Paul gets booed at the debate...my thoughts.

Buds Spuckley

Registered User
Mar 17, 2008
895
17
143
#2
Once I saw you had toolbars installed on your browser I stopped listening, what is it 1997? Who uses a yahoo toolbar?
 

nikoloslvy

I wear my sunglasses at night...Anyone want fries?
Donator
May 5, 2003
4,923
121
753
#3
Jun 2, 2005
15,516
4
0
Dallas
#5
That's why we're doomed, right there. He said nothing incorrect, hell, he didn't even say anything negative. He simply stated facts and stupid fucking baby-eared Americans booed because he didn't say USA #1 GO TEAM!

Doomed.
 

Party Rooster

Unleash The Beast
Apr 27, 2005
40,284
7,455
438
The Inland Empire State
#6
That's why we're doomed, right there. He said nothing incorrect, hell, he didn't even say anything negative. He simply stated facts and stupid fucking baby-eared Americans booed because he didn't say USA #1 GO TEAM!

Doomed.
Totally agree. Everyone's hating on the OP just because he still uses a Yahoo toolbar. Last I checked it's a free country and we're still allowed to use whatever browser enhancements we want.
 

nikoloslvy

I wear my sunglasses at night...Anyone want fries?
Donator
May 5, 2003
4,923
121
753
#7
That's why we're doomed, right there. He said nothing incorrect, hell, he didn't even say anything negative. He simply stated facts and stupid fucking baby-eared Americans booed because he didn't say USA #1 GO TEAM!

Doomed.
Going with this same notion, we may doomed when actual points aren't herd because of...what was it? a yahoo toolbar?...me thinks someone cant handle the content...

Tell me oh ru paulites should we have signed koyoto? obl said we should...what else that obl says should we do?

 
Jun 2, 2005
15,516
4
0
Dallas
#8
I could give a crap about the tool bar... I was talking about the video.
 

Konstantin K

Big League Poster
Aug 25, 2010
15,776
3,875
273
#9
People with Yahoo toolbars shouldn't be allowed to vote. There, I said what we were all thinking.
 

Owenay

Those who fail to learn from history are doomed...
May 10, 2007
3,666
248
358
Bizarro World
#10
That's why we're doomed, right there. He said nothing incorrect, hell, he didn't even say anything negative. He simply stated facts and stupid fucking baby-eared Americans booed because he didn't say USA #1 GO TEAM!

Doomed.
Ron Paul essentially said the 9/11 attacks were (in part) the result of Westerners encroaching on Holy Lands and that theocratic fundamentalists had a right to be pissed and react the way they did. This is complete bullshit. Organizations like Al Qaeda like use useful idiots like Paul to propagandize to Americans and the West. What Al Qaeda says to these ignorant Westerners about those terrible American occupiers IS NOT what they say to their own adherents. 1400 year old texts and tenants of the Koran and Hadiths are the warp and weave of the jihadist, theocratic supremacism of Islam. And that has absolutely nothing to do with American foreign policy. It predates American foreign policy by 1200 years. This trope of American foreign policy is meant for Western consumption and is the excuse and the icing on the jihadist cake. But it is not the motivating factor for jihadist actions in the world and certainly not the motivating factor for 9/11.

For example, for all his talk that U.S. “occupation” is the heart of the problem, shortly after the 9/11 strikes, Osama bin Laden wrote to fellow Muslims:
Our talks with the infidel West and our conflict with them ultimately revolve around one issue — one that demands our total support, with power and determination, with one voice — and it is: Does Islam, or does it not, force people by the power of the sword to submit to its authority corporeally if not spiritually? Yes. There are only three choices in Islam: [1] either willing submission [conversion]; [2] or payment of the jizya, through physical, though not spiritual, submission to the authority of Islam; [3] or the sword — for it is not right to let him [an infidel] live. The matter is summed up for every person alive: Either submit, or live under the suzerainty of Islam, or die. (The Al Qaeda Reader, p. 42)
This medieval threefold choice, then — conversion, subjugation, or the sword — is the ultimate source of conflict, not U.S foreign policy (see also “Reciprocal Treatment or Religious Obligation,” which compares al-Qaeda’s messages to the West with its internal messages to Muslims, documenting all the contradictions).

This exchange clearly revealed Paul’s lack of knowledge concerning the nature of the enemy. After all, it’s one thing for some Americans to believe that the source of all conflict is the United State’s presence in some countries, it’s quite another — it’s dangerous — for a potential president to think, and speak, this way. The good news is that, if Paul is ignorant and naive regarding al-Qaeda and its motives, based on all the loud booing he received, increasing numbers of Americans are not.
 

Arch Stanton

It's all about the funny!
Nov 22, 2004
25,696
374
663
Long Island
#11
Ron Paul essentially said the 9/11 attacks were (in part) the result of Westerners encroaching on Holy Lands and that theocratic fundamentalists had a right to be pissed and react the way they did. This is complete bullshit. Organizations like Al Qaeda like use useful idiots like Paul to propagandize to Americans and the West. What Al Qaeda says to these ignorant Westerners about those terrible American occupiers IS NOT what they say to their own adherents. 1400 year old texts and tenants of the Koran and Hadiths are the warp and weave of the jihadist, theocratic supremacism of Islam. And that has absolutely nothing to do with American foreign policy. It predates American foreign policy by 1200 years. This trope of American foreign policy is meant for Western consumption and is the excuse and the icing on the jihadist cake. But it is not the motivating factor for jihadist actions in the world and certainly not the motivating factor for 9/11.

For example, for all his talk that U.S. “occupation” is the heart of the problem, shortly after the 9/11 strikes, Osama bin Laden wrote to fellow Muslims:


This medieval threefold choice, then — conversion, subjugation, or the sword — is the ultimate source of conflict, not U.S foreign policy (see also “Reciprocal Treatment or Religious Obligation,” which compares al-Qaeda’s messages to the West with its internal messages to Muslims, documenting all the contradictions).

This exchange clearly revealed Paul’s lack of knowledge concerning the nature of the enemy. After all, it’s one thing for some Americans to believe that the source of all conflict is the United State’s presence in some countries, it’s quite another — it’s dangerous — for a potential president to think, and speak, this way. The good news is that, if Paul is ignorant and naive regarding al-Qaeda and its motives, based on all the loud booing he received, increasing numbers of Americans are not.
THIS^

And I sang at Memorial where one of the Mothers of a murdered victim Ten years ago in NYC stated it was our Foriegn Policy, that she read it was our foriegn policy that caused the murdereous attacks. I did all I could to sit still.
 
Jun 2, 2005
15,516
4
0
Dallas
#12
Ron Paul essentially said the 9/11 attacks were (in part) the result of Westerners encroaching on Holy Lands and that theocratic fundamentalists had a right to be pissed and react the way they did. This is complete bullshit. Organizations like Al Qaeda like use useful idiots like Paul to propagandize to Americans and the West. What Al Qaeda says to these ignorant Westerners about those terrible American occupiers IS NOT what they say to their own adherents. 1400 year old texts and tenants of the Koran and Hadiths are the warp and weave of the jihadist, theocratic supremacism of Islam. And that has absolutely nothing to do with American foreign policy. It predates American foreign policy by 1200 years. This trope of American foreign policy is meant for Western consumption and is the excuse and the icing on the jihadist cake. But it is not the motivating factor for jihadist actions in the world and certainly not the motivating factor for 9/11.

For example, for all his talk that U.S. “occupation” is the heart of the problem, shortly after the 9/11 strikes, Osama bin Laden wrote to fellow Muslims:


This medieval threefold choice, then — conversion, subjugation, or the sword — is the ultimate source of conflict, not U.S foreign policy (see also “Reciprocal Treatment or Religious Obligation,” which compares al-Qaeda’s messages to the West with its internal messages to Muslims, documenting all the contradictions).

This exchange clearly revealed Paul’s lack of knowledge concerning the nature of the enemy. After all, it’s one thing for some Americans to believe that the source of all conflict is the United State’s presence in some countries, it’s quite another — it’s dangerous — for a potential president to think, and speak, this way. The good news is that, if Paul is ignorant and naive regarding al-Qaeda and its motives, based on all the loud booing he received, increasing numbers of Americans are not.
I don't think I've ever once heard Paul say that we deserved it, or that the attacks were justified.

And this is the problem with Ron Paul.

He's too honest, and doesn't smooth over details in the name of politics. Everything he's saying is 100% true. OBL was once our ally, we initially used him as a military leader to repel the Russian invasion of Afghanistan. When we left them all hanging once our interests were satisfied they turned on us. They use excuses like we occupy their holy land, and they twist the Koran to lather up the Muzzie rubes against us, and yes, at this point it's completely ridiculous and none of our foreign policies matter, but it doesn't change the facts that exist, and that's all Paul is pointing out.

It's an emotional issue for 90% of the people out there, and speaking about it intellectually tends to twist off those emotional people, but don't you want a president who can remove emotion and analyze every aspect of a situation and not go off half-cocked?

Anyway, this is a typical Ron Paul thread. He says something accurate and intelligent, and is misquoted and misunderstood.
 

nikoloslvy

I wear my sunglasses at night...Anyone want fries?
Donator
May 5, 2003
4,923
121
753
#13
I don't think I've ever once heard Paul say that we deserved it, or that the attacks were justified.

And this is the problem with Ron Paul.

OBL was once our ally, we initially used him as a military leader to repel the Russian invasion of Afghanistan. When we left them all hanging once our interests were satisfied they turned on us..
While true, do you question us aligning with the soviets after ww2?,Musharraf in Pakistan? ,Mubarak in Egypt? we have allways done this and will continue to do so.

How do we differentiate on which bad actors we choose to back at any particular time? I'd like to introduce you a li'l book called dictatorships and double standards by a one Jeane Kirkpatrick.While her critique is more on the carter administration who much like obama cant decide when we choose non interventionist policies and when we dont , i think it would help you understand the hawk position a li'l better.

(holy coherence folks...i suck.)

http://www.amazon.com/dp/0671438360/?tag=wackbagcom-20

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7U73Vn5ffII
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yOLfDW4xbZI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VngRc7b4Wis
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vfJ__NEOLL8
 

Owenay

Those who fail to learn from history are doomed...
May 10, 2007
3,666
248
358
Bizarro World
#14
I don't think I've ever once heard Paul say that we deserved it, or that the attacks were justified.
here's the full quote of that portion of the debate:
PAUL: As long as this country follows that idea, we’re going to be under a lot of danger. This whole idea that the whole Muslim world is responsible for this, and they’re attacking us because we’re free and prosperous, that is just not true.

Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda have been explicit — they have been explicit, and they wrote and said that we attacked America because you had bases on our holy land in Saudi Arabia, you do not give Palestinians fair treatment, and you have been bombing –

(BOOING)

PAUL: I didn’t say that. I’m trying to get you to understand what the motive was behind the bombing, at the same time we had been bombing and killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqis for 10 years.

Would you be annoyed? If you’re not annoyed, then there’s some problem.
Right there he's justifying jihadist actions on the grounds of being 'annoyed' at American bases on the Holy Land, unfair treatment of Palestinians (Hamas terrorists) and 'bombing and killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqis for 10 years'.[1] Does he say we deserve it? Perhaps that's a stretch. But does he feel it was justified in the eyes of the terrorists? Sure sounds like it.

Additionally there's the 9/11 blog post by Paul that Santorum cited:
Ten years ago shocking and horrific acts of terrorism were carried out on US soil, taking over 3,000 innocent American lives. Without a doubt, this action demanded retaliation and retribution. However, much has been done in the name of protecting the American people from terrorism that has reduced our prosperity and liberty and even made us less safe. This is ironic and sad, considering that the oft-repeated line concerning the reasoning behind the attacks is that they hate us for who we are – a free, prosperous people – and that we must not under any circumstances allow the terrorists to win.

Though it is hard for many to believe, honest studies show that the real motivation behind the September 11 attacks and the vast majority of other instances of suicide terrorism is not that our enemies are bothered by our way of life. Neither is it our religion, or our wealth. Rather, it is primarily occupation. If you were to imagine for a moment how you would feel if another country forcibly occupied the United States, had military bases and armed soldiers present in our hometowns, you might begin to understand why foreign occupation upsets people so much.
Not only is he flat out wrong on their motives, but he's again attempting to convince others to see things through his distorted perspective as a means to apply justification for them reacting the way they do.

[1]sidenote: I think his 'facts' about 'bombing and killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqis for 10 years' is a tad off...


And this is the problem with Ron Paul. He's too honest, and doesn't smooth over details in the name of politics.
Look, I appreciate honesty perhaps above ALL traits in my elected officials. That's what I like about Chris Christie. But when one is flat out wrong (even in their honesty) they must be called out for it. Ron Paul is WRONG about the motives of jihadists just like Christie is WRONG about anthropomorphic climate change.

Everything he's saying is 100% true.
No it isn't.

OBL was once our ally, we initially used him as a military leader to repel the Russian invasion of Afghanistan. When we left them all hanging once our interests were satisfied they turned on us. They use excuses like we occupy their holy land, and they twist the Koran to lather up the Muzzie rubes against us, and yes, at this point it's completely ridiculous and none of our foreign policies matter, but it doesn't change the facts that exist, and that's all Paul is pointing out.
You (and Paul) have it backwards. Islamic fundamentalists do not twist the Koran to lather up the rubes against us, they believe their interpretation of the Koran through and through. They use 'western occupation' as justification for their jihadist actions obtained through their lunatic beliefs, not the other way around. Listen to the words of these people. Their entire worldview revolves around propagating their religion (system of gov't) on the entire world and it has been that way for over a millennium.
 

Neon

ネオン
Donator
Mar 23, 2008
51,826
18,547
513
Kingdom of Charis
#15
Would Ron Paul believe Osama Bin Laden if he said he wasn't behind 9/11? Probably not. Then why does he believe Osama Bin Laden when he says WHY he was behind 9/11?
 

nikoloslvy

I wear my sunglasses at night...Anyone want fries?
Donator
May 5, 2003
4,923
121
753
#16
Anyway, this is a typical Ron Paul thread. He says something accurate and intelligent, and is misquoted and misunderstood.
There is nothing accurate about him quoting the jihadie propaganda line that obl's grievance is that we had soldiers on Islamic lands when:

1) we were invited by the Saudis to stop Saddam's invasion of Kuwait.I dont know why obl's concerns get more credence then anyone else in the region (not defending the kingdom of saud here just pointing out that just because obls is pissed that the Saudis turned him down when he offered his mujahedin as protection against sadam does not mean that this is our problem nor frankly should we give a damn).

2) if his other gripe is us not sighing kyoto does this mean we should turn green in order to avoid terrorists attacks and do we really believe that obl thinks of himself as the green holy warrior or is perhaps just a in a long line of propaganda? should the republican candidate start backing obamas green jobs agenda?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UiSaAeRionA

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2010/01/20101277383676587.html
 

Party Rooster

Unleash The Beast
Apr 27, 2005
40,284
7,455
438
The Inland Empire State
#17
Not only is he flat out wrong on their motives, but he's again attempting to convince others to see things through his distorted perspective as a means to apply justification for them reacting the way they do.
The occupations of their holy lands was part of the problem. I read what you posted about what bin Laden said, but in reality our relations with each other would be a either a detente' or laissez faire type relationship if we weren't over there doing those things. Everytime one of their dictators gets toppled, what do you find in his "secret stash"? Western culture icons. Expensive champagne, movies, music, art, etc. So I really don't believe all that rhetoric they spout about how much they hate the west.

[1]sidenote: I think his 'facts' about 'bombing and killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqis for 10 years' is a tad off...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War

Most estimates have the number of dead civilians at somewhere at least 100k. And that's just the dead. Hundreds of thousands more have been injured in bombings I would say it's safe to assume.

Look, I appreciate honesty perhaps above ALL traits in my elected officials. That's what I like about Chris Christie. But when one is flat out wrong (even in their honesty) they must be called out for it. Ron Paul is WRONG about the motives of jihadists just like Christie is WRONG about anthropomorphic climate change.
I'm glad you're so positive about global warming. Didn't realize you had a Ph.D. in climate science.

You (and Paul) have it backwards. Islamic fundamentalists do not twist the Koran to lather up the rubes against us, they believe their interpretation of the Koran through and through. They use 'western occupation' as justification for their jihadist actions obtained through their lunatic beliefs, not the other way around. Listen to the words of these people. Their entire worldview revolves around propagating their religion (system of gov't) on the entire world and it has been that way for over a millennium.
Again, I just don't think there's enough leaders that think like that, and even if there was I don't think enough of the general population gives a shit that much to warrant the sacrifices necessary for global Muslim domination.
 
Jun 2, 2005
15,516
4
0
Dallas
#18
Right there he's justifying jihadist actions on the grounds of being 'annoyed' at American bases on the Holy Land, unfair treatment of Palestinians (Hamas terrorists) and 'bombing and killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqis for 10 years'.[1] Does he say we deserve it? Perhaps that's a stretch. But does he feel it was justified in the eyes of the terrorists? Sure sounds like it.
This is the biggest point right here. You're putting intent behind his words that doesn't exist. You're not submitting to an enemy if you attempt to identify his motives. You assigning that guilt to Paul's words is the same thing as considering a detective guilty of murder for attempting to reconstruct the motives for the murder.

What he's saying is 100% true. Before we got involved in the Middle East, there was no jihad against America. It wasn't until we got involved in Afghanistan and manipulated the guerrilla warfare situation under Bin Laden that we were considered the enemy. (There were previous tensions over Israel, but nothing like there is today)

Nothing I just said, along with nothing anything Ron Paul said is stating that we deserved the attacks, or that they were justified in carrying out those attacks. But to pretend we've never done anything to kick that hornets' nest is just childish and dishonest.
 
Jun 2, 2005
15,516
4
0
Dallas
#19
Would Ron Paul believe Osama Bin Laden if he said he wasn't behind 9/11? Probably not. Then why does he believe Osama Bin Laden when he says WHY he was behind 9/11?
You, of ALL the fucking people here should be smarter than this bullshit.
 

Party Rooster

Unleash The Beast
Apr 27, 2005
40,284
7,455
438
The Inland Empire State
#20
There is nothing accurate about him quoting the jihadie propaganda line that obl's grievance is that we had soldiers on Islamic lands when:

1) we were invited by the Saudis to stop Saddam's invasion of Kuwait.I dont know why obl's concerns get more credence then anyone else in the region (not defending the kingdom of saud here just pointing out that just because obls is pissed that the Saudis turned him down when he offered his mujahedin as protection against sadam does not mean that this is our problem nor frankly should we give a damn).
We were supposed to only be there temporarily during Desert Storm. I remember it being very controversial at the time and we had promised to leave afterwards.

2) if his other gripe is us not sighing kyoto does this mean we should turn green in order to avoid terrorists attacks and do we really believe that obl thinks of himself as the green holy warrior or is perhaps just a in a long line of propaganda? should the republican candidate start backing obamas green jobs agenda?
What does Kyoto have to do with ANYTHING? Who gives a fuck if OBL was "green?" Stop buying into right wing propaganda and pretending it really matters.
 

Von Maestro

Registered User
Mar 12, 2010
1,744
1,650
323
#21
You, of ALL the fucking people here should be smarter than this bullshit.
VT, he of all people understands that they want to kill you regardless of the reasons they claim are their motivation.

If Ron Paul truly believes that it is our "occupation" of Arab lands that motivates & justifies their terrorist activities, then he is quite frankly too naive to be seriously considered for POTUS.
 
Jun 2, 2005
15,516
4
0
Dallas
#22
VT, he of all people understands that they want to kill you regardless of the reasons they claim are their motivation.

If Ron Paul truly believes that it is our "occupation" of Arab lands that motivates & justifies their terrorist activities, then he is quite frankly too naive to be seriously considered for POTUS.
They want to kill Israel regardless of their motivational claims. They never wanted to kill us until we got involved in the Middle East.

Again, I'm not saying we shouldn't have gotten involved in the Middle East, I'm simply stating the fact that they didn't want to exterminate us until we fucked around in their back yard. Edit: And to keep it on topic, that's all Ron Paul's attempting to say as well.
 

nikoloslvy

I wear my sunglasses at night...Anyone want fries?
Donator
May 5, 2003
4,923
121
753
#23
They want to kill Israel regardless of their motivational claims. They never wanted to kill us until we got involved in the Middle East.

Again, I'm not saying we shouldn't have gotten involved in the Middle East, I'm simply stating the fact that they didn't want to exterminate us until we fucked around in their back yard. Edit: And to keep it on topic, that's all Ron Paul's attempting to say as well.
We have been in the middle east since the founding.

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/196189-1

Michael Oren talked about his book Power, Faith, and Fantasy: America in the Middle East, 1776 to the Present, published by W.W. Norton. He described the United States' involvement in the Middle East over the past 230 years.


http://www.amazon.com/dp/0393058263/?tag=wackbagcom-20
Power, Faith, and Fantasy: America in the Middle East: 1776 to the Present by


Michael B. Oren.



(Note: the author does not believe we belong in iraq.
avil. in audio.)
 

Party Rooster

Unleash The Beast
Apr 27, 2005
40,284
7,455
438
The Inland Empire State
#24
This is the biggest point right here. You're putting intent behind his words that doesn't exist. You're not submitting to an enemy if you attempt to identify his motives. You assigning that guilt to Paul's words is the same thing as considering a detective guilty of murder for attempting to reconstruct the motives for the murder.

What he's saying is 100% true. Before we got involved in the Middle East, there was no jihad against America. It wasn't until we got involved in Afghanistan and manipulated the guerrilla warfare situation under Bin Laden that we were considered the enemy. (There were previous tensions over Israel, but nothing like there is today)

Nothing I just said, along with nothing anything Ron Paul said is stating that we deserved the attacks, or that they were justified in carrying out those attacks. But to pretend we've never done anything to kick that hornets' nest is just childish and dishonest.
This.

What people don't "get" is that while there are extremists that want the "convert, submit, or die" relationship with the rest of the world, without the general populace actually having a tangible negative thing to associate with us (i.e., occupying and bombing their neighborhoods), it's impossible to get enough people to support that idea. 90% of the people in ANY given populace or culture just want to be able to go to work and provide for their families on a day-to-day basis.
 
Jun 2, 2005
15,516
4
0
Dallas
#25
We have been in the middle east since the founding.

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/196189-1

Michael Oren talked about his book Power, Faith, and Fantasy: America in the Middle East, 1776 to the Present, published by W.W. Norton. He described the United States' involvement in the Middle East over the past 230 years.


http://www.amazon.com/dp/0393058263/?tag=wackbagcom-20
Power, Faith, and Fantasy: America in the Middle East: 1776 to the Present by


Michael B. Oren.



(Note: the author does not believe we belong in iraq.
avil. in audio.)
I haven't said anything that's in opposition to anything there, and to my knowledge neither has Ron Paul.