Ron Paul Actually, 9-11 Was "Violence" -- Not War

[red states rule]

As if we needed more proof showing Ron Paul is a total fool, he provides it, How anyone can vote for this idiot is beyond me


<IFRAME height=315 src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/QX7BOVk262Y" frameBorder=0 width=560 allowfullscreen></IFRAME>

[revelarts]

As if we needed more proof showing Ron Paul is a total fool, he provides it, How anyone can vote for this idiot is beyond me


<iframe src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/QX7BOVk262Y" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" width="560"></iframe>

He said it's and act of violence and a terrorist act.
Not sure what your going on about.

War |wôr|
noun
a state of armed conflict between different nations or states or different groups within a nation or state : Japan declared war on Germany | Iran and Iraq had been at war for six years.
• a particular armed conflict : after the war, they emigrated to America.
• a state of competition, conflict, or hostility between different people or groups : she was at war with her parents | a price war among discount retailers.
• a sustained effort to deal with or end a particular unpleasant or undesirable situation or condition : the authorities are waging war against all forms of smuggling | a war on drugs.


Ron Paul is right again, for those who take the time to hear what he's saying.

[fj1200]

He said it's and act of violence and a terrorist act.
Not sure what your going on about.

War
• a state of competition, conflict, or hostility between different people or groups


Ron Paul is right again, for those who take the time to hear what he's saying.

Come on rev. States are not equipped to handle/investigate/respond to terrorist acts that are planned and perpetrated by foreign individuals or groups. Paul said himself that protecting the borders is the responsibility of the Federal level and the terrorism we need to deal with today is foreign in nature.

[avatar4321]

This is precisely why I can't support him in the primary.

[ConHog]

I won't be voting for Paul, but this kinda complaint is just odd. Anyone can look at the definition of war and realize that we aren't really fighting a war. No nation has declared war on us, nor have we declared war on any nation.

However, it is also true that we have traditionally used the term war to mean any conflict our government finds itself in against any foe, be it drugs, terrorism, poverty, or what have you. So basically who cares..........

[CSM]

It's all Chinese philosophy. Terrorists that are state sponsored can and are used as a form of warfare though no formal declaration of war is issued. On the other hand; terrorist organizations which are NOT state sponsored are certainly perpetrating violence and probably have "declared war" in their own minds but just what nation does one "declare war" against in that case? Semantically, Ron Paul is correct I suppose.

[darin]

Either semantics matter or they don't. I think they don't. What he said doesn't bother me much.

[CSM]

Either semantics matter or they don't. I think they don't. What he said doesn't bother me much.

Agreed. It is my experience that getting blown up/shot/knifed is a pretty bad experience whether or not war has been declared!

[ConHog]

Agreed. It is my experience that getting blown up/shot/knifed is a pretty bad experience whether or not war has been declared!



Concur. Once again I will say this nation would be a LOT better off if people would stop crying about things that don't really matter. Who cares if he'd call it a lollipop as long as he would take the fight to them anywhere he found them?

[CSM]

Concur. Once again I will say this nation would be a LOT better off if people would stop crying about things that don't really matter. Who cares if he'd call it a lollipop as long as he would take the fight to them anywhere he found them?

The problem with semantics (particularly these days) is that so many words have been perverted from their original precise meaning that the understanding of those words is very very blurred. The word "hero" has been used to describe everything from a Medal of Honor recipient to the toddler smart enough to call 911 or sports figures who manage score well for the team. "War" is most certainly one of those words.

[ConHog]

The problem with semantics (particularly these days) is that so many words have been perverted from their original precise meaning that the understanding of those words is very very blurred. The word "hero" has been used to describe everything from a Medal of Honor recipient to the toddler smart enough to call 911 or sports figures who manage score well for the team. "War" is most certainly one of those words.

Absolutely, I shudder whenever someone calls a sports figure a hero. My grandfather was a hero for spending 4 years in the South Pacific Ocean. A guy who hits a lot of home runs? Not so much.

[Little-Acorn]

Anyone can look at the definition of war and realize that we aren't really fighting a war.

And we can't, we just can't, change the "definition of war" even when foreigner change their way of attacking our country.

Don't ask me why. But for some reason, we just can't.

[CSM]

And we can't, we just can't, change the "definition of war" even when foreigner change their way of attacking our country.

Don't ask me why. But for some reason, we just can't.

Lots of political ramifications there. Presidents actually having to get a declaration of "war" out of Congress before deploying/committing troops? How silly!!!

[revelarts]

Lots of political ramifications there. Presidents actually having to get a declaration of "war" out of Congress before deploying/committing troops? How silly!!!
exactly. when the DOD defines peaceful protest as "low level terrorism" and we decide that some actions are only torture if the other guy does it then we don't have any standards at all.
Clear definitions, concerning gov't roles, legal actions, and definitions of illegality have to be made and maintained if we really want "the rule of law".

[jimnyc]

Paul has a better chance of hitting the lottery twice in one day, without playing, than he does getting elected. This may have made for a good talking point, but the man who made the point is a kook with no chance.

[ConHog]

And we can't, we just can't, change the "definition of war" even when foreigner change their way of attacking our country.

Don't ask me why. But for some reason, we just can't.

Meh, I have no problem with people calling it war either. I just find it an odd thing to get upset about either way.

[red states rule]

exactly. when the DOD defines peaceful protest as "low level terrorism" and we decide that some actions are only torture if the other guy does it then we don't have any standards at all.
Clear definitions, concerning gov't roles, legal actions, and definitions of illegality have to be made and maintained if we really want "the rule of law".

What would you have done after 9/11 Rev? Given the bastards a stern warning not to do it again?

And if they did hit us again, I bet you would have actually raised your voice to them

Enjoy your fantasy about Ron Paul winning any primary and your dreams about him being President. It is stupid comments on 9/11 that sank any faint hopes he once had of being CIC