If a sexy female in skimpy clothing walks into the shadows of a lawless part of down, the rapist raping her is not unexpected, even if the rape is entirely the fault of the rapist, not the victim.
If you saw your daughter was going to do something so risky, would you not try to dissuade her--or do you consider that "making her responsible for the rape"?
Evidently, you believe the latter. And on the other hand, I don't see any evidence that Ron Paul believes what you claim.
As long and the idiots who title stories like the one above (in this case, Jim Hoft) don't know the difference between such terms as "cause," "blame," and "responsibility," we'll keep dumping billions of dollars into third-world sewers, tearing military families apart, having the best of our blood shed on foreign land, etc.
I imagine Osama is grinning from hell with a banner: "Mission Accomplished"
in both your examples, i dont consider the girl or the daughter responsible for the rape. The fault, responsiblity and blame lie totally with the rapist because the girl/daughter did nothing wrong even if going down a risky dark street.
Ron Paul blame US for terrorist attack by supporting Israel, but US is not doing anything wrong by supporting Israel.
Israel is only defending their right to exist and there is nothing wrong with supporting this position. When terrorist attack US for US defending Israel right to exist, it is the terrorist that are wrong and not the US.
This is why I disagree with Ron Paul. Ron Paul may explain why terrorist do what they do, but its wrong to justify, defend or excuse terrorist’s action