Ron Paul calls binLaden raid "unnecessary"

[marshaul]

Well maybe you should have read Marshauls other post so you could have put the one quoted in context.



Of course you have me on ignore and will only read this if quoted.

Hey, thanks SVG. You beat me to my own defense!

It's good to have friends, even on the interwebz.

 

[marshaul]

Adams' quote provided did not speak to religion but the practitioners of Islam.

Jefferson did not say those words, he reported what was said to him. The response by the ambassador is how Islam is interpreted, practiced, and used to justify the actions of Islamic states, back then, not much has changed in the last couple of hundred years.

Sharia law is not liked even in Arab countries and must be maintained by brutal despotic regimes. It is not "liberalism" that prevails everywhere it is tried, but liberty.

Bottom line, 220 some odd years ago, Adams, Jefferson and the rest were only concerned about what Muslims did or would do. Not what or how they believed. You see, the US was sort of founded on that whole "religious freedom" thing, this seems to elude those who poo-poo religion and those who poo-poo those religious bitter clingers. The last thing Jefferson expected was that particular response. In other words, "dude, we didn't do jack to you, yet you are getting all up in our gril, what up with that?"

The fixation on the belief system of others and not the actions of the individual(s) makes for great Interwebs banter but don't do jack for the realities of the day. Spilled milk dude, spilled milk.

Dismiss Adams and Jefferson, if you choose but they knew 220 or so years ago what folks with common sense know today. Me, it's not even up for debate. Their words ring truer now than they did in 1787.

Just two questions, are you one of those "one man's terrorist, is another man's freedom fighter" types? Or are you one of those "white cowboy hat, black cowboy hat" types?

Me, when it comes to Islam, I'm with Mr. Adams, wearing my white cowboy hat.:arrow:

I believe that Muslims are little different from any other human being. They are subject, and respond accordingly, to incentives.

That religion colors their response, and informs their justifications, makes them hardly unique.

Adams himself deserves almost no credibility (answer that for yourself).

As for the statement of the Barbary ambassador, I believe I've explained my reaction to that in the last couple of pages.

It is, essentially, that Islam (like any religion) often makes a convenient justification for political aims, that the Quran doesn't actually support the ambassador's justification (but that would never matter, because religion is just a flimsy justification, not the truly motivating factor), and that, today, we play right into the hands of those who seek to use Quranic justifications for their political agendas.

I offer support for my contentions in the long post at the top of this page.

I like to think I am a white cowboy hat, although I own both colors.

 

[Gunslinger]

Hey, thanks SVG. You beat me to my own defense!

It's good to have friends, even on the interwebz.

You know, I used to think so, too.

 

[Metalhead47]

...stuff about Israel...

Don't have time for a proper retort... let me just crack the seal on Jumbo Can-O-Worms with this:

Israel's actions, while perhaps aggressive and heavy-handed at times, have been entirely defensive. Israel, as a people and nation-state, has a right to exist, and therefore, to defend its self. "Palestine" does NOT.

"Palestine" is a lie. It is a region, not a country or state, and never has been. "Palestinians" are just an offshoot of Arabs. They already have a homeland. It's called Arabia.

It's like a bunch of dudes from Boston suddenly decide to call themselves "New Englishmen," and demand their own nation-state of "New England" be carved out of say, Maine. Oh, and if they don't get their way, they're going to suicide bomb innocent civilians in Main and launch random rocket attacks from Canada.

It's easy to see who the real aggressor in the region is. If the "Palestinian" Arabs laid down their weapons, there would be no more violence. If the Jews laid down their weapons, there would be no more Israel.

 

[PrayingForWar]

I do not defend Adams. He is not here to defend himself. His words speak for themselves. The reality of his words is clearly evident. The motivation behind the action is irrelevant until the actions are put to an end. It does not matter why anyone is trying kill you it only matters that they are trying to kill you, the why can be discussed later, after the threat is eliminated.

I do not focus on the motivation because I can not affect the motivation. I can only prepare to affect the action. Too many folks focus on the why and not the where, when, and how. It does not matter who the threat is, anyone can be a threat....or not.

I recently saw a documentary, about radical islam. The guy responsible for it is a muslim himself. There have been a small handful of muslims who have come out in strong opposition to radicals, because they do not want to be percieved as complicit with barbaric sociopaths, nor do they wish to have their religion impugned. I wish there were more peopole like Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser.

The documentary is about an hour long. I would like to think it's more credible that something put out by Mikhail Moore. You might want to take the time to view it, and make up your own mind.

http://www.thethirdjihad.com/about_new.php

SNIP:

The film, which is narrated by devout Muslim American Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser, opens with the following statement: “This is not a film about Islam. It is about the threat of radical Islam. Only a small percentage of the world's 1.3 billion Muslims are radical. This film is about them.”

 

[PrayingForWar]

Don't have time for a proper retort... let me just crack the seal on Jumbo Can-O-Worms with this:

Israel's actions, while perhaps aggressive and heavy-handed at times, have been entirely defensive. Israel, as a people and nation-state, has a right to exist, and therefore, to defend its self. "Palestine" does NOT.

"Palestine" is a lie. It is a region, not a country or state, and never has been. "Palestinians" are just an offshoot of Arabs. They already have a homeland. It's called Arabia.

It's like a bunch of dudes from Boston suddenly decide to call themselves "New Englishmen," and demand their own nation-state of "New England" be carved out of say, Maine. Oh, and if they don't get their way, they're going to suicide bomb innocent civilians in Main and launch random rocket attacks from Canada.

It's easy to see who the real aggressor in the region is. If the "Palestinian" Arabs laid down their weapons, there would be no more violence. If the Jews laid down their weapons, there would be no more Israel.

I agree with every letter of this post.

Furthermore the city of Jerusalem was built by...

wait for it....

The Israelies. 1000's of years ago. It's changed hands several times over the course of those 1000's of years, and guess what? The Israelies own it again. As far as I'm concerned they have full rights to tear down every vestige of Christianity and islam if they like. Are there any churches in Mecca? Are there any Temples left in Mecca? No, and only muslims are even allowed in Mecca.

 

[marshaul]

There is so much selective history here, I don't know where to begin.

I think I'll just point out the following:

Furthermore the city of Jerusalem was built by...

wait for it....

The Israelies. 1000's of years ago. It's changed hands several times over the course of those 1000's of years, and guess what? The Israelies own it again. As far as I'm concerned they have full rights to tear down every vestige of Christianity and islam if they like. Are there any churches in Mecca? Are there any Temples left in Mecca? No, and only muslims are even allowed in Mecca.

Jerusalem was an established city as long ago as 4000 BCE. According to their own tradition (I'm reading the Old Testament), when the Israelis first took the city, it was by force. They sacked it, in fact, both according to my reading and wikipedia.

Why? Because Yahweh told them to. (This, by the way, is yet another example of political expediency masked by religious mandate.)

So, the Israelis are one of countless tribes to claim dominion over Jerusalem at one point or another. They are certainly not the first. According to Israeli tradition, their claim is unique because it is the will of Yahweh.

This justification is no different from that offered by the many Muslims criticized in this thread. What makes them special? What differentiates them from those whom they displaced, and those who came afterward (and whom the Israelis then displaced all over again)?

Can we all claim unlimited dominion over any place where our ancestors might have lived? Can I just go to Scotland and start kicking people off their land, claiming birth right because of ancient family history?

Throughout the entire 20th century, the Israelis have committed aggression from the start, claiming the mandate of God. Read all about it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel#Zionism_and_the_British_Mandate

Aspects of it, yes, could be defended as legitimate defense against peaceful habitation. But there's no doubt the modern start of Israel followed a conquest.

 

[PrayingForWar]

There is so much selective history here, I don't know where to begin.

I think I'll just point out the following:



Jerusalem was an established city as long ago as 4000 BCE. According to their own tradition (I'm reading the Old Testament), when the Israelis first took the city, it was by force. They sacked it, in fact, both according to my reading and wikipedia.

Why? Because Yahweh told them to. (This, by the way, is yet another example of political expediency masked by religious mandate.)

So, the Israelis are one of countless tribes to claim dominion over Jerusalem at one point or another. They are certainly not the first. According to Israeli tradition, their claim is unique because it is the will of Yahweh.

This justification is no different from that offered by the many Muslims criticized in this thread. What makes them special? What differentiates them from those whom they displaced, and those who came afterward (and whom the Israelis then displaced all over again)?

Can we all claim unlimited dominion over any place where our ancestors might have lived? Can I just go to Scotland and start kicking people off their land, claiming birth right because of ancient family history?

Throughout the entire 20th century, the Israelis have committed aggression from the start, claiming the mandate of God. Read all about it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel#Zionism_and_the_British_Mandate

Aspects of it, yes, could be defended as legitimate defense against peaceful habitation. But there's no doubt the modern start of Israel followed a conquest.

Ahhh... Touche...

Indeed you're right, and I believe it was the Canaanites that were wiped out in that region. However are there any people left on earth who represent themselves as decendants of that culture? No. The people contesting ownership of that region might even call themselves Ishmaelites, but all records that still exist from as far back as the Roman Empire clearly show the lands to be inhabited by people belonging to the tribes of Israel.

I'm no historian though, if you have more information I would certainly enjoy reading it. I didn't even look at your link, since I saw wikipedia. Anyone can post anything on it, and since I was't refuting your point I didn't find it neccessary.

Also I have too add, I don't give a damn who owned the land 3 generations ago. The territory was a colonial conquest, the borders were redrawn by the euroweenies after WW2 and the lost control of it. The Arabs got pist off and attempted to take it back. Not only did they fail miserably, TWICE they lost territory in those endeavors. The Israelis gave back territory IIRC after 67, but as far as I'm concerned they should not be compelled to make any further concessions since these conquest were made as the result of counter-offensive operations. The world should be backing Israel simply because of that, but also because the Israelis took barren useless land, and turned it into hospitable living space. The only area the palestinains haven't managed to destroy are the areas other arabs haven't allowed them to live in.

 

[Dreamer]

I have little tolerance for people who disparage those in the intelligence community, or those who promote class warfare propaganda.

They only call it "class warfare" when the lower classes fight back...

 

[Dreamer]

I'm no historian though...

Ah, and THAT is a statement that I can agree with 100%...

 

[Metalhead47]

PfW beat me to it...

Those displaced by the Isralites no longer exist, nor even any vestige of them. That makes Israel's claim to the land the oldest, and they have held it the longest, and have generally always been the majority people in the land. Israel as a nation would be among the oldest in the world right now if not for foreign conquest.

You (marshaul) say the modern state of Israel is the result of conquest, I see it more as liberation and restoration by international consensus. Whatever happened previously in the 20th, the modern state of Israel was created by international agreement (UN mandate), after the Jews, historically the most abused an oppressed people in history, were subject to a systematic genocide that is still unprecedented. Fortunately.

Israel would have been quite content with those original borders, except they were absolutely indefensible and all the enemies surrounding Israel quickly realized this. Israel's "aggression" since then has been to do what is necessary to secure its survival. She has already made concession after concession to the "Palestinians," but as they have stated themselves, the only thing that will satisfy them is the complete destruction of Israel.

If not for the support of Israel's "big brother" America (and I DO NOT mean that in the 1984 sense), promising swift and devastating retribution to any aggression beyond Israel's ability to handle, Israel would be destroyed within a matter of years. And they would take a heluvalotta Arabs with them.

 

[PrayingForWar]

Ah, and THAT is a statement that I can agree with 100%...

That's the difference between you and I. I have the humility to admit and understand that I do not know everything. You run around acting like you not only know everything, but that people who call you out for your ridiculously stupid posts are either disinformation agents or uneducated. Last I looked the "School of InfoWars" was highly discredited.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Jerusalem was a Hebrew city, original name Salem or Shalom, the Jebusites conquered and took it, it became Jebu-shalom or Jerusalem. Just something I found interesting in it's history.

 

[eye95]

The UN did not create the State of Israel. They merely partitioned land (that had no autonomous government) between the two distinct groups living there: Jews and Arabs (not Palestinians; Palestinians are a by-product of the partition they decry so much). IIRC, almost immediately after the partition, the Jews declared their state on their (meager, at the time) share of the land, and were promptly attacked by the Arabs--with the sole (and expressed) intent of destroying the foundling state.

Many Arabs chose to leave their lawfully owned lands within the area designated as the Jewish partition. Many stayed. They (the few still alive to this day) and their descendants still live in Israel as full citizens.

Frankly, every time the Arabs tried to destroy Israel, the Jewish state ironically gained territory in the resulting war. (You'd think the Arabs would learn.) The only time Israel has shrunk is when they have tried to exchange land for peace and security. There is still no peace and no security, the only upside to the land concessions being that Egypt is no longer in a state of war with Israel.

The borders are what they are as a direct result of Arabs trying to destroy Israel. The giving of any lands within the current borders should be at the sole discretion of Israel, and only given for consideration in return.

The Palestinians (as they have become to be known) are free to form a state on the lands they now possess and to include in that state any lands that Israel gives them for the promise of peace and security. Of course, that will not happen as long as a terrorist group is the chosen leadership group in the Palestinian area.

 

[eye95]

Nope, your assertion is perpetuation of a myth, on that our current Department of State unfortunately also chooses to repeat (Why?). Mine speaks of the truth of the matter. And truth should matter in rational debate.

If you must pick out one point in my post and dwell on it (incorrectly), I'll just move on.

However, the fact remains that the UN did not create the State of Israel. They merely partitioned the land between the peoples living there: Jews and Arabs. As states should be, the State of Israel was formed by the people of the territory.

What happened in those territories was the choice of the people in each. The Jews set about productively moving forward and formed a state. The Arabs threw a tantrum. It continues today. Which choice promoted the most peace, prosperity, Liberty, and rationality, for Arab and Jew alike, living in the same state?

 

[PrayingForWar]

Nope, your assertion is perpetuation of a myth, on that our current Department of State unfortunately also chooses to repeat (Why?). Mine speaks of the truth of the matter. And truth should matter in rational debate.

If you must pick out one point in my post and dwell on it (incorrectly), I'll just move on.

However, the fact remains that the UN did not create the State of Israel. They merely partitioned the land between the peoples living there: Jews and Arabs. As states should be, the State of Israel was formed by the people of the territory.

What happened in those territories was the choice of the people in each. The Jews set about productively moving forward and formed a state. The Arabs threw a tantrum. It continues today. Which choice promoted the most peace, prosperity, Liberty, and rationality, for Arab and Jew alike, living in the same state?

IIRC the jews actually had to fight against the Brits in order to claim independent statehood. Once the brits left the State of Israel was created. That would imply the UN interfered in it's creation, even if it had drawn the origional lines.

 

[DevinWKuska]

I will try to keep my response to the OP short and sweet. I think the raid was necessary my only complaint is why seal team 6 was used? Why does the navy who gets to sit on boats all the time get to take credit for killing for arguably the worst terrorist of our time? I think SF from the Army or Marine Corp. should have gotten the job. Obama... next time send the Marines... after all that is atleast the Men's Department of the Navy!!!

RE: Obama
Obama has made his mark in history. His health care reform didnt work out for him, so now he goes down in history as the President who killed the worlds #1 most wanted terrorist. Congrats to him!

 

[eye95]

Cite your source please. I only know what is available when conducting a basic search. I chose what I thought was a more credible source than most. I do not really dwell on how Israel came about, I choose to dwell on what it is today. Please move on.

A cursory search will reveal that the Jews proclaimed the State of Israel the day after the British Mandate ended. That is the origin of the current nation, not the UN partition, which only initially determined the territory that would belong to the Jewish residents of the territory. It did set a timeline for the creation of the two states, but created neither of them )as evidenced by the fact that the Arab state did not come into being until several decades later). The Jews followed their own timeline, took the action to create the state, and were recognized by a large number governments around the world, including the US, which gave their action legitimacy in the eyes of most of the world, including almost all of the free nations. Israel created Israel. The UN did not.

As you wish, though, I will move on from your little distraction.

 

[Metalhead47]

Conclusive evidence obl is dead!

THIS JUST IN!

There is now conclusive evidence Osama is dead.

This week he registered to vote in Chicago.