Rick Santorum Tells Rep. Ron Paul To Stop ‘Parroting Osama Bin Laden’ In CNN Debate

page: 1
8
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 10:01 PM
link   
source


With video so far i only heard a few boos
seems a bit like a set up dont you think at least for booing part? i thought The Tea Party were agaisnt wars but it seems i was wrong.
edit on 12-9-2011 by Agent_USA_Supporter because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 10:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Agent_USA_Supporter
 


ya i felt Ron Paul could have made his point a little clearer in response to that, it seems like people didnt totally understand what he was trying to say



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 10:25 PM
link   
If you haven't already...

Google: Santorum




posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 10:29 PM
link   
If you google Santorum, you might actually question what nation you're living in.


No but here is the vid :

www.youtube.com...

Like I said in the other thread, I thought Ron got pretty bad audience response maybe because my tv was on loud but now that I went back to watch it again, it wasn't even that bad, seemed like a small group trying to give him a bad image, might've been the few santorum or perry fans in there.



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 10:38 PM
link   
either way the people that booed were complete disrespectful idiots that are completely narrow minded and shouldnt be allowed at the speech to begin with



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 11:11 PM
link   
While I agree that those who boo'd RP for saying this were probably narrow minded sheep who prefer believing convenient lies over the truth, I feel that this actually helped RP in many ways.



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 11:11 PM
link   
All Ron needs to do is point out the fact that the Taliban offered to give us Bin Laden if we could show them proof that he was at fault. What did we do? Ignored them and started killing people.

I'm a Ron supporter and also a "truther". I'm also one to think that Al Qaeda didn't carry out 9/11. It's hard to argue a point when your information is based off a lie. I know he's stated he is for another 9/11 investigation, that in of its self is proof enough of his doubts concerning the 9/11 Commission.



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 11:29 PM
link   
I think if you noticed in the video that Rick Santorum is actaully i believe looking at his Supporters or fans in the crowd, by giving the head single, (Come on guys starting booing)



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 11:31 PM
link   
Remember,these ARE the same type of republicans the applauded the death penalty response,by Rick Perry. You know,more war,more death,more of the same.



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 11:55 PM
link   
reply to post by sonnny1
 


I know maybe i was over looking the boos werent that bad nor that many he did claps in the end.



posted on Sep, 13 2011 @ 12:47 AM
link   
Dr. Paul is the one telling "convenient lies" by parroting bin Laden's excuses for attacking us on 9-11-01. Well, he completely ignores the start of bin Laden's enmity of both the United States and Saudi Arabia.


Following the Soviet Union's withdrawal from Afghanistan in February 1989, bin Laden returned to Saudi Arabia. The Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in August 1990 had put the Kingdom and its ruling House of Saud at risk. The world's most valuable oil fields were within easy striking distance of Iraqi forces in Kuwait, and Saddam's call to pan-Arab/Islamism could potentially rally internal dissent.

In the face of a seemingly massive Iraqi military presence, Saudi Arabia's own forces were well armed but far outnumbered. Bin Laden offered the services of his mujahideen to King Fahd to protect Saudi Arabia from the Iraqi army. The Saudi monarch refused bin Laden's offer, opting instead to allow U.S. and allied forces to deploy troops into Saudi territory.

The deployment angered Bin Laden, as he believed the presence of foreign troops in the "land of the two mosques" (Mecca and Medina) profaned sacred soil. After speaking publicly against the Saudi government for harboring American troops, he was banished and forced to live in exile in Sudan.

From around 1992 to 1996, al-Qaeda and bin Laden based themselves in Sudan at the invitation of Islamist theoretician Hassan al Turabi. The move followed an Islamist coup d'état in Sudan, led by Colonel Omar al-Bashir, who professed a commitment to reordering Muslim political values. During this time, bin Laden assisted the Sudanese government, bought or set up various business enterprises, and established camps where insurgents trained.

A key turning point for bin Laden, further pitting him against the Sauds, occurred in 1993 when Saudi Arabia gave support for the Oslo Accords, which set a path for peace between Israel and Palestinians.

Source
Osama bin Laden was rejected by Saudi Arabia, and felt the United States was responsible.

Dr. Pauls claim that, US bases and hostile American actions were the reason for Al Qaeda attacks is utter nonsense. Bin Laden was already willing to fight the Iraqis, and US bases, in a country that he was banished from, were none of his concern.

reply to post by deadmessiah
 


the Taliban offered to give us Bin Laden if we could show them proof that he was at fault.

That was regarding involvement in plots targeting U.S. facilities during the 1990s, not the attacks of 9-11-01. That was one of Mr. Clinton's errors. This time frame also seems to invalidate Dr. Paul's excuses for bin Laden.

I feel Dr. Paul sounded like a fool in that video. His comment about us still building WWII aircraft reinforced that observation.

I know many of you won't like my source. I don't care! If you can debunk it, by all means do so. Please provide sources... not complaints!

See ya,
Milt



posted on Sep, 13 2011 @ 01:09 AM
link   
You're wrong, here's why, and I quote:


The Taliban offered to turn over bin Laden to a neutral country for trial if the U.S. would provide evidence of bin Laden's complicity in the attacks. U.S. President George W. Bush responded by saying: "We know he's guilty. Turn him over", and British Prime Minister Tony Blair warned the Taliban regime: "Surrender bin Laden, or surrender power".

Soon thereafter the U.S. and its allies invaded Afghanistan, and together with the Afghan Northern Alliance removed the Taliban government in the war in Afghanistan.

Source - en.wikipedia.org...




posted on Sep, 13 2011 @ 01:32 AM
link   
reply to post by BenReclused
 


Problem with that narrative, is that Iraq never threatened Saudi Arabia in any way, or it's oil fields and US bases. The stories of Iraqi forces massing on the SA border were a fabrication, right up there with Gulf of Tonkin incident!



posted on Sep, 13 2011 @ 01:43 AM
link   
reply to post by deadmessiah
 


You're wrong, here's why,

Nope, not at all, and here's why:

The Taliban government in Afghanistan offered to present Osama bin Laden for a trial long before the 9/11 attacks, but the U.S. government showed no interest, Al-Jazeera TV reports, quoting a senior aide to Taliban leader Mullah Omar.

Al-Jazeera says Robert Grenier, the CIA station chief in Pakistan at the time of 9/11, confirms that such proposals were made to U.S. officials.

Sou rce

See ya,
Milt



posted on Sep, 13 2011 @ 02:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Britguy
 


Problem with that narrative, is that Iraq never threatened Saudi Arabia in any way, or it's oil fields and US bases.

The problem with your denial is the KNOWN fact that the Saudis CONSIDERED Iraq a threat. Perhaps you could have persuaded them otherwise, but you sure as hell haven't convinced me!

Even your buddy, Osama, felt that Iraq was a threat to Saudi Arabia! That's why he offered to fight for them.

See ya,
Milt
edit on 13-9-2011 by BenReclused because: Punctuation



posted on Sep, 13 2011 @ 02:44 AM
link   
reply to post by BenReclused
 


Oh, I see... present something that questions your vast intellect and superior knowledge and all of a sudden I'm a friend of Osama?


Seriously, Iraq was never a threat to Saudi Arabia, as anyone with half an ounce of common sense will know. They never threatened SA overtly or covertly, and never had any plans to attack SA. All of that was just more lies to drum up support for the attack by the coalition of the bribed and bullied. The US knew exactly what the Iraqi intentions were, as they were communicated through official channels to the US government, and they did not include anything more than the stated incursion into Kuwait.

Ridiculous scenarios of intent, backed up by neither actions nor verifiable communiques or statements are simply irrelevent. It's like me breaking into my neighbours house and screwing their daughter, then claiming she was gonna be a whore anyway at some point in time!



posted on Sep, 13 2011 @ 04:16 AM
link   
reply to post by thegoods724
 



either way the people that booed were complete disrespectful idiots that are completely narrow minded and shouldnt be allowed at the speech to begin with


....and if they were cheering Ron Paul and booing his opponent, you'd say it was a proud display of Freedom of Speech.



posted on Sep, 13 2011 @ 04:19 AM
link   
reply to post by deadmessiah
 



All Ron needs to do is point out the fact that the Taliban offered to give us Bin Laden if we could show them proof that he was at fault. What did we do? Ignored them and started killing people.


And just what type of "proof" would the Taliban find acceptable? They'd drill us to glean our methods of collecting intel so they could turn it to their advantage.



posted on Sep, 13 2011 @ 04:55 AM
link   
reply to post by BenReclused
 


Ron Paul has begun to circle the drain with his responses in tonight's debate. But of course, when he plummets in the primaries, his supporters will blame the MSM for ignoring him. Actually, they are doing him a favor by limiting exposure to his looney side. His body language while Santorum dressed him down was pathetic; he looked like an embarassed old man. I hate to sound so negative, but he's a career politician who tries to talk a tough talk but has actually accomplished very little in his public career. If he was not able to effect changes in 30 years in office, what makes him think being elected to POTUS will change? He will have no support from the 2 chambers, and will have to rule by recess appointment and executive order. If he were elected, he would definetely be a one termer.

Ron, it's time to kick off the boots and hang up the holster, old pal...





top topics
 
8
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join