9/11 was an attempt to kill 50,000+ people.
lucky for us, only around 2500, est. died. and yes there are a lot of deaths on our roads.
I don't like the type of stats he uses to try and make his points. X many Americans killed in highway traffic accidents. Yeah, and almost all of them unintentional.
That makes a difference in how you look for and treat those that cause the deaths, and those that intend to.
If Ron is trying to prove that his ineptitude at foreign policy disqualifies him to run for president, he is succeeding.
The terrorists killed “only” 3,000 people on 9/11 because that’s all they were able to kill. As several others on this thread have pointed out, their goal was to kill some 50,000 people in the twin towers, not to mention hundreds more in the Pentagon and whatever their target was in DC.
And their larger goal is to kill every American who does not join their religion. When they get nukes, the calculations will change dramatically.
Rupaul gets further in the hole every time he opens his mouth.
Ron Paul: Because Lyndon LaRouche isn’t running this year.
Yeah, well everyone dies of something, Ron. Does that mean we shouldn’t concern ourselves with terrorism?
By the way... How would you have responded to Pearl Harbor?
Maybe all his followers should think about pulling everyone out of cars...
What about bad shrimp?
Not only that, but if we don’t get terrorist jihad stomped on and under control then there will be MANY attempted 9/11s and much worse. We are fighting not only because of the deaths of nearly 3,000 innocents on that day (significant as they are), but because the terrorists who set that plot in motion truly aim to slaughter us infidels on a huge scale unless/until we submit to them taking over all of the Middle East for starters.... but their glorious new “Caliphate” would not be an end of it, only another beginning of a much larger and more deadly jihad still.
Just let the jihadists start using WMDs in western cities and the problems that the Ron Pauls of the world are whining about today will seem like chickenfeed compared to the enormity of trying to stop all possible future mass casualty attacks. Competent jihadists, with more time and funding and organization, could be killing hundreds of thousands, probably millions, in years to come.
What pinheads like Ron Paul cannot grasp, or are too ignorant to care about, is that there is no earthly limit to the ambitions of terrorists like Osama and al-Zawahiri. 3,000 deaths is just a tiny appetizer in their scheme of things, and complacent liberals and libertarians focused only upon supposed “civil liberties” concerns, fail to even grapple with the vast extent of potential casualties in the future or the vast extent of future wars if we do not get this problem stomped on hard and the jihad obliterated, NOW.
Well, that’s one way of putting it, I suppose.
Drop out, Paul, and do it now!
Apples and oranges. 3,000 dead and 20 billion dollars in damage over 2 hours compared to 4,000 dead and perhaps $400m damage in fatal traffic accidents over a month.
Ron should also note, there are more people murdered in many large cities in America than die in Iraq on any given day. There were more military deaths during the Clinton Administration than have died in Iraq.
PING!
Ron Paul: a man I used to admire. There can be a better case made for our civil liberties than effectively dismissing the deliberately caused deaths of nearly 3000 people as relatively insignificant.
Oh lest I forget, more people are killed by illegal immagrants each year in this country, than have died in Iraq during the whole war.
Yeah and there were that many there in the bombing of New York's World Trade Center on February 26, 1993 which was meant to topple the city's tallest tower onto its twin, amid a cloud of cyanide gas. Had the attack gone as planned, tens of thousands of Americans would have died. Instead, as we know, one tower did not fall on the other, and, rather than vaporizing, the cyanide gas burnt up in the heat of the explosion.
After this happened did conservatives and Republicans demand a Patriot Act?
7-30-1996, WASHINGTON (CNN) --
President Clinton urged Congress Tuesday to act swiftly in developing anti-terrorism legislation before its August recess.
"We need to keep this country together right now. We need to focus on this terrorism issue," Clinton said during a White House news conference.
But while the president pushed for quick legislation, Republican lawmakers hardened their stance against some of the proposed anti-terrorism measures.
Sen. Don Nickles, R-Oklahoma, said the country remains "very open" to terrorism. "Will it stop any acts of terrorism, domestic and international? No," he said, adding, "We don't want a police state,
Hatch blasts 'phony' issues "These are very controversial provisions that the White House wants. Some they're not going to get."
"If they want to, they can study the thing" already, Hatch asserted. He also said he had some problems with the president's proposals to expand wiretapping.
Nobody wanted the Executive powers of a Patriot Act in the hands of a Clinton but is was safe in the Hands of a Bush? Keep that in mind as a Clinton continues to lead in the polls.
The war against the terrorists should have nothing to do with the number of people killed. The fact that they attacked us on our soil with our planes should be a wake up call for even Ron Paul. And the fact that it could very well happen again unless this enemy is dealt with and destroyed should be clear to everyone, especially a man who wants to be president.
What a dangerous man, without conscience.
What a dweeb.
Democrats kill 3000 innocent babies a day.