Friday, September 30, 2011

Ron Paul Condemns Death of al-Awlaki; "I Don't Think that's a Good Way to Deal with our Problems"

Congressman Ron Paul is condemning the death of terrorist Anwar al-Awlaki, calling his death an "assassination."  Here is a short transcript of an exchange that he had with a reporter who was asking how he felt about the news:

Reporter-  Over night, our time, Anwar al-Awlaki was killed... What do you think about that?  Was that a victory for President Obama?

Congressman Paul-  Let's hope not.  I don't think that's a good way to deal with our problems.  He's born here.  Awlaki was born here.  He's an American citizen.  He was never tried or charged for any crimes.  Nobody knows if he ever killed anybody.  We know that he might have been associated with the, uh, underwear bomber.  But if the American people accept this blindly and casually, we now have an accepted practice of the President assassinating people who he thinks are bad guys.  I think it's sad.

What would the people have said about Timothy McVeigh?  We didn't assassinate him.  But certainly he had done it.  We put him through the courts and they executed him.  But to start assassinating American citizens, without charges, we should think very seriously about this.

Reporter-  Does that only apply to American citizens?  I mean, would you say the same thing about bin Laden?

Congressman Paul- Not exactly.  You know, because he was involved with, you know, 9/11...
Congressman Paul
Mr. Paul went on to say that al-Awlaki was not involved in 9/11.

You can watch the exchange here:

Please bookmark!


  1. Awlaki personally met with two of the 9/11 hijackers

  2. So, execute anyone who has met a hijacker? I mean, was he a soldier or just one of their political/religious leadership?


  3. If you're a member of al Qaeda and say "Yes, fly planes into buildings."

    Then, yes.

  4. Really? Then why have the ICC or any international police organizations? Just roaming gunmen? Even Nazis got a trial at Nuremberg!

    Pretty slippery slope you got there, bud.

    The idea that you can kill someone just because they said "do something" is pretty barbaric.

  5. @Anonymous

    First, when you use quotation marks, they are for quoting things. No one said "do something," so your argument instantly becomes a fallacy.

    Second, when you are a member of al Qaeda that helps people plan to kill 3,000 Americans (not to mention helping terrorist kill hundreds of others), you deserve to die. If he was able to be captured, then sure, he should have had a trial. But at the geographical position he was in, the only option was to take him out.

  6. "First, when you use quotation marks, they are for quoting things. No one said "do something," so your argument instantly becomes a fallacy."

    That's not the definition of a fallacy, he was a "motivator and leader", I was paraphrasing, you show your ignorance.

    Whether he deserved to die should be left up to to a fair process of law, not the whimsy of men, who react emotionally without knowledge, like yourself.

  7. There are many different fallacies, there isn't just "a fallacy." One is called straw man, which is when you paraphrase someone's words to make their argument weaker (i.e. "do something" instead of he helped kill thousands of people). Thus, when the argument is weaker, one is able to attack it better. Congratulations, you've learned something today.

    Hopefully you learn from this as well: yes, as I stated previously (which you ignored, since it hurts your argument), if someone is captured, they deserve a trial. However, if someone is actively trying to kill people, they deserve to die.

    This time around, please discuss my argument instead of (one), creating a fallacy and then erroneously saying you did not, (two), actually make a valid point, and (three), when your argument is failing (as it has in every single one of your comments), don't resort to another fallacy, an ad hominem attack, which you committed when you called me ignorant. Thanks

  8. Holy shit, Anonymous got DESTROYED

  9. Stuck on stupid? Name the fallacy, blowhard. Declaring victory is amusing but ultimately a mastubatory act on your part.

    Not only were you wrong in saying he was actively killing someone, doubling down on your error doesnt make truth from fiction.

    Was this idealogical motivator engaged in a gun fight with the CIA drone? Youre premised are utter fantasy.

    Conclusion: declare more ficticious fallacies and invent more facts from the seat of your rainnbow shitting unicorn. At least skim a bio of who he was and how he got killed before you respond.

    Phil H, reading comprehension not your strong suit?

  10. What, wait? I named two fallacies specifically. In fact, not only did I name them, I quoted the specific things you wrote that shows you committed them.

    Since you clearly did not bother reading my argument, I'm not going to bother reading yours. I'll just assume that you misspelled simple words and started swearing, once again showing that the best you can do is resort to ad hominem attacks.

    Please address the issue: he helped murder 3,000 people and refused to be captured

  11. This article is a bit misleading. The part the piece left out, but can be seen in the video is paramount to putting Mr. Paul's words into context. Check out where the article ends:

    "Reporter- Does that only apply to American citizens? I mean, would you say the same thing about bin Laden?

    Congressman Paul- Not exactly. You know, because he was involved with, you know, 9/11..."

    Mr. Paul went on to explain that he (and his colleagues) voted to give the President authority to go after those responsible for 9/11. This is the difference that the congressman was making clear. Should our government have the authority to kill American citizens without receiving lawfully-granted authority?