So let me wrap up then with one of the most unholy statements I've ever made...
Thank heavens for Ron Paul. Of all the candidates running for US president in the spring of 2007, Ron Paul has clearly done more than the rest of them put together to inject serious talk about real issues. Whether you agree with his outlook on any given issue, he's got a serious and well considered viewpoint that bears consideration.…
Article comments
276 - Dave Nalle
Seeing how you want to throw in the towel so easily I can see how you did not manage to win in the election you entered. Have you tried again, or did this one defeat make you quit?
I've worked on other campaigns and will likely run again myself in 2008, though probably for a different office.
Further do you think Bush would have attained this much if he were a Congressman or do you see how his gaining the Presidency has allowed him the power to do the unthinkable over and over again?
See, again, you're disqualifying yourself. What is this 'unthinkable' that Bush has done? Or is it that because you're incapable of thinking about it that you can't articulate it?
One things for sure here...Ron Paul does not need the backhanded betrayal you continue to dish out. If you continue to sell out your principles and vote for whomever you think will be accepted by this majority of other lemmings like yourself, you will be selling your own country out and no one wins in that. Things will indeed stay on this course.
Look, I'd have to sell out my principles to vote for Ron Paul as much or more as for most of the other candidates. I believe in the separation of church and state. Paul does not. I believe in the world economy. Paul does not. I believe that people should be treated equally regardless of race. Paul does not. I believe that liberty is not a right exclusively reserved for those born in America. Paul does not.
If you want real change you have to participate to make it happen. Turning you back on what you say you believe in is a sure way to fail.
Absolutely. So it's my obligation to point out how far short of the libertarian ideal Paul falls.
Dave
277 - Al Barger
Pamela- First off, I'm NOT making a compliment and taking it away. I might make a compliment and also a separate criticism - but that would not be to negate the compliment. But these comments you're responding to do not contain any criticism of Ron Paul from me.
I (and I can probably speak for Nalle and Clavos here as well) are NOT "turning our backs on what we believe." It's not a question of just picking a winner in the horse race. Even given my druthers, I'd have to (with some misgivings) support Giuliani over Paul to actually be POTUS and commander in chief.
Giuliani's good in some ways, questionable in others where Paul would be great - but we simply cannot afford to have a radical isolationist as POTUS and leader of the free world. It's not just that the sheeple wouldn't elect such a person, but that it would be really bad if they did.
By way of philosophy of governance, I substantially disagree with Ron Paul. This is not a "sellout" or particularly a compromise of principles. I reject radical isolation as a principle. I do not believe in it as an absolute moral principle, in large part because it would not work. Also, I reject the principle because it is not in fact an immutable moral principle. Foreign policy and national defense are not exactly the same thing as domestic law enforcement for a good many reasons.
Essentially, you're taking a good idea that makes a good guideline or general base of presumption (non-intervention, avoiding entangling alliances), and turning it into dogma - insisting on blindly taking it to the wall - without regard to who we're dealing with and without regard to facts on the ground.
And if you think that our founding fathers were totally acting on pure principles, you're just wrong about history. Leaving aside, oh, SLAVERY, look for less emotionally loaded early American history. Just for a little start, what was the constitutional justification for Thomas Jefferson making the Louisiana Purchase?
278 - Pamela/American
Dave: And Pamela, you lose credibility when you start ranting about the 'unfathomable' rights the administration has taken away from us. Maybe you should start enumerating what those rights are, because the facts in evidence don't support some massive rights grab.
Pamela: Ok Dave, unless you have been on another planet I will share with you what million’s of others have indeed seen take place.
Most important to me for very personal reasons is the very real fact that We have lost our rights to be free from forced drugging, and forced experimental vaccinations if they declare us in a state of emergency. We have lost the rights of our local legislators to stop massive deaths caused by those forced vaccinations as they have stripped the rights of those local legislators to even petition Congress to STOP the mass forced vaccinations for 30 days. A lot of people can die in 30 days Dave.
We have lost the rights to maintain protections of our vaccine exemptions even for children like MY son who was rendered autistic from toxic vaccines in the event they declare us in such an emergency. His vaccine exemptions to protect him from being exposed to anymore vaccines becomes NULL and void if they declare such an emergency that ONE person can decide for our entire country.
I have lost the right as my child’s Mother to stop them from forcing these vaccinations lest I wish to be thrown in prison, have the state take custody of my child, then force the new experimental vaccine on my kids anyway. I have lost the right to accept quarantine in my home in such an emergency. It’s get the vaccine or go to jail.
My family went through THOUSANDS of dollars in our retirement, children’s college funds, and life savings because we turned back to the same crap useless mainstream medical care to try and help MY son heal from what THEIR toxic vaccines already did to his precious brain. All to no avail until we looked outside of the box to natural, noninvasive, alternative care that actually addressees the ROOT cause of the illness.
My child is now NO longer autistic. Not because of mainstream medicine that only wanted to throw him on toxic drugs that would have further damaged his little developing brain, instead he healed in spite of that sick system they are building right now to be as large as the scam cancer society. Autism IS curable. We do not need billions thrown at this disease they are CREATING.
We DO know the causes of autism already. We also know the answers will NEVER be found in this sick system that is creating the disabled so they can then finish them off with drugging them for life.
My son is NO longer autistic. The same panel that eagerly gave him that LABEL and wanted to throw him into a special school with all the other children they drugged who were FAR worse off, was released from that label after they re-tested him years later thanks to alternative care, organic diet and no toxins in his environment.
That panel of so-called experts were the same ones who told me to give up on my SON, and resign to “their conclusions” that my son would ALWAYS be this way. That same panel told me to look for placement in an INSTITUTION for my son because his autism was so progressed to THEM, was the same ignorant panel that was SHOCKED that my son was healed and they could not believe he was the same child they tested only a few years earlier.
Indeed, If I would have been one of those parents who just blindly accepted all they were desperately trying to tell me, my son could do, would ever be able to do and things they really wanted to convince me he would never do, he would NOT be healed today. If I would have been the type of parent who QUIT on their child and stopped looking for choices, answers, and one who did not have the open mind to areas I had never ventured into before due to fear control of mainstream medicine that terrifies people away from health choices that HEAL, my son would STILL be autistic today. I am NO quitter. I will fight to the ends of the earth for my children and I will NEVER allow some medical quack to tell me to give up on my child…EVER.
There is nothing like a severe, very PREVENTABLE injury, to our child, to make parents wake up fast and see how important it is to make SURE we keep the rights to refuse ANYTHING mainstream medicine wants to inject into our children.
WE never sued when we “could” have. Want to know why? My son’s injury is not for SALE. I refuse to make the choice to allow them to silence my son before he is even old enough to what he wanted to do about sharing or not sharing what they did to him. I was not my story to sell.
Families had to sign GAG orders to get a dime from these sick drug companies after they won vaccine injury cases. My son’s injury is NOT for sale. I refuse to ever allow them to SILENCE me where vaccines are concerned.
As it is Bush the nutcase leader of our country not only stripped the rights of parents who wanted to sue in an OPEN court, while he threw them to the USELESS compensation fund that is spearheaded by a groups of “experts” working FOR the drug companies so that MAYBE 2 out of 10 cases ever saw a DIME, but he then went so far as to demand they SEAL all previous vaccine injury cases and denied the public the right to use the Freedom of information Act to see what the hell these vaccines are doing to millions of our children.
This further crippled families out there who had already lost their homes, their life savings, and were in debt past their eyeballs just trying to keep representation, much less having to THEN duplicate proven EVIDENCE that was provided in those SEALED cases.
Then in walks The Homeland Insecurity Acts from HELL. Not only did they do all they could to SILENCE the victims families who were trying to PROTECT their children and the public, but now they wanted to give FULL protection to these sick bastards in the drug companies to continue to maim, injure, disable, and KILL many more children without ANY liability.
All those families who had vaccine injury cases PENDING, and their entire life savings thrown into those pending cases, watched as their cases were ALL THROWN OUT. They lost everything for NOTHING. Many of these parents are committing suicide. One woman jumped from a bridge with her autistic son because they were trying to force her to commit her son to a mental institution. She was a mainstream medical DOCTOR who saw firsthand what vaccines did to her son and she KNEW what drugging him and putting him into a nut house would do to him. But she had since gone through what many of these families also experience-divorce. Divorce at a HIG rate is happening in these families. Th fact that I have managed to keep my marriage of 22 years together through this all is a testament to sheer will, hard work, and determination. My husband is also an incredible man who does NOT back down from what he knows is right, who stands by his children, and wife. This woman’s husband just could not accept that he had a disabled son and he wanted OUT. She had no help from our government, no help from an unwitting community who continued to REFUSE to believe the ever-coveted vaccine did that to her son.
I have a PROBLEM with that seeing first hand what these vaccines did to my own son who is by FAR not a rarity and his injuries are becoming more of the NORM in our children today and YOU should have a problem with it too since YOU are also subject to being forced to take whatever they are creating in their NEWLY Government created BARDA labs if one nut declares us all in an emergency.
These new BARDA labs are NOT subjected to giving ANY information to the PUBLIC, to ANY information to our own government, and they do not have to give ANY information to our so-called oversight branches such as the CDC, FDA or WHO, as they have STRIPPED the right to USE The Freedom of Information Act to EVEN SEE WHAT they are creating in those labs, WHO they are testing on, What their own trials revealed in those TESTS, while our own government is stating that THIS BARDA group is indeed the one who is making the so-called SAVIOR vaccine for the Emergency preparedness plan. Hello…how many years have they been terrifying the public about the HN51 avian FLU scam??? Have you even followed that genocide set up from the beginning to where it is now? Lord help us all.
Are you ok with being an unwitting guinea pig to be forced into an experiment with NO prior knowledge of what damages those experimental drugs or vaccines have already done?
There is so much more to this that I don’t even have the time or inclination to spell it all out for you. Believe me I KNOW these issues as I have been DIRECTLY affected by them personally, and I do see many of these God awful pieces of legislation and these new huge levels of Government, as a direct threat to my own child whose brain cannot survive the attack of ONE more toxic vaccine.
So when someone like Ron Paul comes out and he wants to ABOLISH the god Awful Homeland Security department and reverse the Patriot acts from hell, I am all FOR it and he definitely has my FULL attention. When he wants to stop all funding for their National Mental Health screening set up, I am ALL for it. When we wants to reverse these ungodly attacks to our Constitutional rights that have INDEED been stripped from us and have INDEED set us ALL up for much harm, then you bet your ass I am ALL for it. My child was sacrificed enough already and I will get the first gun I will have ever owned and protect my Constitutional RIGHTS to prevent ANYONE, government or NOT from EVER harming my child again. Now put that in your pipe and smoke it with whatever else you are smoking because these nuts you say you would give your vote to have NO intention of doing a FRACTION of what Ron Paul says he would do.
Ruvy wanted to just throw out Rockefellers name like he is the only one who was harmed by that family of nuts….Who is behind the nightmare creation we call mainstream medicine today. Indeed, I do have hatred toward that nutcase family but not due to any race, or religion, because of their crimes against humanity that continues to this very day.
279 - Dave Nalle
I can't imagine why a Democrat would want to switch parties and vote for Ron Paul when they have Bill Richardson to vote for in their own party. He's more in tune with their values, anti-war like Paul, and shares Paul's libertarian views on a lot of the issues they might support. Plus he's actually qualified to be president.
Dave
280 - Richard Brodie
While we're on the subject of Health Freedom, how about Paul's Freedom of Health Information act that would stop muzzling companies that make natural vitamin, mineral, and herbal supplements, so that people would be able to know what alternative PREVENTIONS, CURES, and TREATMENTS there are besides the poisonous ones designed to treat symptoms and keep us sick so we'll have to buy more FDA approved poisons.
And look at this hypocritical huge manhunt to track down and quarantine one lone AMERICAN citizen known to have Multi Drug Resistant Tuberculosis, when we know damn well that MDRTB, Chagas' and Morgellon's diseases, and BRAIN WORMS for Lord's sake, are communicable diseases carried by a tens of thousands of Mexicans who are allowed to swarm into the country without any health checking and with absolutley no knowledge as to who or where they are, and what restaurants they might be preparing food in.
All of this phony panicking is just a pretext to push the entire world ever further down the path towards total one-world Orwellianization, starting with incapacitation of the American people, the one remaining threat to the agenda of those who aspire to be our unelected and unchallengeable global rulers - I refer of course to the corporate and banking elite of that "world economy" to which people like Dave Nalle bow down in worshipful obedience.
281 - Pamela/American
Richard,
As someone who is now completely changing careers in midlife to become a Naturopathic Doctor because I have personally witnessed true healing over, and over again, in natural health choices, and I personally saw the truth behind the failures of mainstream medicines business of selling sickness for profit through my own precious son who suffered because of my ignorance and blind faith in that form of medicine back then,I fully understand the threat of the CODEX.
This is yet another VERY serious reason to vote for Ron Paul Indeed. Yet another blackout issue they despearately want to silence from the masses as they continue to usher us first into the WTO, Then CAFTA,then NAFTA and now the seceret pacts they are signing once again behind the publics back for the North American Union...all incremental steps to ushering in the CODEX while watering down our Constitutional rights and laws to be replaced by "Global laws".
I have parents each week who contact me for help for thier newly vaccine injured children. Thousands of disabled children are being created each year. My own son's continued health and recovery is solely dependent upon access to vital supplements as a major part of his healing.
This is a direct threat to our rights to be free from a government trying to force us into their system of selling sickness and away from what many have found as the only answer to real healing.
Unfortunately the people cannot unite as a collective group on this issue and have the power they had when we got DSHEA passed because many of those groups that have formed to fight the CODEX have been infiltrated by sell outs acting like the fighters of this cause while they really are lulling alternative healthcare providers to sleep and the providers of supplements along with them. Making them all think the CODEX measure will "enhance" supplement safety when those of us who have seriously looked into what has already happened in Europe know damned well better.
For these reasons and many more Ron Paul is the only choice we have. But for so many who have no clue about these issues they will just not get it.
282 - Pamela/American
Richard: And look at this hypocritical huge manhunt to track down and quarantine one lone AMERICAN citizen known to have Multi Drug Resistant Tuberculosis, when we know damn well that MDRTB, Chagas' and Morgellon's diseases, and BRAIN WORMS for Lord's sake, are communicable diseases carried by a tens of thousands of Mexicans who are allowed to swarm into the country without any health checking and with absolutley no knowledge as to who or where they are, and what restaurants they might be preparing food in.
Pamela: Multi Drug Resistant Tuberculosis is not favored to one individual as much as they may want to make it seem. They are creating these strains of TB from their "treatments" they force on anyone who tests positive for TB.
As for other communicable diseases- only a good strong immunme system will protect us with flushes, and parasite cleanses for parasites, and other pathogens. Unless American's stopped all travel abroad, we would not be able to stop communicable diseases. So they are not just brought in by illegals or visitors.
The victims of Morgellon's have yet to reveal what they have tried for treatment. Many are speculating on the causes while ignoring the time should also be focuses on treatment. I would not rule out high doses of Vitamin C in the form of ascorbate acid or colloidal silver not from nitrates for a cure.
But I have yet to see if any of these methods have even been tried nor have I seen them follow up on any of these same patients they are parading all over the internet.
China has all of their school aged children do parasite cleanses once a year. They are not naive enough to think only our "animals" are succeptible to parasites. Our ancestors also conducted similar cleanses and were far healthier for it. With cod liver oil for kids at first sign of illness and so on.
Food is indeed becoming more and more of a precious commodity. Eating out today is like playing Russian Roulette with our health. With the infiltrating of unlabeled GMO foods, more, and more people, are opting to growing their own food again or joining co-ops. If we do not know what is on our food, or in it, we are asking for it in the price of our health.
There enlies the recent serious issues of the Organics Standards board that has since been taken over by a "majority" of reps for the food giant corps who have been selling us tainted chemically filled foods for years. This is no different then these board members of the vaccine approval boards who were allowed to hold huge amounts of stocks on those vaccines they were voting on, and patents on those vaccines they were voting on, while also working for the drug companies who were putting those vaccines in there for approval, as they sat on these boards to approve these vaccines they had serious conflicts of interest in and serious invested financial interest in.
They can only get away with this if the people allow it. So far they are getting hit from all sides on the Organics Standaards Board and demands that these chemical nuts step down from a board that is supposed to represent everything they are not knowledgeable in have been made.
Lot's of issues to tackle, but we have to start somewhere right? I think they are starting so many fires at once so they can just overwhelm many so much that they just throw up their hands and quit. Not going to happen in my home, but I cannot speak for everyone. One can only hope people see they are indeed in a fight for their life and if they look away we will lose.
283 - Clavos
The real irony here is that with all that verbosity and those weird flights into arcane conspiracy paranoia, these two are doing more to hurt Mr. Paul than help him.
Pamela, you could say everything you have to say in half as many words. And for Crissakes, would you please stop capitalizing every fifth word? It's annoying as hell, and makes your screeds very difficult to read.
284 - Pamela/American
Al: Pamela- First off, I'm NOT making a compliment and taking it away. I might make a compliment and also a separate criticism - but that would not be to negate the compliment. But these comments you're responding to do not contain any criticism of Ron Paul from me.
I (and I can probably speak for Nalle and Clavos here as well) are NOT "turning our backs on what we believe." It's not a question of just picking a winner in the horse race. Even given my druthers, I'd have to (with some misgivings) support Giuliani over Paul to actually be POTUS and commander in chief.
Giuliani's good in some ways, questionable in others where Paul would be great - but we simply cannot afford to have a radical isolationist as POTUS and leader of the free world. It's not just that the sheeple wouldn't elect such a person, but that it would be really bad if they did.
By way of philosophy of governance, I substantially disagree with Ron Paul. This is not a "sellout" or particularly a compromise of principles. I reject radical isolation as a principle. I do not believe in it as an absolute moral principle, in large part because it would not work. Also, I reject the principle because it is not in fact an immutable moral principle. Foreign policy and national defense are not exactly the same thing as domestic law enforcement for a good many reasons.
Essentially, you're taking a good idea that makes a good guideline or general base of presumption (non-intervention, avoiding entangling alliances), and turning it into dogma - insisting on blindly taking it to the wall - without regard to who we're dealing with and without regard to facts on the ground.
And if you think that our founding fathers were totally acting on pure principles, you're just wrong about history. Leaving aside, oh, SLAVERY, look for less emotionally loaded early American history. Just for a little start, what was the constitutional justification for Thomas Jefferson making the Louisiana Purchase?
Pamela: Al, I don’t have it in me to even get started on what a nightmare the sell out Guiliani would be for our country. Suffice it to say that anyone who can set up over 200 firefighters and police to DIE-while these are people that they called “friends” would think nothing of betraying and entire country that they don’t even know.
Guiliani is the perfect little player who used the same crap Bush is possibly setting us up for via hitting us with war in Iran, or unleashing his virus so the lemmings will scream for his drug buddies toxic vaccines,Before the next election-that Guiliani did to the incoming Mayor of New York when he refused to transfer power and held the position of Mayor so his place as the supposed “9/11 hero” would be set in stone and so he could help them cover up the bodies, throw them in an armed “protected” landfill and show us all what he really thought about all those “deaths” of his “friends.” His complete lack of respect for the families of 9/11 who had every right to want them to separate the remains of their loved ones, from the TRASH they were collecting, was abhorrent.
You continue to want to throw the isolationism label on Ron Paul when his record does not reflect someone who backs down by any means. Again he did vote to go after Bin Laden of which they have YET to aggressively do, and he did vote to go to Afghanistan. Protecting the interest of OUR country and having a majority of OUR troops here is exactly what the Constitution asks that our federal government do for us. No he is not for having troops “occupying” over 100 other countries while our borders remain wide open and more importantly while our “presence” in those countries is continuing the resentment.
How many foreign bases do we have in the US? How many foreign troops are in our streets, bombing our cities? You think being over there is making our safety increase or can you even open the door for the idea that it is keeping the wars going while creating the next ones we'll have to fight in the background?
Again if we stop allowing our government to have the ability to keep creating these enemies then we may just not have so many to face as we do now.
Does Ron Paul believe as many do about serious questionable events surrounding 9/11. No, he does not. But he is at least receptive to opening another investigation of which the families at least deserve because they sure as heck are not being heard now. Coming from a family member who knows first hand the lengths this government will go to silence people they do not want talking to the people, I can completely understand their ever growing anger.
Al: Foreign policy and national defense are not exactly the same thing as domestic law enforcement for a good many reasons.
Pamela: Indeed they are not...now why don't you convince our current administration of this same thing while they continue to ignore Posse Comitatus and militarize our local law enforcement while also using New Patriot Acts and HOmeland Security acts against American citizens instead of these "terrorist" they claims those rights stripping laws were for. Why don't you tell them to get the militarizes swat teams out of local law entaglements. Many of us do know the diffreneces and each day the media is filled with blatant examples of how they are trashing our laws so we will just accept these images as the new way of American life.
If we do not truly understand why these rights and laws are important as they are then we sure as heck cannot fight for them. Either way on the premise a small child can understand we will never prevent wars if we race to another homes and hit the owner first. Not going to happen, no way no how.
285 - MBD
Nallecon, as usual you avoid real issues and tilt at the smoke you create.
Nallecon says, “It's not they hate us because we are a democracy." Hell, we're not a democracy and some of them ARE (Iran).
That’s nothing but pure smoke.
(However, what Nallecon brings up should remind us that whatever form of government Iran has, it has not started a war during the lifetime of any living American.)
Then Nallecon says, "they hate us because of our freedoms. Which is simplistic but at least somewhat closer to accurate.”
With that smoke in the air, Nallecon says, “they hate us because of the values which we represent, which would be secularism, internationalism and capitalism.”
Could it be that they hate us and attack us because of the values which we represent, which would be militarism, aggression and subjugation?
If Nallecon had the true reason for their hate, they would be hating and attacking countries with the same secularism, internationalism and capitalism -- countries closer to them and easier targets. Why travel to the US?
But all this makes too much sense and is too logical for Nallecon’s brain.
Nallecon then says, “They hate us because we're sitting in the middle of things and they're on the outside, and they think those positions should be reversed.”
I will translate your euphemisn “sitting in the middle of things” to what it really means…
US foreign policy in the Middle East since the end of WWII has been a lot more than “sitting in the middle of things.” The US military has been in their face for decades with its militarism, aggression and subjugation, and has resulted in the same reaction we would have if their countries were over here doing it to us.
Nallecon, one more time, it’s called: B-L-O-W B-A-C-K.
Say it slowly, with meaning…
B-L-O-W…B-A-C-K.
B-L-O-W…B-A-C-K.
B-L-O-W…B-A-C-K.
B-L-O-W…B-A-C-K.
B-L-O-W…B-A-C-K.
Get it?
If not, keep saying it again and again until you get it.
The sad part for Americans is that what our government has done for decades and continues to do in the Middle East, has resulted in the hate becoming endemic to those who live there. Nallecon’s “values crap” is spreading to the younger generation and it can become a self-fulfilling prophecy.
The best hope for America is that someone like Ron Paul gets elected president. Since he lone has the guts to step forward and say what the other candidates know but are too yellow-livered and scared to say it, he is the only hope for the country.
The seed of Middle East resentment against the US began decades ago and was nurtured and fed by a US foreign policy that could not succeed forever. It was only a matter of time before our policies blew back and hit the fan
And some like Nallecon, claim they still don’t understand what happened.
Amazing!
All those with a functioning brain should be thankful for the Internet which helps Ron Paul get his message out there.
286 - Pamela/American
Clavos:The real irony here is that with all that verbosity and those weird flights into arcane conspiracy paranoia, these two are doing more to hurt Mr. Paul than help him.
Pamela, you could say everything you have to say in half as many words. And for Crissakes, would you please stop capitalizing every fifth word? It's annoying as hell, and makes your screeds very difficult to read.
Pamela: Well it's a good thing I’m not his spokesperson and I only speak for myself then huh? Then again, slamming him and going after his platform like you have done will really help him now won't it?
Tell me how everyone else is using italicized words and bold highlighted type and I will be happy to change the bold letters and italic emphasis. Seeing how messages are easily misconstrued in here, to help simpletons like yourself not become confused, lengthy responses are sometimes warranted.
Just because you have no clue about some of these very real issue by far does not make them a conspiracy. It only continues to show how ignorance will not help change our country for the better.
287 - MBD
Clavos, the neocon parrot for Nallecon and Bargercon likes to snipe away when he thinks the neocon position is crumbling.
If he really thought that… “The real irony here is that with all that verbosity and those weird flights into arcane conspiracy paranoia, these two are doing more to hurt Mr. Paul than help him” … was true, he would not say it. Instead he would revel in it.
Then the neocon parrot says, “Pamela, you could say everything you have to say in half as many words.”
Clavocon, how about telling us what was said that is unnecessary. Is that too strenuous for your neocon brain?
Clavocon, what I find “annoying as hell, and makes your screeds very difficult to read” is that you make no sense.
All you do is snipe.
288 - John P Slevin
Al,
Prior to the actions of terrorists on 9/11, when was the US attacked by any middle eastern nation?
I'm aware of the unprovoked and arguably accidental attack by Israel on the USS Liberty, but I'm asking when did any Middle Eastern nation attack this country (again, prior to the attack by terrorists on 9/11, all or most of which individuals hailed from our allies' homelands)?
As the Bushmen turn their squinty eyes towards Iran, consider that it is more than 300 years since that nation attacked anyone.
The turmoil in the Middle East is not sudden, and it has developed as foreign powers have gone rampaging through the desert, as corporate interests have been married to governments, like Britain and the US, and as they've sought to steal the resources of those people.
That is why we are there now. To suggest it is because of a threat of terror, to say it is because the Bushmen actually care about protecting the citizens of the US is offensive. It offends the common sense. It makes a mockery of actual Americans, people who believe in a rule of law, and who follow that law.
Why are you comfortable in bed with the Bushmen? Have you thought of seeking help? Or, have you been watching too much 24?
The purpose of the US invasion of Iraq, as directly stated by the current administration, is to bring democracy to the savages of the world.
How is it self-government can be foisted upon others? Doesn't rule by the people have to come from the people?
Lastly, the premise of your piece is disingenuous. Paul never said nor implied what you attempt to attribute to him. A debate monitor asked him "are you saying we invited 9/11...". And, that's very, very different than what you say happened. But, go ahead, look at the tape of the debate. He never said what you say he at least implied, and you have bought into the muckracking by the likes of Malkin et al.
Then, to surmise that one would be better off in a world commanded by the likes of Giuliani? Well, that's simply stunning, coming from someone who advocates personal freedom. Check the mayor's record. Don't buy the hype. The former mayor of NY is a mutt.
289 - Dave Nalle
Richard and Pamela's last couple of posts are so purely insane (immgrants have kooties, ferchrissakes) that I actually found MBD's marginally retarded mimicking of something he read in the sidebar of democraticunderground.com to be the only thing I can even begin to respond to here. To answer the other posts would require me to travel into realms of delusion I don't even want to think about.
Nallecon says, "It's not they hate us because we are a democracy." Hell, we're not a democracy and some of them ARE (Iran).
That's nothing but pure smoke.
Are you saying that Iran is NOT a democracy?
Could it be that they hate us and attack us because of the values which we represent, which would be militarism, aggression and subjugation?
Except that we don't represent those values. The ones they dislike, as I said earlier are secularism, internationalism and capitalism. Of course there are others. They think we're decadent and they really dislike individualism and many of the forms which our self-expression takes.
If Nallecon had the true reason for their hate, they would be hating and attacking countries with the same secularism, internationalism and capitalism -- countries closer to them and easier targets. Why travel to the US?
LOL, they ARE, MBD. You just prove my point for me. Do you have any idea how much more frequent muslim terrorist attacks are in india than anywhere in the west?
Nallecon then says, "They hate us because we're sitting in the middle of things and they're on the outside, and they think those positions should be reversed."
I will translate your euphemisn "sitting in the middle of things" to what it really means...
US foreign policy in the Middle East since the end of WWII has been a lot more than "sitting in the middle of things." The US military has been in their face for decades with its militarism, aggression and subjugation, and has resulted in the same reaction we would have if their countries were over here doing it to us.
The US military has only been directly involved in the middle east on a few isolated occasions, most of them covert, during that period. Our money has played a bigger role.
Nallecon, one more time, it's called: B-L-O-W B-A-C-K.
Repeating a popular and catchy term over and over again doesn't actually imbue it with meaning. It's still a pathetically obvious and simplistic attempt to label instead of analyze the situation.
If you're going to take the idea of 'blowback' seriously, we're looking at the blowback reaction to the sack of Jerusalem in 1099. That's as much of an influence as anything the US has done more recently.
The sad part for Americans is that what our government has done for decades and continues to do in the Middle East,
That would be promoting democracy, capitalism and modernization?
Which, to be fair, may very well be what they are reacting against.
Dave
290 - Pamela/American
Well this is rich...I have posted a response to Al twice now and it has not been added to the thread. Of course I am sure THIS one will be put in. But don't worry I saved my last response and have it ready to post again when, and if, you are ready to stop censoring this site in efforts to cut out what you obviously do not have an answer for.
Or maybe you are doing this to many others and because we have not seen "those post" we just don't know what we are missing.
Just because you find yourself very far from your original political post it does not mean the rest of us have strayed off course Al. It may just mean you need to hear what people are saying because many views in here are by far not the minority view anymore regardless of cheap censoring tactics like this.
Hey it's YOUR thread. If you can't handle hearing the truth then indeed you have every right to censor someone from being able to answer, and defend themselves, from your uninformed, cheap shots. Until now I at least thought you had that much decency to not pull a stunt like this.
Dave keep patting yourself on the back for continuing to show us yet another that we can hope never gains any seat in any election because you truly are clueless to the real issues we are all facing. If this post makes it on this thread you can now sit and ask the ultimate question Dave....did you win all those little debates you "thought" you won or did your buddy Al do some selective editing FOR you to enable you to stay in that La la land of denial you so desperately cling to?
You know what? Forget it. I don’t need this crap. We get enough censoring from the paid off mainstream media. Congrats Al, you’ve crossed the threshold to the other side from open blogger to sell out MSM mouthpiece. Chanting the official mantras of this party of war that is being fought on the blood of the rights we all lost.
Good Day.
291 - MBD
Nallecon wants to know more about B-L-O-W-B-A-C-K.
Help is on the way…
Blowback is what you get when you repeatedly infringe on the sovereign rights of others.
For example, Middle East insurgents attack American targets because the American military launches cruise missiles from ships at sea or from B-52 bombers at high altitudes or because the American government supports their brutal and repressive regimes. I won’t elaborate on this because it would take too long.
Members of the Defense Science Board wrote in a 1997 report to the Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology, "Historical data show a strong correlation between U.S. involvement in international situations and an increase in terrorist attacks against the United States. In addition, the military asymmetry that denies nation states the ability to engage in overt attacks against the United States drives the use of transnational actors [that is, terrorists from one country attacking in another]"
Now, it’s time for more practice…
Say it slowly, with meaning...
B-L-O-W...B-A-C-K.
B-L-O-W...B-A-C-K.
B-L-O-W...B-A-C-K.
B-L-O-W...B-A-C-K.
B-L-O-W...B-A-C-K.
Get it?
If not, keep saying it again and again until you get it.
I hope this has been of help.
Feel free to ask for more help if this hasn’t sunk into your neocon brain.
Eventually, a lobotomy made be the best solution.
292 - Richard Brodie
"conspiracy paranoia" is one side of the fraudulent coin, of which the other side is "conspiracy denial."
The former is seeing conspiracies everywhere even if the probability is low that one exists. The latter is claiming categorically, as an article of faith, that a conspiracy does not exist even where there is a high probability that one does.
The deniers' motivation is to hijack the very word "conspiracy" to serve as a pejorative so that it can be used to prevent entertaining even the possibility of a conspiracy's existence by smearing those who are intellectually honest enough to leave the option open for consideration.
The word "conspiracy" is neutral. It just means "secretive concerted action." Thus 9/11 was a conspiracy, but probably not in the paranoid "truther" sense. A number of Muslims secretly trained and prepared to act in concert by hijacking four airplanes and ramming some buildings with them.
The reason I say "probably not in the truther sense", is because the existence of a higher level government conspiracy would require assuming that a very large number of individuals could be trusted to keep quiet about their involvement. But I do not say that the probability of that is absolute zero, because of the extremely high motivation that the Bush regime would have had to manufacture such an event to use in justifying its subsequent foreign militaristic actions and its domestic Bill of Rights shredding actions - seen in the light of how serviceable their new powers to control dissent would be in the likely event of a massive revolt against an increasingly more difficult to conceal sovereignty subjugating globalist agenda.
International corporate and banking elites are well known to MEET, if not ACT, in secret. Media personnel are invited only if they strictly agree not to report any of the substance of what they hear discussed. It is only rational that they would want to take efficient concerted action towards agreed upon goals. And who besides billionaire/trillionaires are in a better position to "influence" those in positions of political power (especially the "gladhanding", "bobbing", "weaving" types which Al Barger adores so much) to foster goals seen as desireable in terms of protecting and increasing the many large fortunes that are at stake.
Here influencing could include secret cash bribes, promises of consideration for lucrative post-political career employment, assurances of campaign support, and I wouldn't rule out threats - all the way from financial ruination to physical harm inflicted on a targeted individual and/or family members.
Sometimes we take the liberty of speaking as though we possessed absolute certainty, even where there is a small, but not infinitessimal probability that something might NOT have happened (as in "9/11 WAS perpetrated by the Muslim highjackers") or where there is a small, but not infinitessimal probability that something might not BE happening (as in "the international corporate and banking elite ARE conspiring to shape global culture in the direction in which it is IN FACT going")
293 - Richard Brodie
Richard and Pamela's last couple of posts are so purely insane
That would have been the ones about the FDA. Geez Dave, being a Libertarian I would have thought you'd be right on board with us here. I mean isn't a classic Randian mantra: "The only real protection the consumer has is competition for reputation in the free market"?
(immgrants have kooties, ferchrissakes)
Cooties are fictional parasites that little boys imagine infect little girls. The Mexican diseases which we allow to be brought into this country (including Leprosy, which I neglected to include in the list) are lethal.
We use to protect American citizens from exposure to such killers, by not letting aliens immigrate who were carriers of them.
294 - Dr Dreadful
STM #258: Interesting you should mention your Viking heritage. I too am descended from Vikings on my father's side. However, my mother's Scottish lineage is even more interesting. She was directly descended both from William Wallace's evil twin (catchphrase: "OPPRESSIOOOOON!!!") and from a cross-eyed immortal Highlander with a French accent ("THERE CAN BE ONLY TWO!!!").
Fascinating stuff, genealogy.
295 - STM
Lol. No wonder Americans think we are all crackers. But we know the truth ...
296 - Terror-Free Oil
Terror-Free Oil Initiative: First Step to Energy Independence
297 - Michael J. West
Not that I want to change the subject from this fascinating exchange of absurd paranoid bullshit and sundry tangentia, but I'm starting to get a funny feeling about Ron Paul. I'm beginning to think he could seriously be the Howard Dean of this election cycle: the maverick, grassroots candidate with the potential to make a real name for himself and steal the frontrunner position.
Now whether he can keep that position, as Dean could not, is another question...
298 - Dr Dreadful
Right, Michael. Since name recognition is a must for having any kind of chance to be President, it's interesting that the popular media has started to pay some serious attention to Ron Paul.
And while we're on the subject of Howard Dean: considering that this country is now on its fourth successive cowboy president, it's always mystified me as to how yelling "Yee-haw" somehow disqualified him from the position.
299 - Dave Nalle
Michael, he would likely also resemble Dean in his propensity towards a bizarre and public meltdown at a key moment.
Dave
300 - bret
This is the most ridiculous conclusion I've read. I fail to see how Hillary's policies would not simply create more hatred across the globe . . . we already are "chum in the water." Bringing our troops home would allow us to protect .. you know .. our own country. How is that going to result in instantaneous obliteration of America? The logic simply is not there.
301 - Richard Brodie
Nalle sees in Ron Paul a propensity towards a bizarre and public meltdown at a key moment
Some might say that he was on the verge of such a "meltdown" during his final remarks on the stage in New Hampshire when, incensed at the unanimous frenzy on the part of his opponents for "melting down" Iran with tactical nukes, he swept his right arm squarely in their direction and said with uncharacteristic anger:
tonight, we hear [from these warmongers] that we’re not even willing to remove from the table a preemptive nuclear strike [ferchrissakes] against a country that has done no harm to us directly and is no threat to our national security!
[my own interpolations of what many of us would very much like to have heard him say to these neocon idiots]
Actually the fact that he is so well able to keep his rhetoric under control even in the face of such extreme provocations, is an indication that he in fact does NOT have any "propensity" for exhibiting Howard Dean's type of behavior.
302 - Al Barger
Mr Brodie- I'd missed the New Hampshire remarks that you quoted. I hate to think that the guy would be dumb enough to say this about Iran: tonight, we hear that we're not even willing to remove from the table a preemptive nuclear strike against a country that has done no harm to us directly and is no threat to our national security
Anybody who would say this has absolutely no business being seriously considered to be POTUS. You might reasonably argue that a preemptive nuclear strike would be a bad idea, but it's ludicrous to say that they've done no harm and that they're not a threat. Start with the hostages they took under Carter, move forward to them undeniably supplying insurgents, money and bombs that are being used to kill our soldiers in Iraq today, and fast forward to these same assmunches with nuclear weapons.
But Ron Paul doesn't believe in using military force, and is obviously ideologically committed to not seeing even so bad a threat as a nuclear Iran. That is EXACTLY why he could never, ever, ever be president.
303 - Gunn
Mr. Barger,
All of the expert accounts, I have read, pertaining to Iran's Nuclear Weapons program places them 5 to 10 years before the have a warhead with enough enriched uranium to maintain a reaction.
Furthermore, they would need a delivery system as capable as ours or the Russians. To think this small developing nation with no real navy or military to speak of is a threat to our homeland is paranoia at best. You may say argue that they would then pass a small nuclear device off to terrorists who would smuggle it into our country and target a highly populated area. Yes, that could happen, considering however that you can't sneak a tube of toothpaste onto a plane these days that's any larger than a "fun-size" snickers I would say that any look sneaking any sort of radioactive material is doubtful.
Lastly, if we can all agree that "our" the United States' foreign policy had the slightest to do with radicalizing a small sect of Muslims then our focus shouldn't be how to contain them to the middle east. It should be how do we un-radicalize them or at least stop radicalizing more of them. I believe that is where a non-interventionist policy comes in handy. Begin a dialogue that ends in a trade policy find a way to make us indispensible partners. I don't believe Ahmadinejad is as crazy as many pundits make him out to be, he's a leader trying to make the best for his small nation. A super power that has proven time and again that it will attack without a declaration of war is not a good neighbor and I'm sure he recognizes this.(This doesn't excuse his actions but in turn that does not excuse ours.)
In an aside, being ideologically committed to not using nuclear weapons is a far cry from not being committed to using military force. I believe that Ron Paul was opposed to the use of Nuclear Weapons as a response to the percieved consensus among the other candidates which was "let's wipe them off the map."(that was paraphrased)
Best
304 - Clavos
"Yes, that could happen, considering however that you can't sneak a tube of toothpaste onto a plane these days that's any larger than a "fun-size" snickers I would say that any look sneaking any sort of radioactive material is doubtful."
You're ignoring the literally TONS of dope that's brought into this country by land, sea, and air on a daily basis. You're assuming terrorists would attempt to bring it in on a commercial flight; most of the dope smuggled does NOT come on commercial flights.
If dope is so easy, why would a nuke be any more difficult?
305 - Richard Brodie
Al Barger shows he doesn't know what he's talking about. by saying: "Ron Paul doesn't believe in using military force"
He voted to use military force in Afghanistan. What he is against is the Offensive use of military force. He will limit it to Defensive use.
That would include retaliating after being attacked, as well as issuing "understandings" designed to prevent attacks on our homeland. Examples would be MAD in the case of the Soviet Union, and in the current confrontation with radical jihadist Islam it might involve making it crystal clear that in the case of any nuclear attack on American soil carried out by Muslims, there would be a comlete vaporization of Mecca, Saudi Arabia, with sufficient advanced waring to allow for the evacuation of all human inhabitants of that city. No Muslim, radical or "moderate", would ever do anything that would make them responsible for the destruction of their religion's holiest place, just as no Russian leader would ever do anything that would result in his country being annihilated.
Of course Mr. Paul will work diligently to minimize the possibility of portable nuclear devices being smuggled into the United States, by absolutley securing our borders.
306 - Dr Dreadful
If dope is so easy, why would a nuke be any more difficult?
Smuggling nuclear material is one thing - there may well be an alarming quantity of illicit plutonium already in the country. There was a thing on one of the current affairs shows - Dateline a year or two back which showed how easy it would be.
However, plutonium is not dope. It's staggeringly expensive - it's not like you can sidle up to Saigon Sam in the local dive bar and have him slip you an ounce of it in exchange for a fifty. It's also pretty bloody useless unless you can fashion it into a bomb, which is an intricate enterprise requiring specific technical knowhow.
That's likely the only reason why there hasn't yet been a nuclear terrorist attack, although I think it's probably just a matter of time.
Richard, unfortunately I don't think your deterrent would work. Someone nutty enough to set off a nuclear bomb in the name of God would probably have faith in their twisted brain that Mecca would be under divine protection.
Finally, on a point of order, I think it's Dr Paul.
307 - ahmedinajad
READ THE FOLLOWING PASSAGES FROM THE BIBLE AS IT HAS IMPLICATIONS ON THE WAR AGAINST TERROR/ISLAM and the claim of Israel that god gave them the land. If the child is an infant than the Judeo-Christian version becomes null and void and we are wasting our time and resources i.e. we could save trillions of dollars and create a more peaceful world rather than fighting against Islam the religion of Abraham, Moses, Jesus and Muhammad (peace be upon them all).
The COVENANT with Abraham and his DESCENDANTS is central to JUDAISM/CHRISTIANITY/ISLAM.
Please note this is not a competition between faiths but an attempt to decipher fact from fiction.
Genesis 21:14 Contemporary English version
Early the next morning Abraham gave Hagar an animal skin full of water and some bread. Then he put the boy on her shoulder and sent them away.
GENESIS 16:16
And Hagar bore Abram a son; and Abram called the name of his son, whom Hagar bore, Ish'mael. Abram was eighty-six years old when Hagar bore Ish'mael to Abram.
GENESIS 21:5
Abraham was a hundred years old when his son Isaac was born to him.
At Genesis 22 Abraham had only 2 sons others came later. The Quran mentions that it was Ishmael that was sacrificed hence the reference in genesis 22:2 your only son can only mean someone has substituted Ishmael names for Isaac!!
BY DOING SOME KINDERGARTEN ARITHMATIC USING ARABIC NUMBERS (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10) NOT ROMAN NUMERALS (I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, X) NB no concept of zero in roman numerals.
100 years old - 86 years old = 14 ADD 3 YEARS FOR ISSAC'S WEANING
THAT WOULD MAKE ISHMAEL 17 YEARS OLD IN GENESIS 21:14-21 BUT IT IS A DESCRIPTION OF AN INFANT.
Carefully read several times the above passage and then tell me the mental picture you get between the mother child interactions what is the age of the child. If the mental picture is that of a 17 year old child being carried on the shoulder of his mother, being physically placed in the bush, crying like a baby, mother having to give him water to drink, than the Islamic viewpoint is null and void. Why is there no verbal communications between mother and (17 YEAR OLD) child?
GENESIS: 21:14 - 21
So Abraham rose early in the morning, and took bread and a skin of water, and gave it to Hagar, putting it on her shoulder, along with the (17 YEAR OLD) child, and sent her away. And she departed, and wandered in the wilderness of Beer-Sheba. When the water in the skin was gone, she cast the (17 YEAR OLD) child under one of the bushes. Then she went, and sat down over against him a good way off, about the distance of a bowshot; for she said, "Let me not look upon the death of the (17 YEAR OLD) child." And as she sat over against him, the (17 YEAR OLD) child lifted up his voice and wept. And God heard the voice of the (17 YEAR OLD) lad; and the angel of God called to Hagar from heaven, and said to her, "What troubles you, Hagar? Fear not; for God has heard the voice of the (17 YEAR OLD) lad where he is. Arise, lift up the (17 YEAR OLD) lad, and hold him fast with your hand; for I will make him a great nation." Then God opened her eyes, and she saw a well of water; and she went, and filled the skin with water, and gave the (17 YEAR OLD) lad a drink. And God was with the (17 YEAR OLD) lad, and he grew up; he lived in the wilderness, and became an expert with the bow. He lived in the wilderness of Paran; and his mother took a wife for him from the land of Egypt.
The age of Ishmael at this stage is crucial to the Abrahamic faiths. If he is 17 than the JUDEO/CHRISTIAN point of view about the Abrahamic covenant is correct. This has devastating theological consequences of unimaginable proportions.
This makes the conflict between Ishmael and Isaac and there descendants a work of fiction. I would strongly suggest it is clear cut case of racial discrimination and nothing to do with god almighty. The scribes have deliberately tried to make Isaac the only son and legitimate heir to the throne of Abraham??
Please can you rationally explain this anomaly?
I have asked many persons including my nephews and nieces - unbiased minds with no religious backgrounds but with reasonable command of the English language about this passage and they all agree that the child in the passage is an infant. AS THE DESCRIPTION OF ISHMAEL IN GENESIS 21:14-21 IS THAT OF AN INFANT IT CAN BE ASSUMED SOMEONE HAS MOVED THIS PASSAGE FROM AN EARLIER PART OF SCRIPTURE!!! AND HAVE GOT THERE KNICKERS IN A TWIST.
For background info on the future religion of mankind see this
(MUHAMMAD IN THE BIBLE) HOLY QURAN CHAPTER 37 verses 101 - 122
101. So We gave him the good news of a boy ready to suffer and forbear.
102. Then, when (the son) reached (the age of) (serious) work with him, he said: "O my son! I see in vision that I offer thee in sacrifice: Now see what is thy view!" (The son) said: "O my father! Do as thou art commanded: thou will find me, if Allah so wills one practising Patience and Constancy!"
103. So when they had both submitted their wills (to Allah., and he had laid him prostrate on his forehead (for sacrifice),
104. We called out to him "O Abraham!
105. "Thou hast already fulfilled the vision!" - thus indeed do We reward those who do right.
106. For this was obviously a trial-
107. And We ransomed him with a momentous sacrifice:
108. And We left (this blessing) for him among generations (to come) in later times:
109. "Peace and salutation to Abraham!"
110. Thus indeed do We reward those who do right.
111. For he was one of our believing Servants.
112. And We gave him the good news of Isaac - a prophet,- one of the Righteous.
113. We blessed him and Isaac: but of their progeny are (some) that do right, and (some) that obviously do wrong, to their own souls.
114. Again (of old) We bestowed Our favour on Moses and Aaron,
115. And We delivered them and their people from (their) Great Calamity;
116. And We helped them, so they overcame (their troubles);
117. And We gave them the Book which helps to make things clear;
118. And We guided them to the Straight Way.
119. And We left (this blessing) for them among generations (to come) in later times:
120. "Peace and salutation to Moses and Aaron!"
121. Thus indeed do We reward those who do right.
122. For they were two of our believing Servants.
ISHMAEL IS THE FIRST BORN AND GOOD NEWS OF ISSAC DOES NOT APPEAR UNTIL AFTER THE SACRIFICE????? Therefore the claim that god gave the land to Israel is destroyed without the need of any WMD's.
HADITH Volume 4, Book 55, Number 583: Narrated Ibn Abbas:
The first lady to use a girdle was the mother of Ishmael. She used a girdle so that she might hide her tracks from Sarah. Abraham brought her and her son Ishmael while she was suckling him, to a place near the Ka'ba under a tree on the spot of Zam-zam, at the highest place in the mosque. During those days there was nobody in Mecca, nor was there any water So he made them sit over there and placed near them a leather bag containing some dates, and a small water-skin containing some water, and set out homeward. Ishmael's mother followed him saying, "O Abraham! Where are you going, leaving us in this valley where there is no person whose company we may enjoy, nor is there anything (to enjoy)?" She repeated that to him many times, but he did not look back at her Then she asked him, "Has Allah ordered you to do so?" He said, "Yes." She said, "Then He will not neglect us," and returned while Abraham proceeded onwards, and on reaching the Thaniya where they could not see him, he faced the Ka'ba, and raising both hands, invoked Allah saying the following prayers:
'O our Lord! I have made some of my offspring dwell in a valley without cultivation, by Your Sacred House (Kaba at Mecca) in order, O our Lord, that they may offer prayer perfectly. So fill some hearts among men with love towards them, and (O Allah) provide them with fruits, so that they may give thanks.' (14.37) Ishmael's mother went on suckling Ishmael and drinking from the water (she had).
When the water in the water-skin had all been used up, she became thirsty and her child also became thirsty. She started looking at him (i.e. Ishmael) tossing in agony; She left him, for she could not endure looking at him, and found that the mountain of Safa was the nearest mountain to her on that land. She stood on it and started looking at the valley keenly so that she might see somebody, but she could not see anybody. Then she descended from Safa and when she reached the valley, she tucked up her robe and ran in the valley like a person in distress and trouble, till she crossed the valley and reached the Marwa mountain where she stood and started looking, expecting to see somebody, but she could not see anybody. She repeated that (running between Safa and Marwa) seven times."
The Prophet said, "This is the source of the tradition of the walking of people between them (i.e. Safa and Marwa). When she reached the Marwa (for the last time) she heard a voice and she asked herself to be quiet and listened attentively. She heard the voice again and said, 'O, (whoever you may be)! You have made me hear your voice; have you got something to help me?" And behold! She saw an angel at the place of Zam-zam, digging the earth with his heel (or his wing), till water flowed from that place. She started to make something like a basin around it, using her hand in this way, and started filling her water-skin with water with her hands, and the water was flowing out after she had scooped some of it."
The Prophet added, "May Allah bestow Mercy on Ishmael's mother! Had she let the Zam-zam (flow without trying to control it) (or had she not scooped from that water) (to fill her water-skin), Zam-zam would have been a stream flowing on the surface of the earth." The Prophet further added, "Then she drank (water) and suckled her child. The angel said to her, 'Don't be afraid of being neglected, for this is the House of Allah which will be built by this boy and his father, and Allah never neglects His people.' The House (i.e. Kaba) at that time was on a high place resembling a hillock, and when torrents came, they flowed to its right and left. She lived in that way till some people from the tribe of Jurhum or a family from Jurhum passed by her and her child, as they (i.e. the Jurhum people) were coming through the way of Kada'. They landed in the lower part of Mecca where they saw a bird that had the habit of flying around water and not leaving it. They said, 'This bird must be flying around water, though we know that there is no water in this valley.' They sent one or two messengers who discovered the source of water, and returned to inform them of the water. So, they all came (towards the water)." The Prophet added, "Ishmael's mother was sitting near the water. They asked her, 'Do you allow us to stay with you?" She replied, 'Yes, but you will have no right to possess the water.' They agreed to that." The Prophet further said, "Ishmael's mother was pleased with the whole situation as she used to love to enjoy the company of the people. So, they settled there, and later on they sent for their families who came and settled with them so that some families became permanent residents there. The child (i.e. Ishmael) grew up and learnt Arabic from them and (his virtues) caused them to love and admire him as he grew up, and when he reached the age of puberty they made him marry a woman from amongst them.
308 - Mike Green
This article begins with promise then falls off the cliff of reality. Ron Paul is indeed an excellent candidate for president. The fact that he is willing to scale down the federal government by eliminating the 9/11-spawned Office of Homeland Security is but one of numerous good reasons to vote him into office.
But let's look at the rationale of the writer who lambastes Paul for his assertion that the U.S. is being attacked because we are the aggressors.
While the author agrees with Paul in principle, he then shifts to agree with those who have made immoral and illegal decisions to launch aggressive attacks against other nations ... which ultimately the writer admits becomes the catalyst for "blowback" or some form of retaliatory measures.
The writer ignores also the call for Paul to no longer be admitted into the debates. Such a call is certainly undemocratic. And if the U.S. is the model for democracy, cencorship of candidates who say things that are unpopular isn't really a very good model of democracy, is it?
The writer fails to adequately address the point Paul makes, which is the most relevant of all. Despite the champing at the bit by other candidates to get a piece of Paul during the debate where he demonstrated he is the only honest candidate running for president, it stands to reason that what Paul said went over the heads of most everyone who heard it, the author of this article included.
Paul made reference to a long-term (over 10 years) system of military and covert operations that yielded death and destruction in Iraq for no other purpose than to soften it up for another full-scale invasion similar to the one in 1991. Paul suggests that the U.S. has no business doing such things.
The writer apparently disagrees.
He considers the mullahs of Iran crazed. That statement alone shows this writer doesn't know his history. The U.S. overthrew the Iranian government (democratically elected) in 1953 and installed a brutal dictator in order to control the oil from Iran for 26 years.
After losing Iran in 1979 to a revolution by its not-so-crazy people, the U.S. befriended Saddam Hussein (a known crazed loony) in Iraq. Within months, Iraq had invaded Iran and maintained an 8-year war in which the U.S. was a principle partner.
These actions are not preventive or defensive in any way, shape or form. Thus, the argument that the U.S. is justified in breaking its own laws, opposing its values and creeds and moral codes in order to prevent an aggression that is otherwise inevitable is a false argument.
No such situation existed then, when the U.S. posed its aggression against Iran (1953), or when it invaded Iraq (1991), or when it launched aggression against Korea, Vietnam, Laos, Guatemala, El Salvador, Cambodia, Panama, and the list goes on.
If this writer's perspective rules the day, the U.S. can live on both sides of its double-talking mouth. It can claim to be a moral and upright nation of equal justice and freedom for all, and yet aggressively intervene in governments around the globe at its own discretion under the guise of "pre-empting" imagined attacks or aggression against the U.S.
Such policies, if good for the U.S. are also good for other nations. Thus, any nation can claim the same rationale as the U.S. and formulate attacks against this nation as "pre-emptive" measures. The irony of it all is that those foreign nations that employ such a policy of prevention would have the historical evidence of U.S. aggression to point to as reason for fearing the radical rationale of so-called reasoned leaders.
Thus, under such wild assertions by every leader in the world following the policies set in place by the U.S., there will be chaos and war in every sector fo the globe. No one need be attacked in order to launch an attack. One need only have fear ... or, as is the case with the U.S., use fear as a reason to launch an attack even if no facts or evidence supports the rationale.
Is this the world we want? If not, why is this argument being proffered in this forum?