Freshly Released Posthumous Video From Al-Awlaki Urges Muslims To Join Al Qaeda, Kill Americans

Another hero, I'm thinking.

"You have two choices: either hijra (emigration) or jihad (holy war)," Awlaki said in the video, which was posted on Islamist websites.

"I specifically invite the youth to either fight in the West or join their brothers in the fronts of jihad: Afghanistan, Iraq, and Somalia.

"I invite them to join us in our new front, Yemen, the base from which the great jihad of the Arabian Peninsula will begin, the base from which the greatest army of Islam will march forth," said Awlaki, a cleric of Yemeni descent, speaking in English.

My "another hero" line wasn't pure snark; Ron Paul, of course, opposed the assassination of this key Al Qaeda recruiting officer and propagandist.

US presidential candidate Ron Paul has condemned the killing of Anwar al-Awlaki as an “assassination” because, as an American citizen, the Islamic terror leader needed to be put on trial and convicted before being killed.

“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,’” the Texas Congressman told reporters at a campaign stop Friday at Saint Anselm College in New Hampshire. “I think it’s sad.”

As he had fled to Yemen, where he set up shop, we couldn't arrest him. We'd have had to send in troops to capture him -- which Ron Paul also opposes.

So when he postulates he's just in favor of doing it another way, he's lying.

Of course, that shouldn't be big news. He also opposed the "assassination" of bin Ladin.

Rep. Ron Paul took an interesting position for a likely presidential candidate Tuesday – he explained to a Iowa radio station why he would not have ordered the killing of Osama bin Laden.

The answer seemed to catch Iowa radio host Simon Conway off guard; he asked Paul to repeat it.

Paul was unequivocal: “No, not the way it took place,” Paul said of the killing of bin Laden.

Why?

“It was absolutely not necessary and I think respect for the rule of law, international law – what if he’d been in a hotel in London?" Paul asked. "We wanted to keep it secret. Would we have sent the helicopters into London? Because they were afraid the information would get out. No you don’t want to do that.”

As both John Tant and @jstrevino observed, if the election comes down to one man who ordered the killing of bin Ladin, and one man who gets the vapors considering such uncouth behavior, I think I'd favor the former.

I knocked Obama for taking credit for a "Gutsy Call" which any Republican would have made-- but I always asterisked that, "with the possible exception of Ron Paul."

Well, he's officially against killing bin Ladin. Quick, let's nominate him before the Democrats beat us to it.

Ron Paul seems to have flip-flopped on this issue. Immediately after the death of bin Ladin, he seemed to speak in favor it (or at least conceded the result was a good thing).

Two odd things from that speech:

Second, he says that we should now pull all of our troops out of the area, which is what he was also saying before bin Ladin was killed. He notes we must pull out our troops -- unless it all really was about oil.

He tosses that out there. Maybe it was all about oil.

But First (yes, these are out of order, but this one's bigger), he says bin Ladin deserved to be killed, because he "applauded" the 9/11 attacks.

Not that he planned them, or directed them, or facilitated them. Merely that he "applauded" them.

Why is that important?

Well, Truthers cannot deny that bin Ladin at least enjoyed 9/11. It is a fact that Al Qaeda "applauded" the action.

But what they can deny is that Al Qaeda actually caused 9/11. Full on Truthers deny this, flatly, and forthrightly; closet Truthers merely won't say who perpetrated 9/11. They just have some questions, you see. They want "investigations."

Ron Paul hints about his Truther sympathies. He always appears on Truther Alex Jones' show. He speaks darkly about "Gulf of Tonkin scenarios" (wink) and the Bush Administration having "glee" in its eyes after 9/11 (wink wink wink).

Can't wait to hear Ann Coulter wax rhapsodic about what real conservative he is again. Unlike that lunatic Newt Gingrich, who can't be trusted with the office of President.

And then sometimes he'll answer a Truther in this way:

When she asks why he won't just announce the real Truth behind 9/11, he answers "Because I couldn't stand the controversy."

This is a key constituency of his. He courts them. They donate to him. They show up at caucuses for him.

I can't help shake the feeling that Ron Paul's real goal in being elected president is finally seeing the proof of the real truth behind 9/11.

If you're new to the Ron Paul bandwagon, and are wondering why you haven't heard this all before:

Because the media covers up for him, because they love his hard-core hard-left appeasement/anti-Israel/peace at any cost mentality. They would love to see him as a nominee, because, for one thing, he would be demolished by any candidate, and, for another thing, he would drive Obama's foreign policy to the left by criticizing him from the Chomskyite point of view.

And, if the old buzzard somehow did get elected -- at least we'd have the foreign policy the media prefers (at least in a Republican candidate).

They have a vested interest in hiding this information from you.

At least until they've tricked you into nominating him.

Thanks to @johnekdahl (who doesn't have enough followers) and others. Sorry, I've been collecting this stuff all day. Not sure where it all came from.

posted by Ace at 04:31 PM

| Access Comments