|
Post by kevin on May 17, 2007 21:18:39 GMT -5
SolomonAnd Ron Paul does? In some ways, he may be closer to the original concept of a Republican, but the Democrat party is not what it was either. SolomonFrom the most recent (May 15-16) Fox News poll, 35% were for stabilizing Iraq, 46% for leaving, 16% for both, and 3% undecided. So yeah, if you add the 16% for both (what does that mean?) to the 46% for pulling out, you get your 60%. Otherwise, your figures are off. Poll results can be found here. phinehasYou didn't finish the quote, just part of it because of injustices against the Lebanese and Palestinians by Israel and the United States. How does that refute what Ron Paul said, or anyone else for that matter? Here's what Paul said "They attack us because we've been over there. We've been bombing Iraq for 10 years. ... We've been in the Middle East," Paul said in explaining his opposition to going to war in Iraq. "Right now, we're building an embassy in Iraq that is bigger than the Vatican. We're building 14 permanent bases. What would we say here if China was doing this in our country or in the Gulf of Mexico? We would be objecting. So, are you saying that the Middle East that Ron Paul refers to here in the first part cannot be the "Lebanese and Palestinians"? Say what you will, but Paul WAS being accurate. Most folks just didn't want to hear it from a guy who is on the "R" side of the fence. phinehasBUT...did your read the last sentence of that reference link you gave us? "Your security is not in the hands of [Democratic presidential nominee John] Kerry or Bush or al Qaeda. Your security is in your own hands. Any nation that does not attack us will not be attacked." Not agreeing with Ron Paul, but not agreeing with Guiliani either. We really don't have any real idea what goes on inside the mind of radicals like these so anyone's guess is fair game.
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on May 18, 2007 0:40:36 GMT -5
blondie-
Why don't you brush up on reading comprehension. Ron Paul was talking about us bombing them the last 10 years....What does that have to do with what Bin Laden stated as the reasons for 9/11 via Lebanon and the Palestinians? Nothing...just like him, you people continue to state that what we did in Iraq is the reason why 9/11 occured, which is not the stated reason that Bin Laden gave. So you can either believe what Bin Laden said the motivation was and admit that you are wrong or continue to believe in a falsehood, which you like to do.
I didn't intentionally leave out "States"...it's rather obvious that it got cut off...so I don't know why you bring that up...grasping for straws as usual.
We were not talking about the bin ladens of the world...except for the Bin Laden and the discussion and question to Ron Paul was specifically about why 9/11 occured, to which he blamed the United States versus the terrorists.
|
|
|
Post by solinvictus on May 18, 2007 4:34:28 GMT -5
If the USA were being treated in the same manner, don't you think we would be attacking with great ferocity those who were doing this to us? How can you be so narrow-minded as to not see the obvious truth to that? That's the million dollar question. That's exactly it: for the record, I hate El Presidente. Hate him. He epitomizes much of what's wrong with America: a spoiled rich boy gets elected with an endless well of corporate campaign funds, his dad's advisers (of course, the Bush 41 Supreme Court appointees didn't hurt either), and his phony values. However, all that said, if a foreign power bent upon "regime change" came into our nation unprovoked, bombed our infrastructure, and killed or captured relatives, friends, and countrymen, you can bet your last $ that I'd do all I could to resist. For those who don't get the Arab/Muslim animosity; here's the reason in a nutshell: the British Palestine Mandate was home to a few million Arabs and a few Sephardic and Yemenite Jews. Due to the spread of Zionism, influential Jews (and a few Christians as well) gained the ear of the British cabinet during the final days of World War I (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balfour_Declaration_of_1917) and stated the Crown's support for Zionist aims. For the next three decades, especially after World War 2, Ashkenazic Jews migrated en masses to Palestine and carried out an armed campaign to displace the Arabs and to wage terrorist campaigns against the British Army. Now, we all know how it ended. Arab animosity is due to our unwavering material and political support for Israel. When Palestinians are constantly bombed with American planes wearing a Mogen David, what are they to think? What would you do in their situation? (As an aside, I believe Al Qaeda/Taliban has not a care in the world for the Palestinians except as a justification.)
|
|
|
Post by kevin on May 18, 2007 7:02:20 GMT -5
kevin, like I told blondie...yes I didn't finish the quote. No conspiracy there...both of you were able to use your giant intellect to know that "States" followed "United"...so what. Your not so hidden insults do not become you ;D. Only partially right. Don't become so one-tracked on Iraq like everyone else. Go back and look at Paul's quote (I highlighted the key phrase the first time) "They attack us because we've been over there. We've been bombing Iraq for 10 years. We've been in the Middle East [for years]. I think (Ronald) Reagan was right. We don't understand the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics. Ron Paul said Iraq but followed it up with the Middle East. By your logic (regarding the palestinians and lebanese), Iraq is not part of the Middle East. Paul specifically mentioned Iraq as a present day example, but hit on the Middle East -- which DOES include Lebanon and the Palestinians -- and our lack of understanding of Middle Eastern politics. Not just Iraqi politics, but the whole Middle Eastern mindset. I agree with you there and as my last statement said, I don't agree with him or Guiliani. Guiliani just capitalized on a statement that was very dear to his heart and one that he knew would not fly in a Republican debate. Good for him. But what else does he have to offer America beyond passion about 9/11? An as to the last statement? Have you ever been in a fight? After (or even during) have you not ever heard similar statements as to why the fight occured? "Why did you hit me?" "Don't talk bad about my sister, and I won't attack you" Yeah, its for future reference but it suffices for reason for the first attack too.
|
|
|
Post by blondie on May 18, 2007 8:15:12 GMT -5
blondie- Why don't you brush up on reading comprehension. Ron Paul was talking about us bombing them the last 10 years....What does that have to do with what Bin Laden stated as the reasons for 9/11 via Lebanon and the Palestinians? Nothing...just like him, you people continue to state that what we did in Iraq is the reason why 9/11 occured, which is not the stated reason that Bin Laden gave. So you can either believe what Bin Laden said the motivation was and admit that you are wrong or continue to believe in a falsehood, which you like to do. I didn't intentionally leave out "States"...it's rather obvious that it got cut off...so I don't know why you bring that up...grasping for straws as usual. We were not talking about the bin ladens of the world...except for the Bin Laden and the discussion and question to Ron Paul was specifically about why 9/11 occured, to which he blamed the United States versus the terrorists. Give it up Phinehas. Ron Paul and most of the world understands that the attacks on the WTC were because of the US foreign policy in the Mideast. It's obviously what he meant. I know you desperately want to make this into a straw man argument by implying that Ron Paul believes it was soley because of occasional bombing raids in Iraq. Fox hates Ron Paul and attacked him implying he meant it was America's fault and Giuliani jumped on it for political reasons. Conservatives love to accuse their opponents of being for the enemy and against America. Why do you think we were attacked? Here, I'll let Pat Buchanan explain it to you: www.antiwar.com/pat/?articleid=10984
|
|
|
Post by solomon on May 18, 2007 8:53:02 GMT -5
[quote author=admin board=onair thread=1179364708 post=1179441753 Let us not get crazy about online polls.[/quote] The article admitted that Ron Paul supporters were not cheating. It is clear that they are frustrated that Ron Paul supporters are organized and are pulling for their candidate. They are clearly "player hating" against Paul. Guiliani and the rest of the candidates have the same opportunity to encourage their supporters to support them in the debate and they have failed in that while Ron Paul's team has did well. Ron Paul supporters best chance of having a shot is using the internet because Ron Paul is opposed by the major media such as Fox, Matt Murphy, Limbaugh, Michael Medved Show, Mike Galleger (? on spelling) and MSNBC (they stated that all of the republican candidates were for the war and Paul clearly is not) and especially 101.1. I was shouted down on the Lee Davis show today (5-18-07) I clearly proved my point but Davis knew it and interrupted me time after time (listen to the replay tonight...I was on the air around 6:05 am - 6:20 am so that will put me on around an hour after the replay starts LISTEN TO IT FOLKS). Should be on the air around 2:00 AM on 5-19-07. "Stay the course" Republican Congressmen lost their seat in congress because the majority of Americans are against the war. A "stay the course" Republican will lose the presidential election if they don't learn the lessons of history...especially RECENT HISTORY! Ron Paul 2008
|
|
|
Post by solomon on May 18, 2007 9:03:01 GMT -5
blondie- Why don't you brush up on reading comprehension. Ron Paul was talking about us bombing them the last 10 years....What does that have to do with what Bin Laden stated as the reasons for 9/11 via Lebanon and the Palestinians? Nothing...just like him, you people continue to state that what we did in Iraq is the reason why 9/11 occured, which is not the stated reason that Bin Laden gave. So you can either believe what Bin Laden said the motivation was and admit that you are wrong or continue to believe in a falsehood, which you like to do. I didn't intentionally leave out "States"...it's rather obvious that it got cut off...so I don't know why you bring that up...grasping for straws as usual. We were not talking about the bin ladens of the world...except for the Bin Laden and the discussion and question to Ron Paul was specifically about why 9/11 occured, to which he blamed the United States versus the terrorists. Give it up Phinehas. Ron Paul and most of the world understands that the attacks on the WTC were because of the US foreign policy in the Mideast. It's obviously what he meant. I know you desperately want to make this into a straw man argument by implying that Ron Paul believes it was soley because of occasional bombing raids in Iraq. Fox hates Ron Paul and attacked him implying he meant it was America's fault and Giuliani jumped on it for political reasons. Conservatives love to accuse their opponents of being for the enemy and against America. Why do you think we were attacked? Here, I'll let Pat Buchanan explain it to you: www.antiwar.com/pat/?articleid=10984Go Blondie!!! It is nice to see you on my team from time to time. Visit Ron Paul on myspace or send me a personal message and I will give you my Ron Paul myspace infos...they send updates on Paul in the bulletin section. Get'em Blondie!!!!
|
|
|
Post by solomon on May 18, 2007 9:59:48 GMT -5
The Debate is officially over with a direct quote from the 9/11 Commission Report.
The 9/11 Commission Report Confirms that our presence in the Middle East, Bombing Iraq for 10 years and sanctions killing thousands pissed off the terrorists.
Quote is from the bottom of page 48 to the top paragraph on page 49. The section is 2.2 Bin Laden's appeal in the Islamic World.
"He (Bin Laden) inveighed against the presence of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia, the home of Islam's holiest sites. He spoke of the suffering of the Iraqi people as a result of sanctions imposed after the Gulf War, and he protested U.S. support of Israel."
It is officially over. Ron Paul is backed up by the 9/11 Commission Report on his Blow Back statement whether any of you like it or not.
This Ron Paul supporter "defended this."
As usual I am right.
Brian Solomon John 6:68
LOOK IT UP YOURSELF!!! DON'T BE AN UNEDUCATED IDIOT YOUR ENTIRE LIFE!!! DON'T BLAME ME BECAUSE YOU HATE DOCUMENTED FACTS!!!
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on May 18, 2007 11:21:09 GMT -5
The debate isn't offically over. I find it very odd that people would rather go by secondhand information, ie. the 9/11 Commission Report verses straight from the horses mouth on why that horse did XYZ. I will quote again directly from Bin Laden as to the direct and specific reasons WHY the attack on 9/11 occured.
And I will talk to you about the reason for those events, and I will be honest with you about the moments the decision was made so that you can ponder. And I tell you, God only knows, that we never had the intentions to destroy the towers.
But after the injustice was so much and we saw transgressions and the coalition between Americans and the Israelis against our people in Palestine and Lebanon, it occurred to my mind that we deal with the towers. And these special events that directly and personally affected me go back to 1982 and what happened when America gave permission for Israel to invade Lebanon. And assistance was given by the American sixth fleet.
During those crucial moments, my mind was thinking about many things that are hard to describe. But they produced a feeling to refuse and reject injustice, and I had determination to punish the transgressors.
And as I was looking at those towers that were destroyed in Lebanon, it occurred to me that we have to punish the transgressor with the same -- and that we had to destroy the towers in America so that they taste what we tasted, and they stop killing our women and children." - bin laden
Which has NOTHING whatsoever to do with our presence in Saudi Arabia or the Iraq sanctions.
Please stop being ignorant of facts and being an "UNEDUCATED IDIOT"
|
|
|
Post by zoomixer on May 18, 2007 11:38:02 GMT -5
SNAP!!!
|
|
|
Post by solomon on May 18, 2007 12:17:57 GMT -5
Here is some more quoteS from the same horse homey! Bush said 9/11 was because "they hate us because of our freedoms" but Bin Laden himself said in the video response "The White House is hiding the truth....the reality is that we are striking them because of their evil and injustice in the whole of the Islamic World, especially in Iraq and Palestine and their occupation of the Land of the Two Holy Sanctuaries (Arabian Peninsula)." That horse said a pretty good bit. Ron Paul was C-O-R-R-E-C-T. Guiliani and all of the mindless clappers abroad are wrong. Here is a short You tube video..a good one. www.youtube.com/watch?v=PvrrPCkHKLwHere is documentation of the bombing campaigns prior to 9/11. www.ccmep.org/us_bombing_watch.htmlYou stand corrected. I should have put more info and quotes up earlier. SNAP!!!!
|
|
|
Post by killer on May 18, 2007 12:27:58 GMT -5
phinehas posted: I will quote again directly from Bin Laden as to the direct and specific reasons WHY the attack on 9/11 occured.
And I will talk to you about the reason for those events, and I will be honest with you about the moments the decision was made so that you can ponder. And I tell you, God only knows, that we never had the intentions to destroy the towers.
But after the injustice was so much and we saw transgressions and the coalition between Americans and the Israelis against our people in Palestine and Lebanon, it occurred to my mind that we deal with the towers. And these special events that directly and personally affected me go back to 1982 and what happened when America gave permission for Israel to invade Lebanon. And assistance was given by the American sixth fleet.
During those crucial moments, my mind was thinking about many things that are hard to describe. But they produced a feeling to refuse and reject injustice, and I had determination to punish the transgressors.
And as I was looking at those towers that were destroyed in Lebanon, it occurred to me that we have to punish the transgressor with the same -- and that we had to destroy the towers in America so that they taste what we tasted, and they stop killing our women and children." - bin laden Wow! I guess that explains it. So why was our gov. so angry after 9/11? They would have done the same thing under similar circumstances -- in fact, they do it all the time. Apparently, they never adopted the Golden Rule. Or did they? Maybe they like war.
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on May 18, 2007 12:44:22 GMT -5
killer....please detail exactly what America did to Lebanon in 1982. Then explain why that justifies 9/11. Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by killer on May 18, 2007 12:54:37 GMT -5
A detailed report? How many pages? Double or single-spaced?
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on May 18, 2007 12:59:06 GMT -5
solomon,
The quote you give is from February 14th, 2003. The quote I give from Bin Laden is October of 2004. So you tell me, was his 2003 statement correct and his 2004 statement not correct? I would put forth that his 2004 statement was a clarification and a more detailed explanation for the motives and choice of what was attacked. I mean really, he specifically details why the twin towers were hit and it does in fact have a logical connection to Lebanon, whereas the motive being the precence in the House of Saud and Iraqi sactions does not.
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on May 18, 2007 13:01:20 GMT -5
killer, I would settle for a paragraph that substantiates that America did something in Lebanon in 1982 that justifies 9/11. You can double space it if you want.
|
|
|
Post by Dale Jackson on May 18, 2007 13:03:23 GMT -5
OK Ron Paul pulls out the old chestnut "they call me unAmerican for disagreeing with policy."
Show me!
|
|
|
Post by solomon on May 18, 2007 13:09:04 GMT -5
solomon, The quote you give is from February 14th, 2003. The quote I give from Bin Laden is October of 2004. So you tell me, was his 2003 statement correct and his 2004 statement not correct? I would put forth that his 2004 statement was a clarification and a more detailed explanation for the motives and choice of what was attacked. I mean really, he specifically details why the twin towers were hit and it does in fact have a logical connection to Lebanon, whereas the motive being the presence in the House of Saud and Iraqi sactions does not. Do you think he got pissed off about Iraq being bombed for 10 years AFTER 9/11? I think it is all of the above. The last time I checked Lebanon is not in America but in Muslim Land. Hence a foreign policy that sticks it's nose in other people's business. Watch Terror Storm by Alex Jones. He has some interesting information that details how the CIA was responsible for a democratically elected Mahossedec (? spelling). He uses the CIA's website and their own documents for the case. It is at the beginning of the documentary. video.google.com/videoplay?docid=786048453686176230
|
|
|
Post by solomon on May 18, 2007 13:11:39 GMT -5
OK Ron Paul pulls out the old chestnut "they call me unAmerican for disagreeing with policy." Show me! Check your "defend this" challenge for Ron Paul followers. I accepted and prevailed. Do you admit that you were wrong?
|
|
|
Post by solomon on May 18, 2007 13:12:55 GMT -5
It is my bedtime I'll reply later Lord Willing.
|
|
|
Post by blondie on May 18, 2007 13:32:58 GMT -5
The debate isn't offically over. I find it very odd that people would rather go by secondhand information, ie. the 9/11 Commission Report verses straight from the horses mouth on why that horse did XYZ. I will quote again directly from Bin Laden as to the direct and specific reasons WHY the attack on 9/11 occured. And I will talk to you about the reason for those events, and I will be honest with you about the moments the decision was made so that you can ponder. And I tell you, God only knows, that we never had the intentions to destroy the towers.
But after the injustice was so much and we saw transgressions and the coalition between Americans and the Israelis against our people in Palestine and Lebanon, it occurred to my mind that we deal with the towers. And these special events that directly and personally affected me go back to 1982 and what happened when America gave permission for Israel to invade Lebanon. And assistance was given by the American sixth fleet.
During those crucial moments, my mind was thinking about many things that are hard to describe. But they produced a feeling to refuse and reject injustice, and I had determination to punish the transgressors.
And as I was looking at those towers that were destroyed in Lebanon, it occurred to me that we have to punish the transgressor with the same -- and that we had to destroy the towers in America so that they taste what we tasted, and they stop killing our women and children." - bin laden Which has NOTHING whatsoever to do with our presence in Saudi Arabia or the Iraq sanctions. Please stop being ignorant of facts and being an "UNEDUCATED IDIOT" Are you suggesting America invited the attacks on 9/11?
|
|
|
Post by Dale Jackson on May 18, 2007 13:42:19 GMT -5
OK Ron Paul pulls out the old chestnut "they call me unAmerican for disagreeing with policy." Show me! Check your "defend this" challenge for Ron Paul followers. I accepted and prevailed. Do you admit that you were wrong? Prevailed is your interpretation, I really don't think it can be defended and the video you sent further leads me to personally dislike his stance even more. He went to the old "they are calling me unpatriotic." He also tried to say our sanctions were our fault. Saddam could of played ball with the world and he did not. Those deaths are on his head more than US policy. Back to an earlier point - bin Laden has said numerous things led to 9/11 - Israel, foreign policy, the godless west etc... I do not think you can say us having 7,000 troops in Saudi Arabia was the reason or the bombing or Iraq's no fly zone. Nor could you say that those events not being in play would have avoided it. Paul made a mistake, in my opinion, he is sticking to his gun. You call this TRUTH, when in reality it is opinion.
|
|
|
Post by MaccusGermanis on May 18, 2007 14:07:53 GMT -5
Often the willfully blind can't help but unwittingly bump into truths. They hurt their egos, curse the self imposed darkness, and resolve to keep all senses shut. Why didn't they bomb Sweden? Perhaps it is a lack of explosives training, but more likely it is because they don't have to resort to explosives. An article of brussels journal laments the creeping islamic dominance of Malmo, Sweden. www.brusselsjournal.com/node/2065The author, Fjordman, has long reported on the Sweden's reward for their non-intervention into ME politics and their welcoming of muslim immigrants. fjordman.blogspot.com/2005/12/immigrant-rape-wave-in-sweden.htmlInterestingly enough, Fjordman, on his now abandoned blog, fjordman.blogspot.com/ , recommends the daily reading of a blog that currently speaks directly to the issue of Ron Paul's comments. www.westernresistance.com/blog/archives/003743.htmlReading, Ron Paul's comments show him to be confused and largely ignorant, but neither dishonest nor unpatriotic. To Ron Paul's credit he was an isolationist, even back when Bin Laden's warnings were not being taken serious. In fact blow-back does occur, but to where must civilization retreat in appeasement of Jihad? I doubt blondie realized, when flippantly asking why Sweden wasn't bombed, the many ways in which muslim immigrants were expressing their 'appreciation' for Sweden's foreign policies. BTW phin, What has Switzerland's compulsory militia service to do with Sweden? Edit: "...dangling participles are something with which up I will not put"
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on May 18, 2007 14:43:47 GMT -5
"Are you suggesting America invited the attacks on 9/11?"
Nope, I am suggesting that Bin Laden gave specific reasons for 9/11 and why he choose the Towers to hit.....what was absent from his specific reasons were Saudia Arabia and Iraq.
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on May 18, 2007 14:54:30 GMT -5
"BTW phin, What has Switzerland's compulsory militia service to do with Sweden?" You are referring to this: Speaking of Sweden and their vast amount of "Freedom".... www.nationmaster.com/graph/tax_tot_tax_as_of_gdp-taxation-total-as-of-gdpDon't think I would trade America's freedom for theirs. LOL. Sweden is #1 in taxation out the wazoo. also Compulsory military service in Switzerland...yep, that's freedom, ...er...no it's not. However, their total military comprises of 53,000 but then again, the last "war" they were in was in 1918...so their conscription doesn't really have that big a threat to it...other than the fact that they are not FREE to choose to join. I meant to say Sweden and not Switzerland. The numbers I give are for Sweden and not Switzerland.
|
|
|
Post by MaccusGermanis on May 18, 2007 15:00:41 GMT -5
I meant to say Sweden and not Switzerland. The numbers I give are for Sweden and not Switzerland. Done that myself on occasion.
|
|
|
Post by blondie on May 18, 2007 16:16:03 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on May 18, 2007 18:23:20 GMT -5
Viewed thru the prism of an Isolationist- which Paul certainly is- I suppose his words do make some sense.
After all, if we just totally withdraw from the world, no one will have any reason to bother us, will they?
But even the most cursory study of history puts the lie to the notion that Isolationism 'protects' a given country.
Poland, 1939.
USSR, 1941.
How anyone remotely familiar with Europe in the 1930s puts any weight behind the concept of appeasement is beyond me. Appeasing a madman left the world with between 40 and 100 MILLION dead.
We know what happens to those who "do not learn from history".
Could an even worse fate befall those who REFUSE to learn from history?
|
|
|
Post by kevin on May 18, 2007 19:14:33 GMT -5
The article admitted that Ron Paul supporters were not cheating. It is clear that they are frustrated that Ron Paul supporters are organized and are pulling for their candidate. They are clearly "player hating" against Paul. I assert that dope smokers love the Internet and are therefore more active for their particular candidate of choice. Ron Paul was rated A by VOTE-HEMP, indicating a pro-hemp voting record. (Dec 2003) ;D. I am sure you are quite eloquent and charismatic, but I don't think I'll be staying up to hear you. You seem to be missing something. Ron Paul is so unlike every one on either side that the general populace will not get him at all. They'll think he is some side-show freak because they have been brainwashed by the Rs and Ds. Sure, you say it's time for a change, but that change will likely come in another manner, not Ron Paul. Now if there were more people out there like Ron Paul, he'd garner more support. But you don't understand that that the majority of voters don't have clue about what candidates are all about -- just as someone stated, they work with soundbites. Thus far, Paul's soundbites have just bitten him. He's got some major PR work to do in the next few months.
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on May 18, 2007 19:29:55 GMT -5
"I was shouted down on the Lee Davis show today (5-18-07) I clearly proved my point but Davis knew it and interrupted me time after time (listen to the replay tonight...I was on the air around 6:05 am - 6:20 am so that will put me on around an hour after the replay starts LISTEN TO IT FOLKS). Should be on the air around 2:00 AM on 5-19-07."
I listened to it around 1:45pm today I believe....Lee handed you your arse Solomon and lit up a cigarette afterwards. Perhaps I will setup my pc to record the conversation and put it on my webpage...LOL.
That being said, I have yet to call in to the Alabama radio shows....so, though Lee beat you down like a red headed step child...you at least stayed coherent.
|
|