How should Rand Paul handle the terror attack in Paris?

[devil21]

I think some points are being lost on people here:

(a) The passport found on one of the two suicide bombers that showed he came from Syria through Greece was a fake. This is a big deal that is getting way overlooked to score cheap political points against the refugees. The fear benefits right-wing nationalist parties in most European countries, so why should they care?

Oh yeah, passports again. Always sitting around ready to explain who to "blame". And they never seem to burn, no matter whether they're from an exploding plane or an exploding person. Funny that.

(B) ISIS is not Al Qaeda or some terrorist cells--they are a nation state that has taken actual ground from actual countries who are actively fighting to take it back.

No, 'ISIS' is not a nation state. They have no government, no borders, no leaders. They are 100% a creation of intelligence agencies and media that have had their sights set on taking over Syria for years. Also, it's quite clear that any advances that 'ISIS' made into actual nation state territories were prepared and assisted by the very militaries that are now claiming to fight 'ISIS'. It's a big Hegelian Dialectic psyop. Create a problem then offer the solution. Wake up.

They may fade back into insurgent obscurity if utterly destroyed, but they take taxes from the inhabitants of lands they occupy and have a twisted system of government, though maybe a bit more mafia like in that regard.

Why on earth do you believe anything churned out of the disinfo $#@! mill called the "mass media"? You do realize who controls the media, don't you?

The point is, ISIS is a nation state that can legitimately be declared war on, and I believe their intent is to make Infidels draw such a hateful divide between themselves and Muslims, that Muslims and those of Arab/Persian/Middleastern descent will never feel accepted in Secular Western Society.

'ISIS' is not a nation state, no matter how hard you want to believe it is. Nation states have borders. You realize you're promoting world government and loss of sovereignty every time you allege that a faceless organization that can take on any form, at any time, anywhere is suddenly a "nation state".

And then, those people who feel isolated or downtrodden by the society they live in become more sympathetic to the organization that vocalizes their frustration.

The guys in ISIS in charge of this are such fascinating actors of propaganda, I wouldn't put this kind of manipulation past them for one second. Shoot down a Russian plane to incite more anger against Muslims, as if the Chechnyan conflict hadn't been enough. Attack in Paris with fake passports to fuel anti-refugee sentiment. Attempt lone wolf plays in the USA to keep the Us vs Them mentality up. It all feeds into itself.

And we wonder how ISIS has managed to recruit thousands of people of Western Society? Extremism begets extremism, and over again.

Media tripe sold to you. It's a huge propaganda show, with the entire goal being to remove Assad and his government. Remember the failed push for a "no fly zone" a couple years ago? Remember the false flag sarin gas attacks on Syrian civilians that were blamed on Assad but were done by McCain's buddies in the FSA? Remember how many times "Al-Baghdadi" (actually Mossad agent Simon Elliot) has been reported killed yet continues to pop up? Remember how FSA got their weapons? Benghazi! Oh wait, no you probably don't remember all that since you clearly haven't followed the real story of the Syria situation and are knee-jerk reacting to more media and government perception games. Spend more time in the Foreign Affairs subforum and educate yourself. This was a 100% CREATED scenario.

I'm not saying the Paris event was fake or a hoax (though there's already videos of questionable veracity being circulated) but it was entirely created by intelligence agencies and their associates with a predefined goal of taking over Syria, just like has been done in numerous other middle east nations (ones with no bankster controlled central banks...hmmm) over the last 15 years.

Have you seen this video? Clark isn't being entirely honest about his experience but he's absolutely being honest about the list of countries.

[RabbitMan]

Here's another time where Rand can use facts to put down Marco's and Christie's (if he's even there next time) BS:
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/...ional-security
http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...-attack-paris/

France has the most extensive surveillance program in the developed world. They passed it after Charlie Hebdo. Goes way further than even the pre-USA FREEDOM Patriot Act. And it failed them. This stuff doesn't work as a form of prevention!

Exactly!

As for the above poster--sorry, I don't buy into the alternative narrative. I'm sort of a mainstream kind of person, sorry if I get my news from plausible sources. But if we can declare war on the Barbary Pirates, I think we can safely declare war on a group that claims land that is currently being fought over and defended.

[P3ter_Griffin]

Exactly!

As for the above poster--sorry, I don't buy into the alternative narrative. I'm sort of a mainstream kind of person, sorry if I get my news from plausible sources. But if we can declare war on the Barbary Pirates, I think we can safely declare war on a group that claims land that is currently being fought over and defended.

But is it right to do so with stolen money?

With Obama 'failing to adequately respond to ISIS' is it not a perfect time to push citizens to 'take war into their own hands' and to not rely on democracy to decide what war is just and how best to respond?

[YesI'mALiberal]

But if we can declare war on the Barbary Pirates, I think we can safely declare war on a group that claims land that is currently being fought over and defended.

When exactly did the United States "declare war" on the Barbary Pirates? You're not suggesting an authorization to use military force is constitutionally equivalent to a Declaration, are you?

But speaking of declaring war on ISIL, Bush came out for that yesterday. Rand Paul should be all over that, right? http://www.politico.com/story/2015/1...ks-isil-215906

[Brian4Liberty]

Here's another time where Rand can use facts to put down Marco's and Christie's (if he's even there next time) BS:
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/...ional-security
http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...-attack-paris/

France has the most extensive surveillance program in the developed world. They passed it after Charlie Hebdo. Goes way further than even the pre-USA FREEDOM Patriot Act. And it failed them. This stuff doesn't work as a form of prevention!

Yep. No matter how much money they waste, and how many liberties they strip, absolute safety is impossible.

[devil21]

Exactly!

As for the above poster--sorry, I don't buy into the alternative narrative. I'm sort of a mainstream kind of person, sorry if I get my news from plausible sources. But if we can declare war on the Barbary Pirates, I think we can safely declare war on a group that claims land that is currently being fought over and defended.

It's not an alternative narrative. I told you the truth of the situation. Continue to get your "news" from Operation Mockingbird if you like but don't act surprised if informed people think you're ignorant, though my personal opinion is that you're a shill account.

[Batman]

Rand needs a fluid message that changes depending on the circumstances, public opinion, and the attitudes on this forum. That way he can always be right at the right time.

[revrsethecurse04]

Surprised to see a lot of these comments on the Ron Paul Forums. It seems that many people are excited about the prospect that Rand Paul points out that he put forth a declaration of war in December 2014.

The attacks bring forth a strong teachable moment regarding the importance of the non-aggression principle, and the concept of blowback. Elaborating on Ron's points on blowback would be instrumental in explaining the current ISIS condition. It should be noted that Airstrikes, Boots on the Ground, and other offensive military actions result in Collateral Damage. This leads to an explanation of how people become radicalized, and that our presence and intereference over there serves to bolster those seeking to radicalize individuals.

Rand can further elaborate by standing against Obama and Bush, by noting that meddling in the leadership of foregin countries and toppling regimes creates a power vacuum. Oftentimes there are unintended consequences to this foreign meddling, as we have seen with the Arab Spring. The intolerable dictactors that we are so fast to throw out, are replaced by "intolerable-er" dictactors under radical Islamic rule.

If our meddling both creates more terrorists, and provides them with fertile ground with which to grow, why are we meddling at all.

Rand Paul should use this as an opportunity to differentiate himself from the field, in re-affirming the strength thru defense of the homeland approach. Recognizing that France was attacked in large part because of their direct involvement with Air to Ground engagements in Syria. If the U.S. chooses to get further embroiled in this conflict, it will run contrary to the goals of limiting government, increasing liberty, and keeping the citizens of this country safer.