Wednesday, 14 September 2011

Larry jumps the shark - as they say

Larry aka RealTruthOnline has "jumped the shark" as they say.

For years, Larry (and all the other conspiracist twats) have been arguing that Al Qaida was really a false-front for American Imperialism. They said AQ was really the CIA, and everything it did was working to further American (elite) interests.

Now, however, Larry (along with many others - including Ron Paul) is arguing that Al Qaida and 911 shows that interventionist American foreign policy is a problem. They argue that "Get out of supporting Israel (and being the world's policeman) then there will be no Al Qaida attacks."

But if one is to believe that, and one accepts the conspiracy premises, it would mean the CIA and the "real power" behind America wants America to be non-interventionist. That's despite Larry and all the conspiracist crazies arguing that the supposed false-flag Al Qaida stuff is designed to get America TO intervene and that AQ exists merely to provide a justification for global intervention - the war on terror etc.

It doesn't make any sense. (Don't let that surprise you!)

Larry writes that Ron Paul said this (about interventionism) :
“As long as this country follows that idea, we’re going to be under a lot of danger. This whole idea that the whole Muslim world is responsible for this and they’re attacking us because we’re free and prosperous, that is just not true. Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda have been explicit, they have been explicit and they wrote and said that we attacked America because you had bases on our holy land in Saudi Arabia, you do not give Palestinians a fair treatment and you have been bombing…[crowd boos]…I didn’t say that, I’m trying to get you to understand what the motive was behind the bombing. At the same time, we had been bombing and killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqis for 10 years. Would you be annoyed? If you’re not annoyed, there’s some problem.”
So Ron Paul is saying AQ attacked America because of its intervention in the Mid East, whatever. But people like Larry have been saying for 10 years that AQ is a false-front, and that their purpose (a la 911) is legitimising intervention in the Mid East etc.

You can't have it both ways.

If you are going to argue AQ is an extension of the CIA blah blah blah, and that it is designed to legitimise American intervention in the Middle East, legitimise American wars, legitimise Israeli wars for Israeli interests....you cannot then argue that AQ represents genuine Arab opinion and is caused by American interventionism.

If you are going to argue (as Ron Paul is doing) that the 911 attacks illustrate why the USA should not be involved abroad (especially the Mid East) - because it generates terrorism ---- you CANNOT then argue that AQ is a false-flag operation designed to enable American intervention in the Mid East etc.

Wow.

Ron Paul is in deep shit over this. Or at least he should be.

All anyone has to do to finish Ron Paul is put it to him -

1) are AQ representing genuine muslim/MidEast issues with American interventionism/Imperialism - in which case we(USA) should withdraw if we want to avoid terrorism (the anti-interventionist line)

or

2) are AQ a false-flag, CIA-run organisation providing a justification for American intervention in MidEast etc (the usual conspiracist rendition of the situation)

It's quite amusing how much of RP's support rests upon both premises without ever seeing the dichotomy. A la Larry.

If one accepts the conspiracist angle, as so many Ron Paul supporters do, we can rewrite Ron Paul's speech like this:
The CIA (via their controlled asset, Al Qaida) are saying that ......"we attacked America because you had bases on holy land in Saudi Arabia, you do not give Palestinians a fair treatment and you have been bombing....and killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqis for 10 years."
Does anybody believe that represents the real beliefs of those in the CIA? Does anybody think that is what the CIA is really about? Yet if the conspiracists are to be believed, and AQ is merely a CIA front, then that represents the real intent of the CIA - the real reason for the CIA running Al Qaida.

What complete (and self-evident) rubbish!!!

Ron Paul is playing it both ways. He is either taking the 911 Troofers for fools (why not?) or he is playing Joe Public as a fool. Either way, RP has dropped Troofers right in it.

Not that they will notice. Larry didn't.

Larry writes:
It turns out that Ron Paul is correct. In a 1998 interview conducted by ABC’s John Miller, Bin Laden said these words:

“The call to wage war against America was made because America has spear-headed the crusade against the Islamic nation, sending tens of thousands of its troops to the land of the two Holy Mosques over and above its meddling in its affairs and its politics, and its support of the oppressive, corrupt and tyrannical regime that is in control. These are the reasons behind the singling out of America as a target."
So, you see, if AQ is a CIA-run front organisation, then what the CIA and "the real power behind America" wants is.....a cessation of the war against Islam, cessation of meddling in the affairs of Islam, an end to support for oppressive, corrupt and tyrannical regimes. etc. haha. It's scarcely credible is it? Ron Paul is either trying to deceive the American public, or he's just crapped over the whole idea of AQ as a false-front, CIA entity. Troofers please take note? You can't have it both ways.

8 comments:

Real Truth Online said...

I addressed your assholishness on my blog. Here's what I said:
-----------------------

"I thought you said Bin Laden wasn't real."

Never said that...not ONCE.

"I thought you said he was a representative of the CIA etc."

I did. How's that make him NOT real?

"Now you are saying american foreign policy should be decided by the words of Bin Laden - a CIA asset."

Not what Im saying at ALL. AT ALL.

"Yet if Bin Laden is mouthing what the CIA want, and you and Ron Paul are supporting the argument he makes.......then that makes you and Ron Paul subservient to the "false flag" demands of the CIA acting through the CIA."

You've lost your fucking mind.

You, ONCE AGAIN, miss the entire point. OR, you really do see my point and are PRETENDING to miss it to "get my goat". Really all you're doing is making a horse's ass of yourself.

My entire point is this:

Whether the CIA invented al Qaeda or Bin Laden is an CIA asset or not is NOT the issue here.

My ONLY point in my story is that Santorum is echoing LONG-DEBUNKED rhetoric. Even George Bush HIMSELF has admitted this is bunk, and yet Santorum is still spewing it.

What Ron Paul said is ON RECORD and DOCUMENTED, so whether Bin Laden is a CIA asset or NOT is NOT the issue. It's ON RECORD and DOCUMENTED that Bin Laden DID say these words, and that ALONE makes Santorum WRONG.

I personally don't believe that Bin Laden or the 19 hijackers was involved---and even if they WERE, they were hired guns by our government [black ops] to make it happen....but it STILL remains FACT that Bin Laden said these words...it's DOCUMENTED, and that alone makes Ron Paul CORRECT and Santorum a lying douchbag.

What I PERSONALLY believe about the history and background of the CIA, Bin Laden or 9/11 does NOT CHANGE one thing about whether Ron Paul is RIGHT or not. His info is from DOCUMENTED, ON RECORD information. Whereas Santorum's info is based on made-up, unproven and DEBUNKED BULLSHIT.

There has not been ONE SINGLE terrorist before or SINCE 9/11 that has stated they "hate us/attack us for our freedoms".

Not ONE.

Real Truth Online said...

"Ron Paul is in deep shit over this. Or at least he should be."

Just goes to show you that you don't know shit about not only our history, but the fact that 4 years ago in the debates Rudy "9/11" Giuliani was saying the EXACT SAME THING to Ron Paul about all this. Ron Paul made Giuliani look like an ass on national TV and almost immediately after Ron Paul cleaned up the floor with him, Giuliani's poll numbers plummeted and eventually he dropped out, while Ron Paul remained in the race until it was just him and John McCain.

So, tell me, how is Ron Paul in "deep shit" over this when it's happened before and he was NOT in deep shit over this?

I bet you ANY amount of money Santorum will drop out way before Ron Paul does. In fact, I bet Santorum will be one of the next TWO that drops out.

the_last_name_left said...

RTO says:

----
Whether the CIA invented al Qaeda or Bin Laden is an CIA asset or not is NOT the issue here.
====

It most certainly *is* one of the issues here.

You can't argue that AQ/OBL attacked America because of American foreign policy (and so America should withdraw its interference) whilst *also* claiming AQ/OBL are products of the CIA - unless you believe the CIA wants America to withdraw from a foreign policy of interference.

And contrary to your claims here, yes, you have claimed OBL/AQ are not "real" - you believe their terrorism is "false-flag".....that it represents the CIA....that it is executed to justify an American policy of interference in the MidEast etc ie The War on Terror.

The fact is, I have proven your inconsistency and incoherence - traits shared by most of the entire 911 Troof movement and many of Ron Paul's supporters.

That's why Ronnie is in such trouble over this. Either his argument is incoherent, or that of his Troofy "false-flaggy" supporters is. Simples.

Real Truth Online said...

"And contrary to your claims here, yes, you have claimed OBL/AQ are not "real""

NEVER EVER said Osama wasn't real. I have said AQ is not real. But since you can't read, I must re-post the MAIN part of my text you IGNORED.

"My ONLY point in my story is that Santorum is echoing LONG-DEBUNKED rhetoric. Even George Bush HIMSELF has admitted this is bunk, and yet Santorum is still spewing it.

What Ron Paul said is ON RECORD and DOCUMENTED, so whether Bin Laden is a CIA asset or NOT is NOT the issue. It's ON RECORD and DOCUMENTED that Bin Laden DID say these words, and that ALONE makes Santorum WRONG.

I personally don't believe that Bin Laden or the 19 hijackers was involved---and even if they WERE, they were hired guns by our government [black ops] to make it happen....but it STILL remains FACT that Bin Laden said these words...it's DOCUMENTED, and that alone makes Ron Paul CORRECT and Santorum a lying douchbag.

What I PERSONALLY believe about the history and background of the CIA, Bin Laden or 9/11 does NOT CHANGE one thing about whether Ron Paul is RIGHT or not. His info is from DOCUMENTED, ON RECORD information. Whereas Santorum's info is based on made-up, unproven and DEBUNKED BULLSHIT.

There has not been ONE SINGLE terrorist before or SINCE 9/11 that has stated they "hate us/attack us for our freedoms"."

There---did ya read it THIS time?

the_last_name_left said...

RTO: NEVER EVER said Osama wasn't real. I have said AQ is not real.
==========

Ha. sure. whatever

Real Truth Online said...

"Ha. sure. whatever"

Great refutation, dickface.

Show me the EXACT link of the story/stories where I said OBL was NOT real. I'm all ears.

By the way, you calling Rivero a "cunt" is profanity--and yet you claim you NEVER use it.

LOL

the_last_name_left said...

Then explain how AQ is not real, but OBL is.......what on earth do you mean?

OBL really is AQ, but AQ isn't AQ....DUH!!!

You believe - and have been saying for years - that AQ is a false-flag terror organisation, ostensibly run by the CIA to propagate conditions which enable American interventionist foreign policy aka War on Terror.

OBL was the leader of AQ.

You're not making sense.

the_last_name_left said...

Larry : Our own FBI has admitted that it never had enough evidence that Bin Laden carried out 9/11, but you would not know that from listening to politicians or watching the news.
=========

But what about Ron Paul?

lol