Here we have Paul comparing Israel to Hezzballah http://towelianism.wordpress.com/2007/11/19/muslims-discover-ron-paul/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ron Paul stood up in Congress in 2006 and opposed a resolution that sided with Israel in the Lebanon-Israel conflict. He stated the following.
Ron Paul: “Mr. Speaker, I follow a policy in foreign affairs called non-interventionism. I do not believe we are making the United States more secure when we involve ourselves in conflicts overseas. The Constitution really doesn’t authorize us to be the policemen of the world, much less to favor one side over another in foreign conflicts. It is very clear, reading this resolution objectively, that all the terrorists are on one side and all the victims and the innocents are on the other side. I find this unfair, particularly considering the significantly higher number of civilian casualties among Lebanese civilians. I would rather advocate neutrality rather than picking sides, which is what this resolution does
The way I read it, it sounds like he was debating over calling one side bad and one side good, that he doesn't favor either side. It doesn't sound like he's comparing Israel to hezballah at all.
You know something, Cohen ?
This exchange between Mord and yourself has convinced me that you're truly a moron.
The piece of excrement Paul that you continually defend --in this thread and others-- clearly demonstrates that he thinks there are 'terrorists' on both sides of the Israel/Hezbollah war. In other words, he's calling the IAF and IDF terrorists.
And what is Paul's reason for doing so ? Because there are "more civilian casualties among Lebanese civilians". That's quite a yardstick to use in determining that the Israeli Defense Forces are terrorists. Absolutely un-freaking-believable.
Read the beginning of this crucial sentence again...."It is very clear, reading this resolution objectively, that all the terrorists are on one side"....so Paul can't support the resolution because it's not objective. In other words, Paul's objective opinion is that there are terrorists on 'both sides'.
So you're defending a piece of excrement that thinks Israel committed terrorism during the war.
Paul's going to be 'neutral' on the issue. The scumbag can't side with Israel, because maintaining neutrality precludes him from taking sides-- even when one side is clearly right and the other side is a bunch of freaking genocidal moooozie thugs !! He would prefer to be neutral rather than picking sides. What leadership ! What a fooking tool !!
You want a person like this occupying the most powerful office on the planet ?
You're either an idiot, or a scumbag like Paul, that can't differentiate between good and evil, or terrorists and an army defending a nation from mooozie nazi swine.
Now, I don't want to call you a scumbag (that strong of an insult might be a violation of forum rules), so I'll have to settle for calling you a boneheaded moron that makes me want to puke.
Yes that's right, i'm the moron, lets start insulting people because we all know how mature that is in a debate. Isn't that what the liberals do when they lose a debate is scream "RACIST!" "WARMONGERER!" when they can't face the facts? It's all emotion.
You need to look at the bigger picture, you are critical of me because I support Ron Paul, yet Ron Paul apparently is a Nazi because he somehow has Nazis and Muslims supporting him. You don't think Muslims and Nazis vote in this country? Who do you think they supported before? Lesser of two evils? I don't support all of Ron Paul's policies, I support his policies for the fact that he is following the constitution regardless if you want to believe it or not. Have you ever read the constitution or the bill of rights? As I listed in my first post, you can twist Ron Paul however you want.
Meanwhile, this is what I have observed on my time on JTF.
Most of the members are against foreign aid to Israel because the money has strings attached to it.
Ron Paul is against foreign aid not only to Israel but to other middle eastern countries as well. Suddenly he's an anti-semite because Nazis and Muslims support ending foreign aid as well, duh. What do you expect? Any time you have a candidate that wants to end foreign aid to Israel, this is going to appeal to Israel haters as well.
Yet we are supposed to endorse Rudy Giuliani who supports foreign aid to Israel and will force Israel to continue to dismantle settlements after he said he supported the "peace in the middle east process" right that makes sense.
Ron Paul is against the Iraq war and intervention.
Nazis and Muslims support this because they claim "hey it's the Zionists who started this war for oil", ok we've heard it all, they are twisting this for their own agenda.
JTF, most of them feel the Iraq war is wrong, don't they? They feel it's a disaster. Many of our members here are supporters of the constitution aren't they? The constitution talks about intervention and how we shouldn't involve ourselves in the affairs of other nations. You are taking Ron Pauls quote out of context, his meaning of us being attacked on 9/11 has absolutely nothing to do with blaming America but rather giving the terrorists and excuse to attack us. He's never said 9/11 was a inside job, he's never said that Zionists did it. Where are you getting this idea because 9/11 truthers talk about him and support him? Again they are using him for their own agenda.
Gun Control
Gee seeing as most of us are pro constitution here, the constitution is strict about what it says
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Guess what? Ron Paul is against Gun Control, guess what, Nazis support Ron Paul because of that, they claim that current republicans are infringing on their rights. Both Republicans and Democrats are supporters of some sort of control and this is a problem, this is against the constitution.
Know what i've observed? Most Nazis are hypocrites. They say they support the constitution but they really don't, they think the founding fathers wrote the constitution only for whites living in America and that blacks were only 2/3 a person (which is true at that time), courts passed that blacks are considered "people" therefore they have the right to bear arms. Go ahead on StørmFrønt and ask Nazis if they support Jews right to bear arms and they will give you a flat out "
NO"
What have I observed on this forum? Some of the members here feel only Jews should have guns on a few of my threads or that we should disarm Muslims, Mexicans, anyone not white, the mentally ill (yes lets disarm all our veterans with PTSD), etc. Unfortunately some of the members here actually WANT the Government to have control of what guns people should be allowed to have yet at the same time throughout history, governments have disarmed us Jews. StørmFrønt supports disarming other people, now some of the members here support gun control and a candidate who HAS A LONG HISTORY of disarming people in new york city? *cough* Giuliani *cough* sorry i'm not falling for that.
Now in reference to this quote.
Mr. Speaker, I follow a policy in foreign affairs called non-interventionism. I do not believe we are making the United States more secure when we involve ourselves in conflicts overseas. The Constitution really doesn’t authorize us to be the policemen of the world, much less to favor one side over another in foreign conflicts. It is very clear, reading this resolution objectively, that all the terrorists are on one side and all the victims and the innocents are on the other side. I find this unfair, particularly considering the significantly higher number of civilian casualties among Lebanese civilians. I would rather advocate neutrality rather than picking sides, which is what this resolution does
If you bothered to post the full script, it doesn't sound like he is calling the Israelis terrorists at all, he is referring to the bill H.RES.921
"Condemning the recent attacks against the State of Israel, holding terrorists and their state-sponsors accountable for such attacks, supporting Israel's right to defend itself, and for other purposes. "
Reading the full article, it appears that he is referring to the bill stating that it clearly mentions that the terrorists are all on one side and victims and innocents are on the other. In specific, the way I interpret it is that not all the targets bombed in Lebanon were terrorists and that he opposes the way Israel handled the war. If you go on to read the rest of the article, you can see how he blames American intervention in fueling the war to begin with.
Before the U.S. House of Representatives, July 20, 2006
I rise in opposition to this resolution, which I sincerely believe will do more harm than good.
I do agree with the resolution's condemnation of violence. But I am convinced that when we get involved in foreign conflicts and send strong messages, such as this resolution will, it ends up expanding the war rather than diminishing the conflict, and that ultimately comes back to haunt us.
Mr. Speaker, I follow a policy in foreign affairs called non-interventionism. I do not believe we are making the United States more secure when we involve ourselves in conflicts overseas. The Constitution really doesn't authorize us to be the policemen of the world, much less to favor one side over another in foreign conflicts. It is very clear, reading this resolution objectively, that all the terrorists are on one side and all the victims and the innocents are on the other side. I find this unfair, particularly considering the significantly higher number of civilian casualties among Lebanese civilians. I would rather advocate neutrality rather than picking sides, which is what this resolution does.
Some would say that there is no room to talk about neutrality, as if neutrality were a crime. I would suggest there should be room for an open mind to consider another type of policy that may save American lives.
I was in Congress in the early 1980s when the US Marines were sent in to Lebanon, and I came to the Floor before they went, when they went, and before they were killed, arguing my case against getting involved in that conflict.
Ronald Reagan, when he sent the troops in, said he would never turn tail and run. Then, after the Marines were killed, he had a reassessment of the policy. When he wrote his autobiography a few years later after leaving the Presidency, he wrote this.
Perhaps we didn't appreciate fully enough the depth of the hatred and the complexity of the problems that made the Middle East such a jungle. Perhaps the idea of a suicide car bomber committing mass murder to gain instant entry to Paradise was so foreign to our own values and consciousness that it did not create in us the concern for the marines' safety that it should have.
In the weeks immediately after the bombing, I believe the last thing that we should do was turn tail and leave. Yet the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics forced us to rethink our policy there. If there would be some rethinking of policy before our men die, we would be a lot better off. If that policy had changed towards more of a neutral position and neutrality, those 241 marines would be alive today.
It is very easy to criticize the Government of Lebanon for not doing more about Hezbollah. I object to terrorism committed by Hezbollah because I am a strong opponent to all violence on all sides. But I also object to the unreasonable accusations that the Government of Lebanon has not done enough, when we realize that Israel occupied southern Lebanon for 18 years and was not able to neutralize Hezbollah.
Mr. Speaker, There is nothing wrong with considering the fact that we don't have to be involved in every single fight. That was the conclusion that Ronald Reagan came to, and he was not an enemy of Israel. He was a friend of Israel. But he concluded that that is a mess over there. Let me just repeat those words that he used. He said, he came to the conclusion, "The irrationality of Middle Eastern politics forced us to rethink our policy there.'' I believe these words are probably more valid now even than when they were written.
July 21, 2006
Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress from Texas.
If you bothered to read my post about the JPFO (Jews For The Preservation Of Firearm Ownership) where Aaron Zelman bashed the ADL about writing anti-semites support Ron Paul, he mentions that the Neo Nazis who support Ron Paul are hypocrites because Ron Paul supports freedom for everyone, the Nazis only support freedom for themselves. Muslims are also hypocrites for voting for him considering that they are supporters of the Quran. The only reason Neo Nazis and Muslims are supporting him are for specific issues. Muslims and Nazis see his stance on being against the war in Iraq, Iran, and foreign aid to Israel as beneficial to them. You guys don't see it that way, but if you look at his issues, he is more in touch with the issues we have going on in this country than we may think.
I don't agree with Ron Paul 100 percent, theres a lot I don't agree with him on, but I find him a better choice than any democrat or republican in this debate.
