Paul again says we are to blame for 9/11

[thanatos144]

Paul was discussing foreign policy when he said: “Somebody… said the other day on the Internet, ‘if those Paul people had been in charge, Osama Bin Laden would still be alive.’”

The former presidential candidate countered with emotion: “But you know what I think the answer is? So would the 3000 people [killed] on 9/11, be alive!”

One assumes the OP is extrapolating from this that the ‘blame’ is based on American foreign policy over the last 40 years or so; particularly with regard to our policy toward Israel and American involvement in the Region overall.

Where had libertarians been in charge of American foreign policy during that time – with no involvement with Israel, with no American troops in various Gulf States, and with no American lead wars in the ME – that OBL would still be in Egypt running the family business building buildings rather than blowing them up.

Cause we are the evil ones in the world????

No, because we keep screwing around in other nations’ business to the detriment of both.

Libertarian foreign policy is among the few redeeming principles of their dogma. And it’s not ‘isolationism,’ it’s an intelligent, pragmatic approach keeping America safe while allowing other nations to address their own affairs as they see fit.

Libertarian policy is to smoke dope and kiss ass and hope the rectal fucking we get doesnt hurt to bad.

 

[eflatminor]

Ron Paul claimed that, had his people been in charge, thousands of victims from the 9/11 attacks would still be alive.

Okay, let's look at this statement on it's face.

Taking emotion out of it, we know that the 9/11 attacks were launched in response to three perceived grievances:

1. Sanctions against Iraq;
2. US military in Saudi Arabia; and
3. US support of Israel.

If perception is reality, these are the reasons we were attacked...according to the attackers.

We also know that a Paul administration would never have imposed sanctions against any nation and that he would never allowed military bases in Saudi Arabia. Further, Paul stands against all foreign aid, including that which goes to Israel.

So, if you're going to call bullshit on Paul's statement, you're going to have to convince us that Osama and his pals would still have launched the 9/11 attacks even if we were not doing any of the things they claimed to be offensive and worthy of a fatwa.

Is that what you're saying? Otherwise, Paul's statement has merit.

 

[kaz]

Ron Paul Says 9/11 Victims Would Still Be Alive If His People Were in Charge at South Florida University | Video | TheBlaze.com

Again we see what kind of a man Paul is and it no wonder he didnt win the nomination....Republicans love their country.

The thread title is that Paul said "we are to blame for 9/11"

The post says he said if he were in charge then 9/11 would not have happened.

You think those are the same, and you ask if "I" can read?

Yes thus saying the USA caused 9-11...Or brought it on ourselves...

It's not the same. Reading is fundamental.

You know the things you bots keep saying he never said?????? This is why he lost....He lost cause he feels WE atre the main problem in the world....He would rather bend over for every two bit dictator who looked cross at him....He is worse then Obama in this department.

If what he says is so clearly crap like we are the "main problem" in the world, why do you have to keep saying it for him instead of quoting him saying it? Then you tell us we're full of it saying he hasn't said what you didn't quote.

 

[kaz]

Libertarian policy is to smoke dope

So you think government should allow only that which you approve of to be legal ... and you think libertarians are scary?

 

[thanatos144]

Libertarian policy is to smoke dope

So you think government should allow only that which you approve of to be legal ... and you think libertarians are scary?

Out of all I said of course it is only the dope smoking that is important to you......

 

[thanatos144]

Ron Paul claimed that, had his people been in charge, thousands of victims from the 9/11 attacks would still be alive.

Okay, let's look at this statement on it's face.

Taking emotion out of it, we know that the 9/11 attacks were launched in response to three perceived grievances:

1. Sanctions against Iraq;
2. US military in Saudi Arabia; and
3. US support of Israel.

If perception is reality, these are the reasons we were attacked...according to the attackers.

We also know that a Paul administration would never have imposed sanctions against any nation and that he would never allowed military bases in Saudi Arabia. Further, Paul stands against all foreign aid, including that which goes to Israel.

So, if you're going to call bullshit on Paul's statement, you're going to have to convince us that Osama and his pals would still have launched the 9/11 attacks even if we were not doing any of the things they claimed to be offensive and worthy of a fatwa.

Is that what you're saying? Otherwise, Paul's statement has merit.

Sanctions are what the world wanted you ass not just America and the Saudis allow us to remain there . Last but not least hating Jews is not a good thing.

 

[eflatminor]

Libertarian policy is to smoke dope

So you think government should allow only that which you approve of to be legal ... and you think libertarians are scary?

Out of all I said of course it is only the dope smoking that is important to you......

FWIW, to this libertarian, it's not the "dope smoking" that is important but the idea that consensual activity between adults is nobody else's business.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Paul was discussing foreign policy when he said: “Somebody… said the other day on the Internet, ‘if those Paul people had been in charge, Osama Bin Laden would still be alive.’”

The former presidential candidate countered with emotion: “But you know what I think the answer is? So would the 3000 people [killed] on 9/11, be alive!”

One assumes the OP is extrapolating from this that the ‘blame’ is based on American foreign policy over the last 40 years or so; particularly with regard to our policy toward Israel and American involvement in the Region overall.

Where had libertarians been in charge of American foreign policy during that time – with no involvement with Israel, with no American troops in various Gulf States, and with no American lead wars in the ME – that OBL would still be in Egypt running the family business building buildings rather than blowing them up.

Cause we are the evil ones in the world????

No, because we keep screwing around in other nations’ business to the detriment of both.

Libertarian foreign policy is among the few redeeming principles of their dogma. And it’s not ‘isolationism,’ it’s an intelligent, pragmatic approach keeping America safe while allowing other nations to address their own affairs as they see fit.

Libertarian policy is to smoke dope and kiss ass and hope the rectal fucking we get doesnt hurt to bad.

I miss the days when you were pretending to hold out an olive branch to libertarians.

 

[Plasmaball]

thanatos is a true big government stooge. He wants to invade other people, Be the world police and control women and what they do with their own bodies.

You are the enemy.

 

[eflatminor]

Ron Paul claimed that, had his people been in charge, thousands of victims from the 9/11 attacks would still be alive.

Okay, let's look at this statement on it's face.

Taking emotion out of it, we know that the 9/11 attacks were launched in response to three perceived grievances:

1. Sanctions against Iraq;
2. US military in Saudi Arabia; and
3. US support of Israel.

If perception is reality, these are the reasons we were attacked...according to the attackers.

We also know that a Paul administration would never have imposed sanctions against any nation and that he would never allowed military bases in Saudi Arabia. Further, Paul stands against all foreign aid, including that which goes to Israel.

So, if you're going to call bullshit on Paul's statement, you're going to have to convince us that Osama and his pals would still have launched the 9/11 attacks even if we were not doing any of the things they claimed to be offensive and worthy of a fatwa.

Is that what you're saying? Otherwise, Paul's statement has merit.

Sanctions are what the world wanted you ass not just America and the Saudis allow us to remain there . Last but not least hating Jews is not a good thing.

Ass? Why the hate? I haven't attacked you. I responded honestly to your OP. Geez.

If we could get back to the point at hand...like adults might...I would say you're correct that sanctions against Iraq are what many wanted. That doesn't change the fact that Paul would never support sanctions. You're also correct that the Saudi's allowed us to put a base near Mecca. Again, that doesn't change the fact that Paul would never have supported such a base. Lastly, Paul never said he "hates Jews", but he does stand against all foreign aid.

The point is, you've not addressed my and Dr Paul's point. So, I say again, if you're going to call bullshit on Paul's statement, you're going to have to convince us that Osama and his pals would still have launched the 9/11 attacks even if we were not doing any of the things they claimed to be offensive and worthy of a fatwa.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

thanatos is a true big government stooge. He wants to invade other people, Be the world police and control women and what they do with their own bodies.

You are the enemy.

And have them love the U.S. for it.

 

[Dissent]

Lols...looks like he already got his ass kicked so no need to pile on to this thread...big FAIL for you thanatos.

 

[Billo_Really]

Last but not least hating Jews is not a good thing.

It has nothing to do with Judaism, but everything to do with "un-conditionally supporting" a racist, apartheid state, that has a complete and total disdain for IHL and treats an entire population of people like their sub-human.

 

[Billo_Really]

If what he says is so clearly crap like we are the "main problem" in the world, why do you have to keep saying it for him instead of quoting him saying it? Then you tell us we're full of it saying he hasn't said what you didn't quote.

That's pretty good!

Kudo's...

 

[kaz]

Libertarian policy is to smoke dope

So you think government should allow only that which you approve of to be legal ... and you think libertarians are scary?

Out of all I said of course it is only the dope smoking that is important to you......

Out of my half dozen replies it is only the dope smoking that is important to you...

 

[thanatos144]

You are all repeating the same failures .... There is no need to answer posts that have already been debunked in th op

 

[eflatminor]

Okay, let's look at this statement on it's face.

Taking emotion out of it, we know that the 9/11 attacks were launched in response to three perceived grievances:

1. Sanctions against Iraq;
2. US military in Saudi Arabia; and
3. US support of Israel.

If perception is reality, these are the reasons we were attacked...according to the attackers.

We also know that a Paul administration would never have imposed sanctions against any nation and that he would never allowed military bases in Saudi Arabia. Further, Paul stands against all foreign aid, including that which goes to Israel.

So, if you're going to call bullshit on Paul's statement, you're going to have to convince us that Osama and his pals would still have launched the 9/11 attacks even if we were not doing any of the things they claimed to be offensive and worthy of a fatwa.

Is that what you're saying? Otherwise, Paul's statement has merit.

Sanctions are what the world wanted you ass not just America and the Saudis allow us to remain there . Last but not least hating Jews is not a good thing.

Ass? Why the hate? I haven't attacked you. I responded honestly to your OP. Geez.

If we could get back to the point at hand...like adults might...I would say you're correct that sanctions against Iraq are what many wanted. That doesn't change the fact that Paul would never support sanctions. You're also correct that the Saudi's allowed us to put a base near Mecca. Again, that doesn't change the fact that Paul would never have supported such a base. Lastly, Paul never said he "hates Jews", but he does stand against all foreign aid.

The point is, you've not addressed my and Dr Paul's point. So, I say again, if you're going to call bullshit on Paul's statement, you're going to have to convince us that Osama and his pals would still have launched the 9/11 attacks even if we were not doing any of the things they claimed to be offensive and worthy of a fatwa.

Debunked? I'm just hoping for a reasonable response!

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

You are all repeating the same failures .... There is no need to answer posts that have already been debunked in th op

 

[thanatos144]

Sanctions are what the world wanted you ass not just America and the Saudis allow us to remain there . Last but not least hating Jews is not a good thing.

Ass? Why the hate? I haven't attacked you. I responded honestly to your OP. Geez.

If we could get back to the point at hand...like adults might...I would say you're correct that sanctions against Iraq are what many wanted. That doesn't change the fact that Paul would never support sanctions. You're also correct that the Saudi's allowed us to put a base near Mecca. Again, that doesn't change the fact that Paul would never have supported such a base. Lastly, Paul never said he "hates Jews", but he does stand against all foreign aid.

The point is, you've not addressed my and Dr Paul's point. So, I say again, if you're going to call bullshit on Paul's statement, you're going to have to convince us that Osama and his pals would still have launched the 9/11 attacks even if we were not doing any of the things they claimed to be offensive and worthy of a fatwa.

Debunked? I'm just hoping for a reasonable response!

mine was a very reasoned response .... Your questions were hyperbole.

 

[thanatos144]

You are all repeating the same failures .... There is no need to answer posts that have already been debunked in th op

What ever are you going to you with your God leaving office?