ron pauls' come-back to Rudy

This isn't true, I asked you to provide me with something two days ago and you've yet to do it.

Ron Pauls says American forgiven policy, specifically bombing a middle eastern country for 10 years, was the main contributing factor to the resentment which caused 911.

The air strikes on Iraq during that period were always in response to Saddam testing the boundaries of the treaty he signed to end the first Gulf War, each time a Bomb was dropped or a plane was shot down it was because Saddam had forced our hand b not respecting the peace treaty.

To blame that on us would mean you have to blame us for the first gulf war, basic cause and effect logic dictates this, so then it must be provable that we forced Saddam to invade Kuwait.

I'll ask again, can either you or Paul show me anything that would suggest this? Paul's chosen starting point for analyzing American foreign policy is convenient to his point and unrealistic.

Your argument is like trying to convince an American about it. It does not matter if we were right or wrong in Kuwait, they, the enemies of America do not care that Saddam signed a treaty, or if our reaction was for a good cause. Just because we may have been in the right, and had our asses covered with a document, does not mean that those that hate us are just going to let it go.

"While I was looking at these destroyed towers in Lebanon, it sparked in my mind that the tyrant should be punished with the same and that we should destroy towers in America, so that it tastes what we taste and would be deterred from killing our children and women,"

"God knows that it had not occurred to our mind to attack the towers, but after our patience ran out and we saw the injustice and inflexibility of the American-Israeli alliance toward our people in Palestine and Lebanon, this came to my mind

When you can communicate past a fourth grade level, I'll answer.

He is so insignificant the GOP is trying to prevent him from appearing in future debates. They are scared because the "wingnut" is garnering a LOT of the publics support. People are sick of neocons and their lies. Rep. Paul speaks the truth, and that's not good for the current goonies in power. If he was so insignificant, why would they want to ban him from future debate, surely if they are so right, and he is sooo wrong, having him display his wrongness for all the country to see would only be beneficial to them.



Speaking about the Bush administration.

Your argument is like trying to convince an American about it. It does not matter if we were right or wrong in Kuwait, they, the enemies of America do not care that Saddam signed a treaty, or if our reaction was for a good cause. Just because we may have been in the right, and had our asses covered with a document, does not mean that those that hate us are just going to let it go.

so we should play by the rules of radical Islamic militants then? Your playing relativity games with right and wrong. I say is radical Islam is wrong (and they are), then they should resent us for putting them down.

So, if they did not attack America because of our meddling in the middle east, then why? If it wasn't because of the campaigns we have been waging there, than what? Did they draw Americas name out of a hat?

While you think about what excuse to come up with, let me give you some parting words from the man responsible....

"We fought you because we are free ... and want to regain freedom for our nation. As you undermine our security we undermine yours," bin Laden said.

He said he was first inspired to attack the United States by the 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon in which towers and buildings in Beirut were destroyed in the siege of the capital.




Bin Laden's campaign stems from the 1990 decision by Saudi Arabia to allow U.S. troops into the kingdom after the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait -- a military presence that has become permanent.

In a 1997 CNN interview, bin Laden called the U.S. military presence an "occupation of the land of the holy places."

So, if they did not attack America because of our meddling in the middle east, then why?

If it wasn't because of the campaigns we have been waging there, than what?

While you think about what excuse to come up with, let me give you some parting words from the man responsible....

"We fought you because we are free ... and want to regain freedom for our nation. As you undermine our security we undermine yours," bin Laden said.

He said he was first inspired to attack the United States by the 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon in which towers and buildings in Beirut were destroyed in the siege of the capital.

Bin Laden's campaign stems from the 1990 decision by Saudi Arabia to allow U.S. troops into the kingdom after the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait -- a military presence that has become permanent.

In a 1997 CNN interview, bin Laden called the U.S. military presence an "occupation of the land of the holy places."

So, if they did not attack America because of our meddling in the middle east, then why? If it wasn't because of the campaigns we have been waging there, than what?

Do you always argue in circles? First you accuse Bush of invading Iraq for him and his cronys. We prove you wrong with a signed treaty from the first gulf war and all of the sudden now it doesn't matter? How come it mattered when you first mentioned it and now it don't? So you admit we were and are now in the right? Given this logic, i can understand why you won't answer my other questions?

Drnaline, you are dumb as a box of rocks. First, you didn't prove anything. Saddam signing a treaty doesn't mean ****, or have ANYTHING to do wtih what we are talking about, since he didn't control terrorism. Second, of course your tiny intellect breaks out the "ask a muslim extremist" and "you sound like a muslim extremist sympathizer" when you have nothing left. And some of the parts you quoted, were copy paste of Bin Ladens words, and commentary about them, which of course prove that the idea of 911 came about before Kuwait. Now call me some more names and make yourself feel better.

Drnaline, you are dumb as a box of rocks. First, you didn't prove anything. Saddam signing a treaty doesn't mean ****, or have ANYTHING to do wtih what we are talking about, since he didn't control terrorism.

Second, of course your tiny intellect breaks out the "ask a muslim extremist" and "you sound like a muslim extremist sympathizer" when you have nothing left.

And some of the parts you quoted, were copy paste of Bin Ladens words, and commentary about them which of course prove that the idea of 911 came about before

Now call me some more names and make yourself feel better

Salaries For Suicide Bombers - CBS News You were saying?

Why are you asking us? Ask an extreme muslim why they did it, IMO being a sympathizer it shouldn't be hard for you to find one?

If you think that's all i got, boy are you in for it.

Commentary from whom? Commentary makes it opinion, not fact! You keep confusing the two.

And proving an idea does not make that idea fact.

Please quote what you think i called you? Name calling is not allowed? Not sure about the "Drnaline, you are dumb as a box of rocks." as far as calling names, i'm pretty sure it's considered a personal attack.
I have yet to hear a word out of such a box much less filled with rocks?

Do you really think that Bin Laden and the others would not want to wage jihad on us if we were never in the Middle East?

Not totally true. Madrid bombings, sure the Spanish were in Ieaq at the time, but the terrorists were North African, they are hardy involved in Iraqi politics and war.

Istanbul bombings, secular Muslim majority state, not really that much intervention, 6 Jews killed.

The Netherlands, Muslim extremist shoots director critical Islam, openly on the street, in a country that would probably welcome radical Muslims with flowers and ask where they can fin a Koran and convert if hard-pressed.

India, non-interventionist country of infidels, bombed.

Lol at rummsfeld, sure, that's a reliabe source, of course Saddam did, rummy said so hahahahahahahaha.



There you go again. I have done more for this country than you ever will.



Oh, are you going to call me a sympathizer some more, /shivers oooo please no, lol. Haha, threatening to to flame someone on an internet board haha could you be more childish?



Sorry, an interview with Bin Laden, better now?



LOLFUKINGLOL!!!!!!!! I was right, you are retarded.




A sympathizer. All you wannabe neocons are all a like, truth scares you, because your ignorant ways may be shattered. sniffle sniffle.

Lol at rummsfeld, sure, that's a reliabe source, of course Saddam did, rummy said so hahahahahahahaha.

There you go again. I have done more for this country than you ever will.

LOLFUKINGLOL!!!!!!!! I was right, you are retarded.