Page 1 of 11 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 301

Thread: A Muslim Ban Is Logical, Moral, And Even Libertarian

  1. #1

    Default A Muslim Ban Is Logical, Moral, And Even Libertarian

    http://dailycaller.com/2017/11/03/a-...n-libertarian/

    Ilana Mercer has been writing a weekly paleolibertarian column since 1999,

    .....For a Muslim ban is neither illogical, immoral, or un-libertarian.

    Violent Jihad is not an ideology, as our Moderate Muslim friends keep calling it. Jihad is a pillar of a faith. That faith is Islam.

    Christianity has just commemorated 500 years since its Reformation. Islam has yet to undergo a reformation; it’s still radical. Yes, there are many moderate Muslims. Perhaps a majority of them. But their existence and their moderate beliefs do not belie Islam’s radicalness.

    The fact that there are moderate Muslims doesn’t mean there is a moderate Islam—or that these moderates won’t sire sons who’ll embrace the unreformed Islam. The data show that young, second-generation Muslims are well-represented among terrorists acting out almost weekly across the West.
    ...
    Religion is The Risk Factor, not chaotic countries-of-origin. It’s impossible to vet migrants not because of ISIS infiltration, or countries in disarray, but because Islam is a risk factor. Their Muslim faith puts Muslims in a security risk group.

    Being Muslim is a predisposing characteristic, a risk factor, if you will, for eruptions associated with this religion. By “a risk factor,” I mean that Islam predisposes its believers to aggression against The Other. For in Islam we have a religion that doubles up as a political system that counsels conquest, not co-existence. (“Islam’s borders are bloody,” cautioned Samuel Huntington.)

    A preponderance of Muslims will remain dormant. But, as we see almost daily in the West or in the Muslim world (where Muslim factions vie for religious dominance), a Muslim individual could be “triggered” at any time to act on his radical religion.
    ....
    In other words, all Muslims can thrive in America. But not all Americans will thrive in the presence of Muslims. Again, this is because the faith of Muslims is Islam. And Islam—the real or the imposter variety; it matters not—predisposes to violence. Some Americans will be hurt or die as a result of importing members of this militant faith.

    More important, public policy is about aggregates. On the whole, it’s supposed to benefit, and certainly not endanger, the collective. Because of its immense potential to harm, libertarians believe the entity that executes public policy, the government, should do very little. And the duty of an American government is to safeguard its own citizens, not to welcome the world’s.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2

    Default

    In the process we may have to sanction ourselves also. Can you think of any bigger supporter of Islamic Jihad in recent decades than US based neocons?
    Reagan was founding father of Afghan Islamic Jihad against Russian infidels. Afghan and some old Russian States populations are still reeling from effects of extremist Jihadi books printed by Univ of Nebraska and shipped to Russian territoroes paid for by US tax payers.
    Trump has even claimed that Obama was founding father of ISIS Islamic State Jihad in Syria that was supported by our closest allies Israel and Saudi Arabia.

    Fallacious argument.






    Relational



    Terrorism's Christian Godfather



    Vaetan / AP
    George Habash March 11, 1979

    Checking in for a flight has never been the same since 1967

    9/11 was to punish U.S. for Israel policy: Philip Zelikow 9/11 Commission Exec. Dir.

  4. #3

    Default

    It would be so convenient if our problems were the fault of some evil enemy plotting without and within to use extreme violence and terror to destroy us. Unfortunately, this simply isn't the case. America's problems are the result of Americans' way of life - our beliefs, attitudes and behavior.

    Aggression - including violent aggression - is always wrong and destructive. Unfortunately, American foreign policy is hugely aggressive. To justify ourselves, we focus on the aggression of non-Americans - Muslims, Somalis, Chinese, Koreans, and so on - in order to turn the focus off ourselves.

    We need to pull the plank out of our own eye before lecturing the rest of the world about the specks of dust in their eyes. Bring American troops back home, shut down the 700+ overseas US military bases and stop squandering trillions of dollars on military adventurism to expand the US empire. That's the obviously correct solution. But since that solution doesn't fit with the war-mongering agenda of the power-worshiping neocons, we're going to talk about Muslim violence instead.

  5. #4

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by enhanced_deficit View Post
    In the process we may have to sanction ourselves also. Can you think of any bigger supporter of Jiahd in recent decades than US based neocons?
    Reagan was founding father of Afghan Islamic Jihad against Russian infidels. Afgahns and people are still reeling for extremist Jihadi books printed by Univ of Nebraska and shipped to Russian territoroes paid for by US tax payers.
    Trump has even claimed that Obama was founding father of ISIS Islamic State Jihad in Syria that was supported by our closest allies Israel and Saudi Arabia.

    Fallacious argument.
    @ClaytonB

    For those that use that as an excuse, that ship has already sailed and there is no turning back the clock. I really do not feel like martyring my people with the risk of Muslim immigration due to government actions that were outside of my control in the first place.

    Even if the US never ventured outside our own borders the problem would still exist since according to this piece the problem is inherently with the Islamic belief system.

  6. #5

    Default

    Oh, the OP isn't announcing with a straight face that religious discrimination and persecution is a 'libertarian value' because that drives sane people away from our philosophy and gives cover to the Washington swamp rats who profit from imperialism and war. Perish the thought.

    He's saying it because he believes every Muslim in the world is a bloodthirsty savage. And the only reason all one and a half billion of them haven't gotten around to exterminating the measly three hundred million of us yet is that they haven't gotten around to it yet. Probably waiting for a student visa or a plane ticket, or an Uber so they can get to us. Something like that.

    Don't believe me? Ask him!

    Oh, and if you were looking at the banner at the top of the page and wondering if either Dr. Paul approves his message, the only response I can make is, Bwahahahahahaha!
    Last edited by acptulsa; 11-04-2017 at 11:09 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Douglas Adams
    'An SEP is something we can't see, or don't see, or our brain doesn't let us see, because we think that it's somebody else's problem. Thatís what SEP means. Somebody Elseís Problem. The brain just edits it out, it's like a blind spot.'
    This government is Not Somebody Else's Problem

  7. #6

    Default

    I've seen a lot of prominent libertarians and anarchists on both sides, yelling and screaming over this issue like crazy. Some have even lost their standing in libertarian circles because of this issue. Everyone is sure they have the answer and it's a case closed issue, but it seems like the debate is really just starting. This topic will be sure to continue to divide the libertarian movement, and those that don't agree with someone's opinion will be called fake libertarians or not libertarian enough. It's sad, but at the same time, I think discussion regarding any issue should always be on the table.

  8. #7

    Default

    Why the rush to ban Muslims and not Jews? Is it because you prefer formalized, State-sanctioned terrorism over the luck-o-the-draw kind?

    They fought the Wars
    They lost.
    They turned friends
    into enemies.
    Who became
    friends of our enemies.
    They stood alone, in splendid isolation,
    And said it was their only choice.

  9. #8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kahless View Post
    For those that use that as an excuse, that ship has already sailed and there is no turning back the clock. I really do not feel like martyring my people with the risk of Muslim immigration due to government actions that were outside of my control in the first place.

    Even if the US never ventured outside our own borders the problem would still exist since according to this piece the problem is inherently with the Islamic belief system.
    Perhaps that is true. All the same, we should do things the right way. First, bring our troops home. Not only will that reduce the amount of blowback in the form of new terrorists and extremists recruited as a result of US actions (even well-justified actions!), it will also bolster the amount of at-home security that is available to address problems with our borders and other security problems arising from terrorism and other "21st-century threats".

    Serial killers invariably have messed-up belief systems that motivate and justify their violence. Free societies accept that there will be people with messed-up beliefs ... but it's the actions that count. We cannot stop all violence without some kind of AI-all-seeing-eye, as in Minority Report - even then, it will not be 100% stopped. So, unless we're prepared to become tagged and monitored like cattle, we have to accept that there is always some risk of danger in life. Personally, I'd rather be free and accept the immensely tiny risk that I could be killed in a terrorist incident, than to be poked, prodded and monitored by an omnipotent, busy-body State in exchange for a false sense of safety.

  10. #9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ClaytonB View Post
    Perhaps that is true. All the same, we should do things the right way. First, bring our troops home. Not only will that reduce the amount of blowback in the form of new terrorists and extremists recruited as a result of US actions (even well-justified actions!), it will also bolster the amount of at-home security that is available to address problems with our borders and other security problems arising from terrorism and other "21st-century threats".

    Serial killers invariably have messed-up belief systems that motivate and justify their violence. Free societies accept that there will be people with messed-up beliefs ... but it's the actions that count. We cannot stop all violence without some kind of AI-all-seeing-eye, as in Minority Report - even then, it will not be 100% stopped. So, unless we're prepared to become tagged and monitored like cattle, we have to accept that there is always some risk of danger in life. Personally, I'd rather be free and accept the immensely tiny risk that I could be killed in a terrorist incident, than to be poked, prodded and monitored by an omnipotent, busy-body State in exchange for a false sense of safety.
    Exactly.
    There is no spoon.

  11. #10

    Default

    @kahless


    If you argue that yesterday US gov/US based neocons supporting and arming Islamic Jiahdi ISIS militants in Syria and today US gov opening borders to resulting Syrian war refugees increases risks for US and argue for admission controls, that argument can be logically defended. But the way the title is framed, sounds collectivist.

    If issues with Jewish or Catholic or Mexican Christians or Biblical Christian belief systems were introduced to you that are extremely violent themed or encourage what in modern America is very anti modern "liberties", will you next call for "Jewish ban" or "Catholic ban" or "Mexican Christians ban" or "Biblical Christina ban" ?

    More importantly, do you think the above author would support importing Christians of Arab/Palestinian races to US or Israel over muslims? If answer is yes, I would concede the argument completely.



    Related

    Ilana Mercer on libertarians who supposedly 'loathe' Israel

  12. #11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by acptulsa View Post
    Oh, the OP isn't announcing with a straight face that religious discrimination and persecution is a 'libertarian value' because that drives sane people away from our philosophy and gives cover to the Washington swamp rats who profit from imperialism and war. Perish the thought.

    He's saying it because he believes every Muslim in the world is a bloodthirsty savage. And the only reason all one and a half billion of them haven't gotten around to exterminating the measly three hundred million of us yet is that they haven't gotten around to it yet. Probably waiting for a student visa or a plane ticket, or an Uber so they can get to us. Something like that.

    Don't believe me? Ask him!

    Oh, and if you were looking at the banner at the top of the page and wondering if either Dr. Paul approves his message, the only response I can make is, Bwahahahahahaha!
    I did not write the article, but would like to hear the opinions of the open borders libertarians here and if we can do so without the personal attacks that would be great. What this writer has posted has come up time and time again in this forum but we never hear you or anyone back their opposition to it with facts. Instead you go right into personal attack mode as demonstrated in this thread with your reply, without really making a logically argument to counter what this author has posted.

    I take people as individuals so there is no hate in my heart for anyone. If you are Muslim you are more than welcome to post and that includes you acptulsa.

  13. #12

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by acptulsa View Post
    Oh, the OP isn't announcing with a straight face that religious discrimination and persecution is a 'libertarian value' because that drives sane people away from our philosophy and gives cover to the Washington swamp rats who profit from imperialism and war. Perish the thought.

    He's saying it because he believes every Muslim in the world is a bloodthirsty savage. And the only reason all one and a half billion of them haven't gotten around to exterminating the measly three hundred million of us yet is that they haven't gotten around to it yet. Probably waiting for a student visa or a plane ticket, or an Uber so they can get to us. Something like that.

    Don't believe me? Ask him!

    Oh, and if you were looking at the banner at the top of the page and wondering if either Dr. Paul approves his message, the only response I can make is, Bwahahahahahaha!
    I'd rep you again, if I could.
    There is no spoon.

  14. #13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kahless View Post
    I did not write the article, but would like to hear the opinions of the open borders libertarians here and if we can do so without the personal attacks that would be great. What this writer has posted has come up time and time again in this forum but we never hear you or anyone back their opposition to it with facts. Instead you go right into personal attack mode as demonstrated in this thread with your reply, without really making a logically argument to counter what this author has posted.

    I take people as individuals so there is no hate in my heart for anyone. If you are Muslim you are more than welcome to post and that includes you acptulsa.
    So, I am now not only for open borders, but Muslim?

    'I don't want there to be personal attacks, so I'm not only going to assign belief systems to people without a shred of evidence, but religions too. Not only without a shred of evidence, but in spite if the existence of evidence to the contrary! That'll keep things civil!' Yeah, buddy!

    Links or you're lying. Again. Like you did when you promised to put me on 'ignore'.

    You didn't write the article, but you started a thread about it. You say you want discourse but didn't address a single point I made. You accuse others of personal attacks but blatantly infer that people are what plenty of evidence suggests they are not.

    Are you from the Ministry of Truth?
    Last edited by acptulsa; 11-04-2017 at 11:38 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Douglas Adams
    'An SEP is something we can't see, or don't see, or our brain doesn't let us see, because we think that it's somebody else's problem. Thatís what SEP means. Somebody Elseís Problem. The brain just edits it out, it's like a blind spot.'
    This government is Not Somebody Else's Problem

  15. #14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by acptulsa View Post
    So, I am now not only for open borders, but Muslim?

    'I don't want there to be personal attacks, so I'm not only going to assign belief systems to people without a shred of evidence, but religions too. Not only without a shred of evidence, but in spite if the existence of evidence to the contrary! That'll keep things civil!' Yeah, buddy!

    Links or you're lying. Again. Like you did when you promised to put me on 'ignore'.
    Insane. The OP is trying to use libertarianism as a justification for moar state power. These guys have absolutely zero understanding of what liberty is. They just want the state to use its power for their benefit at the expense of others. Pretty much like every lefty in the world.
    "And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty; for liberty is an acknowledgment of faith in God and His works." - Bastiat

    "It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere." - Voltaire

  16. #15

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by enhanced_deficit View Post
    @kahless

    If you argue that yesterday US gov/US based neocons supporting and arming Islamic Jiahdi ISIS militants in Syria and today US gov opening borders to resulting Syrian war refugees increases risks for US and argue for admission controls, that argument can be logically defended. But the way the title is framed, sounds collectivist.

    If issues with Jewish or Catholic or Mexican Christians or Biblical Christian belief systems were introduced to you that are extremely violent themed or encourage what in modern America is very anti modern "liberties", will you next call for "Jewish ban" or "Catholic ban" or "Mexican Christians ban" or "Biblical Christina ban" ?

    More importantly, do you think the above author would support importing Christians of Arab/Palestinian races to US or Israel over muslims? If answer is yes, I would concede the argument completely.

    Related

    Ilana Mercer on libertarians who supposedly 'loathe' Israel
    If there was a Christian sect that had added bible scriptures that dictated to it's followers:

    - the goal of achieving it's authoritarian state belief system.
    - that members should become jihadists.
    - that the lives of non-members are meaningless unless they convert.
    - convert or kill the infidel.

    How do you think the people and the mainstream media in the US would react if there was such a Christian society in the Middle East that had executed and killed civilians in the west with this ideology?

    I have a feeling these same open border activists in this forum would be not so quick to give cover as they currently are doing.
    Last edited by kahless; 11-04-2017 at 11:45 AM.

  17. #16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptUSA View Post
    Insane. The OP is trying to use libertarianism as a justification for moar state power. These guys have absolutely zero understanding of what liberty is. They just want the state to use its power for their benefit at the expense of others. Pretty much like every lefty in the world.
    THIS.
    There was nothing "libertarian" about the op. the term has been co-opted. It's not government's job to assuage fear. This article could easily be welcomed at DU substituting "guns" or "global warming" for "muslim". These types of people are not libertarians. They're paleo-pussies.
    All modern revolutions have ended in a reinforcement of the power of the State.
    -Albert Camus

  18. #17

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptUSA View Post
    Insane. The OP is trying to use libertarianism as a justification for moar state power. These guys have absolutely zero understanding of what liberty is. They just want the state to use its power for their benefit at the expense of others. Pretty much like every lefty in the world.
    Quote Originally Posted by otherone View Post
    THIS.
    There was nothing "libertarian" about the op. the term has been co-opted. It's not government's job to assuage fear. This article could easily be welcomed at DU substituting "guns" or "global warming" for "muslim". These types of people are not libertarians. They're paleo-pussies.
    I did not write the article. If you disagree with the author could you address specifically your opposition to what she wrote?

    Are you saying you want all immigration controls removed? What is your position in how to handle what she addressed? thx

  19. #18

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kahless View Post
    I did not write the article. If you disagree with the author could you address specifically your opposition to what she wrote?

    Are you saying you want all immigration controls removed? What is your position in how to handle what she addressed? thx
    she didn't say immigration was the problem. you did.
    All modern revolutions have ended in a reinforcement of the power of the State.
    -Albert Camus

  20. #19

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kahless View Post
    If there was a Christian sect that had added bible scriptures that dictated to it's followers:

    - the goal of achieving it's authoritarian state belief system.
    - that members should become jihadists.
    - that the lives of non-members are meaningless unless they convert.
    - convert or kill the infidel.

    How do you think the people and the mainstream media in the US would react if there was such a Christian society in the Middle East that had executed and killed civilians in the west with this ideology?
    I think they would honor them by dedicating US space shuttles to their great Islamic Jihadi endeavours and may even compare them to Founding Fathers of America. Big problems happen when we lose track of our management of "infidels" that the violent Islamic Jihad should be directed towards.












    I have a feeling these same open border activists in this forum would be not so quite to give cover as they currently are doing.
    If you are framing the question as if the only two choices are "open borders" or "muslim ban"... that can be useful for short term political slogan perhaps but would fail in any indepth debate. If you or Illana have in the past argued for ending all our foreign militant interventions and stopping military/financial support that enables Israeli occupation of Palestinian Muslims/Christians/Athiests/Agnostics etc, I could support any ban for the heck of it.

    Curiuos, do you now support such mind-our-own-business foreign policy or have called for such steps in the past?

    Israeli champions like Illana have for decades pushed such illogical US tax payers funded policies that are pushing US towards being a fear centric/security centric militarized Police State like Israel. That I think is the bigger issue, the topic of this thread is only about policing control for dealing with one of the many side effects of such anti-libertarian history.

  21. #20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by otherone View Post
    she didn't say immigration was the problem. you did.
    Read the article, she is talking about banning Muslims from entry. Obviously a ban on Muslim immigration.

    Since humanity has no inherent, natural right to venture wherever, whenever—stopping Muslim mass migration into the U.S. not only makes good sense, but doesn’t violate humanity’s natural rights.

  22. #21

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kahless View Post
    Read the article, she is talking about banning Muslims from entry. Obviously a ban on Muslim immigration.
    I read the stupid article. She claims that Islam is a "risk-factor", and it's the government's job to protect your silly ass from it. She claims the "moderate" muslims, like a $#@!ing VIRUS, are DORMANT. If it's the FEDGOV'S job to ensure you get a good night's sleep, then what should they do about the 3 MILLION ticking time bombs that are Muslim-Americans?
    All modern revolutions have ended in a reinforcement of the power of the State.
    -Albert Camus

  23. #22

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kahless View Post
    What is your position in how to handle what she addressed? thx
    You've been a participant in countless hundreds of threads in this very website where real libertarians have advocated not bombing middle eastern countries, no longer establishing jihadist organizations, and no longer arming at American taxpayer expense terrorist-funding nations like Saudi Arabia, terrorist organizations, and even foreign drug cartels. You claim your memory works, so clearly you could have found those proposed solutions without starting a thread advocating that targeting people on the basis of their religion is somehow 'libertarian' and bumping the living $#@! out of it.

    yrwlcm
    Quote Originally Posted by Douglas Adams
    'An SEP is something we can't see, or don't see, or our brain doesn't let us see, because we think that it's somebody else's problem. Thatís what SEP means. Somebody Elseís Problem. The brain just edits it out, it's like a blind spot.'
    This government is Not Somebody Else's Problem

  24. #23

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by enhanced_deficit View Post
    I think they would honor them by dedicating US space shuttles to their great Islamic Jihadi endeavours and may even compare them to Founding Fathers of America. Big problems happen when we lose track of our management of "infidels" that the violent Islamic Jihad should be directed towards.
    It is done and there is no going back to change it. So now I believe we are in risk management mode from the fall out but like I said I believe it is a small part of it since there is an inherent problem with Islam, it's government ideological belief system and it's adherent religious but really political activists.

    Quote Originally Posted by enhanced_deficit View Post
    If you are framing the question as if the only two choices are "open borders" or "muslim ban"... that can be useful for short term political slogan perhaps but would fail in any indepth debate. If you or Illana have in the past argued for ending all our foreign militant interventions and stopping military/financial support that enables Israeli occupation of Palestinian Muslims/Christians/Athiests/Agnostics etc, I could support any ban for the heck of it.
    Not framing it that way, maybe sounded that way due to the level of personal attacks for even suggesting any form of limiting immigration. I get beaten over the head anytime I post Rand's position on limiting immigration.

    Quote Originally Posted by enhanced_deficit View Post
    Curiuos, do you now support such mind our own business foreign policy now or have called for such steps in the past?
    Yes, including during the Reagan era, so it has been pretty depressing seeing 3rd party candidates fail to gain enough traction to succeed or non-globalists candidates not get far enough within the two main parties all these years.
    Last edited by kahless; 11-04-2017 at 12:27 PM.

  25. #24

    Default

    Simple solution: shut it (immigration) all down.

    $#@! off, country is full.

    Give us some time to try and get our $#@! together, if possible.

  26. #25

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by acptulsa View Post
    You've been a participant in countless hundreds of threads in this very website where real libertarians have advocated not bombing middle eastern countries, no longer establishing jihadist organizations, and no longer arming at American taxpayer expense terrorist-funding nations like Saudi Arabia, terrorist organizations, and even foreign drug cartels.
    We have beaten that aspect to death and I believe we are somewhat in agreement about some of that. That is however not the issue that is being discussed in this thread.

    Quote Originally Posted by acptulsa View Post
    You claim your memory works, so clearly you could have found those proposed solutions without starting a thread advocating that targeting people on the basis of their religion is somehow 'libertarian' and bumping the living $#@! out of it.
    We never get that far because people like you destroy the ability to have any form of reasonable discourse without personal attacks and derailing.

  27. #26

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post
    Simple solution: shut it (immigration) all down.

    $#@! off, country is full.

    Give us some time to try and get our $#@! together, if possible.
    Tourism too. Still don't trust those sneaky Japs. Don't even get me started on those car-bombing Micks.
    All modern revolutions have ended in a reinforcement of the power of the State.
    -Albert Camus

  28. #27

    Default

    See this is that trump/paleocon bs I cannot get behind, total dead end. I don’t think Ron Paul could get behind it now either. As some have pointed out, sounds like doublespeak when they justify more government for their social goals and call it libertarian. I’m not sure why it’s here, it limits the coalition from expanding in the ways we need to to for the real libertarian philosophy to grow. Is there seriously not some sort of Trump forum? I don’t want to do more things collectively I want to do less. “A whole lot less a whole lot sooner” is what I would say. Why don’t we build a coalition around this, for example being anti-war has a lot of support among the people and seems to be politically homeless. Ending prohibition has a lot of support and evidence and seemingly no political home. Regulations and subsidies benefiting big businesses and banks. End the fed. Let’s do less together, not more. Please.

    less collective spending and less government.
    Last edited by afwjam; 11-04-2017 at 12:30 PM.

  29. #28

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kahless View Post
    If there was a Christian sect that had added bible scriptures that dictated to it's followers:

    - the goal of achieving it's authoritarian state belief system.
    - that members should become jihadists.
    - that the lives of non-members are meaningless unless they convert.
    - convert or kill the infidel.

    How do you think the people and the mainstream media in the US would react if there was such a Christian society in the Middle East that had executed and killed civilians in the west with this ideology?

    I have a feeling these same open border activists in this forum would be not so quick to give cover as they currently are doing.
    Learn about real Islam and stop listening to haters.

    The Bible is much more violent than the Quran.
    Jihad means personal victory over oneself- it NEVER meant war on others until the WoT brought it about.
    The Quran ALWAYS maintained that the People of the Book be protected. These were the Christians and Jews.

    St Francis of Assisi was always allowed in the sheiks tents during the Crusades because he was trusted and kept his word.

    Suleiman the Magnificent, of the Ottoman Empire, was one of the greatest leaders in history. He protected the People of the Book and was also deeply into the arts and educating all.

    The prime problem with Muslims "terrorists" today is the US WoT; this is a fake war to steal land and resources. If it were happening to Americans, we would be the so-called terrorists.
    There is no spoon.

  30. #29

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kahless View Post
    It is done and there is no going back to change it. So now I believe we are in risk management mode from the fall out but like I said I believe it is a small part of it since there is an inherent problem with the Islam, it's government ideological belief system and it's adherent religious but really political activists.
    Some discussions tend to get bit excited but I would oppose personal attacks on anyone for bringing up a topic for discussion or for having differing views. In the end, vast vast majority here have similar objectives but differ on the ways to get there.

    Curious, where do you stand on our Mexican Christian brothers and sisters coming over to help us with some tasks? Do you support or oppose the Wall?

    What is your view on US military support for Israel, Saudi Arabia, ISIS etc? This is not past history but current affairs.

  31. #30

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by afwjam View Post
    See this is that trump/paleocon bs I cannot get behind, total dead end. I don’t think Ron Paul could get behind it now either. As some have pointed out, sounds like doublespeak when they justify more government for their social goals and call it libertarian. I’m not sure why it’s here, it limits the coalition from expanding in the ways we need to to for the real libertarian philosophy to grow. Is there seriously not some sort of Trump forum? I don’t want to do more things collectively I want to do less. “A whole lot less a whole lot sooner” is what I would say. Why don’t we build a coalition around this, for example being anti-war has a lot of support among the people and seems to be politically homeless. Ending prohibition has a lot of support and evidence and seemingly no political home. Regulations and subsidies benefiting big businesses and banks. End the fed. Let’s do less together, not more. Please.
    The Islamic government belief system is the antithesis of the libertarian belief system. Yet you expect to grow the libertarian movement by opening the flood gates of immigration to people that oppose your beliefs?

    As far as why is it here, well even Rand supports limits on immigration.

    TWEET/VIDEO: Paul: "Maybe we should stop certain countries from sending people here for awhile. It's not like you have a right to move to our country."

Page 1 of 11 123 ... LastLast





Similar Threads

  1. What is the libertarian position on Muslim refugees?
    By Ron Paul in 2008 in forum Political Philosophy & Government Policy
    Replies: 50
    Last Post: 05-11-2017, 08:44 PM
  2. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 03-20-2013, 12:29 PM
  3. Replies: 39
    Last Post: 04-12-2011, 10:33 AM
  4. Muslim Free Market Libertarian Think Tank
    By Matt Collins in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 34
    Last Post: 09-28-2010, 11:16 AM
  5. Moral Nihilism And Libertarian Anarchism
    By Lightfiend in forum Political Philosophy & Government Policy
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 06-23-2010, 03:29 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •