Ron Paul On Paris Attack: Bad Foreign Policy “Invites Retaliation”

BuzzFeed ^ | 01/07/2015 | Andrew Kaczynski

[SeekAndFind]

Former Republican presidential candidate and congressman Ron Paul says bad foreign policy is to blame for the Paris terrorist attack on the satirical newspaper Charlie Hebdo that left at least 12 dead and 11 wounded.

“Well, you know, partially what the Secretary of State said is true — this is pretty obscene, when it comes to violence, and libertarians are pretty annoyed by anybody who initiates violence,” said Paul on NewsMaxTV’s Steve Malzberg Show Wednesday. “This is pretty bad.”

Paul said the context for the attack, however, was France’s involvement in the Middle East.

“But in the context of things, France has been a target for many, many years, because they’ve been involved in foreign affairs in Libya, and they really prodded us along in — recently in Libya, but they’ve been involved in Algeria, so they’ve had attacks like this, you know, not infrequently. So, it does involve, you know, their foreign policy as well. When people do this, you know, the rejection of the violence has to be made, and with that I agree.”

“I put blame on bad policy that we don’t fully understand, and we don’t understand what they’re doing because the people who are objecting to the foreign policy that we pursue, they do it from a different perspective,” Paul added. “They see us as attacking them, and killing innocent people, so yes, they, they have — this doesn’t justify, so don’t put those words in my mouth — it doesn’t justify, but it explains it.”

Paul said it was the West’s overall foreign policy which “invites retaliation.”

[samtheman]

Ron Paul == Jeremiah Wright

[KOZ.]

That’s hilarious!

“I detect his voice is changing, maybe his cojones are getting small!”

[elhombrelibre]

I agree. I wrote a paper on the isolationists prior to WWII. What was interesting to me was that the disparity of the groups and the many different motives for them to come to essentially the same conclusion. Many of the original isolationists believed America was too good to get involved in the world’s problems. Ron Paul believes we (the USA) are not good enough as a nation to involve ourselves in the world. When terrorists attack happen, it’s a just retribution for our failure to abide by his guidance, he’s saying. Pat Buchanan is much the same. In their minds, the USA is a no good bully.

[elhombrelibre]

I agree.

[rmlew]

Ron Paul lives in a fantasy world where US foreign policy led to the Muslim invasion of Persia and the Byzantine empire because these people would never act on their own. At the end of the day, he views all foreigners as only acting in response to Western aggression, like a parody of Marxist Third Worldism.  Isolationism leads to oikophobia and Dhimmitude.

[trebb]

Some of his libertarian policies seem to make sense - then one finds that it is an accident because the rational is insane....

[FR_addict]

“I think Ron Paul is one of those old isolationists left over from 1940 who, like the late Sen. Borah, opposed U. S. involvement in World War II.”

He’s an isolationist who belongs to the “Blames the victim first” crowd.

[FR_addict]

Has Rand Paul made a statement or refuted Ron Paul?

[ThomasMore]

Nutcase!

[Kackikat]

You got it...if we grouped all his comments in one place, it would be eye opening.

[FR_addict]

“I renounce Ron Paul and regret that I ever supported him.
I was wrong.”

Ron Paul is being unmasked. Hopefully, others will wake up too.

If Rand Paul doesn't renounce his fathers views, he will be stuck with them. Just as it is hard to believe that Obama could sit in the pews of Rev. Wright's church for 20 years without having agreed with him, it would be hard to believe that Rand Paul doesn't agree with his father without a firm opposition against his father's views. I don't think he will make a firm denunciation because after all he is famous because of his father and draws on the same supporters.

[onedoug]

What a monumentally stupid man.

[WayneS]

The man is a psychopath.

[DSH]

“they really prodded us along i”

“JOOZ “in 5,4,3,2,....

This. Ron Paul is most easily -- and most accurately -- explained as your garden-variety Jew-hater who is supportive of Islamists because they share his view as to this.

Any other "explanation" of Ron Paul is, to my mind, wholly misplaced.

[HomerBohn]

Scott Walker for president!

To hell with the Republicrat Party!

[lentulusgracchus]

It's interesting that their thinking seems to have been polluted so easily by KGB and their "delphi" techniques. (That was the old Communist technique of infiltrating someone else's meeting, taking over the meeting, and then making the meeting say what the Communists wanted it to say, thus gaining the imprimatur of a non-Communist group for Communist positions.)

The old isolationists who thought America too good to engage with the corrupt Old World were a remnant of what was once at least a plurality opinion in the States, one that animated both Know-Nothingism (its stance against immigration) and Abraham Lincoln's conviction that the institution of slavery was a stain on the American moral example to the world, a stain that needed to be burned out by war and scrubbed out with the detergent of slavers' blood (some people still think that, too, and hate the South for reasons they don't really understand; but then, hate is so forgiving that way).

The "Billion Dollar Congress" acted to protect the Tariff, which some people interpreted thereafter as a Republican affection for the U. S. Navy (animated by banana-loving investors), when that isn't the case. The Republicans have always been hair-trigger tax cutters, owing to their ownership by blue-haired millionairesses and their masculine accumulator-consorts ; it was they who tried to cut back the U. S. Army, in a new and dangerous century, to the manning levels of the 1900 Indian-fighting army of President McKinley.

[rdb3]

It comes from an attempt to squeeze everything into a rigid philosophical system. Every once in a while you have to stand back and look at things with unadulterated common sense. You can’t do that if you’re doctrinaire.

That's exactly why I departed libertarian thinking as I politically matured. I mean I was all-in with it!

Yet, mentally trying to shoehorn everything into libertarian doctrine wasn't lining up with reality as I got older. I think I was 23 at the time when I accepted virtually everything about it.

That was 21 years ago.

When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.

- 1 Corinthians 13:11

Jesus Christ: You can't impeach Him and He ain't gonna resign.