Ron Paul just Signed his Own Presidential Aspirations Death Warrant,After He Criticized Obama

reply to post by Agent_USA_Supporter


after reading and hearing what he said about this i went and donated 100 dollars to his campaign.He is the man... after we elect him i can't wait till he wipes the floor with fox news and the two stooges,Hannity and oriely buy me off..lol.If you don't support Ron Paul 100% then you don't understand America and you should move to Europe..

reply to post by Agent_USA_Supporter

This isnt something you would do if you want to be the president, Paul just ended his own candidacy with this statement as predicted Obama will win no matter Which GOP Member wins.

Actually, it is my belief, and I do not mean to be a drag or a negative nancy here, that Ron's opposition to the Military/Industrial complex and the Federal Reserve accomplished this long ago. I just pray I am wrong.

What you have presented here is historically speaking, a non issue. But I also wonder why you are so concerned about it. Do I not see "Canada" listed as your location? Just curious.

Originally posted by DamaSan
reply to post by LilDudeissocool



Really? Trying to discredit a HUGE group of people with a YouTube video of this one guy?
Did you just run out of worthwhile arguments?

...ever consider working in the media? I think you'd fit right in.

ETA: You guys are free to think/say what you want, but surely you've noticed the "stars" are against you. Sorry, majority rule!

edit on 1-10-2011 by DamaSan because: (no reason given)

edit on 1-10-2011 by DamaSan because: (no reason given)

Where's he at?

Originally posted by earthship35
reply to post by Agent_USA_Supporter

 

after reading and hearing what he said about this i went and donated 100 dollars to his campaign.He is the man... after we elect him i can't wait till he wipes the floor with fox news and the two stooges,Hannity and oriely buy me off..lol.If you don't support Ron Paul 100% then you don't understand America and you should move to Europe..

Look i said here before that i hope ron paul would win, i am all for ron paul as a canadian

then you don't understand America and you should move to Europe..

Listen i do understand America, and yet dont understand why for the last 20 years america didnt elect a candidate like ron paul, so ease on the attacks on me alright?

reply to post by Ittabena

Do I not see "Canada" listed as your location? Just curious.

Yes i did add Canada in my profile look under Loaction:

I did post this in the other thread on al awlaki, but I think its worth repeating... let me show u the logic these politicans are using by applying this logic to George Bush Senior.

Bush senior has had major business ties with the bin laden family, directly or indirectly helping finance terrorism(however u want to see it). Bush senior helped fund al queda through the cia. On 9/11 bush senior was seen meeting with bin laden's brother.
okay, trial over lets bomb him.

obviously that doesn't work, but if you look at what al awlaki did, it was much less than what bush senior did.

Al he did was talk to these guys!!! We're not saying you can't kill him, we're just saying give him a fair trial, a trial in absentee or even a military trial as befitting the traitor in war. Hell, maybe even just charge him with something first before all of that happened. We've had numerous chances to charge him with a crime but haven't, because there is no crime! Americans can say whatever they want against there government, legally americans can even say they think someone should be killed for their behavior.
I stand one hundred percent behind his idea that Americans need to get out of the middle east. I am not a muslim, i am a christian raised american and his death as a martyr just made me realize how corrupt this government is.
I preach the same thing as al awlaki to whoever will listen, Americans need to get out of the middle east. does that make me a terrorist? I am litterally saying the same thing as Al awlaki. are they ganna put me on an assasinate list for that? what a slippery, slippery slope

I think its alright for them to bomb our soldiers over there because if Iraqi soldiers were in america raping killing and torturing civillians for 20 years I would bomb, ambush, kill and do whatever to get them out. Since when was defending your homeland terrorism? We bomb their citizens so much. I beleive our war over there has had a 90% civillian casualty rate. We are literaly killing people who are mad at us because we bombed their cousin, their brothers, their mothers. Or just shot them for carrying an ak in a land of chaos where everyone needs a gun! I've seen videos of our troops engaging just for that reason..

reply to post by Ittabena


From what i understand Ron Paul actually has a huge support in the military industrial complex because our troops are tired of fighting in the middle east. At the rate we're going we're making more enemies by being there than we are doing good. The national guard is tired of being sent out when their just suppose to be emergency back up.
You want to know why muslims cheered 9/11? because we've been bombing the pants off the middle east for so long that they can't stand it anymore. We are making more enemies than we are killing and we're killing alot of people, going bankrupt doing it too.

I support our troops 100% and I support their wishes to end this war 100%. God Bless the Troops!

reply to post by LilDudeissocool


thanks for the awesome video of the drunk human, woulda been nice if you had actually responded to any of my posts containing INFORMATION that I've gathered pertaining to the subject at hand, since you seem to disagree with what I've stated. I'd love to have a dialog with you, but maybe you dont want the same thing. I'm sitting here scratching my head at the relevance of your post. Help me out bro...

Click here for more information.

Originally posted by mishigas
reply to post by sdcigarpig

 

This person, Anwar Al-Awlaki, was still a citizen of the US. No matter what his crimes were or that he was suspected of, he still had full rights to due process under the law. The federal government had no right to assassinate or out right kill any citizen of this country without a trial being held. This is not right or correct, and sets a very dangerous precedence’s for such.

I would say that by his words and actions he voluntarily renounced his valuable citizenship. As a matter of fact, by his involvement in planning, financing, and implementation of terrorist acts against the US, he became a traitor. And during war, traitors are summarily executed.

I realize that Ron Paul is among the group that wants to Mirandize all captured terrorists, and then give them access to our justice system where they can demand that our intel methods that we used to track him be made public, but to me, that is the mark of a fool. All the platitudes and bromides that are shouted here are beside the point. al Alwaki made his choice; he got his just reward.

Fear monger much? Before saying during war you might want to stop and think what nation have we declared war on? There has been no such declaration of war.
How can a country declare war on a organization? If it were possible to wage war on a organization then why hasn't war been declared on the KKK? They have committed numerous acts of terrorism against American citizens.
And why shouldn't our intel methods be made public? Is it ok that we do something illegal as long as we get what we want?
And where is the evidence that he ordered an attack on America? The people that he was linked to even said he gave no such order.
We murdered this man because he was using his right to free speech and because of what organization he was a member of a organization that the CIA created. This makes the CIA the head of the terrorist organization so when are we going to declare war on them?

Originally posted by liquidsmoke206
reply to post by LilDudeissocool

 

thanks for the awesome video of the drunk human, woulda been nice if you had actually responded to any of my posts containing INFORMATION that I've gathered pertaining to the subject at hand, since you seem to disagree with what I've stated. I'd love to have a dialog with you, but maybe you dont want the same thing. I'm sitting here scratching my head at the relevance of your post. Help me out bro...

Responding directly to content without identifying the mentality behind it..

Originally posted by liquidsmoke206
I'm curious as to what made them want this guy so bad?
why was he marked for assassination? What did he do that we KNOW he did?
Was he actually targeted or did he happen to be in the wring place at the wrong time?


I want information, you humans can keep your silly emotional responses to this event.

JUST GIMME THE INFO!

All the info that needs to be given is only that the individual was an enemy combatant.

His constitutional rights we're automatically revoked when he joined the enemy of the U.S.


Disagree?

How about Americans who joined the Nazi military during WW1 and WW2 we killed in the European during those wars?


What about all the rebel solders during the civil war?

Originally posted by liquidsmoke206


I also think it's interesting how Paul gets tons of news coverage when he makes outspoken comments that can easily be made to spin, but barely gets a mention when he throttles other candidates in debates, straw polls, and fund raising....from the grass roots mind you.

Answer "If it bleeds it leads."

It's the nature of the news industry. The supply and demand dynamic working at its finest. You are a Ron Paul free marketeer purest like Congressman Ron Paul, right? So you should understand the reasons within all their complexity.


Thought I would add another direct response to your content.

I'm allowing you to control the argument at this point. Because I'm such a nice guy, and I'm in a good mood right now.

Click here for more information.

reply to post by Agent_USA_Supporter

I think Paul is wrong. Saying a US citizen should be tried first is lame. If he wasn't a US citizen would he care? We should definitely keep thinning out the terrorist herd. I would support this approach in the war on drugs. Take out cartels, gang members and dealers. The only problem is using expensive missiles all the time on low value targets. If they could mount a small multi-shot chemical laser it might be more economical for street level gang members and dealers.

reply to post by liquidsmoke206



Point A
That's not a legal definition. That's just general academic.

My advice is to click THIS> www.au.af.mil... Go to "Counter-Terrorism and the Use of Force in International Law (local copy), by Schmitt, George C. Marshall European Center for Security Studies" click and read.

Point B

You are talking about captured battlefield detainees that can be secured without high risk of escape, or harm to U.S. service personnel. In which case after wars end their cases may be transferred from military custody to a U.S. civil court, but do not necessarily have to be.

With that said, it is legal to target U.S.citizens abroad collaborating with an enemy of the State if their capture posses a risk to U.S. service and or civil government employees including contractors.


Point C

You are simply spouting gibberish so I am unable to respond.

Originally posted by liquidsmoke206
reply to post by LilDudeissocool

 

I'm allowing you to control the argument at this point. Because I'm such a nice guy, and I'm in a good mood right now.

Cute....yer allowing me to control the argument because I'm the only one of us that has one. You're a joke, I know it, you know it, and all of ATS knows it.....

I don't know how to respond to barking mad rantings.

Originally posted by Bramble Iceshimmer
reply to post by Agent_USA_Supporter

 

I would support this approach in the war on drugs. Take out cartels, gang members and dealers. The only problem is using expensive missiles all the time on low value targets. If they could mount a small multi-shot chemical laser it might be more economical for street level gang members and dealers.

You are mostly talking about Mexicans I am assuming.

Democrats want Latino votes and Republicans want cheap compliant slave labor.

So that ain't gonna to happen.

Btw missiles wouldn't work. That would be like using a sledge hammer to swat at flies. The Nazi SS model would have to be.used. Just round them all up and off to the camps they go. Then send Mexico the bill for everything. We could take payment in Mexican crude.

reply to post by buster2010

I would say that by his words and actions he voluntarily renounced his valuable citizenship. As a matter of fact, by his involvement in planning, financing, and implementation of terrorist acts against the US, he became a traitor. And during war, traitors are summarily executed.

I realize that Ron Paul is among the group that wants to Mirandize all captured terrorists, and then give them access to our justice system where they can demand that our intel methods that we used to track him be made public, but to me, that is the mark of a fool. All the platitudes and bromides that are shouted here are beside the point. al Alwaki made his choice; he got his just reward.

Fear monger much? Before saying during war you might want to stop and think what nation have we declared war on? There has been no such declaration of war.
How can a country declare war on a organization? If it were possible to wage war on a organization then why hasn't war been declared on the KKK? They have committed numerous acts of terrorism against American citizens.
And why shouldn't our intel methods be made public? Is it ok that we do something illegal as long as we get what we want?
And where is the evidence that he ordered an attack on America? The people that he was linked to even said he gave no such order.
We murdered this man because he was using his right to free speech and because of what organization he was a member of a organization that the CIA created. This makes the CIA the head of the terrorist organization so when are we going to declare war on them?

Sorry, the discussion on whether there is a declared war is irrelevant. Just because there is no national uniform that attacked us does not deny us our right to defend ourselves and retaliate. And I do not believe in proportional retaliation, before you go down that path.

Exactly how much do you know about this guy's involvement/activities? It's easy to assume the role of apologist and say that he was only exercising his right to free speech. But that is naive. If he had been killed while standing on the corner of Maple and Vine and speaking to a group of protestors, I might agree with you, but we both know that is not the case. He was nabbed scurrying from one safe house to another like the rat he was, and he was exterminated like we do to rats and other vermin.

So, you know absolutely nothing about how involved he really was. You assume the best of him. I do not. Regardless of what you or I think, however, he did all the wrong things that made the decision to neutralize him the right thing to do.

So your protests are hollow. If it is revealed that he was involved in financing, equipping, etc., terrorist acts it still would not change your mind. Policy cannot be written with the sole goal of gaining buster2010's approval, so unless you want to get involved and change it, you are whistling into the wind.

Ron Paul is 100% correct on this issue. That man should have been captured, and tried in a court of law.

People don't care about this because oh it was some brown skinned muslim nutcase that got assassinated.

Now what happens if the president declares that some of the fringe movements here in the United States are terrorists, and delivers that same kind of treatment to more American citizens?

The slippery slope is quite slippery.