Ron Paul Proves He: Holds U.S. & Israel Liable Gazans

Ron Paul has accepted donations from Stormfronts founder Don Black and their members but now in a interview, Ron Paul in a interview has come out and said he holds the United States liable for letting Israel use weapons from us in their defense against Gazans. Ron Paul condemns Israel in the attacks on the Gazans. This is a big blunder made by Paul in this interview in my mind and this proves he is a true anti-semite. It also proves that Ron Paul would be a very weak Commander in Chief because of his non-intervention attitude if hostilities would every arise that would put our national security at risk.




http://edition.presstv.ir/detail/81547.html

Here are excerpts from the interview:

"The weapons being used to kill so many Palestinians are American weapons, and American funds, essentially, are being used for this," said the congressman Friday.

Israel launched an all-out war against the Gaza Strip and its democratically-elected ruler, the Hamas movement, to put an end to rocket attacks against southern Israel.

At least 821 Palestinians have been killed during the operation and some 3,330 others are reported wounded. At least 10 Israeli troops have been killed during the offensive so far.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Also from the interview below, it could be said that some of Pauls answers could be considered treasous. Basically, Ron Paul confirms secret clandestine operations to an agency of the Iranian government. He is a government official confirming knowledge of clandestine activities accused of by the press.


Ron Paul: There's No Such Thing As A Independent Israel
http://edition.presstv.ir/detail/79752.html


Press TV: What is your opinion on the idea of the US blocking Iran's oil exports and preventing its gasoline imports from reaching the country (based on H. Con. Res. 362 previously sought by US congressmen)?

Paul: I think it is an outrage I think it is a blockade. It is the use of force to stop the inflow of petroleum products and people and goods, banking, trains, cars, trucks, cargos. It's all prohibited. How can we stop that without the use of the navy and without the use of force? This idea is not a blockade it is just pure silliness on their part [US senators and congressmen].

If we bomb them, that's the start of hostilities. They (US policy makers) are never willing to take anything off the table, which includes a nuclear-first strike. So, if they do that do you think the Iranians are going to sit still? They are going to react!

The opposition said that, well, we don't want them to block the Strait of Hormuz [the Persian Gulf waterway which allows the passages of a third of the world's daily oil supply]. They ought to change their policy because they are more likely to get the Strait of Hormuz blocked if we persist on this. If we do any bombing or we put on a blockade, it's going to lead to big trouble.

Press TV: There has been a lot of speculation that Israel may act on its own and conduct an independent air strike on Iran's nuclear facilities. Do you think that's possible?



Paul: I don't think there is such a thing as an independent Israel doing anything, because I think no matter what they do its our money, its our weapons, and their not going to do it without us approving it and if they get into trouble we're going to bail them out, so there is no separation between the two.

Press TV: During your line of questioning at the Foreign Relations Committee you mentioned the Seymour Hersh article, which was among the articles that revealed that the Congress had awarded the Bush administration hundreds of millions of dollars for a covert operation to overthrow the Iranian government. Why did you mention those stories?

Paul: Well it's something that I have known about and heard about and it does go on. It goes on all around the world. To me it was a surprise that it was news, because we have been doing that and people do talk about it. I think it's an outrage. How would we react if somebody did it to us? We would be infuriated, willing to go to war. The fact that somebody came and tried to undermine our government.



Paul also expressed his opposition to a House resolution that strongly supported Israel in its Gaza invasion. "I rise in opposition to this resolution

 

I goofed on my thread title. It should read:

Ron Paul Proves He's Anti-Semitic Today: Says U.S And Israel Liable For Gazans Deaths

 

He doesn't believe in restraining Israel and doesn't believe in giving them Arms/Money. What is there not to understand? To call him a Anti-Semite is repulsive and I think it fits your Username quite well to go that low. Maybe you should try listening to all of his positions concerning Israel before you go jump to conclusions on Soundbites.

Hell he even approved of Israel launching an Airstrike on Iraq for their self defense!

 

My problem with Paul is that he has no problem with nuclear proliferation. He doesn't approve of sanctioning Iran inorder to stop them from developing a nuclear weapon. Iran supports terrorism. Paul is giving tacit approval for a terrorist supporting regime to possess nuclear weapons. That's just plain crazy.

 

A good analogy for you understand is to put Iran in the perspective of a Dog... Clearly this is a Dog that's been abused for quite some time (Coup of 1953) and finally when the Dog bites back (1979) then the Neighbor (America) freaks out proceeds to Blame the Dog for being insane/crazy and it should be put down. While also omitting evidence of the Neighbor torturing the Dog for so long... The Neightbor decides to get a Dog of His Own (Saddam) and sends it own periodically to attack the Dog who bit him. Maybe the tortured Dog wont snarl or show its teeth if it would simply stop being abused? Clearly our Intervention Policy and Aggressive Military Actions clearly make us a Threat to Iran and they're scrambling for some tool to prevent an Invasion. If you simply defuse the need for them to acquire the Nuke in the first place by stopping our aggressive policies there won't be an issue. Another case would be if we never setup a Coup and created the entire mess in the first place... Also the Terrorists you seem to be spouting about Iran supporting are nothing but Blowback from the Coup the Federal Government established... It's to be expected when you replace a Democracy with a Pro-Western Dictator.

Clearly invading Iran will only further the cause of those who wish to do us harm because the Muslim World will see the USA as Muslim Destroyers. If we thought Iraq is bad wait until we step in Iran...

Edit: Avoiding the History of our actions or Mistakes will only further create more problems.

 

Ron Paul is a great guy,but his issues on foreign policies disturb me.

 

Why is he a great guy, then? I don't want to pass this guy the nuclear football.

Just look at what he is doing, here. Holding his own country "liable" for when one of our allies is defending itself against terrorists. The guy is a nutcase, and I'm glad he won't win.

 

I have no interest in Israel. Why should I? Ever considered why "terrorists" hate America and why we have to compromise our freedom and dedicate resources to the war on terror and homeland security? Lines were drawn for Israel, they've continued to expand.

 

I agree. But I do not fear death because of my religious beliefs (so fear mongering doesn't work on me) and his views on liberty trump everything else in my eyes.

 

...Right, because Iran has such a long history of giving WMDs to terrorists...

 

Yes, because Islam is an intolerant, violent ideology.

If you actually think that Muslims would all of a sudden become your peaceful buddies once Israel is gone, you're delusional.

 

well,I mean hes not an (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*),I mean personally he's ok,but politically hes kinda wacko,I agree with you on that.

 

Anyone asking for Israel to be destroyed here or even on Ron Paul's supporters? The answer is a definite no. Ron Paul wants to unleash Israel from their chains and let them protect themselves because they're strong enough to do so. Just because he won't be finacially or militarily support them that doesn't equate to simply wanting them to be destroyed.

Edit: Also Islam isn't a religion of Terror at all and to think all Muslims are inherently looking to destroy those who oppossing beliefs is a slap to the face to Common Sense.

 

American weapons have been used to kill Palestinians and Lebanese for 60 years.

 

American money has also been sent to the "Terrorist" Nations that also leak into the same Terrorists who kill the people of Israel.

 

Common sense, according to who? Your fellow white liberals in New Hampshire? That might be common sense to you, but....

Bukhari:V4B52N220 "Allah's Apostle said, 'I have been made victorious with terror.'"

Qur'an:8:12 "I shall terrorize the infidels. So wound their bodies and incapacitate them because they oppose Allah and His Apostle."

Qur'an:8:57 "If you gain mastery over them in battle, inflict such a defeat as would terrorize them, so that they would learn a lesson and be warned."

Ishaq:326 "If you come upon them, deal so forcibly as to terrify those who would follow, that they may be warned. Make a severe example of them by terrorizing Allah's enemies."

Qur'an:33:26 "Allah made the Jews leave their homes by terrorizing them so that you killed some and made many captive. And He made you inherit their lands, their homes, and their wealth. He gave you a country you had not traversed before."

Qur'an:59:2 "It was Allah who drove the [Jewish] People of the Book from their homes and into exile. They refused to believe and imagined that their strongholds would protect them against Allah. But Allah came at them from where they did not suspect, and filled their hearts with terror. Their homes were destroyed. So learn a lesson, O men who have eyes. This is My warning...they shall taste the torment of Fire."

and many more.

 

Ron Paul was for the rule of law before he was against it.

LINK

 

And Soviet weapons and technology have been used to kill Israelis. So what's your point?

 

Funny... taking pieces of an entire work and simply forgetting the rest of it. If we only took a percentage of the Bible and applied that as our Philosophy the entire Religion would be labeled as a Insane Cult too.

"It may be that God will grant love (and friendship) between you and those whom ye (now) hold as enemies. For God has power (over all things), and God is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.

God does not forbid you, with regard to those who fight you not for (your) faith nor drive you out of your homes, from dealing kindly and justly with them: for God loves those who are just."

"Fight in the cause of God those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for God loves not transgressors. And slay them wherever you catch them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter... But if they cease, God is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful... If they cease, let there be no hostility except to those who practice oppression"

Pretty sure the Qur'an doesn't give a Blank Check for everyone of the Faith to go slaughter people... those who take it like that aren't true Muslims at all but, an offshoot of those who forget the rest of the work.

 

The point is that we should stop giving Foreign Aid to countries in general considering it leaks down to the same groups we oppose.

 

It's really too bad that the millions of Muslims who are out there trying to emulate the life of Muhammad do not have the same beliefs about Islam as those white liberals in New Hampshire. The world would be a much more peaceful place.

Muhammad was a vicious, 7th century warlord who killed many people in often barbaric ways. 1.5 billion people alive today consider him to be the greatest man who ever lived, and worthy of imitation. That's a slight problem. A "true Muslim" according to you would be one that didn't do what Muhammad did. In other words, they wouldn't be Muslims.

 

Continue to label as if it works at all in a discussion... you seem to be of the belief that ALL Muslims are out to get you is this true?

Emulating his ideas indeed when his actions were that of self defence for his own people. The Jewish People betrayed him and the Meccans robbed/killed his people so there was plenty of justification under the Morality of those days to kill them. Trying to emit the Morality of today and that of the past is quite laughable considering that all People nearly acted the same.

The Muslims were only trying to defend themselves... how is that a bad thing to do?

 

Iran is not the world's number one sponsor of global terrorism for nothing!
http://www.voanews.com/policy/editorials/middle-east/Iran-Remains--128507928.html

But please continue to mention Iran has never given nukes to terrorists, without mentioning it's because they don't have them...yet!

Ron Paul is a dangerous little nut job. With him in the White House (as unlikely as that thankfully seems) you can bet Iran would not be hindered in the least gaining their hands on nuclear weapons (a chilling thought).

 

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=riQJtzPFD-E"]Ron Paul IS Change - 2012 Defense Budget Numbers - YouTube[/ame]

 

No, not all Muslims. But a hell of a lot of them. Millions. That's too large a number to ignore. If they weren't mass emigrating to the West and having as many babies as possible, it would concern me less. However, their acts of demographic jihad, coupled with the declining Western population, spells disaster in the coming decades.

Look up what he did to the surrendered, unarmed people in Banu Qurayza. Boys old enough to have pubic hair were beheaded, the women and children forced into slavery. But, as long as they claim self defense, I guess it's all good, right? It's an excuse still being made today.