My deep down inspiration for this thread is located at: On Ron Paul, getting high, snorgling, and other nonsense. Lolrons! was also worth mentioning about the funny pictures of Ron Paul. I of course can't make this a spam for bots, so will need to mention other names, maybe it will even rub off. LOL.
Rutherfordian Economics is to one of my other blogs.
In one of the debates, forgot which one and do not have the video link but Ron Paul said something like "They attacked us because we are over there." So I was asking whether there was anything that we can do to appease OBL at Thom's Forum. Most just said as long as we don't have bases there and would let "them" decide if we can have Embassies. But then the question is who is the "them" that decides in a non-democratic country and no matter which one will have factions that do not like the USA.
So when I ran across this post at the Jawa Report, I had to link it here: New al Qaeda Video Shows Zawahiri, Adam Gadahn, Threatening U.S. Homeland.
In a short introduction, we see Adam Gadahn saying, "The amount of respect we hold for your international law, is even less than the respect you hold for defying sharia (Islamic law)".
The first step in creating a Dhimmi it seems to me. Once you convince others to follow your laws then in essence they are under those same laws. But if The List: The World’s Stupidest Fatwas does not cause us some schizophrenia it will at least have us guessing what is sharia law is at any given time.
How can we recognize a law which states that the Embassy or Consulate is for all intents and purposes an inviolable fortress which the host country has no right to enter or monitor and when our sharia’h commands us to liberate every handspan of Islamic land occupied by the unbelievers?”....
Therefore, we shall continue to target you, at home and abroad...
Well so much for allowing embassies to facilitate trade and understanding between countries.
From CNN: In that video he issued President Bush a series of "legitimate demands" that he said must be met to avoid continuing jihad against Americans everywhere.
Those demands ranged from pulling out all soldiers from "every Muslim land," to halting support of the "enemies of Islam" and of Israel, to freeing all Muslims held in detention centers and prisons.
Failure to take any one of the steps, he said, would be "considered sufficient justification" for continuing the fighting and killing.
So then once you satisfy these set of demands can he then go for another round by insisting on "partial Muslim" countries (ie India, Uganda, Spain...).
It ends with some more videos of conspiracies that they dreamed up. So do we really want a President that is willing to make us a Dhimmi State? This is nearly as bad as the liberal meme that we just need to talk to our adversaries and they will come to an understanding. So Ron Paul supporters or Ron himself, do you really want to appease Islamic Fundamentalists like this? Or is Ron Paul going to come to his senses.
Labels: Ron Paul