Is Ron Paul Wrong About Muslim Domination?

[libertygrl]

When discussing the issue of the NYC Mosque and Ron Paul's stance, I've had some people say that he fails to realize that there are terrorists out there who really want to do us harm and that he doesn't believe there is evidence of Mosques being funded by radicals who want to get a foothold in this country. One person said to me that people like Ron Paul and his followers believe that all the tyrants died off years ago and that there is really no need for concern.

(one even hinted that our notion of tyrants are those who used to ride around on horseback and swinging swords rather than riding in chauffeured limos!)

I know I remember Ron Paul admitting the dangers but that they were minimal compared to the hysteria that's going on. I believe he even named an author who was a former intelligence officer who reported on this fact. If anyone has links please provide. It's insane to say that Ron Paul is dismissive about the dangers of terrorism. I just don't think he always gets his point across in the right way when he voices his opinion on issues. Thanks!

[heavenlyboy34]

Ask them to pony up the proof of terrorist connections to the Cordoba Center. That trips up the regimists every time. ;)

[phill4paul]

Lol.

[angelatc]

I know I remember Ron Paul admitting the dangers but that they were minimal compared to the hysteria that's going on. I believe he even named an author who was a former intelligence officer who reported on this fact. If anyone has links please provide. It's insane to say that Ron Paul is dismissive about the dangers of terrorism. I just don't think he always gets his point across in the right way when he voices his opinion on issues. Thanks!

You're probably thinking of Michael Scheuer. He blogs at www.non-intervention.com. He has several books out - they're listed on his site.

[Fozz]

Ron Paul realizes that al-Qaeda is the enemy. People like Newt Gingrich and Geert Wilders believe all of Islam is the enemy.

[Acala]

When discussing the issue of the NYC Mosque and Ron Paul's stance, I've had some people say that he fails to realize that there are terrorists out there who really want to do us harm and that he doesn't believe there is evidence of Mosques being funded by radicals who want to get a foothold in this country.

Yes, there are people in the world who want to do us harm. Dr. Paul understands this. He also understands that the REASON they want to do us harm is because we spent the last fifty years doing them harm by interfering in their affairs. Our bullying, interventionist foreign policy has made many enemies for us. If the way you have been behaving has made lots of enemies, and you don't want lots of enemies, the rational thing to do is change your behavior. Hence, Dr. Paul advises that we stop messing around in other people's affairs, bring our troops home, and mind our own business. This was the foreign policy advocated by the Founders.




One person said to me that people like Ron Paul and his followers believe that all the tyrants died off years ago and that there is really no need for concern.

Oh we are well aware that there are tyrants in the world. The USA is funding many of them! We call them allies.

But the idea that every tinhorn tyrant that gives us the evil eye is a world-conqueror just waiting for us to stop policing the world so they can take over is silly. The Iranians are going to invade the US? The Koreans? Really? They going to swim here? Please. The profits of the banks and military industries depend on keeping us frightened. So they invent one boogy man after another and will continue to do so until the day we grow up and realize that we are being manipulated like children.



It's insane to say that Ron Paul is dismissive about the dangers of terrorism. I just don't think he always gets his point across in the right way when he voices his opinion on issues. Thanks!

He isn't dismissive of the dangers of terrorism, he just thinks it is wise to stop doing the things that GENERATE terrorism.

[Knightskye]

Ron Paul realizes that al-Qaeda is the enemy. People like Newt Gingrich and Geert Wilders believe all of Islam is the enemy.

Ding ding ding.

[specsaregood]

Ask them to pony up the proof of terrorist connections to the Cordoba Center.

I thought it came out that one of the big owners of FoxNews who happens to be Saudi is a big donor for the cordoba center. If so, wouldn't that qualify? :p

[Dianne]

The terrorists are in the White House/Congress and always have been.

[Vessol]

The terrorists are in the White House/Congress and always have been.

This this this. Tyrants are still around lol.

But, I will not die that there ARE Islamo-fascists in the world that are dangerous. However they exist because of the U.S's meddling of foreign affairs in the Middle East during the Cold War, which created the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, the mother of all Islamo-fascists.
Their dangers are extremely minor compared to the dangers of the tyrants already in control.

[Pete Kay]

I think the US only needs to look to Europe to see the incompatibility of Islam with Western democracy. It kind of blows my mind how so many in the liberty movement don't want to see the evidence that already exists. It's all good and well to say we should be tolerant of others, but what if those others don' share that tolerance? I don't see anyone on this board proclaiming that we should tolerate globalists and neo-cons. Just because a belief system is labelled a religion doesn't give it immunity from criticism.

[fj45lvr]

just whip out the "duck"/"witch" scene from Monty Python and the Holy Grail...


Why aren't the terrorists after Finland? El Salvador? Cambodia?? etc. and etc.??

These people are not very intelligent or in other cases just completely brainwashed into being silly putty for the establishment.

[anaconda]

LOL. This is monstrous propaganda. They can only bring down the USA from within. 9-11 was a local police investigation. Not a global war.

[lucius]

No, Dr. Paul is correct Virgina...just listen to him. ;)


When discussing the issue of the NYC Mosque and Ron Paul's stance, I've had some people say that he fails to realize that there are terrorists out there who really want to do us harm and that he doesn't believe there is evidence of Mosques being funded by radicals who want to get a foothold in this country. One person said to me that people like Ron Paul and his followers believe that all the tyrants died off years ago and that there is really no need for concern.

(one even hinted that our notion of tyrants are those who used to ride around on horseback and swinging swords rather than riding in chauffeured limos!)

I know I remember Ron Paul admitting the dangers but that they were minimal compared to the hysteria that's going on. I believe he even named an author who was a former intelligence officer who reported on this fact. If anyone has links please provide. It's insane to say that Ron Paul is dismissive about the dangers of terrorism. I just don't think he always gets his point across in the right way when he voices his opinion on issues. Thanks!

[Truth-Bringer]

I've had some people say that he fails to realize that there are terrorists out there who really want to do us harm

The problem with this line of thinking is that any radical muslim terrorist is a total joke as a threat compared to the damage that the U.S. government is doing to this country and its people.

The U.S. government will destroy this nation long before any radical muslim terrorists.

And the Muslims will forget about us if we leave them alone and get out of their territories. That's the reason for the animosity. If the U.S. declares neutrality, they would quickly forget about us.

[RM918]

The problem with this line of thinking is that any radical muslim terrorist is a total joke as a threat compared to the damage that the U.S. government is doing to this country and its people.

The U.S. government will destroy this nation long before any radical muslim terrorists.

And the Muslims will forget about us if we leave them alone and get out of their territories. That's the reason for the animosity. If the U.S. declares neutrality, they would quickly forget about us.

They wouldn't all forget about us. There'll always be those bent on the country's destruction, the difference would be that there wouldn't be nearly as many people listening to them when there aren't bombs falling on their homes. They'd have little to no attraction in their recruiting efforts with us gone, and they'd be treated as they deserve to be: loons.

[pcosmar]

It's insane to say that Ron Paul is dismissive about the dangers of terrorism.
I just don't think he always gets his point across in the right way when he voices his opinion on issues. Thanks!

define terrorism.
Please.

I for one am quite sick of the hype.

By the way. Once you get that definition,,apply it to the actions of the United States.
:(

[silentshout]

I think the US only needs to look to Europe to see the incompatibility of Islam with Western democracy. It kind of blows my mind how so many in the liberty movement don't want to see the evidence that already exists. It's all good and well to say we should be tolerant of others, but what if those others don' share that tolerance? I don't see anyone on this board proclaiming that we should tolerate globalists and neo-cons. Just because a belief system is labelled a religion doesn't give it immunity from criticism.

Well, i have spent plenty of time in France due to having extended family there, and all i can see is the same sort of idiocy and bigotry as i see here. Well, and the halal kebab shops are tasty. Otherwise, no, seeing (gasp!) muslims in the street or woman wearing burkas didn't bother me...what bothered me is how they want to pass laws restricting their freedom.

[Pete Kay]

Well, i have spent plenty of time in France due to having extended family there, and all i can see is the same sort of idiocy and bigotry as i see here. Well, and the halal kebab shops are tasty. Otherwise, no, seeing (gasp!) muslims in the street or woman wearing burkas didn't bother me...what bothered me is how they want to pass laws restricting their freedom.

Yes, call it idiocy and bigotry. Or Islamophobia. Anyone that has issues with a belief system must be an evil person full of hate. Let's give Islam a free pass because it wears the label of religion. Maybe we should call Marxism a religion and call those that speak out against it bigots? It would be fitting too, because the idea of moral equivalence is a Marxist ideal.

I can only assume that you are unaware of the massive social and crime problems that Muslims have brought to Europe. It's very easy to naively accuse those opposed to Islaminization as being hateful reactionaries without looking at the real world consequences of Islam's spread.

[libertygrl]

The definition of terrorism has proved controversial. Various legal systems and government agencies use different definitions of terrorism in their national legislation. Moreover, the International community has been slow to formulate a universally agreed, legally binding definition of this crime. These difficulties arise from the fact that the term "terrorism" is politically and emotionally charged. In this regard, Angus Martyn, briefing the Australian Parliament, stated that "The international community has never succeeded in developing an accepted comprehensive definition of terrorism. During the 1970s and 1980s, the United Nations attempts to define the term floundered mainly due to differences of opinion between various members about the use of violence in the context of conflicts over national liberation and self-determination. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism

I see both sides of the views expressed here. There's no denying that we may have a serious problem with radical american muslim organizations. I'm just wondering how do we balance protecting constitutional rights while at the same time keeping Americans safe. It's so messed up because I am aware that both the US and Israel are responsible for radicalizing these groups.

"The process of settlement [of Islam in the United States] is a "Civilization-Jihadist" process with all the word means. The Ikhwan must understand that all their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and "sabotaging" their miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God's religion is made victorious over all religions. Without this level of understanding, we are not up to this challenge and have not prepared ourselves for Jihad yet. It is a Muslim's destiny to perform Jihad and work wherever he is and wherever he lands until the final hour comes, and there is no escape from that destiny except for those who choose to slack."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_brotherhood


I think those protesting the Mosque in NYC and those who speak out in defense of constitutional rights both have legitimate concerns. I just worry that both groups only see this in terms of back and white. There has to be some sort of middle ground because there are dangers of our rights being threatened as well as the dangers of radicalism. It may not be as big as what the media says but even if it's a small threat it has to be confronted, whether or not we feel that some of these groups have legitimate reasons to be pissed at us. In the end, it's always the innocent civilians that get caught in the crossfire. :(

[amy31416]

Read Terrorizing Ourselves by Cato Institute Scholars, very good book.

http://www.amazon.com/Terrorizing-Ourselves-Counterterrorism-Policy-Failing/dp/1935308300

http://www.cato.org/event.php?eventid=7174

Don't trust him! He's one of them there terrists! Cato's in on it now too...they're takin' over the libertarian organimizations!

This is step one in their worldwide domination!

RUN! PANIC!

[BlackTerrel]

No. Ron Paul is 100% right.

Honestly the argument against the Mosque is 100% illogical. Say my sister gets killed at a pizza shop by some guy named O'Reilly. Then 10 years later two blocks from the pizza shop a Catholic Church wants to build and I say "oh no this is very offensive to me, since the guy that killed my sister was named O'Reilly". People would fucking laugh and tell me it is none of my business.

[heavenlyboy34]

I thought it came out that one of the big owners of FoxNews who happens to be Saudi is a big donor for the cordoba center. If so, wouldn't that qualify? :p

lolz! ;)

[Fozz]

Yes, call it idiocy and bigotry. Or Islamophobia. Anyone that has issues with a belief system must be an evil person full of hate. Let's give Islam a free pass because it wears the label of religion. Maybe we should call Marxism a religion and call those that speak out against it bigots? It would be fitting too, because the idea of moral equivalence is a Marxist ideal.

I can only assume that you are unaware of the massive social and crime problems that Muslims have brought to Europe. It's very easy to naively accuse those opposed to Islaminization as being hateful reactionaries without looking at the real world consequences of Islam's spread.

Go back to Freerepublic, we at RPF believe in religious freedom.

[angelatc]

I think the US only needs to look to Europe to see the incompatibility of Islam with Western democracy. It kind of blows my mind how so many in the liberty movement don't want to see the evidence that already exists. It's all good and well to say we should be tolerant of others, but what if those others don' share that tolerance? I don't see anyone on this board proclaiming that we should tolerate globalists and neo-cons. Just because a belief system is labelled a religion doesn't give it immunity from criticism.

Are you living in Europe? Where are you getting your news from?

From what we saw when we were there, the problems in Europe stem from the fact that the Europeans didn't actually include the Muslims in their society. They allowed them to immigrate to flee the wars, then put them in ghettos on the edges of town and treated them like outsiders.

Muslims have lived in this country since the mid-1700's and we manage to co-exist quite nicely. I went to the outlet mall today and there was a Muslim family in front of me at Old Navy. The older women were wearing the headcovering, but the younger women weren't. Nobody seemed to want to kill me. (Of course, the standard response to that line of thinking seems to be that they're tricky, I suppose...)

Seeing the anti-Islam hysteria emerge, especially in these forums does not bode well for the intent of the GOP should they regain control of the House and Senate. It is unlike anything I've ever experienced and it's beyond disturbing.

[Uriel999]

When discussing the issue of the NYC Mosque and Ron Paul's stance, I've had some people say that he fails to realize that there are terrorists out there who really want to do us harm and that he doesn't believe there is evidence of Mosques being funded by radicals who want to get a foothold in this country. One person said to me that people like Ron Paul and his followers believe that all the tyrants died off years ago and that there is really no need for concern.

(one even hinted that our notion of tyrants are those who used to ride around on horseback and swinging swords rather than riding in chauffeured limos!)

I know I remember Ron Paul admitting the dangers but that they were minimal compared to the hysteria that's going on. I believe he even named an author who was a former intelligence officer who reported on this fact. If anyone has links please provide. It's insane to say that Ron Paul is dismissive about the dangers of terrorism. I just don't think he always gets his point across in the right way when he voices his opinion on issues. Thanks!

No he is a closet muslim infiltrator and is instigating the takeover from within the liberty movement.

[angelatc]

Go back to Freerepublic, we at RPF believe in religious freedom.

It's not just the Freepers. It is everywhere, and it freaking scary. Look at this thread: http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/incitement-to-murder-muslims-in-surrey/question-1183983/?link=1210145&uuid=5243b342b7e84496823a15421060d7ca

People are literally convinced that the Muslims are poised to take over the whole world. It is a mistake to underestimate the power of a large group of stupid people, and this anti-Muslim hysteria is really starting to freak me out.

[heavenlyboy34]

It's not just the Freepers. It is everywhere, and it freaking scary. Look at this thread: http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/incitement-to-murder-muslims-in-surrey/question-1183983/?link=1210145&uuid=5243b342b7e84496823a15421060d7ca

People are literally convinced that the Muslims are poised to take over the whole world. It is a mistake to underestimate the power of a large group of stupid people, and this anti-Muslim hysteria is really starting to freak me out.

So true, angie. It's the weirdest sociological phenomenon I've seen in quite some time! :eek:

[Carl Corey]

Are you living in Europe? Where are you getting your news from?

From what we saw when we were there, the problems in Europe stem from the fact that the Europeans didn't actually include the Muslims in their society. They allowed them to immigrate to flee the wars, then put them in ghettos on the edges of town and treated them like outsiders.
I've lived in Europe for several years and I can assure you that most minorities are fully integrated with the exception of Muslims.

Anyone who has observed the happenings in Europe will realize the real threat is the Muslim immigrants, and not so much the terrorists who will invariably emerge from their mids, but their ability to multiply and sooner, rather than later, gain a majority. The demographic changes in Europe are massive, and might one day be compared to what happened to the native Americans.

Most racists I know won't publicly express their views, and the same goes for Muslims. A Muslim won't tell you that he/she beliefs sharia should be imposed on all, but it's what many of them think, the Koran encourages lying to non-Muslims, and all things considered Islam isn't all that different from Nazism..

Ron Paul's biggest failing is that he never read the Koran, or educated himself about what the Koran, and subsequently Islam, truly is. He doesn't realize that terrorists aren't a bunch of misguided weirdos who never read the Koran, but that they are in fact the ones who read the Koran and follow it to the letter.

Like National Socialism it might be possible to get many Muslims to fundamentally change their belief system, but it's definitely not going to happen if everyone pretends it's a peaceful and acceptable religion, and turn their head when hate is preached at the mosques.

[Fozz]

I've lived in Europe for several years and I can assure you that most minorities are fully integrated with the exception of Muslims.

Anyone who has observed the happenings in Europe will realize the real threat is the Muslim immigrants, and not so much the terrorists who will invariably emerge from their mids, but their ability to multiply and sooner, rather than later, gain a majority. The demographic changes in Europe are massive, and might one day be compared to what happened to the native Americans.

Most racists I know won't publicly express their views, and the same goes for Muslims. A Muslim won't tell you that he/she beliefs sharia should be imposed on all, but it's what many of them think, the Koran encourages lying to non-Muslims, and all things considered Islam isn't all that different from Nazism..

Ron Paul's biggest failing is that he never read the Koran, or educated himself about what the Koran, and subsequently Islam, truly is. He doesn't realize that terrorists aren't a bunch of misguided weirdos who never read the Koran, but that they are in fact the ones who read the Koran and follow it to the letter.

Like National Socialism it might be possible to get many Muslims to fundamentally change their belief system, but it's definitely not going to happen if everyone pretends it's a peaceful and acceptable religion, and turn their head when hate is preached at the mosques.
Ron Paul at one time thought that Islam commands people to kill others in suicide attacks to go straight to heaven. He thought the Islamic religion was the reason why there have been so many suicide bombings.

However, now he knows better. He realizes that occupation, not Islam, causes this terrorism.

But somehow you are still among the ignorant, comparing Islam to the Nazis :rolleyes:

[amy31416]

Well Carl Corey...what's your solution to this plague of Islam? Shall we become the Nazis and commit (more) genocide? Shall we forgo freedom of religion and ban it here? Shall we force Muslims into camps? Shall we spit on Muslims when we walk by them? Vandalize a mosque? Poke them with a stick? Look upon them with mistrust and disdain? Beat them up in dark parking lots? Pre-emptively invade and bomb the shit out of every country with a population that's over 50% Muslim?

Since you know so much about the spectre of Islam, surely you must have the answers.

[heavenlyboy34]

I've lived in Europe for several years and I can assure you that most minorities are fully integrated with the exception of Muslims.

Anyone who has observed the happenings in Europe will realize the real threat is the Muslim immigrants, and not so much the terrorists who will invariably emerge from their mids, but their ability to multiply and sooner, rather than later, gain a majority. The demographic changes in Europe are massive, and might one day be compared to what happened to the native Americans.

Most racists I know won't publicly express their views, and the same goes for Muslims. A Muslim won't tell you that he/she beliefs sharia should be imposed on all, but it's what many of them think, the Koran encourages lying to non-Muslims, and all things considered Islam isn't all that different from Nazism..

Ron Paul's biggest failing is that he never read the Koran, or educated himself about what the Koran, and subsequently Islam, truly is. He doesn't realize that terrorists aren't a bunch of misguided weirdos who never read the Koran, but that they are in fact the ones who read the Koran and follow it to the letter.

Like National Socialism it might be possible to get many Muslims to fundamentally change their belief system, but it's definitely not going to happen if everyone pretends it's a peaceful and acceptable religion, and turn their head when hate is preached at the mosques.

And the Torah and Tahlmud encourage exploiting and murdering gentiles. Let's export all the Jews! /sarcasm Seriously, this is probably the biggest fail in the Religion forum since Theo advocated murdering all the gays.

[Fozz]

Well Carl Corey...what's your solution to this plague of Islam? Shall we become the Nazis and commit (more) genocide? Shall we forgo freedom of religion and ban it here? Shall we force Muslims into camps? Shall we spit on Muslims when we walk by them? Vandalize a mosque? Poke them with a stick? Look upon them with mistrust and disdain? Beat them up in dark parking lots? Pre-emptively invade and bomb the shit out of every country with a population that's over 50% Muslim?

Since you know so much about the spectre of Islam, surely you must have the answers.

win

[angelatc]

I've lived in Europe for several years and I can assure you that most minorities are fully integrated with the exception of Muslims.

Anyone who has observed the happenings in Europe will realize the real threat is the Muslim immigrants, and not so much the terrorists who will invariably emerge from their mids, but their ability to multiply and sooner, rather than later, gain a majority. .


So they're somehow superfertile?


A Muslim won't tell you that he/she beliefs sharia should be imposed on all, but it's what many of them think, the Koran encourages lying to non-Muslims, and all things considered Islam isn't all that different from Nazism..


They're a sneaky lot, can't trust 'em at their word! So when Abe tells us you're misinterpreting the Quran, he's lying. Because he's Muslim.

Seriously dude....

[Pete Kay]

Go back to Freerepublic, we at RPF believe in religious freedom.

Lol. Nice debating skills. You've really proven your point. :rolleyes:

[RedStripe]

Poor people have outnumbered the tiny, richest top percentile of the country for centuries yet the rich have always written the laws, controlled the government, etc. But a couple more Muslim immigrants and we're gonna have Sharia law! Hahaha you guys are a fucking joke.

[Justinjj1]

I think Jewish domination is a far bigger and more realistic concern. ;)

[TC95]

One person said to me that people like Ron Paul and his followers believe that all the tyrants died off years ago and that there is really no need for concern.

(one even hinted that our notion of tyrants are those who used to ride around on horseback and swinging swords rather than riding in chauffeured limos!)


THEY are the ones who are too blind to see the tyrants in their own government.

[Fozz]

Lol. Nice debating skills. You've really proven your point. :rolleyes:

There are some people who are impossible to have proper debate with: an example would be someone who compares a major world religion to the Nazis, who also happens to make ignorant remarks about Ron Paul's knowledge.

[Minuteman2012]

It's very easy to naively accuse those opposed to Islaminization as being hateful reactionaries without looking at the real world consequences of Islam's spread.

This looks more like Americanization to me.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_ZtneWMv1XfY/S_SUumnb0xI/AAAAAAAARHI/FiWkS1X5D9A/s1600/USA+-+Rima+Fakih1.JPG



Seems Muslim Americans have assimilated just fine. You are the only reactionary here, casting aspersions on whole groups of people out of ignorance. Prejudice towards Islam is either stirred up by Neo Cons in America and Europe to create mass support for foreign wars of occupation or stirred up by nationalist parties in Europe who want a all white socialist utopia like in the movie 1984.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Just finished reading part of "The Discovery of Freedom" by influential libertarian author Rose Wilder Lane. She has a whole chapter devoted to Islam and the discovery of freedom, it is a really good book, that is incredibly accurate.

Anyway the book outlines three 'civilizations' that led to the discovery of freedom, Number one being the time of Abraham, describing Abraham, Moses, and Samuel on their march toward freedom.

The second discovery of freedom is Islam, beginning with Muhammad. Writes about Islam's regression of freedom after Islam's Golden Age.

The third being the American Revolution.

The book is free to read online and the Islamic chapter is on page 82-128, not too long to read if you want an idea on Islam and society from its origins.

http://mises.org/books/discovery.pdf

Rose Wilder Lane and Isabel Paterson are fucking giants of libertarianism. Those two women should have the influence and audience that Ayn Rand has today, because Ayn is no libertarian. Makes me sad.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

This looks more like Americanization to me.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_ZtneWMv1XfY/S_SUumnb0xI/AAAAAAAARHI/FiWkS1X5D9A/s1600/USA+-+Rima+Fakih1.JPG



Seems Muslim Americans have assimilated just fine. You are the only reactionary here, casting aspersions on whole groups of people out of ignorance. Prejudice towards Islam is either stirred up by Neo Cons in America and Europe to create mass support for foreign wars of occupation or stirred up by nationalist parties in Europe who want a all white socialist utopia like in the movie 1984.

Pete needs to watch Power of Nightmares. He has a warped view of Islam.

** She's too skinny and has too much "glam makeup" for me, but yep. A lot of Muslims are pretty liberalized culturally, and secularized (Iran, etc.).

[Fozz]

Rose Wilder Lane and Isabel Paterson are fucking giants of libertarianism. Those two women should have the influence and audience that Ayn Rand has today, because Ayn is no libertarian. Makes me sad.

Leonard Peikoff, Ayn Rand's intellectual successor, supports genocide against Muslims, according to Justin Raimondo

http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2010/07/22/haters-go-after-the-ground-zero-mosque/

[Minuteman2012]

Leonard Peikoff, Ayn Rand's intellectual successor, supports genocide against Muslims, according to Justin Raimondo

http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2010/07/22/haters-go-after-the-ground-zero-mosque/

YouTube - Ayn Rand on Israel and the Middle East (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2uHSv1asFvU)

Seems consistent with Ayn Rand.

[Fozz]

Just finished reading part of "The Discovery of Freedom" by influential libertarian author Rose Wilder Lane. She has a whole chapter devoted to Islam and the discovery of freedom, it is a really good book, that is incredibly accurate.

Anyway the book outlines three 'civilizations' that led to the discovery of freedom, Number one being the time of Abraham, describing Abraham, Moses, and Samuel on their march toward freedom.

The second discovery of freedom is Islam, beginning with Muhammad. Writes about Islam's regression of freedom after Islam's Golden Age.

The third being the American Revolution.

The book is free to read online and the Islamic chapter is on page 82-128, not too long to read if you want an idea on Islam and society from its origins.

http://mises.org/books/discovery.pdf

Looks very interesting, thanks so much for posting this.

[Fozz]

YouTube - Ayn Rand on Israel and the Middle East (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2uHSv1asFvU)

Seems consistent with Ayn Rand.

Yep, to her, all Muslims are terrorists, and "totally primitive savages".

Objectivism is a death cult
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig5/raimondo1.html

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Looks very interesting, thanks so much for posting this.

I hope you read more Rose Wilder. She is amazing. :D (Don't forget Isabel!)

<3 Izzy


As freak legislation, the antitrust laws stand alone. Nobody knows what it is they forbid.

No law can give power to private persons; every law transfers power from private persons to government.

A tax-supported, compulsory educational system is the complete model of the totalitarian state.

[Acala]

It's not just the Freepers. It is everywhere, and it freaking scary. Look at this thread: http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/incitement-to-murder-muslims-in-surrey/question-1183983/?link=1210145&uuid=5243b342b7e84496823a15421060d7ca

People are literally convinced that the Muslims are poised to take over the whole world. It is a mistake to underestimate the power of a large group of stupid people, and this anti-Muslim hysteria is really starting to freak me out.

It is amazing, isn't it? Got anyone close to you who is being swept away? It is very sad and strange. What we are seeing is the way human beings have been for most of history but seeing it through awakened eyes.

Human beings can be easily and predictably manipulated by stimulating their fear, anger, hatred, greed, pride, shame, etc. And not just stupid people, unfortunately. The techniques are tried and true and make up the core of politics. It is particularly easy to get humans to turn their hate on a selected "out" group, form a mob, and attack them. You can see it in the behavior of the playground bully, leading his pack to harass one victim after another - usually the kid that is different in some way. It is the way a bully deflects criticism that might otherwise be directed at him.

You can see this pattern clearly in American foreign policy starting with WWI. The Germans were demonized as "the Huns". Later it was the Germans again. Then, when those who profit from war realized we couldn't have full-scale war anymore because of nuclear weapons we had the cold war against the crafty Russians (our former allies) and those notorious breeders, the Chinese (also our former ally). That led into the continuous small-scale war where each tin-horn dictator that dared to not succumb to our bullying was vilified and declared to be the next Hitler.

The people must be kept in a state of fear and their anger focused on some "out" group or they will start to object to having their fortunes, freedoms, and children taken from them. So the new boogyman is Islamo-fascism. And just like the Chinese, the Russians, the Nazis, the Hun, they are threatening to take over the world and destroy our way of life. They are threatening from without so we must go around the world fighting them, and they are (insidiously) threatening from within so we must suspend our liberties to fight them here.

The techniques of manipulation have only gotten better over the decades. They use lies spread through the internet. They use television. But mostly they rely on the demagogue. The susceptibility of the human mind to manipulation through the emotions has led to the manipulation specialist. Men like Newt Gingrich, Golem-like in their utter corruption from the quest for power, try to stimulate pride by invoking love of the homeland, stimulate fear with the specter of being invaded, focus hatred on an "out" group, and voila! You have a mob ready for blood.

The techniques of the Newt are the techniques of bin Laden are the techniques of Hitler and on and on into the mist of pre-history. My father, a very intelligent man, successful in his business life, peaceful, comfortable family life, WWII combat veteran, not suffering from any particular mental impairments beyond the average American, told me the following: after listening to a speech by Newt, he was ready to dust off his uniform and follow that man anywhere. You would need to know my father to feel the full horror of this. But it IS a horror and it will affect us all.

[amy31416]

The techniques of the Newt are the techniques of bin Laden are the techniques of Hitler and on and on into the mist of pre-history. My father, a very intelligent man, successful in his business life, peaceful, comfortable family life, WWII combat veteran, not suffering from any particular mental impairments beyond the average American, told me the following: after listening to a speech by Newt, he was ready to dust off his uniform and follow that man anywhere. You would need to know my father to feel the full horror of this. But it IS a horror and it will affect us all.

I feel for you...my father, also a really intelligent man, reasonably principled, lifelong conservative--loved Rush Limbaugh, Newt and, of course, Reagan.

He'd call me a left-wing, commie, pinko red fascist for disagreeing with them. At least that was amusing. :)

[Acala]

I feel for you...my father, also a really intelligent man, reasonably principled, lifelong conservative--loved Rush Limbaugh, Newt and, of course, Reagan.

He'd call me a left-wing, commie, pinko red fascist for disagreeing with them. At least that was amusing. :)

Sad and funny at the same time. My Dad doesn't call me names, but he HAS accused me of liking Obama simply because I am always pointing out to him how the Republican "bash Obama" campaign is designed to divert people's attention from the real problem - runaway government.

[Fozz]

The techniques of the Newt are the techniques of bin Laden are the techniques of Hitler and on and on into the mist of pre-history. My father, a very intelligent man, successful in his business life, peaceful, comfortable family life, WWII combat veteran, not suffering from any particular mental impairments beyond the average American, told me the following: after listening to a speech by Newt, he was ready to dust off his uniform and follow that man anywhere. You would need to know my father to feel the full horror of this. But it IS a horror and it will affect us all.

What you are saying is something I greatly fear, that these anti-Muslim demagogues want Muslims to get killed, they want genocide. A lot of people are getting the idea that Islam (all of it, not just radical) is an enemy that needs to be defeated. And the way to defeat an entire religion is essentially to kill its adherents or invade its lands.

[dean.engelhardt]

When discussing the issue of the NYC Mosque and Ron Paul's stance, I've had some people say that he fails to realize that there are terrorists out there who really want to do us harm and that he doesn't believe there is evidence of Mosques being funded by radicals who want to get a foothold in this country. One person said to me that people like Ron Paul and his followers believe that all the tyrants died off years ago and that there is really no need for concern.

(one even hinted that our notion of tyrants are those who used to ride around on horseback and swinging swords rather than riding in chauffeured limos!)

I know I remember Ron Paul admitting the dangers but that they were minimal compared to the hysteria that's going on. I believe he even named an author who was a former intelligence officer who reported on this fact. If anyone has links please provide. It's insane to say that Ron Paul is dismissive about the dangers of terrorism. I just don't think he always gets his point across in the right way when he voices his opinion on issues. Thanks!

I'd stop hanging with stupid people.

[Acala]

What you are saying is something I greatly fear, that these anti-Muslim demagogues want Muslims to get killed, they want genocide. A lot of people are getting the idea that Islam (all of it, not just radical) is an enemy that needs to be defeated. And the way to defeat an entire religion is essentially to kill its adherents or invade its lands.

Guys like Newt don't necessarily want Muslims to be killed. But they don't care at all if they ARE killed and in mind-numbing quantities. Guys like Newt want power. They will say ANYTHING and do ANYTHING to get it. Newt would be kissing Muslim anchor babies if he thought it would get him elected. If it would get him elected, Newt would advocate feeding the elderly to children. It just so happens that the message Newt and his handlers have hit upon as the ticket to the White House is genocide. Of course they don't call it that. But if you posit that the fundamental beliefs of a billion people are fatal to your own culture, nation, and the lives of your children, what you are really saying is that they must be exterminated. And that is what Newt, Huckabee, etc. are saying. Muslims want to destroy us so we must destroy them. The demagogues may or may not actually believe what they are saying. I suspect they don't believe much of anything. But it doesn't matter because America is lining up to take part in the slaughter. :(

This is why the coming economic collapse is good news! They won't have any money with which to wage their holy war of world destruction. If we are lucky.

[Number19]

First let me qualify my remarks by saying that I've been a libertarian activist since 1979 and a Ron Paul supporter almost as long.

I do think there is one aspect to the public presentation which is being left out and this may hurt our message in a PR sense. And I do not see it addressed in this thread.

Supposing we had the opportunity to implement a non-interventionist foreign policy, it is still unrealistic to expect an instantaneous reformation of anti-American attitudes. This pressure has been building for decades.

So the elephant in the room is, what would be our response to a devastating WMD attack, on American soil, resulting in tens of thousands of deaths, and which could be traced to a specific, foreign based, group of "terrorists"?

This issue is one of public relations. We address the direction we would take foreign policy, but we totally fail to address the concerns of the average voter of what, exactly, would be our response were we attacked.

[RM918]

First let me qualify my remarks by saying that I've been a libertarian activist since 1979 and a Ron Paul supporter almost as long.

I do think there is one aspect to the public presentation which is being left out and this may hurt our message in a PR sense. And I do not see it addressed in this thread.

Supposing we had the opportunity to implement a non-interventionist foreign policy, it is still unrealistic to expect an instantaneous reformation of anti-American attitudes. This pressure has been building for decades.

So the elephant in the room is, what would be our response to a devastating WMD attack, on American soil, resulting in tens of thousands of deaths, and which could be traced to a specific, foreign based, group of "terrorists"?

This issue is one of public relations. We address the direction we would take foreign policy, but we totally fail to address the concerns of the average voter of what, exactly, would be our response were we attacked.

The same exact damn thing Paul said we should do after the attacks and is still saying: Actually go after the specific group of people instead of rebuilding the country they were maybe in at the time. Utilize the Letters of Marque and Reprisal.

[BlackTerrel]

Sad and funny at the same time. My Dad doesn't call me names, but he HAS accused me of liking Obama simply because I am always pointing out to him how the Republican "bash Obama" campaign is designed to divert people's attention from the real problem - runaway government.

The one positive I am seeing from these posts is the number of people talking about their dad's holding these views - but not the other way around.

Perhaps these are the views of the older generation - which will eventually be displaced. I have a feeling that might be the case.

If I had to guess at the average age at the Beck rally it was a bit older I believe? Of course the negative side is that Obama supporters tend to be younger.

[Jace]

Zionism. Islamic fundamentalism. Two sides of the same bloody coin.

Americans would be best served in distancing ourselves from both of these religious beliefs. We should declare neutrality in their eternal war.

Zionists and Islamic fundamentalists have brought their war to our shores and the rest of us have been caught up in the murderous passion of their zealotry.

They lobby our government, attempt to shape our minds through our own media and schools and they fight their foreign battles in our own cities and neighborhoods. Why do I see Palestinian and Israeli flags flying at rallies here in my country and why are they screaming at each in the streets here?

If they feel so passionately about all this then they should go over their and fight on the side of their choosing. But leave me out of it.

I am indifferent to Zionists and Muslims. I say live and let live, but they do all they can to get me to choose sides. Don't force me to choose sides in their idiotic struggle. I don't want to pay for their wars, occupy them, defend them, civilize them, kill them or die for them. I want them to leave me alone. They should stay over there and I will stay over here.

Ron Paul is right that all the passion over that mosque is counterproductive. Both sides need the passion so we don't grow apathetic to their conflict. Either side we choose is a losing one for us.

[libertygrl]

Has it ever occurred to anybody that maybe BOTH points are true? Are we totally denying that Islamic facism doesn't exist? I've seen some reports to the contrary.
Maybe both sides - Ron Paul followers and Palin type Republican Conservatives see this in terms of black and white only. I think maybe there are some grey areas as well.

There's got to be some sort of reasonable balance where we can both protect our rights and our safety. I keep ping ponging back and forth on this. In the first 2 years after 9-11 I was more in line with the neo-con camp out of ignorance and fear. Then I did a complete 360 degrees and understood media hype and learned about the military industrial complex. I know that in order to keep the wars going on, they need to provide an enemy that will easily get the public to surrender their freedoms while supporting more unconstitutional invasions.

Now I'm at the point of seeing the legitimacy of both sides concerns. The Mosque in NY should be built as long as there is no proof of terrorist ties. I believe certain elements within Muslim culture (radicals - as there are in any group) do preach an Islam that calls for the destruction of western civilization. When did this first start? In the 1920's with the Muslim Brotherhood or before that? Or did we have a hand in this radicalization?

I found the following information:

The Central Intelligence Agency using Pakistan’s ISI as a go-between played a key role in training the Mujahideen. In turn, the CIA-sponsored guerrilla training was integrated with the teachings of Islam. The madrasahs were set up by Wahabi fundamentalists financed out of Saudi Arabia: "[I]t was the government of the United States who supported Pakistani dictator General Zia-ul Haq in creating thousands of religious schools, from which the germs of the Taliban emerged."(Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan (RAWA), "RAWA Statement on the Terrorist Attacks in the U.S.", Centre for Research on Globalisation (CRG), 
http://globalresearch.... , 16 September 2001)
http://globalresearch...

Plus the CIA were responsible for creating Al Qaeda:
Al Qaeda was created by the CIA, in their offices in Washington D.C., According to Richard Clark in his most recent book. It was created for Saudi Arabia to bankroll Osama bin Laden, through the House of Saud, "in the Afghan war against the Soviet Union during the 1980's and Riyadh and Washington together contributed an estimated $3.5 billion to the mujahideen."

"In late 2003, U.S. News & World Report conducted an exhaustive study titled. 'The Saudi Connection.' Its findings included the following."

"The evidence was indisputable: Saudi Arabia, America's longtime ally and the world's largest oil producer, had somehow become, as a senior Treasury Department official put it, 'the epicenter' of terrorist financing'.

http://www.rense.com/general61/myths.htm

Let us not forget that it was Israel, which in fact created Hamas. According to Zeev Sternell, historian at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, "Israel thought that it was a smart ploy to push the Islamists against the Palestinian Liberation Organisation (PLO)".
http://globalresearch....


It's really a tangled web we have woven for ourselves. And as long as we remain on their soil and dropping bombs on their civilians, we are providing all the motivation that is necessary for more Muslims to become radicalized. It's such a convoluted mess. How in the world do we ever unravel this ball of confusion and manipulation. WE are our own worst enemy. :(

[Acala]

How in the world do we ever unravel this ball of confusion and manipulation. WE are our own worst enemy. :(

"We marched in, we can march right back out again."

You obviously have seen through the manipulation and lies that have most of the country hypnotized. We can't go on doing what we have been doing for the last fifty years. We need to STOP! The fact that we have sown the seeds of hate around the world is not an excuse to keep doing it. We need to just stop it and come home. Protect our borders, of course. Retaliate if we are attacked on our home soil, of course. But continue to be the corrupt global thug kicking every hornet's nest on the planet? No. It must stop. It is unconstitutional, immoral, economically unsustainable, and makes us LESS secure.

Nobody in the world is a serious threat to us. Sure, someone can do some damage, but invade? Please. That is silly. Now if we continue to piss off everyone in the world, someone might just get around to detonating a nuke here. What is the answer to that? STOP pissing off everyone in the world and mind our own business.

Besides, we can't afford a world empire. We have a choice: bring the troops home in an orderly fashion now, or have them come straggling back in a disorderly retreat when the money runs out. One thing is for sure, we can't go on the way we have been.

[Jace]

"We marched in, we can march right back out again."

You obviously have seen through the manipulation and lies that have most of the country hypnotized. We can't go on doing what we have been doing for the last fifty years. We need to STOP! The fact that we have sown the seeds of hate around the world is not an excuse to keep doing it. We need to just stop it and come home. Protect our borders, of course. Retaliate if we are attacked on our home soil, of course. But continue to be the corrupt global thug kicking every hornet's nest on the planet? No. It must stop. It is unconstitutional, immoral, economically unsustainable, and makes us LESS secure.

Nobody in the world is a serious threat to us. Sure, someone can do some damage, but invade? Please. That is silly. Now if we continue to piss off everyone in the world, someone might just get around to detonating a nuke here. What is the answer to that? STOP pissing off everyone in the world and mind our own business.

Besides, we can't afford a world empire. We have a choice: bring the troops home in an orderly fashion now, or have them come straggling back in a disorderly retreat when the money runs out. One thing is for sure, we can't go on the way we have been.

Well said.

[Carl Corey]

Well Carl Corey...what's your solution to this plague of Islam? Shall we become the Nazis and commit (more) genocide? Shall we forgo freedom of religion and ban it here? Shall we force Muslims into camps? Shall we spit on Muslims when we walk by them? Vandalize a mosque? Poke them with a stick? Look upon them with mistrust and disdain? Beat them up in dark parking lots? Pre-emptively invade and bomb the shit out of every country with a population that's over 50% Muslim?

Since you know so much about the spectre of Islam, surely you must have the answers.
Perhaps we can use the same strategy used for ending segregation and Nazism. Exposing Islam for what it truly is, letting Muslims know that Americans don't like fascism and that we know Islam is a fascist religion. Another thing that can be addressed is the oppression of Muslim women, and go after Muslims that make death threats against Muslim wanting to convert to a different religion.

Islam is a tough religion however, and it's going to be a lot tougher to get rid off than Nazism.

[libertygrl]

"We marched in, we can march right back out again."

You obviously have seen through the manipulation and lies that have most of the country hypnotized. We can't go on doing what we have been doing for the last fifty years. We need to STOP! The fact that we have sown the seeds of hate around the world is not an excuse to keep doing it. We need to just stop it and come home. Protect our borders, of course. Retaliate if we are attacked on our home soil, of course. But continue to be the corrupt global thug kicking every hornet's nest on the planet? No. It must stop. It is unconstitutional, immoral, economically unsustainable, and makes us LESS secure.

Nobody in the world is a serious threat to us. Sure, someone can do some damage, but invade? Please. That is silly. Now if we continue to piss off everyone in the world, someone might just get around to detonating a nuke here. What is the answer to that? STOP pissing off everyone in the world and mind our own business.

Besides, we can't afford a world empire. We have a choice: bring the troops home in an orderly fashion now, or have them come straggling back in a disorderly retreat when the money runs out. One thing is for sure, we can't go on the way we have been.

Yes, well said. But easier said than done. A major movement needs to take place in this country for that to happen. The only way this could even remotely have a chance to take root, is for nationwide and I mean NATIONWIDE PROTESTS. All Americans from every political and ideological background. Perhaps a one day work stoppage as well since it's our tax dollars that keep funding these wars. But like I said, easier said than done. Maybe it would be for the best to bring back the draft so that more Americans would get off their asses! Look what it did in the 60's. Ironic that a lot of those kids that were protesting back then, are now part of the machine that continues these unconstitutional wars.

[amy31416]

Perhaps we can use the same strategy used for ending segregation and Nazism. Exposing Islam for what it truly is, letting Muslims know that Americans don't like fascism and that we know Islam is a fascist religion. Another thing that can be addressed is the oppression of Muslim women, and go after Muslims that make death threats against Muslim wanting to convert to a different religion.

Islam is a tough religion however, and it's going to be a lot tougher to get rid off than Nazism.

LOL

You had me going for a while, I thought you were serious!

Now that's some fine trollin' son...show these other amateur bitches around here how it's done. :p

[angelatc]

Has it ever occurred to anybody that maybe BOTH points are true? Are we totally denying that Islamic facism doesn't exist?

I'm not convinced fascism is the right word, but of course I believe that we are at war.

I think you should read Scheuer's books - he's not a dove by any stretch.

[Acala]

Perhaps we can use the same strategy used for ending segregation and Nazism. Exposing Islam for what it truly is, letting Muslims know that Americans don't like fascism and that we know Islam is a fascist religion. Another thing that can be addressed is the oppression of Muslim women, and go after Muslims that make death threats against Muslim wanting to convert to a different religion.

Islam is a tough religion however, and it's going to be a lot tougher to get rid off than Nazism.

Well, I think this is a FINE idea and I suggest you get cracking on it right away! Get yourself a gun and a plane ticket and go make the world a safe place. Me, well I have things I would rather do with my life, my children and the fruits of my labor than going on some paranoid global crusade.

[Acala]

Yes, well said. But easier said than done. A major movement needs to take place in this country for that to happen. The only way this could even remotely have a chance to take root, is for nationwide and I mean NATIONWIDE PROTESTS. All Americans from every political and ideological background. Perhaps a one day work stoppage as well since it's our tax dollars that keep funding these wars. But like I said, easier said than done. Maybe it would be for the best to bring back the draft so that more Americans would get off their asses! Look what it did in the 60's. Ironic that a lot of those kids that were protesting back then, are now part of the machine that continues these unconstitutional wars.

I think the right course for the country is clear. I think the chances of getting back onto that course without a catastrophic meltdown first is unlikely. :(

[libertygrl]

I'm not convinced fascism is the right word, but of course I believe that we are at war.

I think you should read Scheuer's books - he's not a dove by any stretch.

Thanks, I will.

[libertygrl]

I think the right course for the country is clear. I think the chances of getting back onto that course without a catastrophic meltdown first is unlikely. :(

Well, that sucks. But you may be right.

[BlackTerrel]

Has it ever occurred to anybody that maybe BOTH points are true? Are we totally denying that Islamic facism doesn't exist? I've seen some reports to the contrary.
Maybe both sides - Ron Paul followers and Palin type Republican Conservatives see this in terms of black and white only. I think maybe there are some grey areas as well.

There's clearly a middle ground. A couple points I see on RPF at times:

A. Muslim terrorism is a threat to no one. In fact any crime said to be done by a Muslim is actually CIA/Mossad/KGB etc. false flags.

B. All Muslims are terrorists. All 1.2 billion of them. The ones that we think are nice and friendly are just really good actors worthy of Oscars. They are all out to get them and Islam must be destroyed.

There is a pretty reasonable middle ground in between A and B which most rational people should be able to agree on. I think Ron has that middle ground quite nicely.

[anaconda]

YouTube - Ayn Rand on Israel and the Middle East (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2uHSv1asFvU)

Seems consistent with Ayn Rand.


Seems Ayn forgot about the Irgun when she said that murder and terrorism were uncivilized.

[Minuteman2012]

Seems Ayn forgot about the Irgun when she said that murder and terrorism were uncivilized.

No, it was ok when they did it, they are civilized and technologically advanced.

[revolutionary8]

Seems Ayn forgot about the Irgun when she said that murder and terrorism were uncivilized.

Seems that you aren't the only m*therf*ucker that isn't "PC".
Nice to meet your acquiescense. lmao. ;)
shall we go?

[anaconda]

Seems that you aren't the only m*therf*ucker that isn't "PC".
Nice to meet your acquiescense. lmao. ;)
shall we go?

Was that a compliment?:)

[Pericles]

There's clearly a middle ground. A couple points I see on RPF at times:

A. Muslim terrorism is a threat to no one. In fact any crime said to be done by a Muslim is actually CIA/Mossad/KGB etc. false flags.

B. All Muslims are terrorists. All 1.2 billion of them. The ones that we think are nice and friendly are just really good actors worthy of Oscars. They are all out to get them and Islam must be destroyed.

There is a pretty reasonable middle ground in between A and B which most rational people should be able to agree on. I think Ron has that middle ground quite nicely.

I see too much of both A and B around here. As long as guys are issuing their fatwas calling for apostates beheadings and the like, and there is no push back from the rest of the Muslim community, there is a threat to civil liberties.

[Acala]

I see too much of both A and B around here. As long as guys are issuing their fatwas calling for apostates beheadings and the like, and there is no push back from the rest of the Muslim community, there is a threat to civil liberties.

Are you saying that if some mulla in a cave in Sheepistan somewhere issues a fatwa on the President of the US, it is appropriate for us to make a pre-emptive military strike in Sheepistan?

[Pericles]

Are you saying that if some mulla in a cave in Sheepistan somewhere issues a fatwa on the President of the US, it is appropriate for us to make a pre-emptive military strike in Sheepistan?

Let me check with Salman Rushdie and get back to you. Which is the other thing we have to excess - anyone who does not agree with me, must therefore, believe X, instead of rational discussion.

[oyarde]

Pete needs to watch Power of Nightmares. He has a warped view of Islam.

** She's too skinny and has too much "glam makeup" for me, but yep. A lot of Muslims are pretty liberalized culturally, and secularized (Iran, etc.).

A little too thin , but very pretty . I am a good cook , so I can fix a little thin . :)

[WaltM]

ahhh, the beautiful price of religious tolerance.

[Carl Corey]

There is a pretty reasonable middle ground in between A and B which most rational people should be able to agree on. I think Ron has that middle ground quite nicely.
Looks like most people here are liberals who jumped on the small government bandwagon, as such they will be tolerant toward intolerance, and have no solution for the tough challenges the US faces, like Islam and dysgenic decline. I don't think I'd see different attitudes on the Obama fanboy forum.

[Acala]

Let me check with Salman Rushdie and get back to you. Which is the other thing we have to excess - anyone who does not agree with me, must therefore, believe X, instead of rational discussion.

I was simply asking for clarification of your position. I assume you would rather I do that than jump to a conclusion? So, I repeat, is that your position? Should we stage a military invasion because someone in a foreign country threatened an author?

And just to be fair, I'll state my position: No. Unless we have been attacked, we mind our borders and not beyond. If someone is amassing troops at our border, we respond with fortifications. If someone insults us or threatens us, we ignore them. In other words, I reject the Bush doctrine of pre-emptive war. As does Ron Paul.

[amy31416]

Looks like most people here are liberals who jumped on the small government bandwagon, as such they will be tolerant toward intolerance, and have no solution for the tough challenges the US faces, like Islam and dysgenic decline. I don't think I'd see different attitudes on the Obama fanboy forum.

Yes. Because to belong to the (neo)conservative club, you must swear your hatred for a specific group of human beings because they give us trouble when we try to dominate, occupy, steal from and bomb them back into the stone age.

The weird thing is that you hate them because your gov't and their media told you to. Meanwhile, they hate us because we actually kill them and interfere with their governments, lands, and natural resources.

I have no more or less respect for Islam than I do for Christianity or Judaism. I will say this--at least many of them don't just roll over when the US Empire machine comes rolling through. If that makes me a liberal, I don't really care.

[Acala]

Looks like most people here are liberals who jumped on the small government bandwagon, as such they will be tolerant toward intolerance, and have no solution for the tough challenges the US faces, like Islam and dysgenic decline. I don't think I'd see different attitudes on the Obama fanboy forum.

I think you should absolutely go and take care of that muslim problem. It is going to take you awhile to slaughter a billion people, but I am sure you are up to the job. Go fo it tough guy!

[Acala]

Yes. Because to belong to the (neo)conservative club, you must swear your hatred for a specific group of human beings because they give us trouble when we try to dominate, occupy, steal from and bomb them back into the stone age.

The weird thing is that you hate them because your gov't and their media told you to. Meanwhile, they hate us because we actually kill them and interfere with their governments, lands, and natural resources.

I have no more or less respect for Islam than I do for Christianity or Judaism. I will say this--at least many of them don't just roll over when the US Empire machine comes rolling through. If that makes me a liberal, I don't really care.

^^nicely done. I'm in your club.

[Todd]

I was simply asking for clarification of your position. I assume you would rather I do that than jump to a conclusion? So, I repeat, is that your position? Should we stage a military invasion because someone in a foreign country threatened an author?

And just to be fair, I'll state my position: No. Unless we have been attacked, we mind our borders and not beyond. If someone is amassing troops at our border, we respond with fortifications. If someone insults us or threatens us, we ignore them. In other words, I reject the Bush doctrine of pre-emptive war. As does Ron Paul.

So....The first and most important conclusion, question, or idea you arrived at when someone expresses the opinion that it may be a threat to civil liberties when religious beliefs are used to justify the taking of a life is to ask if they wish to stage a military invasion?

[Acala]

So....The first and most important conclusion, question, or idea you arrived at when someone expresses the opinion that it may be a threat to civil liberties when religious beliefs are used to justify the taking of a life is to ask if they wish to stage a military invasion?

The context of this thread is the appropriateness of a military response to the supposed threat of militant Islam. Within that context, Pericles' somewhat cryptic statement justifies a follow-up question seeking clarification. And the request for clarification elicited another cryptic response. Which suggests that Pericles really doesn't want to clarify.

And now your insertion joins the attack on the questioner. An interesting tactic. Or perhaps I am missing the obvious and YOU can enlighten me as to what his post means? Do educate me.

[amy31416]

^^nicely done. I'm in your club.

Damn. Now I have to start a club...

First, we need t-shirts...then, a flag, and a manifesto--and a tree house. :)

[oyarde]

Damn. Now I have to start a club...

First, we need t-shirts...then, a flag, and a manifesto--and a tree house. :)

You have to have the manifesto before you have earned the tree house .

[amy31416]

You have to have the manifesto before you have earned the tree house .

I might need a coordinator for this club....I am obviously woefully ignorant of the protocols.

[Acala]

Damn. Now I have to start a club...

First, we need t-shirts...then, a flag, and a manifesto--and a tree house. :)

Yes! A tree house with a rope ladder we can pull up when neocons try to get in.

[oyarde]

I might need a coordinator for this club....I am obviously woefully ignorant of the protocols.

Well , I am willing to help , I had all this mastered by the age of ten or so . You need to work on your manifesto , then you have a theme for the fort . I am much older now , so women must be allowed. :D

[amy31416]

Well , I am willing to help , I had all this mastered by the age of ten or so . You need to work on your manifesto , then you have a theme for the fort . I am much older now , so women must be allowed. :D

Whew! I thought it was going to be a manifestation of the "He-Man, Woman-Hater's" club....

You're a top contender for coordinator. Congratulations!

[Pericles]

The context of this thread is the appropriateness of a military response to the supposed threat of militant Islam. Within that context, Pericles' somewhat cryptic statement justifies a follow-up question seeking clarification. And the request for clarification elicited another cryptic response. Which suggests that Pericles really doesn't want to clarify.

And now your insertion joins the attack on the questioner. An interesting tactic. Or perhaps I am missing the obvious and YOU can enlighten me as to what his post means? Do educate me.

The OP made no such connection. That connection of Islam=Terrorism=Military Invasion was a conclusion jumped to by others.

My opinion of what policy should be toward terrorism is a combination of letter of reprisal (let some private corp. hunt for bin Laden for the reward money) and an effective intelligence service that can run a covert operation if needed. Military power is effective only in state vs. state warfare.

[oyarde]

whew! I thought it was going to be a manifestation of the "he-man, woman-hater's" club....

You're a top contender for coordinator. Congratulations!

lol lol

[Acala]

The OP made no such connection. That connection of Islam=Terrorism=Military Invasion was a conclusion jumped to by others.

My opinion of what policy should be toward terrorism is a combination of letter of reprisal (let some private corp. hunt for bin Laden for the reward money) and an effective intelligence service that can run a covert operation if needed. Military power is effective only in state vs. state warfare.

Agreed. If we are attacked, we respond. But that really isn't the question I thought was raised by your post. At least the way I read your post there was the implication that pre-emptive strikes were justified for such things as issuing, but not acting on, fatwahs or other threats. If I misunderstood, I apologize.

[Number19]

The same exact damn thing Paul said we should do after the attacks and is still saying: Actually go after the specific group of people... Utilize the Letters of Marque and Reprisal.I don't hear every single speech or comment that RP makes, but over the past three years I have never heard him make a strong and explicit statement of policy supporting this position as part of his overall foreign policy. He agrees with this, and may have commented on it, but my point is he doesn't forcefully convey this position to the public on a regular basis and/or at the same time as laying out his withdrawal policy. The public perception is one of pacifism and weakness rather than one of self limited strength.

[Fozz]

I see too much of both A and B around here. As long as guys are issuing their fatwas calling for apostates beheadings and the like, and there is no push back from the rest of the Muslim community, there is a threat to civil liberties.

The biggest threat to our civil liberties comes not from Muslims, but from government.

[Depressed Liberator]

Why the fuck do people keep asking for a push back from the Muslim community? Do you want all 1.5 billion of them to send us a sorry letter?

[Acala]

Why the fuck do people keep asking for a push back from the Muslim community? Do you want all 1.5 billion of them to send us a sorry letter?

When will the Christian world push back for the centuries of atrocities committed in the name of Christ? Not that I think they should. Demanding that all Muslims take action in response to the acts of some minority of Muslims is collectivist thinking. People should be held responsible for their OWN acts and not the acts of others.

How many Americans have "pushed back" for the atrocities Americans commit every day?

[Carl Corey]

So....The first and most important conclusion, question, or idea you arrived at when someone expresses the opinion that it may be a threat to civil liberties when religious beliefs are used to justify the taking of a life is to ask if they wish to stage a military invasion?
If I supported military oppression I'd be easiest to become a Muslim.

It's obvious though that most people here aren't up for a serious discussion, as it takes a total disregard of reality to ignore the violence, oppression of freedoms, and terrorism that occur in every nation where Muslims have sufficient numbers, and my argument is that the cause is the Koran, and not their culture.

[Pericles]

If I supported military oppression I'd be easiest to become a Muslim.

It's obvious though that most people here aren't up for a serious discussion, as it takes a total disregard of reality to ignore the violence, oppression of freedoms, and terrorism that occur in every nation where Muslims have sufficient numbers, and my argument is that the cause is the Koran, and not their culture.
Please let me restate your line of thought.

There are a number of countries with majority Muslim population. The country in that set of nations that is the most oriented toward a secular government and the one we might say is closest to the US model is Turkey. One of the reasons that Turkey is so, is that whenever the government is in danger of becoming a theocracy, the army overthrows the government and places a secular government back in power.

Therefore, it would be reasonable to assume that Muslims want to live in the US for one of two reasons:

(A) The quest for individual liberty provides an incentive for them to leave the traditional Muslim countries.
(B) Western countries are being settled by pioneers who pave the way for later Muslim domination (the reverse of US style nation building).

What evidence do we have that either (A) or (B) or both are correct?

[Todd]

The context of this thread is the appropriateness of a military response to the supposed threat of militant Islam. Within that context, Pericles' somewhat cryptic statement justifies a follow-up question seeking clarification. And the request for clarification elicited another cryptic response. Which suggests that Pericles really doesn't want to clarify.

And now your insertion joins the attack on the questioner. An interesting tactic. Or perhaps I am missing the obvious and YOU can enlighten me as to what his post means? Do educate me.

Boy. Acala, You've always seemed so reasonable in most threads. Not seeming to be one who reads into things what's not there. Did someone strike a nerve with this thread?

As someone else said, the OP made no such conclusion.

the OP said Ron Paul seems dismissive about the dangers of terrorism...specifically Muslim.

I don't agree that Paul is dismissive. I do think that people like Mike Scheuer have it closer to the truth that there is an inherent conflict between individual liberty and the extremists.
That doesn't mean I agree with a military invasion. And even more so, a question posed to you doesn't mean you are being "attacked".

[Acala]

Boy. Acala, You've always seemed so reasonable in most threads. Not seeming to be one who reads into things what's not there. Did someone strike a nerve with this thread?

As someone else said, the OP made no such conclusion.

the OP said Ron Paul seems dismissive about the dangers of terrorism...specifically Muslim.

I don't agree that Paul is dismissive. I do think that people like Mike Scheuer have it closer to the truth that there is an inherent conflict between individual liberty and the extremists.
That doesn't mean I agree with a military invasion. And even more so, a question posed to you doesn't mean you are being "attacked".

I didn't think my question was unreasonable. I thought, in the context of the discussion which WAS about military response to the "muslim threat", that the implication of Pericles' post was that he was suggesting that it was appropriate to initiate a pre-emptive military action in response to a verbal threat from a foreigner. If I was wrong, which is by no means an uncommon occurence, all he needed to do was say "no, that is not what I meant to say". Instead what I got was a response suggesting that there was something wrong with me for asking the question.

And what I meant by "attacking the questioner" was not to suggest that the tone was out of line but rather that instead of responding to the question, the response was directed at the person ASKING the question. It is a tactic. Maybe not intentional in this case, but a tactic none the less. I was trying to point out the tactic.

And, by the way, he has still not made his position clear. And that is fine with me. But I don't feel that I have been unreasonable in asking.

Or maybe I am feeling cranky lately. I didn't think so, but I do seem to be involved in more contenious threads at the moment than usual.

I apologize if I have stepped on any toes. It was not my intention.

[virgil47]

Sigh. I didn't realize there were so many Muslim apologists (dhimmi's) on the forum. What none of you seem to realize is that Islam is not only a religion but it is also a form of government. It is not possible to democratize the Muslims as their religion is already the form of government they have been raised under. If they are "true" moslems they will NEVER be assimilated into U.S. society. The very religion they believe in DEMANDS that they convert every human on the face of the earth to the religion of "peace". Of course they are instructed to lie, cheat and kill to do so as people of other religions are inferior and therefore expendable. Don't like what I've written then please read the Koran and try to refute my statements. Please don't just blather more of your apologist (dhimmi) pap. Actually read then respond.

[amy31416]

Sigh. I didn't realize there were so many Muslim apologists (dhimmi's) on the forum. What none of you seem to realize is that Islam is not only a religion but it is also a form of government. It is not possible to democratize the Muslims as their religion is already the form of government they have been raised under. If they are "true" moslems they will NEVER be assimilated into U.S. society. The very religion they believe in DEMANDS that they convert every human on the face of the earth to the religion of "peace". Of course they are instructed to lie, cheat and kill to do so as people of other religions are inferior and therefore expendable. Don't like what I've written then please read the Koran and try to refute my statements. Please don't just blather more of your apologist (dhimmi) pap. Actually read then respond.

The only time I've ever heard the phrase "dhimmi" used is by Zionist propagandists, trained in Hasbara.

Personally, I don't give a flying fuck if Muslims do or don't assimilate and don't want "democracy"--I don't want democracy either. How about the Amish--they've been here hundreds of years and haven't assimilated. Given the typical American, I respect that.

We have places called Chinatown, Little Italy, Jewish Neighborhoods, Hispanic neighborhoods, we have huge Mormon communities--and we always have had these ethnic/religious enclaves. Some people stay in their neighborhoods and don't assimilate, other people do.

And please, read the Old Testament, and tell me that those who use such a text in their religion are "good" people. Obviously, they are fond of incest, rape, stonings, genocide, murder, warfare, mutilating babies penises and treating women like property. Refute my statements, please. (And don't give me that "New Testament" crap about Christians--they're slaughtering Muslims, stealing their resources and raping women over in the Middle East--so obviously, theirs is not a religion of peace. Just ask Erik Prince.

Now, before you get all in a huff, think about this: the US is majority Christian, if our country were targeted by Muslims for the last 60+ years, and their leaders kept bombing us, invading, killing people, stealing resources and replaced our government with someone who was loyal to them--how would that change life for you? How would it change things if your children died due to sanctions? If your wife gave birth to a deformed baby due to depleted uranium? If your sons were hauled off to a detention camp, never to be seen again, except in leaked photographs where they were covered in excrement, naked and tied up like an abused dog? Threatened with rape if they didn't talk? Waterboarded. Gone insane from sleep deprivation.

What if you had no hope. Your government wasn't fighting back...you had no way to fight back...then one day, a fellow approaches you and asks you to join a resistance...and calls it a holy war that will be waged against these Muslims who've stolen your life, your family, humiliated you--then go on TV and talk about how another "extremist" was killed, when in reality, it was a fucking potato farmer. Would you join the resistance and say "praise Jesus" every time you managed to weaken them somehow?

The difference is, Muslims are retaliating. And you absolutely fail to realize that. Why?

[virgil47]

The only time I've ever heard the phrase "dhimmi" used is by Zionist propagandists, trained in Hasbara.

Personally, I don't give a flying fuck if Muslims do or don't assimilate and don't want "democracy"--I don't want democracy either. How about the Amish--they've been here hundreds of years and haven't assimilated. Given the typical American, I respect that.

We have places called Chinatown, Little Italy, Jewish Neighborhoods, Hispanic neighborhoods, we have huge Mormon communities--and we always have had these ethnic/religious enclaves. Some people stay in their neighborhoods and don't assimilate, other people do.

And please, read the Old Testament, and tell me that those who use such a text in their religion are "good" people. Obviously, they are fond of incest, rape, stonings, genocide, murder, warfare, mutilating babies penises and treating women like property. Refute my statements, please. (And don't give me that "New Testament" crap about Christians--they're slaughtering Muslims, stealing their resources and raping women over in the Middle East--so obviously, theirs is not a religion of peace. Just ask Erik Prince.

Now, before you get all in a huff, think about this: the US is majority Christian, if our country were targeted by Muslims for the last 60+ years, and their leaders kept bombing us, invading, killing people, stealing resources and replaced our government with someone who was loyal to them--how would that change life for you? How would it change things if your children died due to sanctions? If your wife gave birth to a deformed baby due to depleted uranium? If your sons were hauled off to a detention camp, never to be seen again, except in leaked photographs where they were covered in excrement, naked and tied up like an abused dog? Threatened with rape if they didn't talk? Waterboarded. Gone insane from sleep deprivation.

What if you had no hope. Your government wasn't fighting back...you had no way to fight back...then one day, a fellow approaches you and asks you to join a resistance...and calls it a holy war that will be waged against these Muslims who've stolen your life, your family, humiliated you--then go on TV and talk about how another "extremist" was killed, when in reality, it was a fucking potato farmer. Would you join the resistance and say "praise Jesus" every time you managed to weaken them somehow?

The difference is, Muslims are retaliating. And you absolutely fail to realize that. Why?

A true "apologist" type of response. Unless of course you are a Moslem troll. READ the Koran then refute my statements if you can. I don't give a crap about what other religions are or are not doing because they are not beheading people in the name of religion. Using the argument that others religions did these things in the past simply doesn't fly. The Muslims are doing these things NOW. They have not moderated in the last 1000 years as other religions have. They still adhere to the barbaric practices of their distant past.

[Danke]

And please, read the Old Testament, and tell me that those who use such a text in their religion are "good" people. Obviously, they are fond of incest, rape, stonings, genocide, murder, warfare, mutilating babies penises and treating women like property.

Outside of that penis thing, I may have finally found the religion I have been looking for.

[amy31416]

A true "apologist" type of response. Unless of course you are a Moslem troll. READ the Koran then refute my statements if you can. I don't give a crap about what other religions are or are not doing because they are not beheading people in the name of religion. Using the argument that others religions did these things in the past simply doesn't fly. The Muslims are doing these things NOW. They have not moderated in the last 1000 years as other religions have. They still adhere to the barbaric practices of their distant past.

I have read it, dhummi. Because I'm a Muslim. A head-scarf wearing, beheading, stoning, Sharia Law-implementing Muslim, and you infidels adhere to the barbaric practices of torture, murder, rape and theft--you're just more high-tech. Don't worry though, once we get that nuke, we're coming for ya--just keep bombing my people so I can keep recruiting anyone who's left to become a "terrorist" and we can get some revenge on yer fat white asses and take over YOUR country for a change!

MWAHAHAHAHAHAHA....cough, cough....MWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Barack Hussein Obama--haha. What a bunch of suckas. Tell yer wife to start knitting a burka--we might let her live.

[amy31416]

Outside of that penis thing, I may have finally found the religion I have been looking for.

Islam is for you, then...I don't think they're sticklers for the penis thing.

Good luck.... or shall I say salaam?

[virgil47]

I have read it, dhummi. Because I'm a Muslim. A head-scarf wearing, beheading, stoning, Sharia Law-implementing Muslim, and you infidels adhere to the barbaric practices of torture, murder, rape and theft--you're just more high-tech. Don't worry though, once we get that nuke, we're coming for ya--just keep bombing my people so I can keep recruiting anyone who's left to become a "terrorist" and we can get some revenge on yer fat white asses and take over YOUR country for a change!

MWAHAHAHAHAHAHA....cough, cough....MWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Barack Hussein Obama--haha. What a bunch of suckas. Tell yer wife to start knitting a burka--we might let her live.

Well, well, well it is now obvious that you are not only an apologist but a child as well. When you grow up then perhaps you will understand. You enjoy making light of the situation however their are many who don't think it is a laughing matter. The reason the Muslims can slowly take over socities is because of people just like you. You will not think it is fun and games when sharia law comes to your neighborhood.

[Toureg89]

no, because even if muslims do want to dominate america, they still cant get around a strictly enforced constitution and bill of rights.

simplest way to guard against muslim domination: strictly adhering to the constitution!!!!!!!!

[virgil47]

no, because even if muslims do want to dominate america, they still cant get around a strictly enforced constitution and bill of rights.

simplest way to guard against muslim domination: strictly adhering to the constitution!!!!!!!!


You know, you would be correct except the constitution has not been in force for many years. If it was in force there would not be a problem.

[Toureg89]

You know, you would be correct except the constitution has not been in force for many years. If it was in force there would not be a problem.
that still makes me correct.

the fact that the constitution ISNT strictly enforced should make us worry, not about Sharia law specifically, but general abuse of the individual rights.

but Republicans are only worried about sharia law, since they prefer to use government power to infringe on individual rights, hence, it is not strictly enforced.

but if it WERE strictly enforced, we would not need to worry.

[oyarde]

Yes Virgil, cause Sharia law is instilled in every Muslim country right? Wrong, realize that there are only 3 countries with some sort of Sharia Law, and the the other 50 Islamic countries do not.... before instilling Sharia doncha think they'd instill it in Muslim majority countries first?

Three countries sounds about right . Sadly , there is probably no hope for freedom for those people anytime in the near future . Everone needs to be viligant about freedoms .

[amy31416]

Well, well, well it is now obvious that you are not only an apologist but a child as well. When you grow up then perhaps you will understand. You enjoy making light of the situation however their are many who don't think it is a laughing matter. The reason the Muslims can slowly take over socities is because of people just like you. You will not think it is fun and games when sharia law comes to your neighborhood.

Pfft. I, for one, am looking forward to the Sharia law. First thing I'll do is put yer ugly ass in a burka and make you walk 5 paces behind me. Then I'm gonna stone the fuck outta someone, anyone.

It is nifty how you can't recognize that bombing the fuck out of a people just might bring out the radical elements. Did you know that the Jews in concentration camps fought back using guerrilla tactics from time to time? Not unlike the Palestinians in Gaza--I'm sure the Nazis thought that all the Jews were terrorists too--gave 'em a good reason to justify genocide....kinda like you're doing.

Good luck with that!

[oyarde]

The only time I've ever heard the phrase "dhimmi" used is by Zionist propagandists, trained in Hasbara.

Personally, I don't give a flying fuck if Muslims do or don't assimilate and don't want "democracy"--I don't want democracy either. How about the Amish--they've been here hundreds of years and haven't assimilated. Given the typical American, I respect that.

We have places called Chinatown, Little Italy, Jewish Neighborhoods, Hispanic neighborhoods, we have huge Mormon communities--and we always have had these ethnic/religious enclaves. Some people stay in their neighborhoods and don't assimilate, other people do.

And please, read the Old Testament, and tell me that those who use such a text in their religion are "good" people. Obviously, they are fond of incest, rape, stonings, genocide, murder, warfare, mutilating babies penises and treating women like property. Refute my statements, please. (And don't give me that "New Testament" crap about Christians--they're slaughtering Muslims, stealing their resources and raping women over in the Middle East--so obviously, theirs is not a religion of peace. Just ask Erik Prince.

Now, before you get all in a huff, think about this: the US is majority Christian, if our country were targeted by Muslims for the last 60+ years, and their leaders kept bombing us, invading, killing people, stealing resources and replaced our government with someone who was loyal to them--how would that change life for you? How would it change things if your children died due to sanctions? If your wife gave birth to a deformed baby due to depleted uranium? If your sons were hauled off to a detention camp, never to be seen again, except in leaked photographs where they were covered in excrement, naked and tied up like an abused dog? Threatened with rape if they didn't talk? Waterboarded. Gone insane from sleep deprivation.

What if you had no hope. Your government wasn't fighting back...you had no way to fight back...then one day, a fellow approaches you and asks you to join a resistance...and calls it a holy war that will be waged against these Muslims who've stolen your life, your family, humiliated you--then go on TV and talk about how another "extremist" was killed, when in reality, it was a fucking potato farmer. Would you join the resistance and say "praise Jesus" every time you managed to weaken them somehow?

The difference is, Muslims are retaliating. And you absolutely fail to realize that. Why?

I am not too sure about stealing resources, potato farmers and raping women , but I understand what it is you are getting at . It is natural for people to resist invasion.

[oyarde]

Pfft. I, for one, am looking forward to the Sharia law. First thing I'll do is put yer ugly ass in a burka and make you walk 5 paces behind me. Then I'm gonna stone the fuck outta someone, anyone.

It is nifty how you can't recognize that bombing the fuck out of a people just might bring out the radical elements. Did you know that the Jews in concentration camps fought back using guerrilla tactics from time to time? Not unlike the Palestinians in Gaza--I'm sure the Nazis thought that all the Jews were terrorists too--gave 'em a good reason to justify genocide....kinda like you're doing.

Good luck with that!

No burka , I do not even wear a hat .

[bruce leeroy]

on one hand, I think it is very prudent to hate and be suspicous of any group of people who dont like pork chops and cold beer, and outlaw hank williams sr albums
on the other hand, these muslims have sex with livestock, marry their cousins and like shootin off fully auto weapons and blowing shit up.........so they might not be all that bad

[oyarde]

on one hand, I think it is very prudent to hate and be suspicous of any group of people who dont like pork chops and cold beer, and outlaw hank williams sr albums
on the other hand, these muslims have sex with livestock, marry their cousins and like shootin off fully auto weapons and blowing shit up.........so they might not be all that bad

Pork chops and Beer are two of my favorite addictions.

[eproxy100]

Pfft. I, for one, am looking forward to the Sharia law. First thing I'll do is put yer ugly ass in a burka and make you walk 5 paces behind me. Then I'm gonna stone the fuck outta someone, anyone.

It is nifty how you can't recognize that bombing the fuck out of a people just might bring out the radical elements. Did you know that the Jews in concentration camps fought back using guerrilla tactics from time to time? Not unlike the Palestinians in Gaza--I'm sure the Nazis thought that all the Jews were terrorists too--gave 'em a good reason to justify genocide....kinda like you're doing.

Good luck with that!

It's sad that there are so many neocons on this board.