How should Rand Paul handle the terror attack in Paris?

[r3volution 3.0]

Rand is speaking on FoxNews now.

He suggests more scrutiny for people who want to come here to live and study. When asked whether we should step up military force, he says no. He thinks we should do more with what we have, but we should not go into more debt for defense.

One of the points he makes is that every time a secular leader is toppled, the religious extremists take over. He's right on that score.

I only caught the end of that interview, but what I saw was solid.

...I liked how he had supporters behind him, with RAND t-shirts etc.

I get the impression that he's not going to try to make hay out of this by stepping up his anti-intervention rhetoric, but neither is he backing down at all.

Good play IMO - hold fast, wait for the storm to subside.

 

[Liberty74]

Rand needs to emphasize that he's had a declaration of war against ISIS prepared since last year, and that he's the *ONLY* candidate on record who has one. He needs to beat everyone else to the punch.

Hope Rand does that.

Also, wasn't it just the other month Trump was agreeing to let in all these Syrian refugees at our tax dollar expense? Hmmm...

 

[luctor-et-emergo]

So basically do exactly what we're doing now?

It seems to me, in our ignorance, we think we can eliminate blowback by using more bombs.

Even Trumps refugee promise to "send them back to Syria" is the same thing. "Send them back, so they'll all be in one place and easier to blow up."

Hardly. There's enough surveillance capabilities, drones/satellites etc. The air attacks at the moment are not aimed at defeating ISIS, they are aimed at changing the shape of the conflict so Assad is defeated, after that maybe they'll be focussed on defeating ISIS. That is the problem.

 

[Liberty74]

Yes, France is going full board into Syria and Iraq now against IS. The US should join forces with France in this effort to defeat IS. Rand Paul's ideals is the way forward. As I stated in earlier post, share intelligence, declare war, air strikes, battle ship cruise missle air strikes, and increase special forces. It is very true that France was attacked and must lead the way in this response, but Americans were killed in this attack as well.

But you see, this is Europe's PROBLEM. They are the ones being all multi-cultural and "liberal" to allow millions of immigrants into their countries all in the name of being nice and changing their laws to accommodate and to be sensitive. So how do you go after a group that is literally EVERYWHERE? I am afraid that Paris is just the first massacre and ISIS is probably planning multiple attacks in many other European countries and even possibly here. But our government will catch them first because they spy on everyone. :roll eyes:

I honestly think the super elite know what they are doing. Implode the system with illegals and refugees to garner even more control over us. But then again, didn't Obama say ISIS was "contained."

 

[Krugminator2]

Contrary to what the conventional wisdom is about this being bad for Rand. I think this is a TREMENDOUS positive with the seed of a great opportunity.

It gives him an opportunity to point out a rational plan. He can point out his declaration of war in 2014. He can point out he has a plan that will minimize the cost in dollars and American lives by getting the people in the region like Kurds involved. And it gives him another opportunity to point out that the Rubio's of the world have been wrong about everything, Libya, Syria, and Iraq.

I think Rand should also point out that liberals blame things like the Amtrak derailment on lack of funding and conservatives have the same nonsensical response to a terrorist attack. It is also amazingly incoherent that conservatives are strong Second Amendment supporters after a school shooting that kills 30 people but when a when a terrorist attack like the Boston Bombing kills a few people they will throw freedom down the drain.

 

[Crashland]

Contrary to what the conventional wisdom is about this being bad for Rand. I think this is a TREMENDOUS positive with the seed of a great opportunity.

It gives him an opportunity to point out a rational plan. He can point out his declaration of war in 2014. He can point out he has a plan that will minimize the cost in dollars and American lives by getting the people in the region like Kurds involved. And it gives him another opportunity to point out that the Rubio's of the world have been wrong about everything, Libya, Syria, and Iraq.

I think Rand should also point out that liberals blame things like the Amtrak derailment on lack of funding and conservatives have the same nonsensical response to a terrorist attack. It is also amazingly incoherent that conservatives are strong Second Amendment supporters after a school shooting that kills 30 people but when a when a terrorist attack like the Boston Bombing kills a few people they will throw freedom down the drain.

"The problem is not lack of funding, it's lack of strategy"
We can't just put boots on the ground, rampage through Iraq and Syria, indefinitely occupy the country and declare mission accomplished. Rand needs to expose that as the foolish plan that it is.

 

[revgen]

1) Rand should mention that some of the attackers in Paris were terrorists who migrated there posing as refugees from Syria. Remind the person asking the question that Rand has been sounding the warning bells about the need to closely scrutinize these refugees for the last several months.

2) Explain how it was our decision to send arms to the so-called "Islamic Moderates" in Syria to fight Assad, who eventually became ISIS and started the entire civil war over there. These refugees are fleeing the region partially due to our mistake.

3) If we decide to send troops to fight ISIS, we need to do it by official declaration of war through Congress. Remind the person asking the question that Rand introduced a bill declaring war on ISIS in 2014. When and if war is declared, we will send the troops in with overwhelming force. Win the war decisively, and go home. No nation building.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

3) If we decide to send troops to fight ISIS, we need to do it by official declaration of war through Congress. Remind the person asking the question that Rand introduced a bill declaring war on ISIS in 2014. When and if war is declared, we will send the troops in with overwhelming force. Win the war decisively, and go home. No nation building.

Let France send ground troops. No US ground troops!

 

[revgen]

Let France send ground troops. No US ground troops!

If France wants to do it alone, then that's fine. But they may end up requesting US troops under NATO.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

If France wants to do it alone, then that's fine. But they may end up requesting US troops under NATO.

They can request all they like, but NATO treaty does not specify exact type of support. Air support most likely.

 

[RonPaulMall]

But you see, this is Europe's PROBLEM. They are the ones being all multi-cultural and "liberal" to allow millions of immigrants into their countries all in the name of being nice and changing their laws to accommodate and to be sensitive. So how do you go after a group that is literally EVERYWHERE? I am afraid that Paris is just the first massacre and ISIS is probably planning multiple attacks in many other European countries and even possibly here. But our government will catch them first because they spy on everyone. :roll eyes:

I honestly think the super elite know what they are doing. Implode the system with illegals and refugees to garner even more control over us. But then again, didn't Obama say ISIS was "contained."

And this is what Rand needs to be talking about. Link the shared ideology of the elites on both sides of the Atlantic and put the blame for the tragedy squarely on their shoulders. Rand should put that video "With Open Gates" up on his website and be hammering Obama over his recent decision to flood America with Somalis and expedite the transfer of Syrians to America.

 

[WeTheVigilant]

He needs to go after the Syrian refugee issue HARD, he needs to talk about the dangers of opening the borders and allowing thousands of Muslims to flood the country. He needs to talk about a clear and defined plan to take out ISIS (which should help chip away at the stupid "isolationist" label pushed by the neocons) and he needs to point out, clearly, that we are at war with RADICAL ISLAM.

That should get the GOP voters on his side big time.

 

[Crashland]

He needs to go after the Syrian refugee issue HARD, he needs to talk about the dangers of opening the borders and allowing thousands of Muslims to flood the country. He needs to talk about a clear and defined plan to take out ISIS (which should help chip away at the stupid "isolationist" label pushed by the neocons) and he needs to point out, clearly, that we are at war with RADICAL ISLAM.

That should get the GOP voters on his side big time.

The point about radical islam is also a good pivot point. Yes, it is important to call it what it is. Why? Because if you can't even identify what you're fighting, you can't have a good strategy to deal with it. Fighting radical islamic terrorists demands a very different strategy than fighting the Iraqi government, or fighting "violent criminals". It means that having America start another war with ground troops is precisely NOT the answer. We need to be smart about it.

 

[JohnCollins]

Other than calling for more scrutiny of "refugees", which he is already doing, he should clearly articulate his strategy for defeating ISIS, and link this to the greater issue of radical Islam.

He should juxtapose his record against that of Marco Rubio. Both Senators, both entered the Senate at the same time, but two very different voting records on foreign policy. All those foreign aid bills where Rubio voted to send arms to Islamist rebels, many of whom may now be part of ISIS or Al Qaeda and Islamist supporting regimes like Pakistan. Rubio's support for Hillary's war in Libya, which destabilized North Africa, eliminated a leader who had collaborated in the War on Terror and provided a new pathway for illegal immigration into our European allies. Trump will sink himself at some point. Save Carson for the next debate, because he has no chance whatsoever of winning an exchange on the merits of a no fly zone, which will make Rand look very good by comparison. Cruz is too popular with the base. Rubio is the ideal target to start hammering right now on the media and then to call him out again in the debate for his consistent appeasement of radical Islam. Rand needs to use harsh rhetoric to counter the isolationist slurs.

Rand needs to use facts. He has introduced a declaration of war against the Islamic State to the Senate. He is the only candidate in the race who would give the Kurds a state, every other candidate is prioritizing relations with the Brotherhood regime in Turkey over that. He is the only true friend of our closest ally in this conflict on that debate stage. He is the only candidate who will not only be brave enough to stand up to our enemies, but also our allies - Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Pakistan - when they go against our national interest and support radical Islam. There is a huge discrepancy between the attitudes of the GOP elite towards these countries and that of the GOP grassroots. A no fly zone in Syria is NOT supporting our allies because half our allies, including the much loved Egypt and Jordan oppose it and support the Russian intervention - call out Kasich and Fiorina when they say the no fly zone is necessary to get the allies on side.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Rand needs to use facts. He has introduced a declaration of war against the Islamic State to the Senate.

Yes, the Declaration of War is key, and Rand should push that.

All of the facts might not be the best tactic. The media and pundits and a whole lot of the sheeple will attack anyone who speaks the truth.

The truth in bullet points:

- With help from outside interests, the people that became ISIS were encouraged and armed to instigate an armed revolution in Syria (it worked so well in Kosovo).
- Having established themselves in Syria, they decided to take control of Sunni Iraq (where many of them were from). This would be a problem for some of those outside forces that helped them in the first place.
- ISIS goes on a mass killing spree.
- With very questionable legal justification (ie. outdated AUMF and no Declaration of War), Obama began an air war against ISIS in Iraq.
- Without any legal authority whatsoever (ie. no Declaration of War or AUMF), Obama began an air war against ISIS in Syria.
- France joined in air war against ISIS (assuming no Declaration of War there either).
- Obama escalated with boots on the ground.
- Russia escalated air war against ISIS.
- ISIS strikes back against Russia, France by killing innocent bystanders.

Declarations of war makes the sequence and history too clear. If they had been used, things would not be as confusing and the sequence of events would not be swept under the rug as easily, kind of like Hillary's email server.

 

[65fastback2+2]

reading comments on articles around fb, 90% of voters are still brainwashed by the war mongers...unfortunate

 

[enhanced_deficit]

This terrible tragedy is going to be politicized to no end. Can't pretend that this world event is not going to have massive fallout, and how the candidates react to this will be critical in the campaign. On its face, it looks like a nail in the coffin for Rand when people's fears are stoked at a time when they are already worried about him being weak on national defense and when there are plenty of other candidates who are willing to go full blown neocon. Is there possibly some miracle by which Rand can somehow turn this around to his advantage?

It is a big tragedy and will get lot of coverage as it should.

A broader scope should be kept keeping in view causes and solutions to avoid in future. More interventions is not the solution but part of problem.

ISIS did not just attack French people, it also attacked people in Beirut, Syria, Iraq.
It is also accused of attacking a Russian plane causing even more deaths than in Paris.

Russian Defence Ministry publishes cartoon with Grim Reaper behind French Charlie Hebdo editor

 

[devil21]

I'm not French either but this is rather close to home (4-5hrs by car). I think it's about time to declare war on them. The threat is in every European country and to a lesser extent in the US. It has nothing to do with Islam. It's crazy people who hate the way the world is run, like we do essentially, but for all the wrong reasons. They are the modern day anti-freedom force.

As Ron always said, you can't declare war on a tactic.

Besides, the Paris events were planned by INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES and executed by ASSETS OF THOSE INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES. If you don't know this yet you should pay more attention. This event was ENTIRELY PREDICTABLE!!! Maybe not the exact when/where but it wasn't a surprise to anyone that has followed the Syria situation.

Look, I don't want to commit to any futile or unprovoked war but they will continue to provoke. They WANT to die. That's the problem. And I would never have thought I'd ever say this and believe it but, we either kill them over there, or we'll have to kill them here (Europe).

You should stop and take a reality check when you start to sound like Dubya.
--------------------

On topic:
I think Rand should keep doing what he's doing and speak truth to power about how these events occur, trying to address the cause of terrorism, intervention (particularly by intelligence agencies) instead of the symptom, which is terrorism. Take the intellectual high road, though I do note that calling out Mossad and CIA, etc is a rather dangerous undertaking.

 

[RabbitMan]

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?

(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. 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.

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. 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.

 

[JohnCollins]

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...its-paul-for-weak-record-on-national-security
http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...iticizes-obama-rand-paul-terror-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!