Tea Party Debate audience boos al-Qaeda facts

[Sir Bandelot]

There are plenty of people in Afghanistan who hold absolutely no malice towards us, and don't deserve to be killed. So for them, live and let live. Wouldn't you agree, Bob?

[MiddleClassCentrist]

Not necessarily.

Of course, questioning studies is what you do best. How about showing me some information showing otherwise

[Shady]

I couldn't believe my ears

I know! You're not the only one that repeats Al Qaeda propaganda!

[Bob]

There are plenty of people in Afghanistan who hold absolutely no malice towards us, and don't deserve to be killed. So for them, live and let live. Wouldn't you agree, Bob?

Absolutely, but their negligence over controlling their own territory resulted in their country being used as a base of operations for terrorists, including the perpetrators of 9/11. So, at this point, they're involved - whether they like it or not. The difficulty is in differentiating the difference between the "good" ones and the "bad ones". And the Islamist filth do everything they can to obfuscate these differences, effectively taking advantage of absurd leftist politics. The enemies of the West know that the West, as it is today, doesn't have the will to utterly destroy her enemies.

When the day comes that rats like Osama bin laden and his supporters know that real shock and awe will be delivered if they ever cross us, then terrorism will largely be defeated. The we'll see a real live and let live world.

[bloodyminded]

To me, the life of one Canadian soldier is worth more than the lives of everyone in Afghanistan. Now you know my point of departure when engaging in this subject matter.

I was already aware of this perverse view.

What about the other aspect of my response...where I bitch-slapped your preposterous idea that America (and, I assume, by extension Canada, the UK, France, et al) share zero responsibility for the horrible state of affairs that have occurred in many other countries?

I'm surprised anyone can actually believe such a thing.

Edited September 15, 2011 by bloodyminded

[bloodyminded]

I wouldn't be too enthused. Ron Paul talks a good talk, but remember, it's easier to criticize and speak truth to power than it is when you actually are IN power. I think Obama found that one out pretty quick. Judging by the way the grey hair's coming in, the role of commander in chief removes all of ones illusions and takes its toll.

But still, we need people to criticize. Only saying, that's their role. If by some freak of nature Paul acquired supreme executive power, times would be interesting yes, but only for a short while.

I agree completely.

And this interesting cross-grain of support for Paul--from sectors of the Right and the Left--shouldn't obscure the fact (to his Leftist supporters) that Paul is not speaking from the usual left-progressive views on international relations, but rather from a conservative non-interventionist stance.

That doesn't mean one shouldn't support him, if that's what one wants to do; but they should be aware that it's an alliance of convenient convergence, not one of actual values and beliefs.

[jacee]

I do not wish any harm on the people of Afghanistan,

Stop trying to change these animals by building them schools

You disgust me Bob.

Does Israel know that you represent it in this offensive manner? You do nothing to improve Israel's fast declining reputation.

Edited September 15, 2011 by jacee

[wyly]

I agree completely.

And this interesting cross-grain of support for Paul--from sectors of the Right and the Left--shouldn't obscure the fact (to his Leftist supporters) that Paul is not speaking from the usual left-progressive views on international relations, but rather from a conservative non-interventionist stance.

That doesn't mean one shouldn't support him, if that's what one wants to do; but they should be aware that it's an alliance of convenient convergence, not one of actual values and beliefs.

it still works for me whatever his motive...if his national policies screw up the US internally is far less of a concern to me than his international agenda...and his international policies if followed will reduce the US debt considerably which also effects us...it's a win-win situation from my viewpoint, easing of world tension by withdrawing US military involvement everywhere, and easing out of the recession by getting the american debt under control...

[bloodyminded]

it still works for me whatever his motive...if his national policies screw up the US internally is far less of a concern to me than his international agenda...and his international policies if followed will reduce the US debt considerably which also effects us...it's a win-win situation from my viewpoint, easing of world tension by withdrawing US military involvement everywhere, and easing out of the recession by getting the american debt under control...

Sure, and I wasn't trying to disparage the "strategic support" notion, or to imply that one must always vote for someone holding all the proper ideals for all the "correct" reasons.

That would give us all some difficulty in finding politicians to support, wouldn't it?

[Guest American Woman]

Excuse me madame, but there is a WORLD of difference between not giving a damn about Afghanistan and its people (and I certainly don't give a damn about them), and wishing harm upon them. The terrorists went to, and continue to go to, great lengths to murder as many people as possible. I do not wish any harm on the people of Afghanistan, so why are you comparing my sentiment to those of the terrorist filth?

What I wish is for the West to secure its military objectives and stop obsessing over the "civilians" of another nation while increasing the risk to our soldiers an the completion of the mission. All America and her allies need to do is destroy the enemy's ability to wage war. If the people get out of line in the future, then go back and "mow the lawn", so to speak. Stop trying to change these animals by building them schools and sending in "consultants" to teach them how to be democratic and pluralistic. If they wish to be barbarians, let them be barbarians. And if their barbarism again spills out of their neighbourhood and threatens us - go in again and trim the hedges.

I understand the desire to fight by "the rules", but it is clear to me that America is going way too far in order to build up Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as giving billions of dollars to hostile governments that rule of hostile populations (cases in point - Pakistan and Egypt, primarily). I stand by my original assertion - America and the West seem to have lost the ability to actually be aggressive enough and win.

I do not wish any harm on the people of Afghanistan, so why are you comparing my sentiment to those of the terrorist filth?

I would say your post speaks for itself. Seems to me you have as little value for the lives of Afghan civilians as al Qaeda et al has for the lives of U.S./western civilians, only you're promoting the military doing the killing.

[Bob]

I was already aware of this perverse view.

What about the other aspect of my response...where I bitch-slapped your preposterous idea that America (and, I assume, by extension Canada, the UK, France, et al) share zero responsibility for the horrible state of affairs that have occurred in many other countries?

I'm surprised anyone can actually believe such a thing.

We live in an interconnected world, and this interconnectedness tends to grow as time moves forward and we improve our technologies. Just because the West has had various types of relationships with various governments/dictators/groups in the Middle East and other parts of the Muslim-majority world over time doesn't make us responsible for their diseased cultures. If anything, Western involvement in these areas has reduced the ill of that world. They are responsible for themselves. It is not our fault they engage in honour killings, are highly uneducated, live in closed and tyrannical societies, are deeply religious and intolerant of dissent, misogynistic, underdeveloped in every way, tribal and close-minded, and every other bad thing you can think of. You just reflexively defer back to your standard position - that these animals would've been some glorious and democratic and prosperous society without the evil of the West. Please.

The women wrap themselves up by their own volition. Families murder their females when they stray from the path laid out for them, not because Kissinger tells them to do so. They murder members of opposing sects (Shia vs. Sunni, as the most prominent example) because they've been doing so for centuries, long before "Western imperialism".

You act as if peace, freedom, democracy, and prosperity are the default state of affairs for all people until outside forces (again, the evil West) come in and mess everything up. In fact the opposite is true, where beautiful things such as peace, freedom, democracy, and prosperity are the exceptions to the norm.

Edited September 15, 2011 by Bob

[Bob]

I do not wish any harm on the people of Afghanistan, so why are you comparing my sentiment to those of the terrorist filth?

I would say your post speaks for itself. Seems to me you have as little value for the lives of Afghan civilians as al Qaeda et al has for the lives of U.S./western civilians, only you're promoting the military doing the killing.

I wish these things didn't have to be the way they are, but the world is the way it is, not the way I want it to be. America clearly has no choice other than to defend itself (although one could argue that America was late to the party, considering anti-Western Islamic terrorism certainly didn't start on 9/11).

The terrorists are worse than simply not valuing our lives, and I don't expect anyone to value my life except myself and those close to me. The terrorists take it a big step beyond that - wishing for and working aggressively towards destroying my life and the lives of those close to me. How can you not see the difference between me not caring about the people of Afghanistan (and I certainly don't give a damn about them), and the Islamists who actively work towards murdering us? Indifference is one thing, and malice/hatred is something entirely different. This isn't an issue of nuance, either, these are significant differences that you are obfuscating. You're literally trying to draw a parallel between my sentiments and those of Al-Qaeda. Give me a break.

I wish the people of Afghanistan could be left alone, but that's obviously not an option, is it? Their inability to manage their own territory to a minimum standard has forced the USA and its allies to move in. And I don't care what happens to them as a result of that. I won't shed a tear for any person from Afghanistan or Iraq or any other place like that.

[Black Dog]

I wish the people of Afghanistan could be left alone, but that's obviously not an option, is it? Their inability to manage their own territory to a minimum standard has forced the USA and its allies to move in. And I don't care what happens to them as a result of that. I won't shed a tear for any person from Afghanistan or Iraq or any other place like that.

At least you've started calling them people now. That's progress, of a sort, from your previous Der Sturmer-esque language.

[wyly]

At least you've started calling them people now. That's progress, of a sort, from your previous Der Sturmer-esque language.

ya but they're still filth in bob's world...ironic that was a common Nazi term for jews...

[Bob]

At least you've started calling them people now. That's progress, of a sort, from your previous Der Sturmer-esque language.

You're intentionally obfuscating differences between Islamist terrorists and "ordinary" folks. I can't be bothered to continually draw those distinctions in every single post I make on these issues. The filth are the Islamists who wish to expand their political Islam beyond the massive territories they already control. There shouldn't be anything controversial about calling these people rats.

[Black Dog]

You're intentionally obfuscating differences between Islamist terrorists and "ordinary" folks. I can't be bothered to continually draw those distinctions in every single post I make on these issues. The filth are the Islamists who wish to expand their political Islam beyond the massive territories they already control. There shouldn't be anything controversial about calling these people rats.

Whatever you say Herr Streicher.

[wyly]

You're intentionally obfuscating differences between Islamist terrorists and "ordinary" folks. I can't be bothered to continually draw those distinctions in every single post I make on these issues. The filth are the Islamists who wish to expand their political Islam beyond the massive territories they already control. There shouldn't be anything controversial about calling these people rats.

"judenrat" was the nazi term...I'm so glad you're here bob to demonstrate to Canadians the side of Israel the Palestinians see and what is hidden from n americans... Edited September 15, 2011 by wyly

[GostHacked]

You're intentionally obfuscating differences between Islamist terrorists and "ordinary" folks. I can't be bothered to continually draw those distinctions in every single post I make on these issues. The filth are the Islamists who wish to expand their political Islam beyond the massive territories they already control. There shouldn't be anything controversial about calling these people rats.

Good thing many of us here are making the distinction between regular Jews and... well .. yourself.

[Bob]

"judenrat" was the nazi term...I'm so glad you're here bob to demonstrate to Canadians the side of Israel the Palestinians see and what is hidden from n americans...

I'm also glad to be here to show an informed perspective otherwise unseen from most Westerners.

[Machjo]

One thing I do find quite ironic is how Ron Paul, the one who's most likely to cut the CIA's budget, is also the one heeding its recommendations and warnings the most, whereas those who booed him, who are most likely to ignore the CIA's warnings, are also the ones most likely to increases or at least maintain its funding. What's the point of funding an organization the opinions of which you'll ignore anyway?

Looking at it taht way, Ron Paul makes the most sense.

Worse yet, waht's the point of funding an organization that makes recommendations that offend you?

[maple_leafs182]

A video of Noam Chomsky responding to what Ron Paul said in the debates.

Chomsky starts speaking at 2:00, and if you are wondering, he agrees with Ron Paul.

[bush_cheney2004]

Chomsky starts speaking at 2:00, and if you are wondering, he agrees with Ron Paul.

Ergo...Ron Paul's presidential aspirations are doomed....again.

[Bob]

Ergo...Ron Paul's presidential aspirations are doomed....again.

Exactly.

[Sir Bandelot]

I kinda doubt he really has presidential aspirations. If he does, he'll never get anywhere with the party he's in. Or the other party for that matter. He's too radical a departure from the direction both parties are moving in, that is, militarization and corporatization. Amongst other izations.

Ron Paul is the fly in your cornflakes.

[bush_cheney2004]

...Ron Paul is the fly in your cornflakes.

Ron Paul is old news to me, but he is fresh and new to wannabes in Canada. Soon you too will find him to be soggy cornflakes.