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

He nailed it, with strict by the book constitutionalism. if he doesn't win in 2012 I'm moving to Canada.

Here's some insight on this. Perhaps Ron Paul is suffering from Alzheimer's disease.

(CNSNews.com) -- President Barack Obama declared that America is at war with al Qaeda on Thursday at the White House, as he presented measures the United States must take to prevent another terrorist attack similar to the one that nearly succeeded on board a Christmas Day flight from Amsterdam to Detroit.

“We are at war, we are at war against al Qaeda,” Obama said, a departure from the administration’s move in 2009 to discontinue the phrase “Global War on Terrorism” from U.S. policy.

The president continued saying that “al Qaeda leadership has hunkered down,” and that the United States has “disrupted plots at home and abroad.”

source: www.cnsnews.com...

We are and have been at war with Al Qaeda and it's operatives for a long time now. It's leaders whether they are American Citizens or not are under a "kill or capture" policy by this administration. I doubt that capture was a reasonable option in Yemen for Anwar Awlaki, and so he was killed.

Course, as of lately, it appears that Ron Paul is supporting the enemy, giving them aid and comfort with his speeches against our commander in chief. Boosting the enemy morale and weakening ours.

Originally posted by purplemer

You cannot legally go to war with groups of people .... You go to war with nations.

When groups of people, and that group that had been inciting almost a quarter of mankind through the misuse of religion, had declared war on mankind, and had already started war with the murder of thousands innocents for decades, you don't sit around and wait for the axe to fall on you next.

Which part of that, do you not understand?

reply to post by SeekerofTruth101


Look up the real defintion of Jihad, it is not violent. I don't believe he was accused of killing anybody. Even if he did confess he did not confess to a jury or judge in some kind of trial, that is a violation of 5th amendment rights.

reply to post by SeekerofTruth101

When groups of people, and that group that had been inciting almost a quarter of mankind through the misuse of religion, had declared war on mankind, and had already started war with the murder of thousands innocents for decades, you don't sit around and wait for the axe to fall on you next. Which part of that, do you not understand?

ok for the last time I will spell it out for you...! The Geneva convention does not apply to terrorists. By continuing to defend the fact that you think it does you are nullifying your argument and clearly showing you do not have a clue what you are talking about..
If you are not happy with these definitions go to a court of law and have them changed... In this instance your opinion counts for nothing and the facts remain the facts...


please find attached a quote.. If there is anything in it you do not understand please feel free to get back to me.....

The Geneva Convention (s) is a negotiated agreement between signer nations who have voluntarily agreed to abide by and therefore be protected by the terms of this agreement. Voluntary signer nations should expect to benefit from these protections, so long as they abide by these protections themselves. Non-signer nations have NOT agreed to abide by these terms and are therefore, not protected by these terms. It is that simple.

jb-williams.com...

reply to post by MrRamblinRose


By then you'll probably have to just to dodge a draft with the way Santorum, Obama, Perry, and Cain go on about "business".

Originally posted by purplemer
The Geneva Convention (s) is a negotiated agreement between signer nations who have voluntarily agreed to abide by and therefore be protected by the terms of this agreement. Voluntary signer nations should expect to benefit from these protections, so long as they abide by these protections themselves. Non-signer nations have NOT agreed to abide by these terms and are therefore, not protected by these terms. It is that simple.

Thanks for putting up that qoute. At least something BY you that had confused you.

"Non-signer nations have NOT agreed to abide by these terms and are therefore, not protected by these terms."

Simple. It only means that nations that had not abide by those terms governing the conventions of laws, WILL NOT BE PROTECTED by such laws.

Here nations can mean anything, as it DOES NOT specify in ANY WAY that only nations can declare war.

Terrorist sympathizer, may you be glad that US and other free nations STILL treats those terrorist under the geneva convention. If they were caught, they were still according constitutional and geneva rights - incacerating them in jails, being fed, etc. Combatants killed in action unfortunately will not be alive to be given such treatment.

THus it behooves all Jihadist to unconditionally surrender, give up their murdering sprees, and subject themselves to the rules of law today.

Comprehende?

reply to post by SeekerofTruth101

Terrorist sympathizer, may you be glad that US and other free nations STILL treats those terrorist under the geneva convention. If they were caught, they were still according constitutional and geneva rights - incacerating them in jails, being fed, etc. Combatants killed in action unfortunately will not be alive to be given such treatment.

yes ofc they were granted constitutional rights... tell that to the boys that were tortured at gitmo.... poor show bud...:

Originally posted by MrRamblinRose

Look up the real defintion of Jihad, it is not violent. I don't believe he was accused of killing anybody. Even if he did confess he did not confess to a jury or judge in some kind of trial, that is a violation of 5th amendment rights.

Sigh...the things I have to put up with for the sake of discussion so that none be left behind. I cannot possibly answer to all, nor have the time to do so, but for you, I will spare the patience.

So how do you intend to prosecute and conduct the war on Terrorism? Shall I:-

1. As a concern citizen, shocked by the deaths of innocent committed by Al Queda and other Jihadist whom had claim responsibility to such acts -

a.) file a charge in the State court against them and INVITE them to court to proof their innocence by testifying IN PERSON? And if they do not turn up on the appointed date,

b.) issue a warrant of arrest for them, using NYPD if on american soil, and through diplomatic channels such as N.Korea's intelligence services to apprehend them if they are in N.Korea?

c.) And while all these are going on, for the authorities will have to spend much time to track them down, years even, sit down and disregard the further murders of innocents around the world by these avowed jihadists hell bent on further mureders whenever an opportunity comes up, and claim it as 'due process', chastise and raise hell if anyone else stops these combatants cold if they encounter these jihadists to prevent further murder first?

Is this how YOU INTEND to prosecute terrorist and Jihadist, Declarations and acts of war on mankind? If so, Heaven help us....

ron paul, a better man than your candidate! amazing a candidate that states what he believes not what market research tells him to say.

He's good, exceptionally good.

He's even earned her respect by the end of the clip.

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

I voted Libertarian. I did NOT vote for Obama, the murderer.

Originally posted by HauntWok
Here's some insight on this. Perhaps Ron Paul is suffering from Alzheimer's disease.

(CNSNews.com) -- President Barack Obama declared that America is at war with al Qaeda on Thursday at the White House, as he presented measures the United States must take to prevent another terrorist attack similar to the one that nearly succeeded on board a Christmas Day flight from Amsterdam to Detroit.

“We are at war, we are at war against al Qaeda,” Obama said, a departure from the administration’s move in 2009 to discontinue the phrase “Global War on Terrorism” from U.S. policy.

The president continued saying that “al Qaeda leadership has hunkered down,” and that the United States has “disrupted plots at home and abroad.”

source: www.cnsnews.com...

We are and have been at war with Al Qaeda and it's operatives for a long time now. It's leaders whether they are American Citizens or not are under a "kill or capture" policy by this administration. I doubt that capture was a reasonable option in Yemen for Anwar Awlaki, and so he was killed.

Seriously, you should probably go back to primary school. You can't wage wars against arbitrary factions. A war is a country vs. a country, and there was no formal declaration at all. He made it up, fool. The US has only formally waged war 5 times, ever. I'M CANADIAN AND I KNOW THIS:

The War of 1812 - ..1812
Mexican-American War - 1846
Spanish-American War - 1898
WWI - 1917
WWII - 1941

Holy crap, you are beyond the definition of ignorant.

Course, as of lately, it appears that Ron Paul is supporting the enemy, giving them aid and comfort with his speeches against our commander in chief. Boosting the enemy morale and weakening ours.

YOU are the enemy, to foreign nations, to the entire globe, YOU are the terrorist, YOU! Bred purely out of complete ignorance.

Unbelievable.

reply to post by Partisanity


Actually you can fight against an enemy. Al Qaeda is an enemy. They are a terrorist organisation. Sure the concept Al Qaeda stands for is something that we can't fight with arms, but have to use diplomacy and try and convince the people that killing themselves for 72 virgins is a lame way to go. But the damn people in Al Qaeda sure can be fought against.

What is this bull # that you can't fight an enemy you have to fight a country? What is this some Eddie Izzardesque rule you just made up?

There are actually people out there that want to blow the hell out of the US and it's people. This guy was one of their recruiters. We took him out and I say good show for it.

Ron Paul is in the wrong on this one.

reply to post by mike_trivisonno


I do understand and agree with what you are saying for the most part. All the PC will be the death America as we know it. It is what it is and the truth should never be denied/suppressed just because some people's feelings may be hurt by it.

However, the issue is that this guy was an American citizen and was never brought to trial. He was designated a terrorist without due process and assassinated. So we end up in a situation where the government just decides who the bad guys are without having to prove a thing. The founding father were against exactly this sort of thing.

Originally posted by infiniteobserver
reply to post by mike_trivisonno

 

However, the issue is that this guy was an American citizen and was never brought to trial. He was designated a terrorist without due process and assassinated. So we end up in a situation where the government just decides who the bad guys are without having to prove a thing. The founding father were against exactly this sort of thing.

The founding fathers sure certainly didn't made a mistake with the labelling of Benedict Arnord of what he truly was, I remind you, and so did every father, mother, son and daughter of today after the carnage of 911 and other horrors done to fellow humans by beastly traitorous americans alongside international bloodlusting fanatics whom assisted in the slaughter of innocents in the name of Jihad.

The only difference between then and now is that today, there are far better and effective means to bring military justice to existing combatant traitors than yesterday.

Originally posted by Ittabena
reply to post by Blaine91555

 

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.

Actually it's about the Constitution. You guys have been trying to derail this thread all day. Sorry, we will not let you do it. If you want to talk about jihadist derpa derpa, start your own thread. this one is about Ron Paul's remarks and the fact that the Constitution was not followed by someone who taught Constitutional law, the President of the United States, who, coincidentally swore an oath to uphold it. Guess he blew that one huh?

My post was on topic in this discussion. If you want to only talk with people who agree with you, why pick ATS? The idea here is to debate subjects and discuss them while learning from each other. You think this is how you turn people to your side?

I respect your opinion, please respect mine.

I have nothing against Paul. I researched him and read all I can find he has to say. Some I like, some I don't like.

I stand by what I said about him needing to clean up his message. Getting his message across is not one of this mans skills. We've all been watching him for years.

Paul believes Terrorists are real and yet I see many of his supporters do not? How can people who do not support him I wonder? Seems to me that people are inventing what Paul believes in their heads to match their ideologies.

reply to post by SeekerofTruth101

So how do you intend to prosecute and conduct the war on Terrorism?

You control both sides...

OMG, what did I say???

Yea that's right... Don't think the CIA bred Al-Qaeda in the late '70's? Then must go do research, that's another thread entirely...

Originally posted by HauntWok
reply to post by Partisanity

 

Actually you can fight against an enemy. Al Qaeda is an enemy. They are a terrorist organisation. Sure the concept Al Qaeda stands for is something that we can't fight with arms, but have to use diplomacy and try and convince the people that killing themselves for 72 virgins is a lame way to go. But the damn people in Al Qaeda sure can be fought against.

What is this bull # that you can't fight an enemy you have to fight a country? What is this some Eddie Izzardesque rule you just made up?

There are actually people out there that want to blow the hell out of the US and it's people. This guy was one of their recruiters. We took him out and I say good show for it.

Ron Paul is in the wrong on this one.

Originally posted by rstregooski

Is this all you can contribute towards a discussion? If so, may I introduce any further post or lack of cranal matter from you to the rant section?

Cheers.