Ron Paul: "They're Terrorists Because We're Occupiers".

[The Rabbi]

WWII is not a valid example of what Dr. Paul is talking about. That was not an unnecessary foreign intervention. We were attacked at Pearl Harbor and then declared war on the Axis Powers. Defending your country after being attacked is not an unnecessary foreign intervention. War was declared legally and adhered to our Constitution. People often make this mistake of mislabeling what a Foreign Intervention and a legally declared War is. There is a difference. We declared war because we were defending our nation. Btw,not every thing worked out perfectly after WWII. We got rid of the Nazis but then the Communists actually became a bigger threat. It makes you think huh?

I doubt anything would make the RonZombies think.

The Afghan War was a direct result of our being attacked on 9/11. Do the libtards like Paul maintain that our involvement there is also causing hatred?

Ron Paul supported going into Afghanistan, but yes he realizes that our continued occupation has blowback.

And by "libtards" I assume you mean liberals, which I assume you do not mean in the classical sense, which means big government. But that's a fallacy. It is you and those like you supporting our interventionist foreign policy that gives us the greatest expansion of government. Non-interventionism is the true conservative position.

No I mean Libertarians, the true retards of the political world, at least after liberals. They are second cousins to Marxists. The furthest thing from what our Founding Fathers stood for.

 

[The Rabbi]

WWII is not a valid example of what Dr. Paul is talking about. That was not an unnecessary foreign intervention. We were attacked at Pearl Harbor and then declared war on the Axis Powers. Defending your country after being attacked is not an unnecessary foreign intervention. War was declared legally and adhered to our Constitution. People often make this mistake of mislabeling what a Foreign Intervention and a legally declared War is. There is a difference. We declared war because we were defending our nation. Btw,not every thing worked out perfectly after WWII. We got rid of the Nazis but then the Communists actually became a bigger threat. It makes you think huh?

I doubt anything would make the RonZombies think.

The Afghan War was a direct result of our being attacked on 9/11. Do the libtards like Paul maintain that our involvement there is also causing hatred?

you really need to learn logic. what does it happening because of 9/11 have to do with it causing hatred or not?

Dumb and inconsistent. I like it on you.
You were the one who first mentioned "blow back" as an explanation.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Ron Paul a "Marxist?" Man this board really can be pretty friggin hilarious. Ron Paul a "Marxist." Yikes!

 

[The Rabbi]

Ron Paul a "Marxist?" Man this board really can be pretty friggin hilarious. Ron Paul a "Marxist." Yikes!

Who said Ron Paul was a Marxist?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I doubt anything would make the RonZombies think.

The Afghan War was a direct result of our being attacked on 9/11. Do the libtards like Paul maintain that our involvement there is also causing hatred?

Ron Paul supported going into Afghanistan, but yes he realizes that our continued occupation has blowback.

And by "libtards" I assume you mean liberals, which I assume you do not mean in the classical sense, which means big government. But that's a fallacy. It is you and those like you supporting our interventionist foreign policy that gives us the greatest expansion of government. Non-interventionism is the true conservative position.

No I mean Libertarians, the true retards of the political world, at least after liberals. They are second cousins to Marxists. The furthest thing from what our Founding Fathers stood for.

Libertarians second cousins to Marxists?

 

[The Rabbi]

Ron Paul supported going into Afghanistan, but yes he realizes that our continued occupation has blowback.

And by "libtards" I assume you mean liberals, which I assume you do not mean in the classical sense, which means big government. But that's a fallacy. It is you and those like you supporting our interventionist foreign policy that gives us the greatest expansion of government. Non-interventionism is the true conservative position.

No I mean Libertarians, the true retards of the political world, at least after liberals. They are second cousins to Marxists. The furthest thing from what our Founding Fathers stood for.

Libertarians second cousins to Marxists?

Yeah. I'd suggest looking at early Anarchists, the forerunners of Libtards.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

No I mean Libertarians, the true retards of the political world, at least after liberals. They are second cousins to Marxists. The furthest thing from what our Founding Fathers stood for.

Libertarians second cousins to Marxists?

Yeah. I'd suggest looking at early Anarchists, the forerunners of Libtards.

Not all libertarians are anarchists, and not all anarchists are marxists.

 

[JakeStarkey]

But all Rabs don't have a clue. Yikes!

 

[CMike]

It doesn't matter.

We should not base our foreign policy whether terrorist groups are happy with it or not.

 

[JakeStarkey]

mike, no one is basing our foreign policy on what the terrorists want. That is as silly a statement as any DiamondDave makes.

 

[KissMy]

Blowback was the centerpiece of Osama's Fatwa

 

[Contumacious]

Ron Paul blames U.S. for violence

ON CAPITOL HILL
Ron Paul blames U.S. for violence
Congressman: 'They're terrorists because we're occupiers'
Posted: December 30, 2009
11:35 pm Eastern

© 2009 WorldNetDaily
A prominent member of Congress with libertarian ideals is blaming terrorism on the U.S. presence around the globe.

"They're terrorists because we're occupiers," Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, said on the Larry King show:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b6Y_58LwYBw&feature=player_embedded

 

[blu]

I doubt anything would make the RonZombies think.

The Afghan War was a direct result of our being attacked on 9/11. Do the libtards like Paul maintain that our involvement there is also causing hatred?

you really need to learn logic. what does it happening because of 9/11 have to do with it causing hatred or not?

Dumb and inconsistent. I like it on you.
You were the one who first mentioned "blow back" as an explanation.

jesus you are dense. the two things you brought had nothing to do with each other. afghan war was result of 9/11 but does that change that its causing hatred of the usa? what if it was cuased by somethign else besides 9/11? your illogical appeal to emotion makes you look retarded as usual

 

[blu]

It doesn't matter.

We should not base our foreign policy whether terrorist groups are happy with it or not.

our FP created most of the terrorists we are dealing with. you are another hannity forum retarded reject

 

[JakeStarkey]

It doesn't matter.

We should not base our foreign policy whether terrorist groups are happy with it or not.

our FP created most of the terrorists we are dealing with. you are another hannity forum retarded reject

blu, you are being far too generous to CMike.

 

[Liability]

It doesn't matter.

We should not base our foreign policy whether terrorist groups are happy with it or not.

our FP created most of the terrorists we are dealing with. you are another hannity forum retarded reject

Retarded liberoidal talking pointlesses are not a good form of argument, no matter how retarded you happen to be, blu.

Sorry.

You lose.

 

[blu]

It doesn't matter.

We should not base our foreign policy whether terrorist groups are happy with it or not.

our FP created most of the terrorists we are dealing with. you are another hannity forum retarded reject

Retarded liberoidal talking pointlesses are not a good form of argument, no matter how retarded you happen to be, blu.

Sorry.

You lose.

another useless post from lieability (hannity reject to the extreme). when you have something substantial to say then try again.

that our fp creates and has created terrorists groups and gobs of propaganda for the leaders is fact.

 

[The T]

Hey, Ron Paul:

IF what you say has any truth to it, then,

why were they terrorists before we responded to their acts by allegedly "occupying" any of "their" lands?



I like some of the things Dr. Paul has to say. But sometimes he says such massively stupid shit that taking him seriously is impossible.

what terrorists attacks from ME groups happened to us before we meddled in the ME?

blu is still fucking around with his middle term fallacy.

If one defines "meddled in the ME" in some vapid, empty, typically "liberal" way,then one can reach almost any desired conclusion.

Before I bother trying to correct your endless supply of stupidity again, why don't you man-up a little bit, blu? What the fuck do YOU think should be the proper meaning of the term "meddled in the ME", you assmonkey?

Indeed. nevemind that we have obligations by TREATY to many of these countries. Blowback? Meddling? Give me a fuckin' break already. We just don't go in to a place willy-nilly.

And besides the places we attacked? We had just cause against these people for harboring enimies that have attacked us. It's that simple.

Ron Paul is a fuckin' RUBE on this topic. As a Congresscritter? He should know of Treaties we have obligations to meet...and if those in Congress that go down this "meddling" aspect? Then advocate against treaties being signed, or advocate their repeal.

It's really quite simple. Occupiers? Mr. Paul? You are an IDIOT.

Oh, and umm Liability? You GO!

 

[Liability]

our FP created most of the terrorists we are dealing with. you are another hannity forum retarded reject

Retarded liberoidal talking pointlesses are not a good form of argument, no matter how retarded you happen to be, blu.

Sorry.

You lose.

another useless post from lieability (hannity reject to the extreme). when you have something substantial to say then try again.

that our fp creates and has created terrorists groups and gobs of propaganda for the leaders is fact.

Any claim from blu, the mutant reject doggie from blu's clues, is automatically doubtful since, like so many uber fucking liberoidal sacks of shit, blu is extremely stupid and a degenerate but committed liar.

blu couldn't TELL when something is substantial, so no one need worry about it's alleged concern with substantive posts.

blu's claim is not a "fact." It is a liberoidal talking pointless (and generally worthless) stupid-ass mere opinion.

Terrorists existed before there ever was a USA, but dumbasses like the fucktard blu will never grasp the import of that.

 

[blu]

what terrorists attacks from ME groups happened to us before we meddled in the ME?

blu is still fucking around with his middle term fallacy.

If one defines "meddled in the ME" in some vapid, empty, typically "liberal" way,then one can reach almost any desired conclusion.

Before I bother trying to correct your endless supply of stupidity again, why don't you man-up a little bit, blu? What the fuck do YOU think should be the proper meaning of the term "meddled in the ME", you assmonkey?

Indeed. nevemind that we have obligations by TREATY to many of these countries. Blowback? Meddling? Give me a fuckin' break already. We just don't go in to a place willy-nilly.

And besides the places we attacked? We had just cause against these people for harboring enimies that have attacked us. It's that simple.

where did treaties come into this? I know you aren't that dumb to think we have only interfered with countries when treaties were involved.