Ron Paul says killing Osama bin Laden ‘absolutely not necessary’

Pajamas Media ^ | May 12, 2011 | Bryan Preston

[EternalVigilance]

He has flirted with blame America firstism before, and even with Truthers a couple of times, but tends to leave himself enough wiggle room so that he doesn’t come off as totally off his nut. That’s gone now.

Asked by WHO Radio’s Simon Conway whether he would have given the go-ahead to kill bin Laden if it meant entering another country, Paul shot back that it “absolutely was not necessary.”

“I don’t think it was necessary, no. It absolutely was not necessary,” Paul said during his Tuesday comments. “I think respect for the rule of law and world law and international law. What if he’d been in a hotel in London? We wanted to keep it secret, so would we have sent the airplane, you know the helicopters into London, because they were afraid the information would get out?”

The fact that at least some elements in Pakistan have to have known about OBL’s whereabouts, and harbored him, and how that would have impacted any joint mission to go get him, is utterly lost on Paul.

This is the fundamental problem with Ron Paul: When it comes to foreign policy, he is not serious and is not credible. He makes no distinctions between real allies like the UK and duplicitous frenemies like Pakistan. And he always always blames America first. That’s his MO.

[chopperman]

That guy’s strikeouts by far outweighs his homeruns.

[HereInTheHeartland]

“that I am not comfortable with us killing an unarmed people, no matter how evil who posed no threat “

Horsecrap!!
Our country is LOST if people feel this way. Sometimes men need to be men and do what is needed.
Thanks God for the people who did this to protect our nation and killed this bastard.
Bin Laden needed a bullet in the head and that's what he got.
Anyone wanting a trial for him is completely NUTS.

[C. Edmund Wright]

Good analogy, homeruns and strike outs.

Funny how his trolls are nowhere to be found when the issue is a guaranteed strike out too.

[Mr. Mojo]

"The theory that we are at war and are supposed to kill enemies is simply not how we have carried ourselves historically. We capture people who surrender or who are unarmed; we don't kill them unless we are at risk."

Looks like you need a history lesson. Do you have any idea how many unarmed civilians we killed in Germany and Japan in WW2? Many hundreds of thousands.

Would it have made you feel better if an "unarmed" Bin Laden were killed in a drone attack rather than with a bullet to the head in CQB? Or do both scenarios make you uncomfortable?

[theDentist]

Ron Paul says killing Osama bin Laden ‘absolutely not necessary’

I can think of a list of some 3000 families that would disagree with him.

[chainsaw]

Ron Paul says killing Osama bin Laden ‘absolutely not necessary’

I have to agree, but for a different reason. You don’t need to kill a man that has been dead for 8 or 10 years already, just to get Trump, the media, and the birthers, off your Birth Certificate issue.

Evidently it worked because I haven’t heard much about the BC since.

I hope the SCOTUS issues a shall produce order to Zero. He certainly won’t submit that forged thing he gave the people.

[TheOldLady]

DONATE

DONATE

[unique]

This type of stuff just kills any chance for him. Bye, Ron.

[plain talk]

If one of his family members had been in the twin towers would he be singing a different tune? Actually - probably not because Ron Paul is hard wired, totally rules-based and ddevoid of common sense. If osama bin laden shouldn’t be killed then you have complete anarchy.

[mnehring]

As pleased as we all are that he is dead, I must admit, that I am not comfortable with us killing an unarmed people, no matter how evil who posed no threat - if indeed those was the situation.

Think about it this way from the perspective of the operatives. They were taking part in a military operation in a very hostile environment. They had already taken fire. They are dealing with an enemy who has a propensity to wear suicide belts and philosophically, would rather die than surrender. The only way they knew he would be unarmed during the operation is if they either had complete control over the situation or they have a time machine. With this enemy, even if you have your boot on the guy's neck with another handcuffing him, you still don't know if he is a danger to you and your team (re bomb belts).

These aren't police serving a warrant. This was a military operation against hostile forces.

[PGR88]

Just when I started to think he might have some viable ideas (on Fed and economy), Paul once again shoots himself in the foot with stupid comments about Bin Laden and legalizing heroin

[ccmay]

Props for principled consistency, but please stay in Congress, sir.

[Wuli]

“we don’t kill them unless we are at risk”

If there was no risk, then we did not need to go get OBL in the first place and we were not at war with OBL.

But we were at war with OBL and once we had him in our sites we ended any risk he could directly pose to us. End of story. He was given more warning than the victims on 9/11.

[paul51]

paul doesn't know the difference between justice served and justice denied

[Emperor Palpatine]

This kook, (and his drug-crazed looney-tune cultists), need to just STFU.

[Emperor Palpatine]

"We capture people who surrender or who are unarmed; we don't kill them unless we are at risk."


Tell that to Cols Tom Lanphier and Rex Barber. Intelligence disccovered that Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto was making an inspection trip in April of 1943. A squadron of P-38's was scrambled and flew several hours to Bougainville in the South Pacific where Yamamoto's unarmed Betty transport was shot out of the sky, killing the man responsible for the Pearl Harbor attack. This operation was known as "Operation Vengeance".

[Yorlik803]

Niether is pushing a “Slinky” down the step,but it sure is fun to do.