How should Rand Paul handle the terror attack in Paris?

[69360]

He should express sympathies and not much else.

In the end this is still an isolated criminal incident that killed a hundred in a nation of millions. With all due respect to the dead, this group is gnats. IS could be wiped out at any given time militarily if western populations had the stomach to handle large losses of innocents on both sides. The west doesn't and the terrorists do. It's what separates us from them for now. That could change.

 

[klamath]

He should express sympathies and not much else.

In the end this is still an isolated criminal incident that killed a hundred in a nation of millions. With all due respect to the dead, this group is gnats. IS could be wiped out at any given time militarily if western populations had the stomach to handle large losses of innocents on both sides. The west doesn't and the terrorists do. It's what separates us from them for now. That could change.

This is pretty much it.

 

[TER]

I would ignore it. We never should have entangled ourselves in that nonsense to begin. Time to withdraw and let Europe fend for itself. We saved their sorry asses twice and that was two times too many. Now we would be sucked in a third time? Shame on us is that comes to pass, which I suppose it will.

It should come to a vote in Congress. And if the vote is yes, that we declare war on Isis, then we will all pay taxes to fight it.


Personally, I would have much less problem paying tax for this endeavor than for much of what the government has forced me to pay in the past with regards to military missions.

 

[William R]

Rand should say we need to stop Obama from resettling anymore Middle East refuges in the United States. And like his father said after 9/11, we need to stop immigration from Muslim countries.

 

[jkob]

It's a tough situation; I believe we should drop our demand that Assad, the Russians, and the Iranians must go then go from there as they are the people fighting them already. It seems inevitable that there will be a ground war against Islamic State, lets just pray that it doesn't get turned into a war against the Russians and Iranians too like the neocons/Saudis will want. Perhaps that would be a good way to dispel the isolationist label to seek cooperation, we need to demand that our so called allies Turkey and Saudi Arabia stop supporting ISIS because for all the sabre-rattling it isn't the Iranians and Russians that are hurting us. Now I'm sure some other GOP candidate would call for your assassination via drone at that point.

 

[luctor-et-emergo]

1. Rand said not to arm terrorists or 'moderate' fighters.
2. Rand made a good point on NSA/intelligence not being able to capture the right data because they are overwhelmed with too much crap which they shouldn't look at.
3. Rand said he did not want to take in refugees EXACTLY because of this risk, as opposed to some other candidates, Rubio.
4. Rand is the only one already having offered a declaration of war against isis.
5. Rand WILL use overwhelming force when war is declared, win and come home.

These are all facts and when explained in the right way will completely defuse any straw-man arguments. In fact, it could completely change peoples minds.

 

[luctor-et-emergo]

It's a tough situation; I believe we should drop our demand that Assad, the Russians, and the Iranians must go then go from there as they are the people fighting them already. It seems inevitable that there will be a ground war against Islamic State, lets just pray that it doesn't get turned into a war against the Russians and Iranians too like the neocons/Saudis will want. Perhaps that would be a good way to dispel the isolationist label to seek cooperation, we need to demand that our so called allies Turkey and Saudi Arabia stop supporting ISIS because for all the sabre-rattling it isn't the Iranians and Russians that are hurting us. Now I'm sure some other GOP candidate would call for your assassination via drone at that point.

Ultimately it's really sad that these people died in any circumstance but I think in the bigger picture this mostly brings Iran, Russia closer to the west. There's still the enemy-of-my-enemy-is-my-friend kind of thing. These extremists are everyones enemy. Russia just suffered a bombing on a plane, France suffers this. I'd say tensions being reduced between the 'East' and 'West' may be the only slightly positive thing to come from this. I could be totally wrong but I don't really see how. Certainly the citizens of said countries are empathetic towards 'us' for the most part.

Iran: Despite Iran's rocky relations with the U.S., both Iranian president Mohamed Khatami and Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei comdemned and denounced the attacks and the terrorists who carried out the attacks. Iranians who gathered for a soccer match in Tehran two days after the 9/11 attacks observed a moment of silence. There was also a candlelight vigil.

(wiki)

 

[RonPaulMall]

Immigration would be the way to attack it from a political perspective, but Rand hasn't done a very good job establishing himself on that position so probably no an option. His best bet is to simply go on the attack and call out Rubio for his support of taking in even more Syrian "refugees".

Ultimately, this is going to be a huge boon for Trump because he's the candidate the public associates with wanting to end the mass migration madness. Bet Rand can do is focus attention on others so he isn't the one taking any hits.

 

[Evilfox]

1. Rand said not to arm terrorists or 'moderate' fighters.
2. Rand made a good point on NSA/intelligence not being able to capture the right data because they are overwhelmed with too much crap which they shouldn't look at.
3. Rand said he did not want to take in refugees EXACTLY because of this risk, as opposed to some other candidates, Rubio.
4. Rand is the only one already having offered a declaration of war against isis.
5. Rand WILL use overwhelming force when war is declared, win and come home.

These are all facts and when explained in the right way will completely defuse any straw-man arguments. In fact, it could completely change peoples minds.

I one hundred percent agree with this. Very good clear points that are true and simple.

 

[luctor-et-emergo]

Immigration would be the way to attack it from a political perspective, but Rand hasn't done a very good job establishing himself on that position so probably no an option. His best bet is to simply go on the attack and call out Rubio for his support of taking in even more Syrian "refugees".

Ultimately, this is going to be a huge boon for Trump because he's the candidate the public associates with wanting to end the mass migration madness. Bet Rand can do is focus attention on others so he isn't the one taking any hits.

He should not attack Rubio on that. He should simply point out he's been against that all along.

 

[MaxPower]

1. Rand said not to arm terrorists or 'moderate' fighters.
2. Rand made a good point on NSA/intelligence not being able to capture the right data because they are overwhelmed with too much crap which they shouldn't look at.
3. Rand said he did not want to take in refugees EXACTLY because of this risk, as opposed to some other candidates, Rubio.
4. Rand is the only one already having offered a declaration of war against isis.
5. Rand WILL use overwhelming force when war is declared, win and come home.

These are all facts and when explained in the right way will completely defuse any straw-man arguments. In fact, it could completely change peoples minds.

Rand has not to my knowledge said he doesn't want to take in refugees-- only that refugees should be carefully vetted-- and neither should we. The refugees are fleeing the same sorts of people who committed these attacks.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Speak with clarity.

Rand needs to articulate that defeating ISIS is more important than defeating Assad. Defeating ISIS is more important than standing up to Russia.

We cannot be on the side of ISIS in Syria, period.

I agree that there is a big opportunity there on the point about Assad.

Did anyone hear John Kerry today? Typical of neoconservatives and their comrades on the left, this is a opportunity to go after the people they don't like. Kerry talked about the need to remove Assad. These scum have no shame.

Next thing you know, to respond to this attack by ISIS, these scumbags will say we need to address the new 'Axis of Evil', which will be Assad, Iran and Russia, the only people who are actually fighting ISIS. Their hypocrisy knows no bounds.

 

[Brandywine]

This article is making the rounds all over Facebook, or similar articles.

Rand Paul “the Isolationist” Proposed Declaration of War on ISIS in December of 2014

 

[PCKY]

In December 2014, Rand brought forth a resolution to declare war on ISIS. So which of our candidates supported it? Who did not. We all know that Obama is not going to Congress with anything. Rand can tout the resolution for effect. He can continue the stand that if we go to war, even as a response to a NATO agreement, we must do so Constitutionally.
I do have a question about the NATO treaty...ISIS is not a sovereign state...does that count?

 

[PCKY]

This article is making the rounds all over Facebook, or similar articles.

Rand Paul “the Isolationist” Proposed Declaration of War on ISIS in December of 2014

I saw this in my Facebook feed from Texas For Rand Paul and one other support group.

 

[PCKY]

Did anyone hear John Kerry today? Typical of neoconservatives and their comrades on the left, this is a opportunity to go after the people they don't like. Kerry talked about the need to remove Assad. These scum have no shame.

Next thing you know, to respond to this attack by ISIS, these scumbags will say we need to address the new 'Axis of Evil', which will be Assad, Iran and Russia, the only people who are actually fighting ISIS. Their hypocrisy knows no bounds.

Welcome to World War 3.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Throwing this out as an idea for Constitutional conservatives in Congress...

The opportunity here is to demand a declaration of war for any actions taken, if expansion can not be avoided. This would be in line with a Constitutional conservative position in the Congress.

This Declaration should contain the following:

- Repeal of all past AUMFs.
- A strict definition of the territory (nation) of ISIS (ie. action only in ISIS territory in the former Iraq and Syria).
- Explicitly state that this does not authorize use of force against any other sovereign nation. No bombing in any other nation.
- Explicitly state the goal. Ie. elimination of ISIS as a nation with territory. This is not an ongoing war against territory-less organizations, ISIS or otherwise.
- Explicitly state that this will only be carried out in support of allies in NATO, and in no way will be pursued as a unilateral effort or even primarily funded by the US.
- Explicitly give timetables, and expiration of this Declaration/AUMF.
- Explicitly state that nothing in this AUMF overrides the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
- Explicitly state that nothing in this AUMF grants the Executive Branch any additional power and authority, other than to carry out the mission outlined in the Declaration.
- Explicitly state that any action deemed necessary outside of this Declaration requires an amendment to this Declaration.
- Explicitly state that this will not be a nation-building exercise. This is an authorization for war, not foreign aid.
- Explicitly state strict budget and spending controls on this actions carried out under this Declaration.


And that's just a start of the restrictions for any new Declaration of War, made necessary by the abuse of the previous AUMF by the Executive Branch.

 

[PCKY]

Rand has not to my knowledge said he doesn't want to take in refugees-- only that refugees should be carefully vetted-- and neither should we. The refugees are fleeing the same sorts of people who committed these attacks.

I heard what you heard. But I would add that half-assed vetting probably would come close to a flat out refusal. In other words, because we can't vet them, we should say no.

 

[PCKY]

Throwing this out as an idea for Constitutional conservatives in Congress...

This assumes that ISIS doesn't melt into the woodwork the moment the first boot hits the ground. They are in this for the long haul. We may be able to take the wind from their sails now, but this won't end...not for a thousand years and then some.

 

[PCKY]

He should not attack Rubio on that. He should simply point out he's been against that all along.

The plus for Rand with the Trump boon is that Trump agrees with his positions on Syria.