been a Muslim independence movement for decades now; The Chechens are now using terror tactics to break away from Russia.

Algeria - I'm not sure what you're referring to here.

Argentina - Nobody knows who perpetrated the bombing that killed 80+ jews in '94. Not a clue.

Somalia - Not sure what you're referencing here.

Kenya - The '98 embassy bombings were clearly aimed at the US; dead kenyans and tanzanians were seen as collateral damage by AQ.

India - Ever heard of Kashmir?

162 posted on 05/16/2007 3:44:42 AM PDT by Remember_Salamis (A nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master, and deserves one!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: Lakeshark
Ron Paul never said it's our fault, and neither did I. Not even close.

You can just make up statements and attack them, like Giuliani did.

163 posted on 05/16/2007 3:46:07 AM PDT by Remember_Salamis (A nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master, and deserves one!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: Goreknowshowtocheat
How much would oil have to be for gas to run $10/gallon?

For every $1 oil goes up, that's $7.5B that it costs extra to import into the US. Current high gas prices are more of a result of a decrepit refining capacity than anything else.

164 posted on 05/16/2007 3:49:28 AM PDT by Remember_Salamis (A nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master, and deserves one!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: Remember_Salamis

Bump


165 posted on 05/16/2007 3:50:46 AM PDT by Incorrigible (If I lead, follow me; If I pause, push me; If I retreat, kill me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: padre35
Why bother to quote the words of the Emperor of Japan during WWII then?

People do not act without reason. That does NOT say they were justified, but there is a reason why. al-Qaida wasn't sitting around throwing darts at a mpa to decide to attack us.

166 posted on 05/16/2007 3:51:07 AM PDT by Remember_Salamis (A nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master, and deserves one!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: L.N. Smithee

Provocation is an entirely different matter. Ron Paul NEVER stated that we “asked” for it. Strawman argument on your part.


167 posted on 05/16/2007 3:53:35 AM PDT by Remember_Salamis (A nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master, and deserves one!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: Chgogal

Nice strawman agurments. Look, Paul NEVER said it was our fault; just the opposite.


168 posted on 05/16/2007 3:55:05 AM PDT by Remember_Salamis (A nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master, and deserves one!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: Sam Gamgee
Retaliation is part of non-interventionism. non-interventionism is NOT Pacifism.

Yes, we don't have troops in Saudi anymore. And how many attacks in the US has there been since they left? How about ZERO.

169 posted on 05/16/2007 3:56:17 AM PDT by Remember_Salamis (A nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master, and deserves one!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: Remember_Salamis
You expect me to READ this crap? (smile). Just tell us Bin Laden said it and give me a link. Besides, the heavy breathers here can't be expected to get past a one liner by Rudy. They wouldn't believe it if they saw him reciting this screed in person. Aside from that, these darlings CANNOT make the distinction between a) THIS is why they did it and b) THIS JUSTIFIES why they did it. Just TOOOOOO big a jump for them. I swear I get more depressed over the conservative movement every day when I see some of the STUPID reasoning behind some of these goobs up howling at the moon whenever someone dares suggest that the war might not be the best way to promote our own security.

There are bright people who support the war, but they hide out well on FR. Mostly we get screeching nimrods who can't get past bawling out "TRAITOR."

170 posted on 05/16/2007 4:16:38 AM PDT by DreamsofPolycarp (Ron Paul in '08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Remember_Salamis
So every country that hasn't been attacked by al-Qaida is in "alliance" with them. These arguments get more and more absurd.

Did I say that? No. Every country has a different reason. I cited China because you did - I was just pointing out that there are no easy generalizations about which countries get attacked and which don't.

I pointed out that China has sold arms to al Qaeda, is a hard target *and* absolutely ruthless to all internal opposition - they will torture and kill them and their male relatives. Of the three items, the most important ones are probably the second and the third, as explanations as to why al Qaeda has not carried off an attack in China*.

Russia has al Qaeda operatives within its borders in spite of its opposition to the invasion of Iraq because of Chechnya. Turkey has al Qaeda operatives within its borders in spite of opposing the Iraqi war because of Ataturk's secular state. Part of bin Laden's conceit is that he can destroy the American economy by forcing the nations with which we trade to sever their economic ties with us - ties that in his recycled Marxist thinking somehow keep the American economy afloat via a form of neo-colonial tribute.

* Weirdly enough, al Qaeda has nonetheless declared China its enemy for China's occupation of East Turkistan (Xinjiang).

171 posted on 05/16/2007 4:26:46 AM PDT by Zhang Fei
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: Remember_Salamis
So every country that hasn't been attacked by al-Qaida is in "alliance" with them. These arguments get more and more absurd.

Did I say that? No. Every country has a different reason. I cited China because you did - I was just pointing out that there are no easy generalizations about which countries get attacked and which don't.

I pointed out that China has sold arms to al Qaeda, is a hard target *and* absolutely ruthless to all internal opposition - they will torture and kill them and their male relatives. Of the three items, the most important ones are probably the second and the third, as explanations as to why al Qaeda has not carried off an attack in China*.

Russia has al Qaeda operatives within its borders in spite of its opposition to the invasion of Iraq because of Chechnya. Turkey has al Qaeda operatives within its borders in spite of opposing the Iraqi war because of Ataturk's secular state. Part of bin Laden's conceit is that he can destroy the American economy by forcing the nations with which we trade to sever their economic ties with us - ties that in his recycled Marxist thinking somehow keep the American economy afloat via a form of neo-colonial tribute.

* Weirdly enough, al Qaeda has nonetheless declared China its enemy for China's occupation of East Turkistan (Xinjiang).

172 posted on 05/16/2007 4:27:22 AM PDT by Zhang Fei
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: Remember_Salamis

Let me get this right — the international policies of the United States of America should be established by some nutcase in a cave?

PBS = Perfect Bullsh!t Stories


173 posted on 05/16/2007 4:27:43 AM PDT by Beckwith (dhimmicrats and the liberal media have chosen sides -- Islamofascism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DreamsofPolycarp
There are bright people who support the war, but they hide out well on FR. Mostly we get screeching nimrods who can't get past bawling out "TRAITOR."

It's got nothing to do with stupidity. If someone's brother gets murdered, and you suggest that his actions were somehow responsible - i.e. walking around in questionable neighborhoods in the wee hours of the morning - you may get dirty looks or even a knuckle sandwich. 9/11 is something like that multiplied by 3000 times. People are enraged. My advice? Don't go there.

174 posted on 05/16/2007 5:29:56 AM PDT by Zhang Fei
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 170 | View Replies]

To: Lakeshark

Oddly enough, I believe BOTH sides are right. The reasons for attacks in those countries are a mix. Some supposedly cause we or allies have troops over there, some cause they’re helping us, some because of local terrorists. I agree they “hate us for our freedom,” but only because we’re seen as a threat to their goals or appear decadent. It doesn’t have to be an either/or proposition.


175 posted on 05/16/2007 5:42:21 AM PDT by PghBaldy (Reporter: Are you surprised? Nancy Pelosi: No. My eyes always look like this.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Remember_Salamis
If we are attacked after withdrawing, we will retaliate.

And exactly how do we retaliate? That's what we have been trying to do with little success.

IMHO if we pulled out of Iraq, Iran would march in. A guaranteed way to start an Iran-Israel war.
Israel would/could not accept Iran that much closer to its border.

That aside, Iran would/could hold much of the world's oil supply hostage. They could threaten Kuwait, Saudi Arabia.
It would be a forward Al Qaeda base set on overthrowing the Saudi kingdom. A goal we know he has.

OBL gives 'reasons' for attacking us, blah blah. When he needs to he dreams up another.
Heck, that bunch is still pissed about the Crusades.

176 posted on 05/16/2007 5:45:28 AM PDT by Vinnie (You're Nobody 'Til Somebody Jihads You)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Remember_Salamis

Oh, so they had a reeeeeeeeason. Yeah, well many mass murders had reeeeeeeeasons. Ruck FuPaul.


177 posted on 05/16/2007 5:51:04 AM PDT by Larry Lucido (Duncan Hunter 2008 (or Fred Thompson if he ever makes up his mind))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brimack34

Paul did not say it was “our” fault (the American people)...but rather the past 30 years of US CIA and military policy in the region. 9-11 could not be avoided. The question is...how do we stop it from happening again?

If you get stung by a bee, do you run around flailing your arms trying to knock down every beehive you come across? (brute force)..

or do you burn the hive up from within (intelligence and counter terror)..

It’s a question of tactics. Paul disagrees with the Normandy-esque invasions favored by the neocons, and I think he is right.


178 posted on 05/16/2007 5:55:37 AM PDT by Capitalizt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: fortheDeclaration
I have a great deal of respect for Dr. Paul.

I used to, but I woke up yesterday.

179 posted on 05/16/2007 5:56:29 AM PDT by Larry Lucido (Duncan Hunter 2008 (or Fred Thompson if he ever makes up his mind))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: DreamsofPolycarp; Remember_Salamis
You expect me to READ this crap? (smile). Just tell us Bin Laden said it and give me a link. Besides, the heavy breathers here can't be expected to get past a one liner by Rudy. They wouldn't believe it if they saw him reciting this screed in person. Aside from that, these darlings CANNOT make the distinction between a) THIS is why they did it and b) THIS JUSTIFIES why they did it. Just TOOOOOO big a jump for them. I swear I get more depressed over the conservative movement every day when I see some of the STUPID reasoning behind some of these goobs up howling at the moon whenever someone dares suggest that the war might not be the best way to promote our own security. There are bright people who support the war, but they hide out well on FR. Mostly we get screeching nimrods who can't get past bawling out "TRAITOR."

Great post, to the both of you. What most of the keyboard warriors here can't seem to grasp, they're swimming upstream against 70% the American public. Take this PC Iraq War (and a farce that's called the GWOT) into the next election, and they're toast for decades to come. Blackbird.

180 posted on 05/16/2007 6:05:01 AM PDT by BlackbirdSST
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 170 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160161-180181-200 ... 261-275 next 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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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