Ron Paul Murders A Tough Anwar Awlaki Question From Fox News (Video)

reply to post by grahag


And I don' AGREE with the Westboro Church, but I recognize that they have their right to spew their horrible opinion just like anyone else.

Oh, and a final thought. He WAS tried in absentia by Yemen and found guilty of plotting to kill foreigners and was to be brought in dead or alive. After that the US deployed drones (supposedly with the blessing of the Yemeni government) to hunt him down.

Technically, he was tried and given sentence and we just carried out the execution. I suspect that makes this killing legal as we were just helping the Yemeni government with a convicted criminal that just happened to be causing some major issues for the US.

But I'm still in favor of due process.

Originally posted by angrysniper
It was sarcasm, folks.

"Ron Paul murders"...

edit on 5-10-2011 by angrysniper because: (no reason given)

you are a sad individual and a lousy troll.
(second line)

Originally posted by SeekerofTruth101
reply to post by getreadyalready

 

Save your constitutional laws for humans in times of peace, and not for dangerous war dogs in times of declared war.

You will never send the NYPD to destroy Hitler surrounded by his troops, let alone apprehend him in germany.

Do know the diference between WAR and PEACE, and how it is conducted by civilisation for centuries.

Is this the best example you could come up with? do you work for Fox news btw? this is the DUMBEST example I have ever read.
1. Hitler was NOT an American citizen.
2. There was in fact a DECLARATION OF WAR issued against Hitler and Germany during WW2

Originally posted by LogiosHermes27
reply to post by WaylonSmithers

 

a proper hearing and sentencing.

Are you on joke time?

A proper hearing and sentencing for a terrorist...really!

Are you...are you serious!
Are you american?

How uneducated are you? Let me put this in a few perspectives that you probably won't even understand:

"A hearing for a Russian spy? Are you serious?"

"A hearing for a Jew? Are you serious?"

"A hearing for a witch? Are you serious?"

In all "seriousness", what part of "any and all persons" is so difficult to understand?

reply to post by SeekerofTruth101


I am sorry about my previous question of whether you work for Fox news. It has become clear now that you actually have been a member in the Bush administration.

Originally posted by Ittabena
reply to post by Ferris.Bueller.II

 

Question: Was Abraham Lincoln guilty of ordering the murder of American citizens without a trial when the U.S. Civil War started? Should he have ordered the Union Army to arrest every Southern soldier instead of shooting them?

Okay, I'll play your silly game.

Yes he should have. The Union would have promptly lost the war before the Emancipation Proclamation was signed and State's Rights, which was the cause of the war, would not be an issue now. Of course the issue of slavery would not have been settled, but you are the one who wrote the silly question not me.

Actually, the freeing of slaves was the only positive thing to come out of the Civil War, although it did not become the main issue of the war until Gen McClellan had nearly lost it for Lincoln and was replaced. Even so, equal rights did not come until the 60s, and some say that they do not have it still.

Why is it a silly question, unless you actually mean an unwanted question? It's the same issue Paul is bringing up, a sitting U.S. President ordering the killing of one or many U.S. citizens without a trial.

reply to post by rstregooski


No that is what they heard on Propaganda MSM. Same story they said after 911. Muslims are patsies. Nothing more.

reply to post by rstregooski


It seems to me that when a US citizen joins the enemy, they are no longer a citizen and should loose all Rights as an enemy combatant which this person clearly was.

Perhaps they need to get off their butts and legislate that into clearly understandable laws. The only reason War was not declared is dishonest politicians who supported the war on Terror but cared more about votes than protecting the US.

With Terrorism the game has changed and the rules need to change.

Originally posted by HauntWok
The question someone should ask is "Why Ron Paul is defending a known and admitted terrorist?"

Is this the side that Ron Paul is on? Does he want a fascist theocracy in the United States? Is this what Ron Paul stands for? Fascist Theocracy? Terrorism?

There's a difference between someone who doesn't like what the US Government is all about, and someone who wants to commit Jihad on that government and it's people. This is what Anwar Awlaki was all about, and Ron Paul throwing his lot with a known Jihadist? That doesn't sound like a person I would want to vote for.

you know reading this guys post makes me realize it was people just like him, so dense that they cant see the forest for the trees, that allowed the big banks to eventually purchase and control our government. Either that or he is actually Bill O'Reilly here trolling our forums.

Originally posted by Shaade

Originally posted by SeekerofTruth101
reply to post by getreadyalready

 

Save your constitutional laws for humans in times of peace, and not for dangerous war dogs in times of declared war.

You will never send the NYPD to destroy Hitler surrounded by his troops, let alone apprehend him in germany.

Do know the diference between WAR and PEACE, and how it is conducted by civilisation for centuries.

Is this the best example you could come up with? do you work for Fox news btw? this is the DUMBEST example I have ever read.
1. Hitler was NOT an American citizen.
2. There was in fact a DECLARATION OF WAR issued against Hitler and Germany during WW2

Why are you bothering arguing with someone whose only defense is the exactly same nonsensical rhetoric -- the exact SENTENCE -- that the FOX NEWS REPORTER said IN THE VIDEO OF THE OP.

This guy is a doomed. This is what happens when you let your political party and the MSM do 100% of your thinking for you -- you cease to have any sign of logic.

Originally posted by Partisanity

Originally posted by LogiosHermes27
reply to post by WaylonSmithers

 

a proper hearing and sentencing.

Are you on joke time?

A proper hearing and sentencing for a terrorist...really!

Are you...are you serious!
Are you american?

How uneducated are you? Let me put this in a few perspectives that you probably won't even understand:

"A hearing for a Russian spy? Are you serious?"

"A hearing for a Jew? Are you serious?"

"A hearing for a witch? Are you serious?"

In all "seriousness", what part of "any and all persons" is so difficult to understand?

edit on 5-10-2011 by Partisanity because: (no reason given)

Nice try but I think this post will fail to capture the attention of the recipient of your comment.

For one you didn't use ALL CAPS.
Secondly you failed to ramble on incoherently about several things at once, while chanting the UNHOLY UN-AMERICAN mantra incessantly.

And last you also failed to include all of redundant punctuation and emoticons.

When you want to speak troll you do it like the following.

example:

FJORJEOF J#VRJ#V(U #(%U !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!#JTOJOF DPOIR%J TDMEO

Star for the effort though.

Originally posted by Blaine91555
reply to post by rstregooski

 

It seems to me that when a US citizen joins the enemy, they are no longer a citizen and should loose all Rights as an enemy combatant which this person clearly was.

Perhaps they need to get off their butts and legislate that into clearly understandable laws. The only reason War was not declared is dishonest politicians who supported the war on Terror but cared more about votes than protecting the US.

With Terrorism the game has changed and the rules need to change.

Um, no... the war was never declared because there was no place to declare it against..

What were you going to declare the war against?

"Terrorism"?
"Hippies"?
"Purple Unicorns"?

6,000 year semantic newsflash: you can't have a physical war against a concept.

Originally posted by Buford2
reply to post by rstregooski

 

No that is what they heard on Propaganda MSM. Same story they said after 911. Muslims are patsies. Nothing more.

This is not about Muslims, it's about Islamic Extremists on a Jihad. Muslims are kind decent folk and I know quite a few now. The only people trying to link the two together are terror sympathizers, propagandists, religion haters and the like. Most people recognize the difference regardless what the bigots and trouble causers say.

I have not a doubt in my mind that we see many purposeful propagandists for the mass murderers the world calls Terrorists here on ATS. They are easy to spot.

Terrorism is a new game as I said and if the world does not deal with it and adapt, they will continue their slaughter and madness. Every time they try to use a weakness in the law to help them, that weakness needs to be addressed.

Awlaki was a crazed serial killer and madman. I have no doubt that some arguing that killing this enemy combatant was wrong are not who they pretend to be.

Paul needs to clean up his message. He has a hard time answering questions beyond his debate talking points. The leader of the US needs more skills than I think he has. It's hard not to agree with many of his thoughts, but I just can't see him as a leader with a clear vision. Being joined at the hip to an ideology and not being able to compromise is a quality he has that is the same quality that leads us into most of our countries messes. Leadership is not about ideology, but is about leading. Otherwise you may as well reelect Obama and his insane ideology.

reply to post by Blaine91555


You're right, Paul should drop the whole "honest" bit and just stick to the rehearsal like the rest of them. That way he can appease people like you, who think real people talking is the predetermined ideology parade. Did you have any hairstyle or tailoring advice for him as well? I hear these things are really important for "electability".

I love how they frame the question, knowing what his response will likely be, so that they can throw out another question in the attempts of making him look bad. And then, it backfires, as usual.

That look of failure in the end when they can't get him to break is always very touching.

Originally posted by angrysniper
How can you right wing extremists support a murderer?!

meaning??

Originally posted by BeyondPerception
I love how they frame the question, knowing what his response will likely be, so that they can throw out another question in the attempts of making him look bad. And then, it backfires, as usual.

That look of failure in the end when they can't get him to break is always very touching.

You said it best! I wonder exactly who on that staff, and how much time they spent digging up that case from 1942 just to sprout that question out on Ron Paul to see if he would drop his jaw. That's why I titled this thread as if he "murdered" that question.. He Murdered it!!

I've noticed a trend..

At first people want complete freedom, then after a while they want government. Then government gets bigger and bigger AND THEN people want there freedom back. rinse & repeat.

Life is similar where ever you live, work hard and you'll get what you want, don't pay too much attention to government.

reply to post by rstregooski


Nice work with this thread. I have noticed a lot of really smooth digging instruments among some of your readers. The depth of most of them is so shallow it makes me want to cry. Good work and S&F from me. Understanding in any subject is measured both in depth and width. Yours is both on this subject.