Posted on 09/11/2014 1:57:51 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Ron Paul ✔ @RonPaul
VOL Contributor @michaelcmarion shares his thoughts
on the anniversary of 9/11 and why it's important to
oppose war http://bit.ly/1ty0Hxl
3:00 PM - 10 Sep 2014
27 Retweets 16 favorites
Here is an excerpt from the three-paragraph article, published on Ron Paul’s Voices of Liberty website:
It will be an immense dishonor to those dead Americans that the U.S. government will continue to commit the moral equivalent of 9/11 against others equally as innocent, equally as precious. It will be a disgusting display as they continue to try to convince us to excuse the deaths of innocents with horrible euphemisms like “collateral damage” and callous phrases like “people die in war”.
The least Americans can do is oppose them. The least we can do is regard them as warmongers and hold them in contempt. The way to honor those killed on 9/11 is to never forget that killing innocents is always wrong and can never be justified.
If “killing innocents is always wrong” and “collateral damage” is a “horrible euphemism,” the author must believe that the U.K. and U.S. bombings of German and Japanese cities during World War II were moral atrocities, since those bombings killed many thousands of innocent civilians. Indeed, the author presumably regards the U.S. and British armed forces who ordered and implemented those bombings as “warmongers” who are morally equivalent to Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda.
Disgraceful.
Is this shy Rand was looking a little bit gray on the news circuit last night?
A golden oldie-Ron Paul on Iran state TV defends Palestinian terrorists and blames Israel for turning Gaza into a “concentration camp”:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1t4O9CcZQ0
That’s one thing that makes me nervous about Rand. Ron and Rand seem very close family wise. But if I were being considered for President there’s no way my father would have run around undercutting me. So it’s makes me wonder what Rand really thinks about certain issues.
I ceased wondering. The apple doesn’t fall far from the tree. He’s smart enough to try to hide it but the signs are there.
I reiterate, as I have stated many times before, Rand Paul is Ron Paul in camouflage.
It isn’t just a coincidence that after bloviating about the FED all those years, then finally getting a position of power over it, Ron Paul up and quits. He was passing the sceptre over to his like-minded boy-without-the-bad-reputation. Just give Rand a couple more years, his ‘crazy’ will come completely out of hiding. Those Pauls just can’t help it.
(1) America forced poor little Japan to bomb Pearl Harbor because we were really mean and wouldn't sell them the oil they needed to help them murder and enslave the whole Pacific Rim (and various iterations on this deluded theme).
(2) America bombed Dresden to bits because we decided to be really mean to Germany for no reason, and everybody in America knew that the war would end in three months, and the Nazis weren't using Dresden as their main railroad transport point for reinforcing the Eastern front - they were just shipping in wooden toys and chocolates (and other variations on that traitorous nonsense).
Are people still listening to that psycho?
(bleep) him and his (bleeping) “death of innocents”.
“Death of innocents” is what this war is ALL ABOUT.
It’s called ‘terrorism’. It’s nasty. It’s very, very nasty and it is going to get a whole lot worse. It is coming to YOU at your local mall, theater, and ballpark.
We will not come close to winning until the gloves come off—but with this bunch in charge who knows when/if that will happen?
Lock and load, boys and girls—it’s about to get interesting.
Some folks still buy what Jesse Ventura is selling...
Rand Paul is no better. On Hannity last night, he essentially said that there would be no ISIS if America minded its own business.
rand paul is a POS, and like obama, blames America for the troubles in the world.
Low life dirt bag.
If “killing innocents is always wrong” and “collateral damage” is a “horrible euphemism,” the author must believe that the U.K. and U.S. bombings of German and Japanese cities during World War II were moral atrocities, since those bombings killed many thousands of innocent civilians. Indeed, the author presumably regards the U.S. and British armed forces who ordered and implemented those bombings as “warmongers” who are morally equivalent to Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda.”Collateral damage” is a bit of a euphemism for collateral death and destruction - but “collateral” is the operative word. Collateral “damage” is not the objective of a mission.Disgraceful.
The objective of “Bomber” Harris’ nighttime bombardment of German cities was death and destruction of “the enemy,” women and children not excepted. US “precision” daylight bombing did make some distinctions but - the “high tech” Norden bombsight notwithstanding - everyone should understand now that it takes modern high tech to attain the “precision” of which the Army Air Corps spoke.
And it has to be said that under Curtis LeMay all pretense of distinction between military and civilian “enemy” was abandoned by the US in its attacks on Japan. No doubt the Japanese kamikaze suicidal attacks, as a systematic plan - and the systematic Japanese “mercy killing” of its own civilians on Saipan - had an influence on had an influence on US wartime morality. As to the A-bomb, not mentioned above, that was a war winner and thus a war ender - and compared to an opposed invasion of Japanese home islands, arguably more moral. Because people were dying at an appalling rate every week. The Japanese would have argued, of course, that that was an argument for a negotiated peace rather than a forced surrender. Americans would have countered that that approach hadn’t worked so well as an end to WWI, of which WWII was, in Europe at least, arguably just an extension - and the Japanese should have understood that in 1941.
But then, IMHO FDR wanted in WWII . . .
I saw that. RP repeatedly tried to minimize Obama's bullcrap----"No, Sean, I don't think that's what he was saying. I think he was making the point that Islam is a religion of peace; the vast majority of Muslims are peaceful."
They were fresh out of real food, much less chocolates, by then, but I know what you mean. Revisionist history.
Ron Paul, besides having no class, has an ideology, but lacks a reasonable or rational historical world perspective. He obviously knows next to nothing about Islam. He actually believes if we sell coca cola (opening markets) in the middle east, they will all turn into liberty loving constitutionalists. I wonder if he knows the founders didn’t give a flying crap about people from other nations. Jefferson was never a isolationist ideologue. He knew America needed to deal with the Barbary threat about 29 years before he became President. As President he was frustrated by his diplomats that wanted to kiss Barbary ass.
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.