Tag Archives: Al Qaeda

Muslims tortured, killed, dragged U.S. ambassador’s body through streets

WARNING: GRAPHIC IMAGES!

U.S. Ambassador to Libya Christopher Steven’s body being dragged through the streets of Benghazi by raging Muslims

Jim Holt writes for Gateway Pundit, Sept. 12, 2012, that last night, radical Islamists attacked the US Consulate in Benghazi with rocket propelled grenades and machine gun fire. They killed Ambassador Christopher Stevens, then dragged his body through the streets.


Al- Ahram

The U.S. Consulate in Benghasi was destroyed.

A man walks inside the U.S. consulate, which was attacked and set on fire by gunmen yesterday, in Benghazi September 12, 2012. Christopher Stevens, the U.S. ambassador to Libya, and three embassy staff were killed as they rushed away from the consulate building, stormed by al Qaeda-linked gunmen blaming America for a film that they said insulted the Prophet Mohammad. Stevens was trying to leave the consulate building for a safer location as part of an evacuation when gunmen launched an intense attack, apparently forcing security personnel to withdraw. (REUTERS/Esam Al-Fetori)

The same consulate was bombed this June, but the Obama Administration did nothing.

CBS News reports that Wanis al-Sharef, a Libyan Interior Ministry official in Benghazi, said Ambassador Stevens, 52, and other officials were moved to a second building – deemed safer – after the initial wave of protests at the Benghazi consulate compound. But members of the Libyan security team guarding the U.S. consulate “seem to have indicated to the protesters the building to which the American officials had been relocated.” The mob then attacked that second building, and killed Stevens and three other Americans.

Al-Sharef said two U.S. Marines sent to Benghazi when the clash erupted were shot and killed by the well-armed protesters. It was not immediately clear whether the Marines were part of Stevens’ security detail. The American whose death was confirmed on Tuesday also died of a gunshot wound. He was identified by the State Department on Wednesday as Foreign Service Information Management Officer Sean Smith.

Front Page Magazine reports Ambassador Stevens was tortured: “The latest reports say that he did not die of gunshot wounds, but of suffocation, that would mean that he was likely manually killed.”

~Eowyn

Please follow and like us:

Share and Enjoy !

0Shares
0 0
 

Pentagon has no records of Osama bin Laden's death

Obama touts the Navy SEALS’ raid and killing of Osama bin Laden in his hideaway compound in Abbotabad, Pakistan, as one of, if not the greatest, achievements of his administration. Reportedly, the administration even disclosed details of the raid to Hollywood for an upcoming movie, Zero Dark Thirty, directed by Kathryn Bigelow.
The movie is scheduled to be released — SURPRISE! — on October 12, 2012, within a month of the presidential election.
Joseph Straw reports for the N.Y. Daily News, Aug. 11, 2011, that the CIA defended its collaboration with the maker of Zero Dark Thirty. CIA spokesman Preston Golson said that such collaboration with filmmakers has precedent and is part of the CIA’s “public outreach.” Despite the CIA’s insistence, Congressman Peter King (R-Long Island), chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, has demanded that the Pentagon and CIA inspectors general investigate whether the agencies breached policy in this case, in particular whether the filmmakers saw classified material or got access to personnel working under cover.
Given that, it is  curious, to say the least, that, in response to a Freedom of Information Act request made by the Associated Press, the Pentagon says it has no records — not one photo, not one video, not even an e-mail — of bin Laden’s death.

Richard Lardner reports for the Minneapolis Star Tribune, March 15, 2012:

Government officials have openly discussed details of the mission [to kill Osama bin Laden] in speeches, interviews and television appearances, but the administration won’t disclose records that would confirm their narrative of that fateful night. The Associated Press asked for files about the raid in more than 20 separate [FOIA] requests, mostly submitted the day after bin Laden’s death.

The Pentagon told the AP this month it could not locate any photographs or video taken during the raid or showing bin Laden’s body. It also said it could not find any images of bin Laden’s body on the Navy aircraft carrier where the al-Qaida leader’s body was taken.

The Pentagon said it could not find any death certificate, autopsy report or results of DNA identification tests for bin Laden, or any pre-raid materials discussing how the government planned to dispose of bin Laden’s body if he were killed.

It said it searched files at the Pentagon, U.S. Special Operations Command in Tampa, Fla., and the Navy command in San Diego that controls the USS Carl Vinson, the aircraft carrier used in the mission.

The Defense Department told the AP in late February it could not find any emails about the bin Laden mission or his “Geronimo” code name that were sent or received in the year before the raid by William McRaven, the three-star admiral at the Joint Special Operations Command who organized and oversaw the mission. It also could not find any emails from other senior officers who would have been involved in the mission’s planning.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Note: WantToKnow team member Prof. David Ray Griffin, in his book Osama bin Laden: Dead or Alive?, lays out the extensive evidence that bin laden died in December 2001, and that since that time Pentagon psyops had been keeping him “alive” with fake videos and audiotapes to maintain a crucial pretext for the ever-expanding “war on terror.” Could it be that the Pentagon will produce no records of its purported “death raid” because in fact it will reveal major manipulations involving bin Laden’s death?

On August 6, 2011, three months after the supposed killing of bin Laden, 22 members of the exact same Navy SEALS Team 6 who had conducted the Abbotabad raid all died in a helicopter crash in Afghanistan.
Dead men don’t tell tales.
H/t beloved Joseph.

UPDATE (April 27, 2012):

The coverup continues. On April 26, 2012, claiming national-security risks, a federal judge, James E. Boasberg, denied a request by Judicial Watch to release photos and video taken of Osama bin Laden during and after a raid in which the terrorist leader supposedly was killed by U.S. commandos last year.
~Eowyn

Please follow and like us:

Share and Enjoy !

0Shares
0 0
 

About that Senate Bill Giving President Power to Arrest U.S. Citizens w/out Charge or Trial

UPDATE (12.14,2011): 
Our concerns about Sec. 1031 are ignored. The reconcile conference committee has produced a final version of NDAA, which Obama says he will not veto. US citizens are NOT exempted from being arrested and detained without charge or trial. See “U.S. Citizens Still Subject to Detention w/out Trial in Final Version of Defense Bill.”
See also, “There Really Are FEMA Camps.”
UPDATE (12.3.2011):
The Senate passed this bill on Dec. 1, 2011, by a 93 – 7 vote. To read about this, go here.
UPDATE (12.6.2011):
Sen. Dianne Feinstein confirms that S. 1867 indeed authorizes the President & military to detain U.S. citizens without trial.

~∞~

The Internet is ablaze today with alarming news that the Senate is set to vote on a bill that would define the whole of the United States as a “battlefield” and allow the U.S. Military to arrest American citizens in their own back yard without charge or trial.
Chris Anders of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office writes: “The Senate is going to vote on whether Congress will give this president—and every future president — the power to order the military to pick up and imprison without charge or trial civilians anywhere in the world. The power is so broad that even U.S. citizens could be swept up by the military and the military could be used far from any battlefield, even within the United States itself.”
(H/t beloved fellows Tina & Joseph)
The bill in question is S.1867: the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) reportedly supports the bill, saying that the legislation will “basically say in law for the first time that the homeland is part of the battlefield.”
It’s always better to go to the original primary source, instead of rely on a secondary source, such as the media’s report or someone else’s (e.g., the ACLU’s) interpretation.
So I scoured the net to look for the actual text (in PDF) of S. 1867. This is what I found:
The part of the S. 1867 that has the ACLU and others concerned are Sec. 1031-1033, under Subtitle D’s “Detainee Matters” — pages 359-371 in the PDF document:

SEC. 1031. AFFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES TO DETAIN COVERED PERSONS PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE.

(a) In General – Congress affirms that the authority of the President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons (as defined in subsection (b)) pending disposition under the law of war.
(b) Covered Persons – A covered person under this section is any person as follow:

(1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks.

(2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.

(c) Disposition Under Law of War – The disposition of a person under the law of war as described in subsection (a) may include the following:

(1) Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force.

(2) Trial under chapter 47A of title 10, United States Code (as amended by the Military Commissions Act of 2009 (title XVIII of Public Law 111-84)).

(3) Transfer for trial by an alternative court or competent tribunal having lawful jurisdiction.

(4) Transfer to the custody or control of the person’s country of origin, any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity.

(d) Construction- Nothing in this section is intended to limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force.

(e) Requirement for Briefings of Congress – The Secretary of Defense shall regularly brief Congress regarding the application of the authority described in this section, including the organizations, entities, and individuals considered to be ‘covered persons’ for purposes of subsection (b)(2).

SEC. 1032. REQUIREMENT FOR MILITARY CUSTODY.

(a) Custody Pending Disposition Under Law of War –

(1) IN GENERAL – Except as provided in paragraph (4), the Armed Forces of the United States shall hold a person described in paragraph (2) who is captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) in military custody pending disposition under the law of war.

(2) COVERED PERSONS – The requirement in paragraph (1) shall apply to any person whose detention is authorized under section 1031 who is determined–

(A) to be a member of, or part of, al-Qaeda or an associated force that acts in coordination with or pursuant to the direction of al-Qaeda; and

(B) to have participated in the course of planning or carrying out an attack or attempted attack against the United States or its coalition partners.

(3) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR – For purposes of this subsection, the disposition of a person under the law of war has the meaning given in section 1031(c), except that no transfer otherwise described in paragraph (4) of that seciton shall be made unless consistent with the requirements of section 1033.

(4) WAIVER FOR NATIONAL SECURITY – The Secretary of Defense may, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence, waive the requirement of paragraph (1) if the Secretary submits to Congress a certification in writing that such a waiver is in the national security of the United States.

(b) Applicability to United States Citizens and Lawful Resident Aliens –

(1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS – The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.

(2) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS – The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to a lawful resident alien of the United States on the basis of conduct taking place within the United States, except to the extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States.

~∞~

As you can see for yourself, the actual text of S. 1867, specifically Sections 1031, 1032, and 1033, is much more nuanced than what the ACLU claims.
The ACLU alleges that the bill will “allow the U.S. Military to arrest American citizens in their own back yard without charge or trial.”
But the actual language of S. 1867 doesn’t say that at all. Instead, the bill specifically excludes United States citizens from the bill. The power given by S. 1867 to the President is over “covered persons.” Those “covered persons” are defined as (1) individuals who had been involved in the 9-11 terrorist attacks against the United States; and (2) who are members or supporters of al-Qaeda and associated enemy forces who had undertaken belligerent acts against America.
We can debate about whether giving the President of the United States the authority to have our military go after those “covered persons”. We can also debate what the definitions and meanings of S. 1867’s language are. All I ask is that, in so doing, you refrain from being disagreeable while disagreeing.
UPDATE (Nov. 30, 2011): (h/t Tina)
An e-mail from Oath Keepers’ Stewart Rhodes delineates the leading supporters and opponents of this bill in Congress.
One one side are the bill’s authors Senators John McCain (R- Ariz.) and Carl Levin (D-Mich.), who insist that Sections 1031-1032 would strengthen and codify the legal framework necessary for dealing with “terrorists.” Other supporters maintain that the language doesn’t necessarily include American citizens.

On the other side are Congressman Justin Amash (R-Mich.) and Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.). Amash voted against the bill in the House, and believes that the bill would “permit the federal government to indefinitely detain American citizens on American soil, without charge or trial, at the discretion of the President.” Amash maintains that the language “does not preclude U.S. citizens from being detained indefinitely, without charge or trial, it simply makes such detention discretionary,” therefore it is misleading and outrageous. For his part, Sen. Paul has proffered an amendment that strikes out Section 1031 of the bill.

Oath Keepers and the John Birch Society urge us to support Paul’s amendment. Contact your reps. and senators!

See also “Is Senate Bill 1867 Even Legal?,” Dec. 2, 2011.

~Eowyn

Please follow and like us:

Share and Enjoy !

0Shares
0 0
 

Duct Tape Time: Al-Aqaeda Disputes Legality of US Killing al-Awlaki

Posted at 03:14 PM ET, 10/10/2011
By Jason Ukman
Umm , just wondering , but after Pearl Harbor and we started fighting back and killing people from Axis powers did we send out condolences to them. No because we were at war with them. Same thing here. I know I’ll get grief over the killing of an American. They up their Constitutional rights when they started trying to kill us.  ——————-  ~Steve~ ————————————
Al-Qaeda joins those questioning legality of U.S. killing of citizen Anwar al-Awlaki.

Guess you should have stayed here. Sucks for you.


(Associated Press via SITE Intelligence Group)
Al-Qaeda’s affiliate in Yemen has confirmed the deaths of American-born cleric Anwar al-Awlaki and Samir Khan, the young American propagandist killed alongside him in a U.S. drone strike late last month.
Al-Qaeda has also criticized the Obama administration for killing U.S. citizens, saying doing so “contradicts” American law.
“Where are what they keep talking about regarding freedom, justice, human rights and respect of freedoms?!” the statement says, according to a translation by SITE Intelligence Group, which monitors jihadist Web sites.
The Obama administration has spoken in broad terms about its authority to use military and paramilitary force against al-Qaeda and associated forces, and al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula would find itself hard-pressed to claim the moral high ground in the debate over the killing of Awlaki and Khan.
But the killing of two U.S. citizens has prompted outrage among civil liberties groups, as well as a debate in legal circles about the basis for the administration’s position.
The Washington Post’s Peter Finn reported after the strike that Awlaki’s killing had been authorized in a secret Justice Department memo, a revelation that later prompted senior Democratic senators and scholars to call for its release. Over the weekend, The New York Times quoted people who have read the document as saying that the memo found it would be lawful to kill the cleric only if it were not possible to take him alive. The memo, the Times said, was narrowly drawn to the specifics of Awlaki’s case.
Among those who have raised legal objections to the strike: Samir Khan’s family in Charlotte, N.C.
In a statement, the family said that, Khan was a “law-abiding citizen of the United States” and “was never implicated of any crime.”
“Was this style of execution the only solution?” the family said. “Why couldn’t there have been a capture and trial?”
Khan’s relatives also described themselves as “appalled by the indifference shown to us by our government,” saying they had not been contacted by a U.S. official.
After the release of the statement, the Charlotte Observer reported, an official from the State Department called the family last week to offer the government’s condolences.
“They were very apologetic [for not calling the family sooner] and offered condolences,” Jibril Hough, a family spokesman, told the Observer.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/checkpoint-washington/post/al-qaeda-joins-those-questioning-legality-of-awlaki-killing/2011/10/10/gIQAH7nZaL_blog.html

Please follow and like us:

Share and Enjoy !

0Shares
0 0
 

How do you say "Hubris"?

Let’s compare now boys and girls.
——————————————————–

George W. Bush speech after capture of Saddam Hussein:
The success of yesterday’s mission is a tribute to our men and women now serving in Iraq .
The operation was based on the superb work of intelligence analysts who found the dictator’s footprints in a vast country. The operation was carried out with skill and precision by
a brave fighting force. Our servicemen and women and our coalition allies have faced many dangers in the hunt for members of the fallen regime, and in their effort to bring hope and freedom to the Iraqi people. Their work continues, and so do the risks. Today, on behalf of the nation, I thank the members of our Armed Forces and I congratulate ‘them.
———————————————————————————————-
 

Barack Hussein Obama speech, Sunday, May 1, 2011:
And so shortly after taking office, I directed Leon Panetta, the director of the CIA, to make the
killing or capture of bin Laden the top priority of our war against al Qaeda, even as I continued our broader efforts to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat his network.
Then, last August, after years of painstaking work by my intelligence community, I was briefed on a possible lead to bin Laden. It was far from certain, and it took many months to run this thread to ground. I met repeatedly with my national security team as we developed more information about the possibility that we had located bin Laden hiding within a compound deep inside of Pakistan. And finally, last week, I determined that I had enough intelligence to take action, and authorized an operation to get Osama bin Laden and bring him to justice.
Today, at my direction, the United States launched a targeted operation against that compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan.
Hubris ( /’hjuːbr?s/), extreme haughtiness, pride or arrogance. Hubris often indicates a loss of contact with reality and an overestimation of one’s own competence or capabilities, especially when the person exhibiting it is in a position of power.
~Steve~                                               H/T  Q.V. Jean

Please follow and like us:

Share and Enjoy !

0Shares
0 0
 

Need another feel good story?

Going after the bad guys


US ‘drones’ kill 15 al Qaeda fighters in southern Yemen

The Long War Journal reports that an unmanned US Predator or Reaper strike aircraft killed 15 al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula fighters yesterday in an attack in a village outside the terrorist-controlled city of Zinjibar in southern Yemen.

The Predators, or “drones” as they are more commonly called, struck twice near Zinjibar, the provincial capital of Abyan after coordinating with the Yemeni government, a Yemeni military official told The Yemen Post. Yemen’s Interior Ministry has denied the strikes were carried out by US aircraft.
The strikes took place in the village of Al Khamila, about six miles outside of Zinjibar, according to a report in Reuters yesterday that stated the attack was carried out by the Yemeni Air Force.
The target of the strike is unclear, and no senior al-Qa’ida in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) leaders or operatives were reported killed. Fifteen “suspected al Qaeda fighters” were killed and 12 more were wounded.
Makes my day!
DCG
Please follow and like us:

Share and Enjoy !

0Shares
0 0
 

In Case Anyone Is Counting This Will Be The 6th War We Are Involved In. Hey , But Who’s Counting?

By Greg Jaffe and Karen DeYoung, Published: June 29

Reporting for the Washington Post National.

U.S. drone targets two leaders of Somali group allied with al-Qaeda, official says

A U.S. drone aircraft fired on two leaders of a militant Somali organization tied to al-Qaeda, apparently wounding them, a senior U.S. military official familiar with the operation said Wednesday.

The strike last week against senior members of al-Shabab comes amid growing concern within the U.S. government that some leaders of the Islamist group are collaborating more closely with al-Qaeda to strike targets beyond Somalia, the military official said.

The airstrike makes Somalia at least the sixth country where the United States is using drone aircraft to conduct lethal attacks, joining Afghanistan, Pakistan, Libya, Iraq and Yemen. And it comes as the CIA is expected to begin flying armed drones over Yemen in its hunt for al-Qaeda operatives.

For The rest of story Pls Go HERE

~Steve~

 

Please follow and like us:

Share and Enjoy !

0Shares
0 0
 

Another bad week for the “Religion of Peace”

This Just in From Tea Party Nation. Wake Up America!

~Steve~

Posted by Judson Phillips on June 24, 2011 at 7:54am in Tea Party Nation Forum

Perhaps this headline should be America gets lucky again. This week, we have had not one, but two terrorist incidents and guess what? The wannabe Jihadists are Muslims.

When is America going to pay attention?

In Seattle, two Muslims, Abu Khalid Abdul-Latif and Wahlli Mujahidh have been charged with Conspiracy to murder government employees and conspiracy to use a weapon of mass destruction.

The men wanted to attack an Army and Air Force base in the Seattle area. Fortunately the FBI got wind of their plans and intervened. According to the FBI, the men talked about the headlines that would result from “three Muslim males” walking into a building and murdering everyone.

Meanwhile, on the other side of the country, a Muslim Marine reservist is the main suspect in a series of shootings at military buildings in Northern Virginia and Washington DC.

Yonathan Melaku was born in Ethiopia, is a corporal in the Marine Corp reserve. He was discovered last Friday with suspicious materials and a notebook with phrases written down indicating support for Al-Qaeda and the Taliban.

Of course the drive by media is not paying much attention to this one. While CNN has stories on Casey Anthony’s trial and the Southwest pilot who decided to slur gays after leaving his microphone on by accident, not a word is to be found about these stories of these attacks being done by Muslims. Fox news has some coverage on the story. Of course the headlines do not mention these were Islamists. The only way you find out is a reference they make to three Muslim males killing people. Their headline on the Washington story refers to Melaku as a “reservist” who “self radicalized” on the Internet.

The FBI in Washington was asked about Melaku’s religious motivations. He made a video where he talked about shooting at the National Museum of the Marine Corps while shouting, “Allah Akbar,” and when asked about his religious motivations to commit these crimes, the FBI said, “”Those facts and individual characteristics of the defendant are not yet readily apparent to us.”

They are apparent to anyone with a brain. He is a radicalized Muslim. He did not do this because he is upset the NFL will not be playing this fall. He did not do this because he is upset Sarah Palin’s bus tour is on hold. He did not do this because Army beat Navy. He did it because he is a radicalized Muslim!

Ditto for the two clowns in Seattle.

The real question is when are we going to wake up and realize we have a problem? Not every Muslim may be our enemy but all of our enemies are Muslim.

Both the media and the government bend over backwards to avoid calling a Muslim terrorist a Muslim terrorist. You can never defeat an enemy if you cannot identify the enemy. Islam is our enemy. America may not want to make war in Islam, but Islam is making war on America. We have two choices. We can fight or we can submit.

I am an American. I choose to fight.

Please follow and like us:

Share and Enjoy !

0Shares
0 0
 

Pornography Found In Bin Laden Hideout.. hehehehe

 
Now Kiddies what has Momma told you about Porno. It will make you go blind.
And it seems the nice Men in The Seals/CIA have seen to it as they reportedly blew out his eye. Momma is always right.
Friday, 13 May 2011 04:25 PM
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – A stash of pornography was found in the hideout of Osama bin Laden by the U.S. commandos who killed him, current and former U.S. officials said Friday.
The pornography recovered in bin Laden’s compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan, consists of modern, electronically recorded video and is fairly extensive, according to the officials, who discussed the discovery with Reuters on condition of anonymity.
The officials said they were not yet sure precisely where in the compound the pornography was discovered or who had been viewing it. Specifically, the officials said they did not know if bin Laden himself had acquired or viewed the materials.
 For Rest Of Story Pls go Here
https://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/OsamaBinLaden-Pornography/2011/05/13/id/396308?s=al&promo_code=C43C-1
 ~Steve~

Please follow and like us:

Share and Enjoy !

0Shares
0 0
 

Ron Paul. He's Crossed Off My List. Sheesh What A Boob.

 
Did he really say that?
Posted by Judson Phillips on May 12, 2011 at 2:40pm in Tea Party Nation Forum
https://www.teapartynation.com/forum/topics/did-he-really-say-that
There are a couple of things you can say about Ron Paul. First, there is little middle ground with him. People either love him or hate him. Second, he is not shy about talking about what is on his mind.
Ron Paul earlier this week was talking about the Bin Laden operation and said, “I would suggest the way they got Khalid [Sheikh] Mohammed. We went and cooperated with Pakistan. They arrested him, actually, and turned him over to us, and he’s been in prison. Why can’t we work with the government?” He is of course, referring to the government of Pakistan.
Then, when asked by WHO radio if it was necessary Paul said, “I don’t think it was necessary, no. It absolutely was not necessary. I think respect for the rule of law and world law and international law. What if he’d been in a hotel in London? We wanted to keep it secret, so would we have sent the airplane, you know the helicopters in to London, because they were afraid the information would get out?”
If there is any doubt that Ron Paul should not even get near the Oval Office, even on a tour of the White House, he has just revealed it. Such insane comments now raise the issue if he should even be in the Congress.
Ron Paul supporters will always rush to his defense. They will point out some good things he has said and done, such as the demand to audit the Fed.
That is all well and good but his isolationism and naïveté are simply too much.
Perhaps Ron Paul should be reminded of a few things. Bin Laden was the mastermind behind 9/11. He is not a combatant in the sense of the law, where the law of warfare applies. He is a terrorist. The best legal analogy to a terrorist is the pirates of old. Under International Law, a country that catches a pirate is pretty much free to do anything to the pirate they want.
The same should be true for terrorists.
For Ron Paul, he should know much better. As a Congressman, he should have access to some classified information that we do not have. Every American who watches the news and can fog a mirror knows that the Pakistani Intelligence Service has been a silent partner with Al-Qaeda and the Taliban. If we had tipped Pakistan off that we were going to go in and try to “arrest” Bin Laden, when we got there, all we would have found would have been an empty house and maybe some booby traps.
For a Congressman to say the raid to kill the man who is one of the greatest mass murderers of Americans in history was, “not necessary,” is simply nuts.
Ron Paul thinks that if we simply pull all of our military out of every other country and hunker down behind our borders everything will be okay. No, it won’t be. We are dealing with madmen in this world. Some of them are bent on world domination by their particular religion and others are simply nuts. Ballistic Missile technology and nuclear weapons are spreading faster than anyone can control. Kim Jong “mentally” Il can push a button and thirty minutes later one of his missiles hits America.
We cannot have a leader who does not believe in protecting America. Socialists hate America and do not want to see America defend itself. What is Ron Paul’s excuse?
Yeah, he’s nuts too.      ~Steve~
https://www.teapartynation.com/forum/topics/did-he-really-say-that

Please follow and like us:

Share and Enjoy !

0Shares
0 0