I have to carry Dr. Paul's statement further, as he has in the past when his commentary isn't restricted to stop-watch type sound-bite fodder, to be later taken out of context.
What is our own instinctive response when Islamists migrate here and take over local governments, schools and coerce police to treat them according to Sharia law, rather than under American law? We get pissed. Now, imagine they're heavily armed and barging into our homes searching out those of us who are especially pissed about their presence? You get the 'picture' a little more clearly?
No, Dr. Paul isn't 'gullible' or 'naive'. He's correct. The truth is that the international bankeing cartel has us imposing their phony credit 'money' boondoggle on the Mid-East in order to dump inflated banknotes into those countries, so they won't push up prices in domestic markets. The 'Petro-Dollar' is a scam that exports price 'inflation'. That's why there's exhorbinate food prices and riots in those countries and why there have to be Euro-American military forces throughout the area ... to be sure the ever-increasing flood of those 'Petro-Dollars' won't stop inflating THEIR economies rather than OURS.
Look, I grant that Islamic fundamentalists are repulsive neanderthals, but I won't let that contort my logic or...
What is our own instinctive response when Islamists migrate here and take over local governments, schools and coerce police to treat them according to Sharia law, rather than under American law? We get pissed. Now, imagine they're heavily armed and barging into our homes searching out those of us who are especially pissed about their presence? You get the 'picture' a little more clearly?
No, Dr. Paul isn't 'gullible' or 'naive'. He's correct. The truth is that the international bankeing cartel has us imposing their phony credit 'money' boondoggle on the Mid-East in order to dump inflated banknotes into those countries, so they won't push up prices in domestic markets. The 'Petro-Dollar' is a scam that exports price 'inflation'. That's why there's exhorbinate food prices and riots in those countries and why there have to be Euro-American military forces throughout the area ... to be sure the ever-increasing flood of those 'Petro-Dollars' won't stop inflating THEIR economies rather than OURS.
Look, I grant that Islamic fundamentalists are repulsive neanderthals, but I won't let that contort my logic or...
I have to carry Dr. Paul's statement further, as he has in the past when his commentary isn't restricted to stop-watch type sound-bite fodder, to be later taken out of context.
What is our own instinctive response when Islamists migrate here and take over local governments, schools and coerce police to treat them according to Sharia law, rather than under American law? We get pissed. Now, imagine they're heavily armed and barging into our homes searching out those of us who are especially pissed about their presence? You get the 'picture' a little more clearly?
No, Dr. Paul isn't 'gullible' or 'naive'. He's correct. The truth is that the international bankeing cartel has us imposing their phony credit 'money' boondoggle on the Mid-East in order to dump inflated banknotes into those countries, so they won't push up prices in domestic markets. The 'Petro-Dollar' is a scam that exports price 'inflation'. That's why there's exhorbinate food prices and riots in those countries and why there have to be Euro-American military forces throughout the area ... to be sure the ever-increasing flood of those 'Petro-Dollars' won't stop inflating THEIR economies rather than OURS.
Look, I grant that Islamic fundamentalists are repulsive neanderthals, but I won't let that contort my logic or blind me to emotive brainwash intended to make a dupe of me. Disgust with Islamists isn't a reason to help the equally repulsive international bankers, who, if you haven't figured it out yet, already hold us in economic slavery.
Rather than to keep us in the condition of having to pick our Master, Dr. Paul's intent is to free us from all Masters. He's the ONLY candidate for the presidency standing on that platform. He's the ONLY ... Liberty ... candidate.
(more)What is our own instinctive response when Islamists migrate here and take over local governments, schools and coerce police to treat them according to Sharia law, rather than under American law? We get pissed. Now, imagine they're heavily armed and barging into our homes searching out those of us who are especially pissed about their presence? You get the 'picture' a little more clearly?
No, Dr. Paul isn't 'gullible' or 'naive'. He's correct. The truth is that the international bankeing cartel has us imposing their phony credit 'money' boondoggle on the Mid-East in order to dump inflated banknotes into those countries, so they won't push up prices in domestic markets. The 'Petro-Dollar' is a scam that exports price 'inflation'. That's why there's exhorbinate food prices and riots in those countries and why there have to be Euro-American military forces throughout the area ... to be sure the ever-increasing flood of those 'Petro-Dollars' won't stop inflating THEIR economies rather than OURS.
Look, I grant that Islamic fundamentalists are repulsive neanderthals, but I won't let that contort my logic or blind me to emotive brainwash intended to make a dupe of me. Disgust with Islamists isn't a reason to help the equally repulsive international bankers, who, if you haven't figured it out yet, already hold us in economic slavery.
Rather than to keep us in the condition of having to pick our Master, Dr. Paul's intent is to free us from all Masters. He's the ONLY candidate for the presidency standing on that platform. He's the ONLY ... Liberty ... candidate.
It IS a fact that there are those who will seek to harm America and we need someone who clearly understand that..
Paul may not be wrong in a technical sense. Sunni radicals do in fact have a deep hatred of the fact that the US has forces in areas they consider holy. The issue is what to do about it. I agree with Paul that we are in too many places, and economic considerations demand that we at least for a time reduce from strategic (toppling governments) to tactical (reprisals) preparedeness. As examples, exiting Iraq and AFPAK quickly makes sense as we are not accomplishing anything. Iraq will become an Iranian satellite no matter when we leave, so we might as well leave now. AFPAK (the Taliban) cannot be defeated via conventional means - they are too dug-in in rough terrain for conventional warfare to eliminate them. A tactical nuclear strike would be the only option to defeat them, but that would result in massive, unacceptable collatoral damage.
The opposite side of the coin is that total withdrawal from critical observation posts, overseas military camps, and seagates would pose an unacceptable security risk. The loss of intelligence, and potential for blockades and attacks against allies by radicals and Eastern block countries, poses too great a risk for a return to total isolationism. A blockade of the Persian Gulf by Ir...
Paul may not be wrong in a technical sense. Sunni radicals do in fact have a deep hatred of the fact that the US has forces in areas they consider holy. The issue is what to do about it. I agree with Paul that we are in too many places, and economic considerations demand that we at least for a time reduce from strategic (toppling governments) to tactical (reprisals) preparedeness. As examples, exiting Iraq and AFPAK quickly makes sense as we are not accomplishing anything. Iraq will become an Iranian satellite no matter when we leave, so we might as well leave now. AFPAK (the Taliban) cannot be defeated via conventional means - they are too dug-in in rough terrain for conventional warfare to eliminate them. A tactical nuclear strike would be the only option to defeat them, but that would result in massive, unacceptable collatoral damage.
The opposite side of the coin is that total withdrawal from critical observation posts, overseas military camps, and seagates would pose an unacceptable security risk. The loss of intelligence, and potential for blockades and attacks against allies by radicals and Eastern block countries, poses too great a risk for a return to total isolationism. A blockade of the Persian Gulf by Iranian satellites is an especially serious potential threat. And sadly, our policy of taking down North African and Middle East secular strongmen, as corrupt and brutal as they are, will result in more Iranian satellites, and the possibility of a Mediterranean Sea blockade threatening European trade (Central Europe would attack radical Islamic states with a scorched earth policy, possibly leading to WWIII).
The right answer is somewhere in the middle. Even former Defense Secretary Gates and Joint Chief's Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen agree that our greatest threat right now is economic, not military; we simply can't afford to go back to the "pre peace dividend" military spending level. I really think Dr. Paul is correct - we have to reduce, since we've bulked backed up (partway) after reaping the dividend. The question is how much.
Stu
Ron Paul is far from clueless on foreign policy. He wants to change our bad policy to one that will benefit us. His policy will benefit everyone world wide with exception to the "military-industrial complex" Eisenhower warned us about.
We are less respected as a nation being the aggressor in never ending military actions around the globe. We need to secure our borders first. Not doing so is nothing but stupidity, that has been perpetuated over the past SEVERAL administrations.
War mongering is a joke, just a way to take more of your money- its incredibly sad. It all goes to crony contracts at the cost of printing money which destroys the value of money you and your family has saved up. While inciting hatred of us- a lose lose situation unless you are one of the cronies.
Paul needs a history lesson. David Ben Gurion would have had given him one.
What propaganda is the writer speaking of?
Supporting the perpetual war syndrome is to play the role of the bankers useful idiot while advancing their globalist agenda... There is much more going on here than can be seen on the surface,,, you won't see the truth on your color TV.
Ignorant is to call Paul ignorant
True or false - in the letter Osama wrote to America he stated that some of the reasons for the 9-11 attacks was due to us occupying their lands, killing the people there, and destroying what they think of as holy land/temples?
True or false - al Queda, Code Pink and Ron Paul all believe that the US should leave the Middle East.
Now to answer your question - Ron Paul and code pink = true
Al Qaeda maybe not - they are using the same tactics they learned from us vs. Russia... They want us over there spending/wasting money.They want to kill U.S. soldiers, which is easier for them to do there than it is here. -
The foreign policy you support makes for a weaker defense while allowing us to destroy ourselves from within. It is exactly what Osama wanted us to do.
You are right, the mujahideen was/is not Al Qaeda - but Al Qaeda came from/out of the mujahideen.
"Al-Qaeda has its origins in the uprising against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. Thousands of volunteers from around the Middle East came to Afghanistan as mujahideen, warriors fighting to defend fellow Muslims. In the mid-1980s, Osama bin Laden became the prime financier for an organization that recruited Muslims from mosques around the world. These "Afghan Arab" mujahideen, which numbered in the thousands, were crucial in defeating Soviet forces."
http://www.infoplease.com/spo...
You are right about the pic - who really knows for sure if it is Osama, it very well could be, or maybe it is not. I think the uniform is a Pakistan uniform... Hey, isn't Pakistan where Obama allegedly found and had Osama killed?
EXACTLY!!!!!!!!!!!!
I didn't say that the government tried to create terrorist, enemies, or people to attack us. It was an unintended consequence - it is a good example of what Ron Paul calls blow back
al Qaeda supports Ron Paul's foreign Policy. We are beating the snot out of them.
True or false? Al-Jazeera, and Iran's Press TV support Ron Paul.
I will guess true - why is that bad?
You do not think that having a foreign policy that agrees with radical Muslim newspapers is bad? I think it is very bad. Voting for Paul is the same as voting for Iran. You think that's a good thing?
2. True
3. So what?
I have noticed that, my votes for the lessor of two evils has propagated evil all across the face of this world. Looking through the facades of the various "top tier" candidates leads me to but one conclusion;
Only Ron Paul has a 30+ (thirty +) year record of standing for the Constitution. No one else has that record, nor comes close.
I have withdrawn my support from the "Empire", and make public my support for my Constitutional Republic. Nothing else holds any value to me.
Raymond Ibrahim: Ron Paul's Ignorance and Naivety Regarding Jihad
Earlier on Pajamas Media (via RaymondIbrahim.com) I discussed how Ron Paul appears to be ignorant and naïve when it comes to the goals of the jihad: ignorant because his statements are not based on accurate knowledge and naïve because he thinks they are – more to the point, because he takes al-Qaeda's propaganda at face value:
Among other qualities, a good presidential candidate must be knowledgeable and able to think outside the box; equally important, he must not be naïve or gullible — certainly not swallow everything the enemy says hook, line, and sinker.
During the recent Republican candidate debate, Congressman Ron Paul exhibited his ignorance and gullibility when the panel was asked "Do you plan to decrease Defense spending, to balance spending, or do you believe high spending is essential to security?"
After Paul explained how he was "tired of all the militarism that we are involved in," and his plan on cutting back, he said, "But we're under great threat, because we occupy so many countries…. The purpose of al Qaeda was to attack us, invite us over there, where they can target us…. but we're th...
Raymond Ibrahim: Ron Paul's Ignorance and Naivety Regarding Jihad
Earlier on Pajamas Media (via RaymondIbrahim.com) I discussed how Ron Paul appears to be ignorant and naïve when it comes to the goals of the jihad: ignorant because his statements are not based on accurate knowledge and naïve because he thinks they are – more to the point, because he takes al-Qaeda's propaganda at face value:
Among other qualities, a good presidential candidate must be knowledgeable and able to think outside the box; equally important, he must not be naïve or gullible — certainly not swallow everything the enemy says hook, line, and sinker.
During the recent Republican candidate debate, Congressman Ron Paul exhibited his ignorance and gullibility when the panel was asked "Do you plan to decrease Defense spending, to balance spending, or do you believe high spending is essential to security?"
After Paul explained how he was "tired of all the militarism that we are involved in," and his plan on cutting back, he said, "But we're under great threat, because we occupy so many countries…. The purpose of al Qaeda was to attack us, invite us over there, where they can target us…. but we're there occupying their land. And if we think that we can do that and not have retaliation, we're kidding ourselves."
This is, of course, an old and well known narrative.
By questioning Paul, however, Rick Santorum exposed the latter's problematic foreign policy approach:
On your [Paul's] Web site on 9/11, you had a blog post that basically blamed the United States for 9/11. On your Web site, yesterday, you said that it was our actions that brought about the actions of 9/11. Now, Congressman Paul, that is irresponsible. The president of the United States — someone who is running for the president of the United States in the Republican Party should not be parroting what Osama bin Laden said on 9/11. We should have — we are not being attacked and we were not attacked because of our actions. We were attacked, as Newt [Gingrich] talked about, because we have a civilization that is antithetical to the civilization of the jihadists [full transcript here].
After rejecting Santorum's thesis, Paul made his fatal blunder:
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 – [audience booing] I didn't say that. I'm trying to get you to understand what the motive was behind the bombing.
This exchange clearly revealed Paul's lack of knowledge concerning the nature of the enemy. 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 for a potential president to think, and speak, this way.
Ironically, Paul even contradicted himself: minutes earlier, when discussing the need to cut back on the military, he complained that we had a military presence in 130 countries — bringing to mind the question: if U.S. military presence is the source of problems, why haven't these countries lashed out?
But what's worse is Paul's naivety — that he would actually swallow and regurgitate verbatim the propaganda al-Qaeda has been dishing for years, to wit, "Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda have been explicit — they have been explicit, and they wrote and said"; and "I'm trying to get you to understand what the motive was behind the bombing."
Did it ever occur to the Congressman that al-Qaeda could be, um, lying?...
Posted by Raymond on September 17, 2011 11:30 AM
This jester of releasing the hostages is just another ploy to buy time to continue their quest to destroy Isreal and the west if possible . To take their threats lightly would be a grave mistake in my opinion