No, I mean Ron Paul the 12 term Texas Congressmen who has been the staunchest defender of the Constitution in Congress since Thomas Jefferson . . . . First of all, there is a huge difference between Isolationism and non-interventionism, and if you didn't believe everything your TV told you then you might know this. What Ron Paul stands for and what the Founding Fathers George Washington and Thomas Jefferson stood for is non-interventionism. It is a foriegn policy which includes diplomacy and free trade with other Nations. It also includes avoiding all wars not related to direct self-defense. That means no Nation building, no policing the world, and no preemptive attacks or invations of other Nations based on what some boogeyman might hypothetically do.
Originally Posted by Texaspride74
Regarding the Founding Fathers:
May 28, 1754, Lt Col George Washington personally led the pre-emptive attack against the French, the Jumonville affair, that directly precipitated the French and Indian War: AKA the Sevens Year War in Europe.
General Andrew Jackson, with President James Monroe’s – Monroe was a Founding Father – acquiescence,
invaded Spanish Florida in 1818.
Thomas Jefferson’s Louisiana Purchase and the Lewis and Clark expedition define Jefferson’s position on “Manifest Destiny” and it’s inherent interventionism with serious overtones of expansionism.
The War of 1812 reflects President James Madison's (another Founding Father) feelings about how U.S. prerogatives and interests should be defended.
So, your premise is wrong.
The Japanese viewed all bombers over their territory the same.
We view all air attackes by terrorists the same.
Does the exact term used matter? Not to me.
Originally Posted by Munchmasterman
Whether or not it matters to you isn’t the issue. The issue is why WTF refuses to see 9/11 as an act of war, and belittles and dismisses the deaths of 3,000 innocent civilians – most of whom were U.S. citizens. It doesn’t matter that there were
only just four commandeered aircraft any more than it mattered that the
Enola Gay was a solitary aircraft. Both attacks were acts of war perpetrated by men
invading the sacrosanct boundaries established by the people of another nation.
My evidence came directly from Freedom of Information Acts filed with the US Navy and other government sources. What you are putting out is the same main line lies that have been stated for a long time. As is often credited to Joseph Goebbels, Hitler's propaganda minister....
Originally Posted by Texaspride74
Impossible! What you are saying is not true, because it is not based on anything released under the Freedom of Information Act. The JN-25 codes were not decipherable and routinely broken until mid-1942—six months
after Pearl harbor.
What recent actions? The supposed Iran Terror Plot to Assassinate.....ect. ect. that was reported to be caught by the FBI but the FBI says they have no knowlege of this and it was likely something the Obama Administration made up. That one? Or some other form of fearmongering?
Originally Posted by Texaspride74
The U.S. agents that uncovered the plot were not FBI. Do not confuse wariness with fear.
The price of Gas will soar as a result of the inflation and eventually hyper-inflation caused by the Federal Reserve who prints money based on nothing to support all the wars and other big government spending you are such a fan of. Using our own domestic sources could chop the price of gas down to a dollar or less. Your Military Industrial Complex will come to an end one way or another.
Originally Posted by Texaspride74
QE1 and QE2 were very misguided attempts to resuscitate the housing industry; hence, the premise behind your assertion is factually wrong.
Do you mean the aircrafts hijacked by 19 members of "Al Queda", at least 4 of which trained at US bases, who flew planes into three buildings in New York on 9/11? Oh wait, there weren't 3 planes in New York.....but 3 buildings were brought down. That's right, Building 7 wasn't hit by a plane and still managed to fall at free fall speed into its own footprint. Well, surely that was due to fires though, forget the fact that no building that size has ever collapsed to do fires, the numerous witnesses, media, and first responders who reported hearing explostions inside the building. Also, there is nothing to Larry Silverstein, the owner of all three building, stating that they made the decision to "pull it" and watch the building come down. I am sure all of this was explained in the 9/11 commision's report. Oh, that's right, there is no mention of building 7 in there.
But at least the Government "got its act together" after that because even though we had "no knowlege" of this prior to the attacks, we were able to get the names and pictures of the 19 hijackers in 2 days. Even more "conclusive proof" was the passport of one of the hijackers, which made it out of the plane, through the fires and carnage inside, out of the building, and into the rubbel on the ground in perfect condition to be found. Never mind that the man later stood up to say he was alive and well, just as at least 5 other "hijackers" have.
Originally Posted by Texaspride74
Your
opinion means absolutely nothing in the real world of facts. And the
9/11 Commission Report is considerably more truthful than any of those "Conspiracy-R-Us" sites you're using to justify your twisted mind set.
On September 11, 2001, 7 WTC was damaged by debris when the nearby North Tower of the WTC collapsed. The debris also ignited fires, which continued to burn throughout the afternoon on lower floors of the building. The building's internal fire suppression system lacked water pressure to fight the fires, and the building collapsed completely at 5:21:10 pm. The collapse began when a critical column on the 13th floor buckled and triggered structural failure throughout, which was first visible from the exterior with the crumbling of the east mechanical penthouse at 5:20:33 pm. No one is known to have died in WTC 7; hence, it did not deserve the attention that was given to WTC 1 and WTC 2. http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/f..._qa_082108.cfm
However, at least this terror attack allowed us to give up our Constitutional rights in the Patriot Act, be cooked in radiation filled naked body scanners and have the pleasure of being sexually violated at the airports by wonderful TSA agents who do things Cops can't even do, lose thousands of US soldiers, kill a million people, excuse me, "insurgents" in Afganastan and Iraq, help their people grow Opium so the CIA has something to ship back to the States to make some extra cash and help out to ensure the "war on drugs" folks and the Prison Industrial Complex have something to do, print endless amounts of money backed by nothing at the Federal Reserve (which isn't federal at all) to fund the war effort, cause inflation, devalue the dollar, and give the Military Industrial Complex a "War on Terror" with no specific enemy that could go on forever. But, that is on the bright side of things.
Originally Posted by Texaspride74
What? You find no comfort in WTF’s simple homily to stay at home and not travel. Don’t fly if you don’t like TSA.
9/11 was an invasion?
Originally Posted by WTF
Yes, it was.
It was a terrorist act.
If anything it showed just how desperate those folks are.
Originally Posted by WTF
It was an invasion. It was an act of war; hence, the U.S.’ military response was justifiable and appropriate.
You have previously argued that the U.S. fell into bin Laden’s trap when it sent troops to Afghanistan. You have previously argued that that was just what bin Laden wanted. You were right. That is what bin Laden wanted. But it was bin Laden who underestimated the U.S. capabilities and resolve to seek him out and put a bullet in his brain.
Now you are arguing that the war in Afghanistan is a war for oil in Afghanistan!?! Seriously? You cannot argue that it was both bin Laden’s plan and a plan by oil companies to increase their profit margin.
As I said before, the only thing we have to fear is fear itself.
Originally Posted by WTF
You’re plagiarizing FDR, and FDR was not speaking about acts of war.
Japan had us breathing down their ass. They had nothing to do but a utter and complete surrender.
Originally Posted by WTF
No. They in fact had other plans. Only U.S. atomic weapons (a technology gained at great, public expense) changed their mind. U.S. atomic capabilities also had an impact on Soviet (Stalin’s) decision to invade Manchuria.
You need to learn the difference between a military victory and a simple terrorist act. Though tragic 9/11 was nothing near a military victory,
Originally Posted by WTF
It was bin Laden’s tactical – but pyrrhic – victory, not unlike Pearl Harbor for the Japanese. Like the Japanese strike at Pearl Harbor, it was also an act of war.
we have over 30 to 40k traffic deaths per year. Shall we start a war on driving?
Originally Posted by WTF
Seriously? You haven’t noticed the state troopers, local police and sheriffs departments whose job it is to enforce driving regulations? There are millions of dollars spent and tens of thousands of public safety officers tasked each and every day to prevent each and every traffic death in this country.
There are around 3 thousands deaths per year on on people 0-19 year olds by guns.....do you want a war on guns?
Originally Posted by WTF
There are millions of dollars spent and tens of thousands of public safety officers, in addition to the ATF, tasked each and every day to prevent each and every gun deaths in this country.
There is a reason you are brainwashed...it is to get your money. Those two industries need fear to have you support bankrupting this country in the name of safety. Ron Paul is dead on right about Iran and a shit load of other things as well.
Originally Posted by WTF
You are intellectually bankrupt, and your sense of logic and responsibility are twisted. Ron Raul
is wrong about Iran and several other issues.
Thank you, it's corrected.
