Why are Paulies weak on Terrorism?

[ghemminger]

Keep hearing this from oldline Reb.s - What our answer?

[Adamsa]

How about "Because we understand it?"

[ctb619]

We aren't -- we prefer to go after the people who actually attack us

[weatherbill]

We are actually tougher on Terrorism..... here, read this

http://files.meetup.com/504095/Ron%20Paul%27s%20Strategy%20on%20Terrorism.doc

[ghemminger]

Need more than this guys - Are you hearing how self-conceded you answers sound?

[Chomsky]

If by weak on terrorism they mean we don't want to continue participating in it then they are right.

[Jobarra]

They like to use "Ron wants to cut and run. I ain't no coward". Ask them why they want to cut and run from the Constitution.

[Chomsky]

In a nutshell, we stop giving the people of the world rational reasons to hate us because of our violent actions around the globe.

[rfbz]

He's tough on terrorism because he would actually focus efforts on those who attacked us, not getting distracted with another country that had nothing to do with 911. Is Bush tough on terrorism? So far Bin Laden is at large and his actions are creating more terrorists in Iraq as we speak.

[Cleaner44]

To back up the military donor info I have personally compiled the numbers, charted tham and made a graph. See link: http://thecaseforronpaul.com/MD.aspx

[nist7]

Weak on terror? You decide!



Ron Paul toughest on Terror

By David Gornoski

There’s a reason why our nation’s finest, America’s military men and women, both active and veteran, have given more donations to Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul than any other candidate in either party. As a veteran, he’s the only candidate who understands how to properly defend America from its enemies, “both foreign and domestic.” His strict adherence to the Constitution and reliance on true conservative principles is the winning formula for defeating terrorism abroad.

He knows the enemy. While radical Islamic rhetoric does play a role for fundamentalist Muslims’ anger, the number one recruitment tool for terrorists by all expert accounts is perceived occupation. The former director of the CIA’s bin Laden unit Michael Scheuer has correctly pointed out that Osama bin Laden listed our traditional Wilsonian liberal policy of meddling in Middle East affairs as the reason for why they attack us. Bin Laden mentioned our base near Mecca, support of the corrupt Saudi royals, and 10 years of sanctions on Iraq as some of the key reasons for the 9-11 attacks. Bin Laden understands that at the end of the day, the average Middle Eastern man will not continue buying into his calls for theocratic authoritarian world rule based on extremist religious rhetoric alone. Rather, bin Laden’s ilk must draw America into a continual presence in the Middle East to continue breeding generations of terrorists for decades to come.

The spider web of terrorism Al-Qaeda is banking on also plans to cripple our nation economically. They realize that as our government continues to build up hundreds of billions in debt to fund never-ending Middle East nation-building projects, terrorists can not only gin up recruitments but also bankrupt us at the same time. Ron Paul understands this threat and has laid out a simple constitutional approach to defeating the terrorist cowards once and for all.

With our goal of replacing Saddam’s Iraqi government with a democratically elected one complete, Ron Paul believes it is time to bring our troops home. The same would be done in Afghanistan. By removing any plans for permanent bases in the Middle East, we would effectively cripple the terrorists’ number one recruitment tool: perceived foreign occupation of their lands. By bringing our troops home around the world, Ron Paul would save hundreds of billions of dollars currently wasted maintaining such operations abroad. This money would be used to reduce our national debt and eliminate the terrorists’ attempt to cripple our economy. In addition, Ron Paul would secure our nation’s borders and prevent terrorists from entering our nation. His unrivaled respect for the 2nd amendment would ensure that companies and individuals could properly defend themselves against attack. With our troops home to defend our borders, Ron Paul would issue something he attempted to do immediately after 9-11: a letter of marque on the heads of terrorists abroad. This tool was created by the Founding Fathers to eliminate acts of terrorism that have no national face. Ron Paul would put up a $1 billion dollar bounty on Osama bin Laden and his operatives. With our nation’s popularity surging around the world, allies, private companies, and professional killers would hunt down and kill Osama bin Laden’s ilk like the dogs they are.

And what about Iran? Ron Paul would unleash Israel from the crippling grip of our politically correct State Department. (His administration would end the foolish US-led division of Israel’s land as well.) With Israel finally free to act on any national threat, its estimated 300 nukes would ensure that Iranian president Ahmadenijad’s beady eyes blink first (assuming his own people, inspired by America’s renewed embrace of freedom, don’t overthrow him outright).

In the event that a nation such as Iran would threaten to attack the US after all these measures, Ron Paul is the only candidate who would have the Congress constitutionally declare war and go all out to win it, ensuring a swift return of the nation’s heroic soldiers.

No wonder Ronald Reagan had this to say about Congressman Ron Paul: “Ron Paul is one of the outstanding leaders fighting for a stronger national defense. As a former Air Force officer, he knows well the needs of our armed forces, and he always puts them first. We need to keep him fighting for our country.”

Couple his leadership in national defense with the fact that Ron Paul is the strongest pro-life candidate, wants to abolish the IRS, and plans to stop the Federal Reserve from destroying the value of our dollar, and it’s clear that he is the only candidate worthy of true conservatives’ support. As Ron Paul’s 10 million dollar war chest readies for primary combat, it is time. Time to win one for the Gipper.

http://www.politicallore.com/?p=99

[aspiringconstitutionalist]

We're not weak on terrorism. We want to end the current foreign policy of appeasement, which lets terrorists attack and survive, which bends over backwards to keep "allies" and unelected foreign bodies happy in our fight against those who attack us, and which ignores the true terrorist states in the Persian Gulf in order to secure below-market oil prices.

But what we really need to understand is that what we're fighting is not a "terrorist organization." Retaining that kind of mindset will keep us in a "law enforcement" battle, where we simply try to take out top terrorist leaders and restrict funding to organizations, as though we were fighting the Mafia. We need to understand that we're not facing a mere "terrorist organization," but a worldwide, transnational Islamic insurgency lashing back at a severely flawed big-government US foreign policy that was birthed by the Democrat Woodrow Wilson and sanctified by the liberals FDR and Truman.

[hawks4ronpaul]

See http://hawks4ronpaul.blogspot.com/ .

[Paulitician]

Well, what is "tough on terrorism," exactly?

First of all, terrorism is a tactic. To prevent terrorism, you have to not do the actions which inspire terrorism. Will Ron Paul do that? Yes. Second, if you try to prevent terrorism but the threat will still exists, you should combat the specific terrorists. Ron Paul would go after any terrorist who does manage to attack us. However, Ron Paul will have a strong national defense, and non-bureaucratic intelligence gathering, so I would think it would be hard for terrorist to penetrate. That's just me. I also think it's a mistake to elevate terrorism to such a high degree as the neo-cons do. Actually, some may think Ron Paul is an ideologue, and on certain issues he is, but most of all I think Ron Paul would be quite practical on containing and combatting terrorism. Bush and co. are the real ideologues in this case, and their response to terrorism has been desastrous.

[fedup100]

Because it was and is a lie, there is no such thing with the exception of torture, that is terrorism.

With that said, I would not want to be the country or group of people that would attack America on Ron Paul's watch.

Not only would he attack immediately, he would not hold our boys back, he doesn't like violence but I can assure you he knows how to finish a fight.

Ron Paul is the real John Wayne.

[ghemminger]

Because it was and is a lie, there is no such thing with the exception of torture, that is terrorism.

With that said, I would not want to be the country or group of people that would attack America on Ron Paul's watch.

Not only would he attack immediately, he would not hold our boys back, he doesn't like violence but I can assure you he knows how to finish a fight.

Ron Paul is the real John Wayne.


Ok u guys got me - I get it - I was invisioning us becoming like Switzerland or New Zealand - I mean this how RP talks

[nist7]

Ok u guys got me - I get it - I was invisioning us becoming like Switzerland or New Zealand - I mean this how RP talks

:rolleyes:





In case you missed it.... :D





Ron Paul toughest on Terror

By David Gornoski

There’s a reason why our nation’s finest, America’s military men and women, both active and veteran, have given more donations to Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul than any other candidate in either party. As a veteran, he’s the only candidate who understands how to properly defend America from its enemies, “both foreign and domestic.” His strict adherence to the Constitution and reliance on true conservative principles is the winning formula for defeating terrorism abroad.

He knows the enemy. While radical Islamic rhetoric does play a role for fundamentalist Muslims’ anger, the number one recruitment tool for terrorists by all expert accounts is perceived occupation. The former director of the CIA’s bin Laden unit Michael Scheuer has correctly pointed out that Osama bin Laden listed our traditional Wilsonian liberal policy of meddling in Middle East affairs as the reason for why they attack us. Bin Laden mentioned our base near Mecca, support of the corrupt Saudi royals, and 10 years of sanctions on Iraq as some of the key reasons for the 9-11 attacks. Bin Laden understands that at the end of the day, the average Middle Eastern man will not continue buying into his calls for theocratic authoritarian world rule based on extremist religious rhetoric alone. Rather, bin Laden’s ilk must draw America into a continual presence in the Middle East to continue breeding generations of terrorists for decades to come.

The spider web of terrorism Al-Qaeda is banking on also plans to cripple our nation economically. They realize that as our government continues to build up hundreds of billions in debt to fund never-ending Middle East nation-building projects, terrorists can not only gin up recruitments but also bankrupt us at the same time. Ron Paul understands this threat and has laid out a simple constitutional approach to defeating the terrorist cowards once and for all.

With our goal of replacing Saddam’s Iraqi government with a democratically elected one complete, Ron Paul believes it is time to bring our troops home. The same would be done in Afghanistan. By removing any plans for permanent bases in the Middle East, we would effectively cripple the terrorists’ number one recruitment tool: perceived foreign occupation of their lands. By bringing our troops home around the world, Ron Paul would save hundreds of billions of dollars currently wasted maintaining such operations abroad. This money would be used to reduce our national debt and eliminate the terrorists’ attempt to cripple our economy. In addition, Ron Paul would secure our nation’s borders and prevent terrorists from entering our nation. His unrivaled respect for the 2nd amendment would ensure that companies and individuals could properly defend themselves against attack. With our troops home to defend our borders, Ron Paul would issue something he attempted to do immediately after 9-11: a letter of marque on the heads of terrorists abroad. This tool was created by the Founding Fathers to eliminate acts of terrorism that have no national face. Ron Paul would put up a $1 billion dollar bounty on Osama bin Laden and his operatives. With our nation’s popularity surging around the world, allies, private companies, and professional killers would hunt down and kill Osama bin Laden’s ilk like the dogs they are.

And what about Iran? Ron Paul would unleash Israel from the crippling grip of our politically correct State Department. (His administration would end the foolish US-led division of Israel’s land as well.) With Israel finally free to act on any national threat, its estimated 300 nukes would ensure that Iranian president Ahmadenijad’s beady eyes blink first (assuming his own people, inspired by America’s renewed embrace of freedom, don’t overthrow him outright).

In the event that a nation such as Iran would threaten to attack the US after all these measures, Ron Paul is the only candidate who would have the Congress constitutionally declare war and go all out to win it, ensuring a swift return of the nation’s heroic soldiers.

No wonder Ronald Reagan had this to say about Congressman Ron Paul: “Ron Paul is one of the outstanding leaders fighting for a stronger national defense. As a former Air Force officer, he knows well the needs of our armed forces, and he always puts them first. We need to keep him fighting for our country.”

Couple his leadership in national defense with the fact that Ron Paul is the strongest pro-life candidate, wants to abolish the IRS, and plans to stop the Federal Reserve from destroying the value of our dollar, and it’s clear that he is the only candidate worthy of true conservatives’ support. As Ron Paul’s 10 million dollar war chest readies for primary combat, it is time. Time to win one for the Gipper.

http://www.politicallore.com/?p=99

[Oddball]

Keep hearing this from oldline Reb.s - What our answer?

Why are "old line" repubs (total misnomer if I ever saw one) totally unconcered as to the root causes of "terrorism"??

Why are they capitulating to the do-gooder interventionist mindset, when the actions of the "terrorists" show that they were right all along, in tending to America first and the MYOB attitude, back in the middle of last century??

[Spirit of '76]

We're not.

Our plan is the best way yet to deal with the threat of terrorism.

We want to secure the borders, preventing terrorists from using our current open borders to enter the country.

We want to restore respect for the second amendment and private property, allowing individuals and companies (like airlines) to protect themselves and their property much more effectively than the government ever can.

We want to implement a more sensible foreign policy, which will reduce their motivation to attack us and deprive them of their number one propaganda/recruiting tool.



Here's what you should ask anyone who suggests Ron Paul is weak on islamic terrorism: Since almost all of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi Arabians who entered this country on student visas, if the rest of the Republicans in Congress are so tough on terrorism, then why did they kill Ron Paul's bill that would cut back on student visas from Saudi Arabia and other countries that are known sponsors of terrorism?

[Paul/Belichick08]

How about these?

He would be tougher on terrorists. He would use surgical strikes, mercenaries, and special forces to hit terrorist leaders and training camps.

We would have less of a footprint in hostile countries, wouldn't get stuck in between internecine fighting, and not have to worry about rebuilding the country after we leave.

What is the point of our soldiers walking the streets of Iraq policing the country for the Iraqis?

We already won the war, now we are just nation building.

Try these out and see if they stick.

[Oddball]

We're not.

Our plan is the best way yet to deal with the threat of terrorism.

We want to secure the borders, preventing terrorists from using our current open borders to enter the country.

We want to restore respect for the second amendment and private property, allowing individuals and companies (like airlines) to protect themselves and their property much more effectively than the government ever can.

We want to implement a more sensible foreign policy, which will reduce their motivation to attack us and deprive them of their number one propaganda/recruiting tool.



Here's what you should ask anyone who suggests Ron Paul is weak on islamic terrorism: Since almost all of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi Arabians who entered this country on student visas, if the rest of the Republicans in Congress are so tough on terrorism, then why did they kill Ron Paul's bill that would cut back on student visas from Saudi Arabia and other countries that are known sponsors of terrorism?

Yeah, that too!! :)

[torchbearer]

Keep hearing this from oldline Reb.s - What our answer?

G-hem, this one is easy. Terrorism is a tactic, how can you be tough on a tactic?
When Japan bombed Pearl Harbor, did we have a war on aviation???

[ctb619]

You've been here this long and you still don't know how to counter this common objection? Or are you just trying to spark a discussion?

[Oddball]

G-hem, this one is easy. Terrorism is a tactic, how can you be tough on a tactic?
When Japan bombed Pearl Harbor, did we have a war on aviation???
Perzactly!

"Terrorism" is just as unquantifiable an abstraction as is "poverty".

How's that "war on poverty" working out??

[ghemminger]

We're not.

Our plan is the best way yet to deal with the threat of terrorism.

We want to secure the borders, preventing terrorists from using our current open borders to enter the country.

We want to restore respect for the second amendment and private property, allowing individuals and companies (like airlines) to protect themselves and their property much more effectively than the government ever can.

We want to implement a more sensible foreign policy, which will reduce their motivation to attack us and deprive them of their number one propaganda/recruiting tool.



Here's what you should ask anyone who suggests Ron Paul is weak on islamic terrorism: Since almost all of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi Arabians who entered this country on student visas, if the rest of the Republicans in Congress are so tough on terrorism, then why did they kill Ron Paul's bill that would cut back on student visas from Saudi Arabia and other countries that are known sponsors of terrorism?


OK I'm sttealing this one thanks!

[Ozwest]

Why are neo-cons Chickenhawks?

[Pimpin Turtle Dot Com]

How can you be "tough on terrorism" be using "terrorism" to stop it? That is hypocritcal... THE U.S. ARE THE ULTIMATE TERRORISTS...

[azminuteman]

Why do people assume that they hate us because we watch wrestling and MTV?
Do they hate Australians, New Zealanders, and Japanese?
Do they hate the Koreans?
Do they hate the Russians?
Do they hate the Swiss?
Do they hate the Swedish?
Do they hate the Irish?
Do they hate South Africans?
Do they hate the fine people from New Guinea?

The answer is right in front of them. They hate us because we are in their backyard.

With regards to the Iraqis, this holds true:

If you had a houseguest that overstayed their welcome, made a mess of your bathroom, stank up the place, went to bed late thereby keeping you up late, ate all your food, BUT did bring cool toys for the kids, wouldn't you want them gone?
I mean "just leave, I'll clean up."

I had a neighbor that played his bongo drums at 2AM.
I called the cops a couple of times after face to face didn't work but that didn't really work either.
I did want the guy to stop playing at the wee hours of night to the point I wanted to take his drums away.
I moved (bongo drums not the reason) and somehow I do not wish for the guy to NOT have his drums; it isn't a problem for me anymore.

[ThomasJ]

You have to understand a couple key things before the question of "is Ron Paul tough on terror" really gets into perspective.

1. The Military.
The Armed Forces are a blunt instrument. No matter how many precision weapons you develop you will always have civilian casualties when the Military is involved. The reason is that the Military's job is to kill. Do not assume otherwise. We do a good job in the military killing people. Putting the military in a "Police" setting goes against everything the Military stands for. It is like trying to build a house by driving nails with a shotgun. Doesn't work well and even if you get lucky every once in a while and hit a nail and drive it in you still just damaged everything to the left and the right of that nail.
By bringing the Military back home they can work on the goal that they are actually supposed to have. Defense of this country.

2. Letters of Marque.
This was developed for the 16th-18th century version of terrorism. Piracy was in effect the same as terrorism is today. Lots of people died because of Piracy and it was the scourge of many nations. For most terrorism groups Letters of Marque full fill the needs of capturing the ones who cause or have caused acts of infamy. The rare exception is when a terrorist group has completely occupied a nation and are the army, navy, etc.. of that country. In effect you are talking less about terrorism and more about standard warfare at that point. If a country is that kind of threat attacking our soil or citizens without quarter then it is well within the right of congress to declare war on that country for those acts of war in defense of this country and it's citizens. The Barbary pirates is a good example of this. Except the Marines back then had not been as much of Armed force so much as the special forces of the time frame.

If you have a 1 billion dollar price on Osama's head and grant Letters of Marque to citizens who wish to claim that price for either capture or killing him then you will find that Osama would be dead or in custody in fairly short order. Even with a bounty that high we would still be saving trillions of dollars over the cost of Iraq.

This is all mostly irrelevant as with having a Foreign policy of freedom would lessen the hatred of the US and the lack of an occupying force in those persons home land would lessen the fervor for an attack on this nation.

There would still be acts of infamy on citizens but most of those would be for financial reasons rather than for reasons of hatred. The vast majority of those could be solved with Police investigation.

[Paulitician]

How can you be "tough on terrorism" be using "terrorism" to stop it? That is hypocritcal... THE U.S. ARE THE ULTIMATE TERRORISTS...
Now, now, that's not true.

You need to understand terrorism first of all, and understand how to contain and combat it strategically so it doesn't spread like wildfire, like it is now. That's basically the gist of it.

[torchbearer]

How can you be "tough on terrorism" be using "terrorism" to stop it? That is hypocritcal... THE U.S. ARE THE ULTIMATE TERRORISTS...

I know I'd be scared shitless if foriegn tanks were rolling down my street.
:cool:

[Redmenace]

Terrorism is like a mighty oak, you cannot fell it by cutting of the branches and the wood is so hard that cutting through the trunk dulls even the sharpest of saws. Instead you must kill it by hacking away at its roots.

The roots of terrorism lie in the anger created by past and current meddling in the affairs of the Muslim world on behalf of our foreign policy. By changing our foreign policy to a humble one of nonintervention, which the founding fathers advocated, we will reduce the anger toward us throughout the world and the number of terrorist will shrink. As things stand today, our aggressive policy and invasion and occupation of Muslim countries and holy lands means that for every terrorist the current administration kills two more stand to take his place. We are waging a hopeless unending battle if we continue to follow the foreign policy that all other candidates have endorsed.

[Eric23]

I think people tend to overreact on the actual threat of terrorism.

[CelestialRender]

Because America is far stronger than terrorism.

People are only paranoid because the government wants them that way...so they'll beg them to take away our civil liberties, and make us safe instead.

[AceNZ]

The "War on Terror" has nothing to do with terrorism. It's a tactic that helps facilitate a larger, more intrusive, more corrupt government. Like the wars on crime, drugs and poverty, by definition its a war that can never be won.

Terrorism is defined as hurting or killing innocent civilians. The US has now killed more than a million Iraqi civilians. That's not "fighting terrorism". That's becoming terrorists ourselves. Leaving Iraq has nothing to do with "cut and run". It's an unjust war of aggression -- the same crime that the Nazi leaders were convicted of during the Nuremburg trials. The real reason for the Iraq war is control over the Iraqi oil fields. Is that something that Americans should feel bad about abandoning?

[torchbearer]

I think people tend to overreact on the actual threat of terrorism.

You are actually more likely to die by drowning in your bathtub than you are to die by a terrorist attack in the U.S.

[dircha]

Weak on...?

Al Qaeda as an international terrorist organization, with fighters, cells, and a command structure, does not exist; it was the invention of intelligence services based on faulty witness testimony and intelligence.

The majority of those who planned and carried out the attacks on 9/11 were either killed in the act, were killed in afghanistan, or are in custody.

We defeated the terrorists.

We will not see another 9/11 in our lifetimes.

And remember that securing our borders, fighting Islamic nationalists in the Middle East, and confiscating our toothpaste on airline flights, all would have done precisely nothing to prevent the second deadliest domestic terrorist attack in U.S. history, the Oklahoma City Bombing, which, lest anyone forget, was carried out by a native-born white male veteran Christian.

[Liberty Star]

They are strong.

Neocons with their unsatiable desire to use America tax dollars on their unproductive wars are a complete failure when in comes to fighting terrorism. Look at outcome of Iraq war with trillions of dollars cost, most Americans think it made them less safe.

[Mortikhi]

Why are you so afraid of boogymen muslims when you're 500 times more likely to die from a auto accident?