We Have a New Home! Please Click Below to Go to the New Freedom’s Lighthouse!

freedomslighthouse.net

Blog Archive

Tuesday, December 29, 2009

Ben Stein Tells Ron Paul His Statement That "They're Terrorists Because We're Occupiers" Is An "Anti-Semitic Argument" - Video


Here is video of Ron Paul and Ben Stein on "Larry King Live" getting into a heated argument over Ron Paul saying terrorist are motivated to hate us because we are "occupiers."

When Ben Stein said that we should help the government of Yemen by stopping terrorists and murders, Ron Paul said "why are they terrorist? They're terrorists because we're occupiers." Ben Stein then called Ron Paul's claim that we are "occupiers" as "the same anti-Semitic argument that we've heard over and over again."

8 comments:

Anonymous,  December 29, 2009 at 10:49 PM  

We are not "occupiers". We are asked to help a Government defend itself from terrorist bent on taking over the country. We then become targets ourselves. Ron Paul is clueless and would have allowed Hitler to take over the world. "Its not my problem" shows a man out of touch with world events. I am happy this idiot didnt run for President.

Brian December 29, 2009 at 11:49 PM  

You are right - the United States is not an "occupier." We have brought freedom to hundreds of millions of people around the world. Ron Paul is an isolationist who completely misses the boat on Foreign Policy. With his thinking, Hitler would have been allowed to enslave all of Europe.

We must defend ourselves against an enemy that will not simply go away if we cede the field and bring everyone home. They would only be more emboldened if we did that, and come after us. Ron Paul is sincere, but in my view, his approach is very dangerous.

Larry S December 30, 2009 at 3:49 PM  

I can't agree with Ron Paul on most issues, but he's right: we ARE occupiers. We invaded Iraq and have occupied it... no ifs, ands or buts. We weren't "invited in" and it had nothing to do with defending ourselvs against terrorism. I'm not comfortable that we find ourselves in that role, but to deny that it happened simply makes matters worse. Until we recognize the problem, we stand little chance of coming up with a good solution, do we?

Rationalize it all you want, but just don't forget that all it is IS a rationalization.

Brian December 30, 2009 at 6:13 PM  

We are NOT occupiers. We are liberators. The whole connotation of "occupiers" is that we plunder the country for ourselves and enslave the people. We have brought freedom to millions and a chance for a better life.

We are no more "occupiers" in Iraq or Afghanistan than we were in France and the other enslaved nations of Europe during World War II. The "Blame America First" Crowd are blind to what a noble nation they are blessed to live in.

Larry S December 30, 2009 at 8:26 PM  

Oh, come on, be honest!

"We are no more "occupiers" in Iraq or Afghanistan than we were in France and the other enslaved nations of Europe during World War II."

Well, let's take a look at that idea. Wasn't there something about an attack at Pearl Harbor on Dec. 7, 1941? Didn't Germany declare war on the U.S., long before we ever set foot in Europe?

Nothing REMOTELY like that happened in Iraq. Iraq hadn't declared war on the U.S. or our Allies. (Yeah, they invaded Kuwait when Ole Man Bush was in the White House, but that's a whole different story and a whole different war.)

"But they atttacked us on Sept. 11" you might say. No, they didn't. Not one Iraqi in the bunch. No support of Al Qaeda whatsoever by Saddam Hussein. Nothing. Nada. Zip. Zilch.

"But they had WMDs and were GOING to attack us!" you might suggest. Uhhh, no. No WMDs. No threats to attack America whatsoever.

"But Saddam engaged in more genocide than any dictator since Hitler. He killed hundreds of thousands of his own people! We can't allow that!" That MIGHT have been a decent argument, had we acted at the time that the genocide occurred. Unfortunately, that all happened about ten years BEFORE we invaded Iraq.

"But... Saddam was a really bad guy... a very mean man!" True enough. But do we attack and invade every country led by a mean guy?

Now, as to your argument that the term "occupiers" connotes plundering and enslaving. I don't know that it necessarily connotes that at all. I kind of think that "occupiers" are people that "occupy" another country. But if "occupiers" offends you, how about we just substitute the term "invaders" instead? Because we sure as hell ARE invaders, at least when it comes to Iraq. (Afghanistan is a bit more complicated, so I won't suggest we deserve the same status there.)

I mean, heck, get over it: we even called it the D-Day INVASION, remember? We HAVE invaded other countries before, y'know?

But your unwillingness to embrace the term is understandable. In the past, when we invaded, we did it because we had to. Not because we wanted to. This time, it IS kind of embarrassing. But at least we can recoup some sense of dignity by un-occupying Iraq as soon as practicable.

Anonymous,  December 30, 2009 at 10:55 PM  

Your a evil Anti-Semitic Nazi if you oppose empire building and wars in the Middle East what America can't afford. Sure. Just a fun fact: Google what Semitic really means. :)

Brian December 30, 2009 at 11:19 PM  

I am not embarrassed in the slightest about the actions of the United States. I am very proud of this nation's willingness to bring liberty to people who have no hope otherwise.

I am embarrassed for Americans who detest their own country, because they don't have enough sense to be embarrassed for themselves.

mincir December 31, 2009 at 5:22 AM  

Ron Paul is off the reservation. I admired him until I further researched his comments about September 11 and what a Ron Paul foreign policy would look like.
I’m not ready to get out the Reynold’s Wrap quite yet to become a Paul supporter.

  © Blogger templates Newspaper III by Ourblogtemplates.com 2008

Back to TOP