Ron Paul Goes Full Metal Truther

Red State ^

[mnehring]

I’ve been waiting for quite a while for Ron Paul to just come out and admit he’s a 9/11 truther. Frankly, I thought it would happen a long time before now. It has taken so long, in fact, that I had started to doubt whether he would ever do it. However, I guess his Iowa polling numbers must have him feeling his oats, because he finally let slip (apologies to those who cannot view the video in IE, we are working to fix the technical issue. Original video may be found here):

And it’s… just think of what happened after 9/11. Immediately, before there was any assessment, there was glee in the administration because now we can invade Iraq. So the war drums beat…

Perfect. Just great. Remember that the less crazy truthers out there don’t get bogged down in scientific nonsense like “fire can’t melt steel.” They don’t necessarily believe that the Bush administration actually put bombs in the WTC to help it come down (although they’re not precisely ruling it out). What they DO believe is that the U.S. government was warned by the Israelis/Saudis/French/whoever that the attacks were coming and deliberately ignored it because they wanted 9/11 to happen so they could go to war in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Ron Paul has now moved from saying that 9/11 was our fault (which was despicable enough) to now saying that it’s something our government actually wanted to happen. Put this up there with Ron Paul’s belief that Southeast Asia got much better after we left Vietnam (a viewpoint doubtless shared by millions of massacred Southeast Asians – but hey, at least we trade with Vietnam now) on the all time list of Ron Paul’s contemptible and publicly-expressed beliefs. Add to this the fact that Ron Paul is a liar and a hypocrite on spending, who has built a career larding up appropriations bills with pork for his home district and then casting meaningless votes against their final passage, and I have to confess that I don’t really see the appeal of Ron Paul to Iowa voters. Well, the Republican ones, at least.

[Steve Van Doorn]

"Not every fatwa is directed to kill someone nor are they directed at the west."

We are talking about Saddam's FATWA's not every FATWA ever made. *focus*

Saddam made FATWA's directed at the US, the West and their leaders with over 500 Islamic scholars signing on to them. These are in essence assassination or war orders by Islam.

[Steve Van Doorn]

said, "He used Muslims to do his dirty work but was not much of one himself at all."

Sorry what is your point? Just because he isn't part of Islam doesn't mean he didn't use Islam.

[Vermont Lt]

You were arguing that Iraq was a secular government. It wasn’t.

I don’t care about what Fatwas he ordered or who signed on to them. He was doing just fine trying to kill GHW Bush without issuing fatwas.

Your point is simply incorrect.

[Steve Van Doorn]

"I don’t care about what Fatwas he ordered

You were arguing that Iraq was a secular government. It wasn’t."

If he ordered FATWAS his government was NON-secular by definition. This isn't that difficult to understand. It would be equal to our president financing and ordering the Catholic church to conduct a crusade.

[Vermont Lt]

But I always get the last word!

Have a great day!

[RegulatorCountry]

Just because he isn't part of Islam doesn't mean he didn't use Islam.

Yes, that's what I've been saying. Hussein was decadent, cynical and manipulative. He wasn't Muslim himself but used Muslims to do his dirty work.

[Steve Van Doorn]

i am sorry I thought you were saying he was secular. my mistake.

[Steve Van Doorn]

If our president used the church to finance and conduct crusades would that make our government secular or non-secular?

[RegulatorCountry]

The both of you have been using the word “secular” incorrectly. Secular is not religious.

Saddam Hussein ran a secular government over a nation comprised largely of Muslims. He used Muslims and Muslim terminology to further his ends. He was not himself Muslim and neither were his sons nor the upper echelons of his regime.

I’m not certain why this has turned into a lengthy circular debate, but it appears to have done so, and with this I’m getting off the merry-go-round because it’s pointless, regardless of whatever point you might have wished to make two days ago.

Have the last word, enjoy it and be done with it, please.

[Steve Van Doorn]

RegulatorCountry said, "Secular is not religious."

no wonder we are not communicating.
Secular means 'not religious'? We are not talking about the individual but the national policy. The national policy was to finance a Crusade against you and me. The nation didn't do a lot in terms of forcing Sharia up everyones butt

[Vermont Lt]

I still get the last word.

[ejonesie22]

You're dead Jim...