Ron Paul Denies Saying He Wouldn’t Have Ordered Bin Laden Raid in Pakistan — But Here’s th

[phill4paul]

Thanks for saying that. It is conspiracy-tards that are hurting the campaign.

Ya know I don't bring up the 9/11 stuff when I engage the average Joe. It's not something that I even respond to when asked. But you can stop with the negativity towards those that would like to have a full and transparent investigation. Some call me a Paultard. You would call someone like me a conspiracy-tard. Turn down your rhetoric.

 

[NewRightLibertarian]

Like i said, I won't argue with the ironically brainwashed conspiracy theorists; You cannot win with them because they go off in tangents, lack focus, and their answers are not satisfactory on how utterly illogical their ideas really are. I will leave a link to the James Randi forums where there are plenty of threads addressing and openly discussing the absurdity of the 9/11 conspiracy so you can get your debate over there with someone who actually may care to entertain you. The 911 guide including debunking your prized WTC7 argument
is here
I do not agree with the Randi forums flaming liberal politics, but they do very very well at crushing conspiracies

fun fact, 4 years ago in high school I was an outspoken troofer but broke out of that nonsense when I looked upon it with more scrutiny. I changed in character to be more skeptical and dropped religious faith all together, found new heroes in Christopher Hitchens, James Randi, Derren Brown, Richard Dawkins, and others. The point of fact, 911 Troof and other popular conspiracy theories were incompatible with reason and evidence

Like I said before, you are a coward. You won't address the legitimate concerns that power elite analysts give you and instead you choose to throw insults around. What a pathetic, feeble-minded wimp you must be.

Thanks for saying that. It is conspiracy-tards that are hurting the campaign.

No, actually they're the ones who are responsible for getting the campaign off the ground. It's a good thing that Dr. Paul doesn't stab loyal followers in the back. It's a good thing he has so much more integrity than the pathetic establishment wannabes around here who have no spine.

 

[jmdrake]

Like i said, I won't argue with the ironically brainwashed conspiracy theorists; You cannot win with them because they go off in tangents, lack focus, and their answers are not satisfactory on how utterly illogical their ideas really are. I will leave a link to the James Randi forums where there are plenty of threads addressing and openly discussing the absurdity of the 9/11 conspiracy so you can get your debate over there with someone who actually may care to entertain you. The 911 guide including debunking your prized WTC7 argument
is here
I do not agree with the Randi forums flaming liberal politics, but they do very very well at crushing conspiracies

fun fact, 4 years ago in high school I was an outspoken troofer but broke out of that nonsense when I looked upon it with more scrutiny. I changed in character to be more skeptical and dropped religious faith all together, found new heroes in Christopher Hitchens, James Randi, Derren Brown, Richard Dawkins, and others. The point of fact, 911 Troof and other popular conspiracy theories were incompatible with reason and evidence

If you ever were a "troofer" you clearly didn't think it through on your own and just watched a few videos. You haven't shown the slightest bit of an intelligent argument and you've only relied on ad hominem and the appeal to authority fallacy. Rather than put forward and argument yourself you're all about "Listen to James Randi forums" or "link to this BS website". Learn to think for yourself dude. You are the only one who's brainwashed. Grow up.

Last point. You are the one hurting the campaign with your stupidity. This thread isn't about 9/11 truth. It's about defending Ron Paul's position. You want to take it off topic for your childish rants. If someone says something you don't agree with on 9/11, you could just ignore it instead of trying to insult and bully people.

 

[jmdrake]

Wrong! Here is what RP voted for. Show me where it only said Afganistan?
Introduction Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday, the third day of January, two thousand and one,

You are wrong. The authorization extended only to countries that the President determined were involved in the 9/11 attacks or were harboring Al Qaeda. From the text itself.

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This joint resolution may be cited as the “Authorization for Use of Military Force.”
SECTION 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) IN GENERAL. — That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate
force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized,
committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored
such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism
against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.
(b) WAR POWERS RESOLUTION REQUIREMENTS —
(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION — Consistent with section 8(a)(1)
of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to
constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the
War Powers Resolution.
(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this resolution
supercedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

In order to use such an argument for the Pakistan raid the president would have to make the determination that Pakistan was not the ally in the GWOT we claim they are but were in fact actively harboring OBL. No such determination has been made or declared by president Obama. Newt Gingrich has made that allegation, but he is NOT president. Further in order to justify this, Obama would have to give real evidence that he actually had Osama Bin Laden's body. Oh yeah, I know. Nobody wants to hear from the "conspiracy theorists". But this is a legal issue. All we can say for certain is that there was a raid, that we lost a stealth helicopter and that there were people killed. For some reason we can show everybody's dead body except OBL. We are supposed to believe that the Muslim world won't get mad about seeing Saddam hanged or little kids with their arms and legs blown off, but they will freak out about seeing the body of a man who is responsible for far more Muslim deaths than Christian deaths.

Anyway, without producing independently verified proof all we have is baseless accusation. And even with the proof that OBL was actually killed in that raid, that still doesn't change the fact that Pakistan told us long ago that OBL was likely hiding in Pakistan. Sure the safe house was near a Pakistani military base, but 9/11 hijackers trained at U.S. military bases and Anwar Al Awlaki dined at the Pentagon.

 

[r3volution]

you people attacking others for believing in something need to stop .
you people trying to inject what you believe into this campaign need to stop .
you are lucky if once every 100yrs or so a man like Ron Paul is even in a position to become president so get focused . there will be plenty of time for discussion about things like this after he is elected . but we have little time right now to make that happen .

 

[NewRightLibertarian]

you people attacking others for believing in something need to stop .
you people trying to inject what you believe into this campaign need to stop .
you are lucky if once every 100yrs or so a man like Ron Paul is even in a position to become president so get focused . there will be plenty of time for discussion about things like this after he is elected . but we have little time right now to make that happen .

Look, I'm with you completely. I don't inject 9/11 being an obvious inside job into my spiel when I'm talking to voters or campaigning for Ron Paul. But when scum are spreading bullshit on this forum, I'll stand for the truth.

 

[klamath]

You are wrong. The authorization extended only to countries that the President determined were involved in the 9/11 attacks or were harboring Al Qaeda. From the text itself.

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This joint resolution may be cited as the “Authorization for Use of Military Force.”
SECTION 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) IN GENERAL. — That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate
force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized,
committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harboredsuch organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism
against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.
(b) WAR POWERS RESOLUTION REQUIREMENTS —
(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION — Consistent with section 8(a)(1)
of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to
constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the
War Powers Resolution.
(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this resolution
supercedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

In order to use such an argument for the Pakistan raid the president would have to make the determination that Pakistan was not the ally in the GWOT we claim they are but were in fact actively harboring OBL. No such determination has been made or declared by president Obama. Newt Gingrich has made that allegation, but he is NOT president. Further in order to justify this, Obama would have to give real evidence that he actually had Osama Bin Laden's body. Oh yeah, I know. Nobody wants to hear from the "conspiracy theorists". But this is a legal issue. All we can say for certain is that there was a raid, that we lost a stealth helicopter and that there were people killed. For some reason we can show everybody's dead body except OBL. We are supposed to believe that the Muslim world won't get mad about seeing Saddam hanged or little kids with their arms and legs blown off, but they will freak out about seeing the body of a man who is responsible for far more Muslim deaths than Christian deaths.

Anyway, without producing independently verified proof all we have is baseless accusation. And even with the proof that OBL was actually killed in that raid, that still doesn't change the fact that Pakistan told us long ago that OBL was likely hiding in Pakistan. Sure the safe house was near a Pakistani military base, but 9/11 hijackers trained at U.S. military bases and Anwar Al Awlaki dined at the Pentagon.

Thanks JM you even proved my case more. There is absolutely nothing in there about limiting the operation to Afganiststan.There is absolutely nothing about excepting assumed allies from action. It gave the president exclusive power to determine.

And as a side note why do you claim that the only thing we know for certain was the raid took place? Were you there?

 

[jmdrake]

Thanks JM you even proved my case more. There is absolutely nothing in there about limiting the operation to Afganiststan.There is absolutely nothing about excepting assumed allies from action. It gave the president exclusive power to determine.

If you think I proved your case then you need to brush up on your legal reading. Once again the president has made no official determination that Pakistan was harboring OBL. OBL just being in Pakistan does not give authority for unilateral action under the language of the 2001 AUF. If you don't understand that...then you just don't understand.

And as a side note why do you claim that the only thing we know for certain was the raid took place? Were you there?

There's something called evidence. Look at it like a crime scene. You don't have to actually have been at the crime scene to be able to draw reasonable inferences from available evidence. In this case they (the government) didn't give us (the general public) any objective evidence. Supposedly there were video tapes...but then there weren't any because the cameras supposedly "malfunctioned". Supposedly there was a body...but the body was buried at sea so as to not offend Muslims...even though a burial at sea under those circumstances actually goes against Islam. So all we have is the word of a government that we can't trust. Maybe that's good enough for you. It's not good enough for me.

 

[klamath]

If you think I proved your case then you need to brush up on your legal reading. Once again the president has made no official determination that Pakistan was harboring OBL. OBL just being in Pakistan does not give authority for unilateral action under the language of the 2001 AUF. If you don't understand that...then you just don't understand.



There's something called evidence. Look at it like a crime scene. You don't have to actually have been at the crime scene to be able to draw reasonable inferences from available evidence. In this case they (the government) didn't give us (the general public) any objective evidence. Supposedly there were video tapes...but then there weren't any because the cameras supposedly "malfunctioned". Supposedly there was a body...but the body was buried at sea so as to not offend Muslims...even though a burial at sea under those circumstances actually goes against Islam. So all we have is the word of a government that we can't trust. Maybe that's good enough for you. It's not good enough for me.

Nope you just embrace evidence that agrees with your preconcieved ideas and discard evidence that disagrees with it. The government told you there was a raid and you believe that but when the government tells you they have a dna match for OBL it is a lie. I can guarentee that the intent of congress was NOT to have the president to stand before them and the world and say OBL is in this compound in Pakistan and now I am going to raid that empty compound.
So consider that you lawyer speak and grasping at straws to prove your case failed. You failed in front of this jury.

 

[jmdrake]

Nope you just embrace evidence that agrees with your preconcieved ideas and discard evidence that disagrees with it.

Bull. There has been no evidence to embrace.

The government told you there was a raid and you believe that but when the government tells you they have a dna match for OBL it is a lie.

Read this and inform yourself. http://crimemagazine.com/tainting-evidence-inside-scandals-fbi-crime-lab

http://articles.cnn.com/1997-04-15/...-general-michael-bromwich-lab-agents?_s=PM:US

DNA can and has been successfully challenged by independent analysis. In this case there was no chance for any independent analysis. It's just all taking the government's word for it. But hey, if you just trust the government then go fine. Some of us are smarter than that. If this were a trial the government wouldn't be able to say "We have DNA evidence". They would have to authenticate that evidence.

I can guarentee that the intent of congress was NOT to have the president to stand before them and the world and say OBL is in this compound in Pakistan and now I am going to raid that empty compound.

I guarantee that the wording of the AUF was not that the president would have a blank check to violate the sovereignty of allies without first making some determination that they (the allies) weren't really allies and were actively harboring OBL. I guarantee Ron Paul didn't vote for that. And really that's what this thread is about. What did Ron Paul understand he was voting for. Just because some random RP supporter is gullible enough to misread the language as a blank check doesn't mean he did.

So consider that you lawyer speak and grasping at straws to prove your case failed. You failed in front of this jury.

If I were trying a case I'd be sure and strike you. Unless I was the government. In that case I would fight to keep you on because I know you're gullible enough to believe whatever the government says without thought or question.

Of course who's on trial here? The thread is about whether Ron Paul has been honest. I say he was. You seem to think otherwise. You trust Obama more than Paul? Regardless, the burden of proof is on you to provide evidence to prove your position and not the other way around.

 

[robert9712000]

So let me make sure im understanding Rons position,Ive read different interpretations

He believes the Osama raid was wrong because violated another Nations sovereignty

My confusion though is what he would be ok with heres the different versions ive read on his stance

1. We could violate there sovereignty and go in without there permission if we got it approved by congress

2. We could violate there sovereignty thru using letters of marque and having mercenaries go kill him.

3. (this is the one i think he means)We could go in by either a approval of congress or by using letters of marque (which would be prefered so we dont get distracted from the primary goal)as long as we have there permission to conduct the operation in there country

 

[robert9712000]

^still unsure on this ^

 

[jmdrake]

So let me make sure im understanding Rons position,Ive read different interpretations

He believes the Osama raid was wrong because violated another Nations sovereignty

My confusion though is what he would be ok with heres the different versions ive read on his stance

1. We could violate there sovereignty and go in without there permission if we got it approved by congress

2. We could violate there sovereignty thru using letters of marque and having mercenaries go kill him.

3. (this is the one i think he means)We could go in by either a approval of congress or by using letters of marque (which would be prefered so we dont get distracted from the primary goal)as long as we have there permission to conduct the operation in there country

I think you've got it. And yes it's difficult to wrap your arms around this. I'd never heard of letters of marque before Ron Paul was talking about them to get OBL.

But I also think there's a broader issue Ron Paul is bringing up when he talks about how we napped KSM with Pakistan's help. Pakistan went from being a dictatorship that at times openly supported terrorism that we cooperated with, to a democracy dedicated to fighting terrorism who's sovereignty we violate. What have we done to our "allies" in Pakistan? Could the raid have been done better from a geopolitical standpoint? Of course in a "rah rah we got OBL" emotional moment (again, no proof that we actually got OBL), the average person will forget that.

Oh, and for all those who want to dismiss the "conspiracy theories", there was clearly a cover up and IMO of a botched raid. Remember the picture of OBL watching TV?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-glued-watching-TV-pictures-Barack-Obama.html

I turned out to be fake.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-13329078

Think about it. Saddam Hussein had body doubles as well as his sons. There's even been a recent movie about that.



So why couldn't OBL? Say if the SEALS killed a body double? Say if they initially thought it was OBL? That would explain the live video feeds that all of a sudden didn't work anymore. That would explain the need for the burial at sea. It would explain what there was initially an image of the killed OBL released but quickly retracted. They killed somebody and that person looked something like OBL, but he wasn't the real thing.