FoxNews says Ron Paul is a 911 Conspiracy Believer

[BoomerD]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Noobtastic
So if you expand on this fact, you can say the United States is indirectly paying for resources that kill Western soldiers and allies *cough* Iraq *cough*.

Of course. Every time you fill your car up at the gas pump...

This really has nothing to do with Bush, as Clinton and the guys before him all slept with Saudi Arabia.

Precisely.

Yeah, but how many before GWB were photographed Kissing the Saudi Prince?

The Bushies have been in bed with the Saudi's for a LONG time...this is nothing new...


I do agree that the US is providing $$$ for the terrorists with every gallon of imported oil be buy...Unfortunately, we're not serious about finding options for that oil in this country...yet.
Allowing the Afghani's to grow opium poppies to turn into heroin is also providing much needed funding for the Taliban and Al Queda...

 

[NaughtyGeek]

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: NaughtyGeek
The first one here that tells me about Völkischer Beobachter wins a cookie.


Understand, if all of us have seen this and just accept it, to hell with Ron Paul or any other candidate. If you accept your major media outlets reporting OUTRIGHT LIES you are inviting some troubling elements into your lives. Simple misquotes and failed fact checks happen, but everyone here regardless of political affiliation or beliefs can see NEWS being reported that is patently and knowingly false.

Völkischer Beobachter

I can't in good conscience give you the whole cookie. You linked the info which is great, but with no comment on the subject it just seems hollow somehow.

 

[NoStateofMind]

Originally posted by: NaughtyGeek

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: NaughtyGeek
The first one here that tells me about Völkischer Beobachter wins a cookie.


Understand, if all of us have seen this and just accept it, to hell with Ron Paul or any other candidate. If you accept your major media outlets reporting OUTRIGHT LIES you are inviting some troubling elements into your lives. Simple misquotes and failed fact checks happen, but everyone here regardless of political affiliation or beliefs can see NEWS being reported that is patently and knowingly false.

Völkischer Beobachter

I can't in good conscience give you the whole cookie. You linked the info which is great, but with no comment on the subject it just seems hollow somehow.

This way people learn for themselves without my point of view. BUT I WANTED MY COOKIE! 🙁

 

[NaughtyGeek]

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: NaughtyGeek

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: NaughtyGeek
The first one here that tells me about Völkischer Beobachter wins a cookie.


Understand, if all of us have seen this and just accept it, to hell with Ron Paul or any other candidate. If you accept your major media outlets reporting OUTRIGHT LIES you are inviting some troubling elements into your lives. Simple misquotes and failed fact checks happen, but everyone here regardless of political affiliation or beliefs can see NEWS being reported that is patently and knowingly false.

Völkischer Beobachter

I can't in good conscience give you the whole cookie. You linked the info which is great, but with no comment on the subject it just seems hollow somehow.

This way people learn for themselves without my point of view. BUT I WANTED MY COOKIE! 🙁

OK, here's your cookie. 😉 After reviewing your comments, I think you had the right idea.

 

[compuwiz1]

Damn, this family is dysfunctional. Do any of us ever think of going on a TV reality series? I'm sure we could surpass the Osbournes in ratings. 😛

 

[NaughtyGeek]

Originally posted by: compuwiz1
Damn, this family is dysfunctional. Do any of us ever think of going on a TV reality series? I'm sure we could surpass the Osbournes in ratings. 😛

+1

 

[Noobtastic]

Originally posted by: NaughtyGeek

Originally posted by: compuwiz1
Damn, this family is dysfunctional. Do any of us ever think of going on a TV reality series? I'm sure we could surpass the Osbournes in ratings. 😛

+1

Rottentomatoes?

 

[Jaskalas]

So the contention here is that while he blames us for the attacks, he is not a ?truther?. Then Fox News painted him as one.

There is nothing to defend here, it is a blatant mistake on their part. Yet is it just a mistake, or an outright lie? What was said was pretty damning and direct, yet false.

 

[LTC8K6]

Ron Paul believes there is a conspiracy to conceal the truth about 9/11:

"Reason: What did you mean when you told the Scholars that "the [9/11] investigation is an investigation in which there were government cover-ups"?

Paul: I do think there were cover-ups, and I think it was mainly to cover up who was blamed, who's inept. See, they had the information. The FBI had an agent who was very much aware of the terrorists getting flight lessons but obviously not training to be pilots. He reported it 70 times or whatever and it was totally ignored. We were spending $40 billion a year on intelligence. It wasn't a lack of money or a lack of intelligence, it was a lack of the ability to put the intelligence together. Even the administration had been forewarned that something was coming, the CIA had been forewarned. So it was a cover up of who to blame. I see it more that way.

Reason: The position of the Student Scholars is that 9/11 was executed by the U.S. government. Do you agree or disagree with that?

Paul: I'd say there's no evidence of that."

 

[NaughtyGeek]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas
So the contention here is that while he blames us for the attacks, he is not a ?truther?. Then Fox News painted him as one.

There is nothing to defend here, it is a blatant mistake on their part. Yet is it just a mistake, or an outright lie? What was said was pretty damning and direct, yet false.

I guess if there is a debate here, you've pointed it out. Are we as a people going to accept that this was just a mistake or a misunderstanding?

I for one do not believe for a second that this was not a direct attack on the credibility of a candidate who the network doesn't support. Dr. Paul does not support "conspiracy theories" surrounding 9/11. He has adamantly stated that he does not support the groups who harbor those ideas. However, it is presented to the viewership(word?) of their network that he is a kook who associates himself with this "crazy" group. What purpose does this serve that is not negative? Are they really painting this picture because it's in your best interests? YOU have to ask YOURSELF these questions and make up YOUR mind for YOURSELF! Never oh never relieve yourself of the right/responsibility to ask questions.

 

[IGBT]

Originally posted by: bamacre
How can you deny the fact that we have military on land in which they perceive to be holy, and that this angers those people.

It is our foreign policy that angers these people, and it plays a very significant role in their reasons for attacking us. This is not opinion, Pabster, this is fact. The CIA says this, and they use the term blowback. Look it up. Read the 911 Commission Report.

Remove the merit from their reasons, get our military off their lands.

If we don't change this policy we'll end up in a never-ending circle-jerk of war, just like Israel and the Palestinians, where one side says "we attack you because you occupy our lands," and the other side says, "we occupy your lands because you attack us."

We don't want that. We don't need to be on and occupy their lands. So we need to bring those troops home, take the merit out of their reasons. Significantly lower their recruitment. We need to do this, and we need to do it before it is too late. It is not only the safer thing to do, it is the cheaper thing to do, and it is the right thing to do.

..they'll construct any reason they need to maintain their anger. If you play the appeasement game with them you'll end up standing in the corner naked. And they'll still be angry.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: IGBT

Originally posted by: bamacre
How can you deny the fact that we have military on land in which they perceive to be holy, and that this angers those people.

It is our foreign policy that angers these people, and it plays a very significant role in their reasons for attacking us. This is not opinion, Pabster, this is fact. The CIA says this, and they use the term blowback. Look it up. Read the 911 Commission Report.

Remove the merit from their reasons, get our military off their lands.

If we don't change this policy we'll end up in a never-ending circle-jerk of war, just like Israel and the Palestinians, where one side says "we attack you because you occupy our lands," and the other side says, "we occupy your lands because you attack us."

We don't want that. We don't need to be on and occupy their lands. So we need to bring those troops home, take the merit out of their reasons. Significantly lower their recruitment. We need to do this, and we need to do it before it is too late. It is not only the safer thing to do, it is the cheaper thing to do, and it is the right thing to do.

..they'll construct any reason they need to maintain their anger. If you play the appeasement game with them you'll end up standing in the corner naked. And they'll still be angry.

But you cannot prove this, nor have any moral authority, until you remove the merit from their reasons for attacking us.

We were on Muslim lands before they ever attacked us. So, we hit first. That doesn't mean we are the bad guy, but we need to change policy, and we need to be off their lands. Once that is done, we can go after any remnants with force, and have the moral authority to do so.

 

[IGBT]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: IGBT

Originally posted by: bamacre
How can you deny the fact that we have military on land in which they perceive to be holy, and that this angers those people.

It is our foreign policy that angers these people, and it plays a very significant role in their reasons for attacking us. This is not opinion, Pabster, this is fact. The CIA says this, and they use the term blowback. Look it up. Read the 911 Commission Report.

Remove the merit from their reasons, get our military off their lands.

If we don't change this policy we'll end up in a never-ending circle-jerk of war, just like Israel and the Palestinians, where one side says "we attack you because you occupy our lands," and the other side says, "we occupy your lands because you attack us."

We don't want that. We don't need to be on and occupy their lands. So we need to bring those troops home, take the merit out of their reasons. Significantly lower their recruitment. We need to do this, and we need to do it before it is too late. It is not only the safer thing to do, it is the cheaper thing to do, and it is the right thing to do.

..they'll construct any reason they need to maintain their anger. If you play the appeasement game with them you'll end up standing in the corner naked. And they'll still be angry.

But you cannot prove this, nor have any moral authority, until you remove the merit from their reasons for attacking us.

We were on Muslim lands before they ever attacked us. So, we hit first. That doesn't mean we are the bad guy, but we need to change policy, and we need to be off their lands. Once that is done, we can go after any remnants with force, and have the moral authority to do so.

..there or not we'd still be the rotten egg from their point of view. appeasement is like drugs. enough is never enough.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: IGBT

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: IGBT

Originally posted by: bamacre
How can you deny the fact that we have military on land in which they perceive to be holy, and that this angers those people.

It is our foreign policy that angers these people, and it plays a very significant role in their reasons for attacking us. This is not opinion, Pabster, this is fact. The CIA says this, and they use the term blowback. Look it up. Read the 911 Commission Report.

Remove the merit from their reasons, get our military off their lands.

If we don't change this policy we'll end up in a never-ending circle-jerk of war, just like Israel and the Palestinians, where one side says "we attack you because you occupy our lands," and the other side says, "we occupy your lands because you attack us."

We don't want that. We don't need to be on and occupy their lands. So we need to bring those troops home, take the merit out of their reasons. Significantly lower their recruitment. We need to do this, and we need to do it before it is too late. It is not only the safer thing to do, it is the cheaper thing to do, and it is the right thing to do.

..they'll construct any reason they need to maintain their anger. If you play the appeasement game with them you'll end up standing in the corner naked. And they'll still be angry.

But you cannot prove this, nor have any moral authority, until you remove the merit from their reasons for attacking us.

We were on Muslim lands before they ever attacked us. So, we hit first. That doesn't mean we are the bad guy, but we need to change policy, and we need to be off their lands. Once that is done, we can go after any remnants with force, and have the moral authority to do so.

..there or not we'd still be the rotten egg from their point of view. appeasement is like drugs. enough is never enough.

Appeasement can only begin when we are not doing anything wrong.

 

[Noobtastic]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: IGBT

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: IGBT

Originally posted by: bamacre
How can you deny the fact that we have military on land in which they perceive to be holy, and that this angers those people.

It is our foreign policy that angers these people, and it plays a very significant role in their reasons for attacking us. This is not opinion, Pabster, this is fact. The CIA says this, and they use the term blowback. Look it up. Read the 911 Commission Report.

Remove the merit from their reasons, get our military off their lands.

If we don't change this policy we'll end up in a never-ending circle-jerk of war, just like Israel and the Palestinians, where one side says "we attack you because you occupy our lands," and the other side says, "we occupy your lands because you attack us."

We don't want that. We don't need to be on and occupy their lands. So we need to bring those troops home, take the merit out of their reasons. Significantly lower their recruitment. We need to do this, and we need to do it before it is too late. It is not only the safer thing to do, it is the cheaper thing to do, and it is the right thing to do.

..they'll construct any reason they need to maintain their anger. If you play the appeasement game with them you'll end up standing in the corner naked. And they'll still be angry.

But you cannot prove this, nor have any moral authority, until you remove the merit from their reasons for attacking us.

We were on Muslim lands before they ever attacked us. So, we hit first. That doesn't mean we are the bad guy, but we need to change policy, and we need to be off their lands. Once that is done, we can go after any remnants with force, and have the moral authority to do so.

..there or not we'd still be the rotten egg from their point of view. appeasement is like drugs. enough is never enough.

Appeasement can only begin when we are not doing anything wrong.

Semantics, and this is stupid.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Noobtastic
Semantics, and this is stupid.

No, its not.

If we continue this failed foreign policy, it is inevitable that we end up in a circle jerk of war. Like I said, where one side says "we attack you because you occupy our lands," and the other side says, "we occupy your lands because you attack us."

Now you may think that they would continue attacking us if we left their lands. That is your opinion. Because we have had a base in Saudi Arabia, and have been meddling in ME affairs way before we were ever attacked.

So, we have two choices. Continue what we are doing, and face an inevitable circle-jerk of war. Or, we leave the ME alone, bring all of our troops home, and have an actual chance of preventing further attacks on our soil.

Option #1 carries a lot of risk, and has no good outcome. Option #2 carries no risk and has a lot of possible good results.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: bamacre
Or, we leave the ME alone, bring all of our troops home, and have an actual chance of preventing further attacks on our soil.

Ah, the famous "Just leave and they'll leave us alone!" naivety.

I'm completely dumbfounded as to how any sane individual could believe such utter nonsense. These fanatics don't give two shits that we're "on their land". Here, There, and Everywhere, Islamofascism is out to destroy the West and anyone -- and everyone -- who voices support for them.

I still believe it is far better to fight them in the sand than on the streets of the USA; And while there is no question that our presence in some of these lands has actually increased recruitment of terrorists, the idea that none will exist and the world will become peaceful overnight as we surrender and leave is simply preposterous.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: bamacre
Or, we leave the ME alone, bring all of our troops home, and have an actual chance of preventing further attacks on our soil.

Ah, the famous "Just leave and they'll leave us alone!" naivety.

No, its not.

If we continue this failed foreign policy, it is inevitable that we end up in a circle jerk of war. Like I said, where one side says "we attack you because you occupy our lands," and the other side says, "we occupy your lands because you attack us."

Now you may think that they would continue attacking us if we left their lands. That is your opinion. Because we have had a base in Saudi Arabia, and have been meddling in ME affairs way before we were ever attacked.

So, we have two choices. Continue what we are doing, and face an inevitable circle-jerk of war. Or, we leave the ME alone, bring all of our troops home, and have an actual chance of preventing further attacks on our soil.

Option #1 carries a lot of risk, and has no good outcome. Option #2 carries no risk and has a lot of possible good results.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: LTC8K6
Ron Paul believes there is a conspiracy to conceal the truth about 9/11:

"Reason: What did you mean when you told the Scholars that "the [9/11] investigation is an investigation in which there were government cover-ups"?

Paul: I do think there were cover-ups, and I think it was mainly to cover up who was blamed, who's inept. See, they had the information. The FBI had an agent who was very much aware of the terrorists getting flight lessons but obviously not training to be pilots. He reported it 70 times or whatever and it was totally ignored. We were spending $40 billion a year on intelligence. It wasn't a lack of money or a lack of intelligence, it was a lack of the ability to put the intelligence together. Even the administration had been forewarned that something was coming, the CIA had been forewarned. So it was a cover up of who to blame. I see it more that way.

Reason: The position of the Student Scholars is that 9/11 was executed by the U.S. government. Do you agree or disagree with that?

Paul: I'd say there's no evidence of that."

This seems like a very reasonable (and likely) position to me, and nothing resembling the so-called "Truthers."

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: bamacre
Or, we leave the ME alone, bring all of our troops home, and have an actual chance of preventing further attacks on our soil.

Ah, the famous "Just leave and they'll leave us alone!" naivety.

I'm completely dumbfounded as to how any sane individual could believe such utter nonsense. These fanatics don't give two shits that we're "on their land". Here, There, and Everywhere, Islamofascism is out to destroy the West and anyone -- and everyone -- who voices support for them.

I still believe it is far better to fight them in the sand than on the streets of the USA; And while there is no question that our presence in some of these lands has actually increased recruitment of terrorists, the idea that none will exist and the world will become peaceful overnight as we surrender and leave is simply preposterous.

No, its not.

If we continue this failed foreign policy, it is inevitable that we end up in a circle jerk of war. Like I said, where one side says "we attack you because you occupy our lands," and the other side says, "we occupy your lands because you attack us."

Now you may think that they would continue attacking us if we left their lands. That is your opinion. Because we have had a base in Saudi Arabia, and have been meddling in ME affairs way before we were ever attacked.

So, we have two choices. Continue what we are doing, and face an inevitable circle-jerk of war. Or, we leave the ME alone, bring all of our troops home, and have an actual chance of preventing further attacks on our soil.

Option #1 carries a lot of risk, and has no good outcome. Option #2 carries no risk and has a lot of possible good results.

You realize that you're arguing with someone who actually said "islamofacism" and actually believes that there really truly is such a thing, right?

 

[Noobtastic]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: bamacre
Or, we leave the ME alone, bring all of our troops home, and have an actual chance of preventing further attacks on our soil.

Ah, the famous "Just leave and they'll leave us alone!" naivety.

I'm completely dumbfounded as to how any sane individual could believe such utter nonsense. These fanatics don't give two shits that we're "on their land". Here, There, and Everywhere, Islamofascism is out to destroy the West and anyone -- and everyone -- who voices support for them.

I still believe it is far better to fight them in the sand than on the streets of the USA; And while there is no question that our presence in some of these lands has actually increased recruitment of terrorists, the idea that none will exist and the world will become peaceful overnight as we surrender and leave is simply preposterous.

No, its not.

If we continue this failed foreign policy, it is inevitable that we end up in a circle jerk of war. Like I said, where one side says "we attack you because you occupy our lands," and the other side says, "we occupy your lands because you attack us."

Now you may think that they would continue attacking us if we left their lands. That is your opinion. Because we have had a base in Saudi Arabia, and have been meddling in ME affairs way before we were ever attacked.

So, we have two choices. Continue what we are doing, and face an inevitable circle-jerk of war. Or, we leave the ME alone, bring all of our troops home, and have an actual chance of preventing further attacks on our soil.

Option #1 carries a lot of risk, and has no good outcome. Option #2 carries no risk and has a lot of possible good results.

You realize that you're arguing with someone who actually said "islamofacism" and actually believes that there really truly is such a thing, right?

Stupid.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Vic
You realize that you're arguing with someone who actually said "islamofacism" and actually believes that there really truly is such a thing, right?

Yeah. I guess when I see the word, "pabster," I should probably just click the back button.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Vic
You realize that you're arguing with someone who actually said "islamofacism" and actually believes that there really truly is such a thing, right?

Yeah. I guess when I see the word, "pabster," I should probably just click the back button.

Thats what I do when I see the word bamacre...

 

[Noobtastic]

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Vic
You realize that you're arguing with someone who actually said "islamofacism" and actually believes that there really truly is such a thing, right?

Yeah. I guess when I see the word, "pabster," I should probably just click the back button.

Thats what I do when I see the word bamacre...

 

[First]

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Vic
You realize that you're arguing with someone who actually said "islamofacism" and actually believes that there really truly is such a thing, right?

Yeah. I guess when I see the word, "pabster," I should probably just click the back button.

Thats what I do when I see the word bamacre...

Yet you don't click the back button when entering a Ron Paul thread, despite your consistent contention that you don't care about him and can't remember his name. You'd be funny if you weren't so sad.