One of the more insane claims in Ron Paul’s newsletters was that the Israelis were behind the WTC bombings in 1993:
Whether [the 1993 World Trade Center bombing] was a setup by the Israeli Mossad, as a Jewish friend of mine suspects, or was truly a retaliation by the Islamic fundamentalists, matters little.
This claim is of course so ridiculous and absurd that even Paul has to protect himself by claiming that “a Jewish friend” told him about it. What a handy rhetorical device! If only Paul had had the foresight to couch all his racist remarks in the newsletters in this way, he wouldn’t have any problems right now! “As a black friend of mine once told me, 95% of all black people in DC are criminal or semi-criminal.” See how effective that is?
Dan has already covered some of the statements in Paul’s book (which he has not yet disavowed writing) that sound a lot like the newsletters he now disavows. One of the excerpts CNN did not cover was Paul’s section on the bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut. You’ll never guess who Paul thinks was responsible:
I used to know an old lady who went senile.
She literally took all her potted plants and broke every pot!
So, the term, ”crack pot,” has a literal sense.
Ron Paul is as much a crack pot as she ever was.
The ronulans will just claim he didn’t write it Nan.
But he did write this.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/12/30/in-early-book-rep-ron-paul-criticized-aids-patients-minority-rights-and-sexual-harassment-victims/?hpt=hp_bn3
“Employee rights are said to be valid when employers pressure employees into sexual activity,” Paul wrote. “Why don’t they quit once the so-called harassment starts? Obviously the morals of the harasser cannot be defended, but how can the harassee escape some responsibility for the problem? Seeking protection under civil rights legislation is hardly acceptable.”
Ron Paul Praises OWS
http://weaselzippers.us/2011/12/29/ron-paul-praises-occupy-wall-street/#comments
He likes anyone who bashes the U.S. Ron Paul fans have the fantasy that RP will magically make the government disappear or reduce it to next to nothing. Facts be damned. Like obama, RP drones project their dreams onto him regardless of reality. There is nothing we can do to snap them out of their delusions.
Hard Right
check it up it look like OBAMA’s adorators again for RON PAUL,
wow. just when i thought Paul was actually the most “sane” of the GOP candidates.
wow. just wow.
@ilovebeeswarzone:
“Independents” and dems are his biggest fans in Iowa.
C.A.S., ifyou think RP was sane in any way, you are lacking in knowledge about anything Republican let alone Conservative. (that’s not meant to be an insult)
This guy is bat sh*t crazy, if not mentally deranged!
That would be speculation rather than an outright claim. Exaggerating as usual. There is also nothing ‘insane’ about the idea of false flag attacks, from whatever government. In 1962, for example, the Joint Chiefs of Staff proposed a campaign of terrorist attacks targeting the Miami area, made to look like they had been executed by Cuba (Operation Northwoods). JFK vetoed the idea, but apparently it was not considered beyond the pale (i.e. he didn’t have anyone arrested for making such a proposal). Similarly, in 1954, the Israeli government planned a series of bombings within Egypt, targeting Egyptian, British and American holdings. These were to have been pinned on the Muslim Brotherhood or other groups within Egypt (The Lavon Affair).
So, while the WTC bombing did prove to have been committed by Islamists, there is nothing especially outrageous about speculation that someone else could have done it. You all seem pretty invested in the idea that neither we nor our allies would ever stoop so low as to execute a false flag operation, but the history of the CIA doesn’t suggest any such high-minded dedication to principle. Which leaves you to make endless variations on the argument from outrage (comments 1,4 and 6 are nice examples of content-free expression of shock, dismay, and ‘that’s crazy talk!’)
Maybe I’m missing something in history. When has the CIA or US intel agencies murdered US citizens to “execute a false flag operation”, if you please.
@Hard Right: The piece on sexual harassment was (maybe still is, I haven’t kept up on libertarian doctrine) pretty standard libertarian thought at the time. The notion that there should be a special class of obnoxious activity (sexual propositioning), which would be legal in the absence of the employer/employee relationship, but then becomes actionable because of it, is legally contorted.
Generally, if my employer is being a jerk, my recourse is to quit – unless they’re doing something that would be illegal in other contexts, i.e. if they spit on me obviously I can charge them, or if someone gets groped then they can file charges for indecent assault. For the federal government to step in and make certain kinds of irritating behavior illegal (while leaving others untouched) is just an attempt to micromanage human affairs in accordance with whatever is raising the most popular outrage at the time.
They haven’t, to my knowledge. It was merely seriously proposed (and to be fair I don’t know whether Operation Northwoods, as envisioned by the JCS, would have resulted in American deaths). But in terms of documenting the government’s general level of regard for American life when they feel like important objectives are at stake, you could look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unethical_human_experimentation_in_the_United_States (which includes a lot of information on the CIA). The best I can say is that most of that stuff seems to have happened a fairly long time ago, i.e. it’s quite possible that the CIA operates on a more ethical basis today. But apparently it’s still possible to propose deliberately ‘letting a few attacks get through’ so that US citizens remain aware of the danger they face, and that’s not considered beyond the pale.
The CIA has carried out false flag operations elsewhere.
Anyway, my point is that there is a huge gulf between
– speculating that some attack might have been a false flag operation (not inconsistent with history, human nature, doesn’t require thousands of people sworn to silence). Not crazy talk.
– claiming e.g. that Queen Elizabeth is actually a reptilian alien (a la David Icke), or that the moon landing never happened (requires that the world be vastly different than what it appears to be, or that thousands of people are behaving as clandestine agents of some sinister agenda). Actual crazy talk.
bbartlog
hi,
are you forgetting the MAYANS prediction for 2012 end of the year ending the world.
bye
lol, my wife is into the Mayan 2012 stuff. Somehow doesn’t interfere with her ability to make business plans that go beyond the end of 2012. Cognitive compartmentalization for the win. Well, some sort of win.
Not good enough, bbart. If you’re going to attempt to defend the truthers… and by proxy, Ron Paul… with your suggestion that the history of the CIA would, indeed, “stoop so low as to execute a false flag operation” (i.e. Sept 11th, THE specific event in question), then your answer fails.
So let’s cut to the chase. Do you think that the US government was behind Sept 11th? And is this your round about way of defending that?
MATA
something came to my mind while reading your last comment,
I think it’s because I just comment on my view of A GIANT GLOBAL CONSPIRACY POSSIBLE ON ANOTHER POST, about money
SO MY MIND IS STIL CLICKING ON CONSPIRACY, AS i was reading your comment, all this to say,
YOU KNOW, when we are looking at today’s events afterward, yes it is impossible to think that the BUSH GOVERNEMENT WOULD HAVE HAD EVEN A MINUTE IMPLICATION IN IT,
OKAY? FOLLOW ME NOW, BUT WHAT ABOUT THE OPPOSITION AT THAT TIME ,WHICH WHERE PREPARING THIS NEW LEADERSHIP AFTER BUSH, THINK OF THE LIAISON OF FRENDLY SYMPATIC EXCHANGE COMING FROM SOME IN THE OPPOSITION with HATERS IN FOREIGN LAND, WHICH WHERE EXISTING ALSO BEFORE THE ELECTION, OKAY, THIS NEFARIOUS PREPARATION WOULD HAVE HELP THE SOCIAL COMMUNIST MARXIST CAUSE AS A TRIGGER TO HELP,
WHY NOT SO, JUST FROM WHAT TRANSPIRE TODAY THE WAY THEY GOVERN SECRETLY, the gun running THE WAY THE LEADERSHIP IS comminucating with such familiarity, WITH UNFRIENDLY COUNTRIES, THE WAY THE ARAB SPRING BEGAN WITH INVOLVEMENT FROM SOME HERE, AND WHAT ABOUT WE KNOW OF MANY HATER GROUPS IN THIS AMERICA. I STOP RIGHT HERE, JUST TO SAY THE POSSIBILITY OF CONNECTION WITH HERE HATERS OF JEWS and haters abroad,
and we know how many JEWS BUSYNESS WHERE IN THE FINANCE TOWERS, ecetera, ecetera
@MataHarley: No, the Truther theories range from the implausible to the ludicrous. In my opinion the psychology on both sides (Truther and what I guess I’ll call anti-Truther) is interesting, though.
On the Truther side, you have a whole bunch of people who espouse a variety of theories that are totally incompatible with each other. For example, you have some who say that Bush knew we would be attacked and let them do it, some who say that Osama Bin Laden was actually employed by the CIA, some who say the towers were blown down by demolition experts using ‘nanothermite’, and so on ad nauseam. You would *think* that people with such contrary theories would really not get along, but of course what really unites them is that by espousing the theories they’re declaring a lack of faith in the goodwill of the government. On that basis they are united.
The anti-Truthers are those who find the ideas under consideration so offensive that they want them rejected on that basis alone. For them it’s not enough that someone look at the Truther theories and, after consideration, say bloodlessly: ‘you know, that just doesn’t make any sense’. Because someone in that camp is already at least willing to contemplate the idea of government evil on such a scale, they’ve already failed the test of loyalty that is really what the anti-Truther is looking for. The only really acceptable response in their minds is outrage at the suggestion of such a thing, and by extension an affirmation of faith in the good will of the government.
@MataHarley: ‘…i.e. Sept 11th, THE specific event in question…’
In the original post you may recall that Paul was talking about the earlier WTC bombing (1993 as I recall). But 9/11 is certainly a logical followup.
@bbartlog: I don’t understand why you would unequivocally condemn the truthers, but then chastise those that also condemn the truthers as being what you would characterize as gullible “anti-truthers”. Did it not occur to you that contempt for that movement actually stems from the fact tht we did examime the investigations and evidence? It was not, as you seem to infer, a blanket and misplaced trust in government.
And the the reason I switched the WTC to the Sept 11 WTC attacks is because Paul’s recent aide, in his confessions, did state that Ron Paul was a truther.
Also part of the truther religion is that the Jews knew in advance, warned area Jews to say away.
But I think you figured that was, indeed, the logical and related tangent to the original WTC mentioned bombing. But back to your original comment that it’s no so far fetched to consider that the CIA may “… propose deliberately ‘letting a few attacks get through’ so that US citizens remain aware of the danger they face, and that’s not considered beyond the pale.”
Actually, I suggest it’s entirely the opposite. The nation, post Patriot Act, post TSA searches, post shoes off/empty pockets, etal is highly unfriendly to *any* terror attempt succeeding. As a matter of fact, since the Obama Homeland Security group didn’t stop the underwear bomber, or the Times Square bomber (alert citizens did…), they have been justifiably raked over the coals for their inefficiency.
The military is also raked over the coals for not catching the warning signs for the Ft. Hood shooter.
So do I believe the intel agencies, or Homeland Security, find it beneficial to “deliberately” let a few attacks thru? Especially since it’s not the government agencies thwarting them? Hang no.
I, for one, find our government corrupt in certain angles… mostly related to power and money. But I don’t think for a minute there is the possibility of such a conspiracy to murder thousands of American for an agenda… most especially considering the amount people that would have to be involved in such a conspiratorial secret.
That does not mean I have blind trust in central government. But I do have a vast amount of faith in Americans, our checks and balances, and the inability for such events to happen without the cooperation of many.
@MataHarley: ‘But back to your original comment that it’s no so far fetched to consider that the CIA may “… propose deliberately ‘letting a few attacks get through’ so that US citizens remain aware of the danger they face, and that’s not considered beyond the pale.”’
Well, I was slamming Gingrich – he was running his mouth and made this suggestion (I can find the youtube if you want). I agree that the agencies themselves would hardly suggest such a thing.
As for ‘anti-truthers’ I am not trying to lump everyone who isn’t a truther into that category. Just describing a certain mindset I’ve encountered. I should have made it clear that there is a third group (probably the largest) that isn’t in either category.
I know that Dondero has said Paul was a Truther; Paul himself denied it unequivocally on TV just the other day. I believe Paul but I expect some people find Dondero more credible.
bbart, I saw Paul’s less than convincing “tut tut’s” with Jake Tapper. However it’s what he didn’t say, and compared to what he *did* say back in 2009.
Has too much “to do”?? Does this sound like a guy who doesn’t believe there is a “controversy” and conspiracy in play? He paused, then launched that “I’m too busy” response. If he thought it was just poorly implemented foreign policy.. which he never hesitates to say… why did he just not repeat to the blogger/reporter that the truth of Sept 11th was our foreign policy?
Or does it sound like a guy who does believe there is a conspiracy, but doesn’t want to touch the “controversy” of it while focusing on the Fed, the IMF and IRS?
Sorry… Paul’s a loon, and apparently getting to be a pretty good liar as well.
I am in this thread researching the Ron Paul racism. Using the “find out for yourself” approach where the majority will take an allegation made by another saying “dont take my word, find out for yourself” and since the majority hear that, will take the info as valid.
I have yet to find an article in its entirety. There are plenty of quotes. And the quotes I have seen are not the anti-semite and hate black that I am lead to believe.
In fact, from what I can make of these newsletters, they appear to be publicized versions of message boards. Very opinionated and multiple writers. And with the newsletters being of this type of writing, I find it incredible that Ron Paul is to take any responsibility as demanded by reporters and the like.
I have been to a many message board, to those who stand as Paul’s accusers, and have read the same crap from people I KNOW dont represent the mindset of the board, but “impose” themselves to the forum so they can have an audience. Left to create their own message board, no one would attend. AND I have seen these “intruders” get highlighted as the host’s spokesman, which is totally absurd. YET this is what appears to have been done to Ron Paul, and it seems childish, just short of plain ridiculous.
I could have it wrong, but the comment made about the LA riots wasnt directed to any race, the comment lead the reader to believe it was racial since “welfare checks” was suggested. The gay comments arent out of the realm of possibility if not outright truth. Harsh truth, but truth none the less. One of my favorite Reagan speeches was the one he made to the gay community about HIV/AIDS research. After stating money and concern was being invested into the cure for the disease, received by a standing ovation, Reagan then started to lecture the crowd on personal responsibility. Stating certain choices were to be held accountable for the contracting of the disease. The crowd turned on him like a vicious dog and Nancy was clinging to his arm in what appears to be fear. But Reagan said what needed to be said. Aint POLITICALLY correct, but correct none the less.
When “Jew” is used, again in my opinion, it is used in place of Isreali. But for some reason, when one says “Jew this” or “Jew that”, it is to be inferred that one has an anti-semetic view. Dont start, again from the “find out for yourself” motivation I have read the Bible. I wholy believe the Israel of the Bible is the nation that exists today. And time and again, over and over, Israel has a history of setting itself up for punishment/correction. Straying from God’s Will and Plan to pursue the worldly ways that existsed around them to the extent of forgetting who they were as God’s chosen nation. God would hand them, the nation of Israel, over to their enemies to correct them and inevitably the nation of Israel would cry out to God who would then turn His heart back to Israel and deliver them from their DESERVED punishment. A little “anti-semetic”, huh? The protection that Israel recieves from Our Heavenly Father is not for Israel’s “raw deal”, but through a covenent made to Abraham. When Jesus returns, its not to save Israel, but to show that God IS Our Heavenly Father and to to see that His name IS Holy, for His name’s sake. Once Israel becomes a nation again, which it has, it will never be destroyed again, that is a promise from Our Heavenly Father. So when the Bachman/Santorum with the “christian brigade” want to pre-emptively strike Iran to defend Israel, maybe they should look and see how foolish they make themselves out to be being Bible based Christians.
Israel pre-emptively struck a nuclear reactor in Iraq in the early to mid 90’s, remember? Ron Paul, that damned “anti-semite”, was one of the very few congressman who praised Israel for their actions.