Ok, so I and millions of other people must have been dreaming when we saw this:
You ron paulie girls lower yourselves to new depths of stupidity with each passing day.
Posted on 11/24/2007 5:42:59 PM PST by Lovebloggers
Terrorists `Just Hoodlums’
The greatest threat to the nation, Paul said, is an overextension of the U.S. military and ``involvement in places we shouldn’t be.’’ Terrorism shouldn’t be fought by waging war on nations, he said. Terrorists are ``just hoodlums and convicts, so to speak, but we incite them with our foreign policy,’’ he said.
(Excerpt) Read more at sayanythingblog.com ...
well you’ve articulated a good argument there in your previous post, which certainly has merit.
But I think Paul’s belief that no country or leader would be so stupid as to attack us, is not the same as issuing a blank check to those who would attack us. We must assume he would respond in kind if, for whatever reason, his belief about political human nature was proved wrong.
And I think massive terrorist attacks of the 9/11 scale are too comlex to not leave footprints and be discovered. I think a government would have to be very foolish to believe they could sponsor a terrorist attack of that magnitude and not have it traced back to them.
You're right that it's not exactly the same, but the problem is that if enough people hold such a "belief", it creates the blank check.
Holding a belief that making water-carrying pipes out of lead is a good thing to do is not the same as giving people lead poisoning, but the one thing leads to the other.
Just think about what you just wrote for a second: Ron Paul has a "belief" regarding whether this or that person would attack the United States. Me, personally, I'd prefer someone in leadership who has no such a priori beliefs, but rather, will look at reality as it actually is.
After all, it is possible, in principle, that a nation or leader will attack the United States! It's not somehow prohibited by the laws of physics. There's no ironclad law of human nature that makes it metaphysically impossible. But if you "don't believe" that any state actor would attack us, and yet it happens, then you'll never be able to connect the dots unless/until they are so blindingly obviously you can't miss them. (like a rocket trail leading back from the smoking crater...)
So like I said, this is a perfect telegraph to potential enemies how to harm us with impunity: just hide your trail pretty well & you'll be ok. Actually, to hear some anti-war types talk, I don't even think they have to hide their trail all that well. People forget that after 9/11 there were people arguing with a straight face that the Afghanistan/OBL link hadn't been "proved" satisfactorily enough.
We must assume he would respond in kind if, for whatever reason, his belief about political human nature was proved wrong.
We "must" assume no such thing. That is the entire point, that by his stated beliefs I cannot trust him in the slightest in that regard. Another way to say it is that the key is all in the definition of "proved": from Paul's stated beliefs, I surmise that he has a very high standard of evidence before he would be willing to acknowledge such a linkage was "proved". (After all, someone who doesn't believe X can happen is pretty likely to have a high standard of proof that X happened, wouldn't you say?)
And if Paul or like-minded gain the day, our enemies will know perfectly well that America has a high standard of proof. The message to them, again, is simply: "hide your tracks pretty well & you'll be ok".
That is a dangerous message that will bring harm upon us.
And I think massive terrorist attacks of the 9/11 scale are too comlex to not leave footprints and be discovered.
9/11 was actually pretty lo-tech & simple. A bunch of guys got on planes, brazened their way into the cockpits, and steered them into big landmarks, basically. If we know all about who was behind those plots (and I'm not convinced we do) it's pretty likely to be due only to the ineptitude of the plotters.
I think a government would have to be very foolish to believe they could sponsor a terrorist attack of that magnitude and not have it traced back to them.
1. Is there any evidence that the governments of the world lack for fools?
2. How convinced are such governments likely to be of the inevitability of discovery if we elect people who seem, as a matter of intellectual orientation, to believe that state-sponsored terror attacks on the United States are practically impossible?
Do we know all about who was behind the 1998 embassy attacks? the 1993 World Trade Center bombing? Do you think it's out of the realm of possibility that some state or another had a hand in those attacks? have any states been formally blamed? I think an Iraqi hand in, at least, the '93 WTC attack is proved pretty well to my satisfaction. But that's not conventional wisdom and certainly they were never openly, formally blamed for it.
And of course there's the case of Iran, which basically as an open secret funds overt terror groups - including the one that bombed our barracks in Beirut - with impunity, and still half the West would consider it a crime on our part if we did anything whatsoever against them.
In fact, the lesson of recent history, if anything, is that a certain segment of the West is determined not to see terror links to state actors....even when they are there. In other words, countries would have to be pretty daft or incompetent to think they couldn't get away with such sponsorship.
The endpoint of this logic is that you submit to their wishes on all things they state opinions about. In other words, you declare them your rulers.
"The way to get what you want is to indiscriminately murder some of us. Do this, and you'll achieve your aims, and increase your power and standing."
This is a really, really dumb thing to be saying. It is what puts every single American under the gun.
It is also what the West has been saying to radical Islam for practically the past 40 years. And that period has not exactly seen terrorism decline.
So, I cannot trust in a leadership position a man who in effect promises to say exactly that to our enemies. Such a man, however much I may admire him on other issues, is a danger to me and mine.
Well, since this is a "conservative" group, one would assume that posters here would be conservatives........;o)
That being said, the ONLY choice is Duncan Hunter. He's a hundred times better than Ron Paul ever dreamed about being. Have you ever read Duncan's platform? You should know how he stands on the issues.
If everyone voted for Duncan we wouldn't be faced with the lesser of two evils (AGAIN) like we will be with Ron Paul or anyone else. Shillary will be the death of America! Ron Paul will give us Hillary!
Remember, Ross Perot put Bill Clinton in the White House!
Do you (and he) think the 9/11 hijackers represented a country?
Do you (and he) not understand this is a trans national movement of apocalyptic fanaticsm?
Sorry, but you need to address these murderous thugs on their beliefs, and their willingness to do anything to act on their beliefs. Which are quite simply, that the West deserves as much death, innocent or otherwise, as is possible in order to enslave us to the will of their bloodthirsty God.
Deal with it, and please send Mr. Paul to live with the Taliban, as he most heartily deserves it.
Where are the Ron Paul supporters.Why aren’t they denying he said this?
Talk about Dumb and Dumber.
He did say it. It was the right thing to say, because it’s the right course to take.
I’ve given up on the USA if it’s supposed right wing conservative blog prints idiots like this.
Most of you cant read or think.
Paul represents the Founding Fathers, everything he supports is what made America great.
You can’t see that you’re being manipulated - very successfully - to indulge in an orgy of hatred and fear for a non-existent threat. What do you really think a mob of half crazed, totally uneducated lame brains who cant run their own economies can do to America, if she puts her will into just defending her boarders at home?
And the in the name of this all your freedoms will be taken away. Just like socialists, you’ll trade away everything that made life worth living just so some nameless twit in Washington can “protect” you.
It’s my carefully considered opinion that Free Republic has been taken over by Postmodernists and cultural Marxists. One only has to look at the responses here of late. It sure isnt the site I started reading only 3 years ago. It’s no longer worth my while. Which, I suspect, is the angle the swampers of this place have sought. Soon they’ll be no more FR as it was, just another liberal leftie blog site.
Like America itself - who’d bother with you
Wow, this is quite possibly the most unreadable, unintelligible post I have read on FR to date.
Drugs will mess you up. Just say no.
“Paul represents the Founding Fathers, everything he supports is what made America great”
Gee, you think that will fit on a bumper sticker? What a profound statement. /rolling eyes
this is a perfect telegraph to potential enemies how to harm us with impunity: just hide your trail pretty well & you'll be okYou are right. This is perfect. A perfect way to embolden our enemies. Of course, L Ron Paul doesn't think we have any real enemies... only people who are enraged by our foreign policy "blunders".
“No more so than walking down a dark alley at night with hundred dollar bills sticking out of your pocket creates muggings.”
And carrying a gun with the training and will to use it would prevent those muggings.
But what the hell do muggings have to do with our foreign policy?
“Jefferson was acting against pirates, not terrorists.”
Pirates and terrorists are pretty much one in the same in the eye of the law and can be dealt with the same way by summary executions.
“Finally, modern technology makes the struggle to minimize terror far more complex than minimizing piracy two centuries ago.”
How the hell does technology make it far more complex?
“How about it. I have done my own research instead of reading a bunch of negative posts. I have found that a whole bunch of the anti-Paul articles and rhetoric are straight from DUmmieland.”
Well your post proves that you havn’t read a single thing over on the DU because if you did you’d see that they’re backing him as a means to split the Republican vote to pave the way for hillary.
Hell even that traitor KOS is posting guides on how to change party affiliation to vote in the primary to get paul nominated so that hillary can go unchallenged in the general election.
So says Dr. Freud.
“Upon doing my own research, I have found that Ron Paul does not align himself with Libertarian views, especially when it comes to ILLEGAL immigants.”
You need to do more research then.
“And the alternative? Attack any old country without evidence of knowledge or complicity in terrorist attacks, but a mere suspicion?”
Without evidence?
What about the $25,000 to each homicide bomber that would blow up innocent civilians in Israel?
What about the fact that well known terrorist Abu Abbas was being sheltered by Iraq?
What about the fact that well known terrorist and Palestine Liberation Front leader Abu Abbas, who was responsible for the 1985 hijacking of the Achille Laurocruise ship in the Mediterranean. Abbas was captured by U.S. forces IN Iraq on April 15.
Iraq also harbored Abdul Rahman Yasin, who is on the FBI’s “most wanted terrorists” list for his role in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.
Iraq has also provided financial support for Palestinian terror groups, including Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Palestine Liberation Front, and the Arab Liberation Front.
What about the fact that Iraqi intelligence officers met with Mohammed Atta and other AQ members prior to 9/11?
What about the fact that Abu Musab al Zarqawi sought medical treatment in Iraq after being wounded in Afghanistan?
A second al-Qaeda operative, the Iraqi national Ahmad Hikmat Shakir, also returned to Baghdad after fleeing Afghanistan.
In the 1970s and 1980s, saddam backed the fundamentalist Syrian Muslim Brotherhood
I could go on and on with the links to terrorism since it’s been documented not only by our intelligence services but other intelligence services worldwide.
Oh and then there was the court case filed by 2 families of 9/11 victims.
“As the May 8, 2003 New York Post and other news outlets reported, Baer ruled that Saddam Hussein’s government was complicit in the September 11 attacks and that the Baathist government owed the plaintiffs a judgment of $104 million.”
So if there was no “evidence” as you claim, then how did the plaintiffs win their case?
“Terrorists `Just Hoodlums’”
Tell that to the families of those incinerated alive at their office desk, or jumped to their death from hundreds of feet up, or who’s bodies were pulverized by the building crashing upon them.
“So, what’s the “bottom line.” Which presidential candidate has received the most contributions from the military?”
obama
“First, we have never, and will never, attack “any old country”. Where do you even get that?”
He got it from his A.N.S.W.E.R. and code pink manuals.
Ok, so I and millions of other people must have been dreaming when we saw this:
You ron paulie girls lower yourselves to new depths of stupidity with each passing day.
I am not a “Paulbearer”; in fact at this moment, I am not totally committed to anyone as a candidate. It just seems very counter-productive to keep posting these threads for the shear purpose of bashing, flaming and insulting other people.
I am of the belief that all of the candidates bring “something” important to the forefront of this campaign. Whether they win or lose the nomination, they have brought important issues to the attention of the voters. Everyone should do their own homework on the candidates, glean the positive points they may have contributed, pick the most important ones, and vote accordingly.
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.