A Muslim Ban Is Logical, Moral, And Even Libertarian

[kahless]

Nor do I want to pay to feed or house any.

Yet the people that say that here like myself and a few others are in the minority in a supposedly libertarian forum. It is always 100% US intervention is to blame, without recognizing what is done is done, absolutely no concern for jihadist immigration, the US victims or potential US victims, no concern of a statist authoritarian belief system masquerading as a religion and anyone that says anything otherwise is considered "hate" or a "Trump" supporter.

It is the biggest freaking scam that has been going on in this forum for over two years. Libertarians, Paul activists, what a lie, if they were actually they would be concerned about the welfare state and at least some concern about jihadists, yet zero concern. They certainly would not be bashing Rand's comments and platform on immigration like we keep seeing or organized attacks to shutdown any discussion from real activists posting articles and issues.

 

[tod evans]

At least them good ol' boys get some decent pizza out of it.

How finely does one have to grind a Guinea in order to make pizza?

 

[otherone]

How finely does one have to grind a Guinea in order to make pizza?

Don't know. Most pizza is made by Dominicans around here.

 

[tod evans]

Don't know. Most pizza is made by Dominicans around here.

I assumed that pizza in NY was still made by Guineas.........:o

 

[Krugminator2]

. I don’t think Ron Paul could get behind it now either.

If that is the case, why did Ron Paul introduce legislation to limit immigration from the Middle East every session then?

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/108/hr488

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/110/hr3217

 

[Krugminator2]

Japan's freedom score is higher than the US.

Just sayin'.

https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/2017/japan

You aren't saying anything. You are citing a left wing group that hates freedom. That group's definition of freedom is Glenn Greenwald's. PORTUGAL is rated as rated as the most free. https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/2017/portugal

They rate Singapore a 51 and Portugal and Japan almost 100. I can tell Singapore is a lot more libertarian either of those countries.

Here is a better list. Singapore 2 USA 17. Japan 40 Portugal 77 http://www.heritage.org/index/ranking

 

[AZJoe]

The Islamic government belief system is the antithesis of the libertarian belief system.

And yet there exists Muslim libertarians: http://www.muslims4liberty.org/ . Doesn't matter about the individual's beliefs , accomplishments, background must ban those libertarians.

So much for Kahless' claim that , "I take people as individuals .."

 

[Ender]

You aren't saying anything. You are citing a left wing group that hates freedom. That group's definition of freedom is Glenn Greenwald's. PORTUGAL is rated as rated as the most free. https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/2017/portugal

They rate Singapore a 51 and Portugal and Japan almost 100. I can tell Singapore is a lot more libertarian either of those countries.

Here is a better list. Singapore 2 USA 17. Japan 40 Portugal 77 http://www.heritage.org/index/ranking

Does Cato make you happier?

The top 10 jurisdictions in order were Hong Kong, Switzerland, New Zealand, Ireland, Denmark, Australia (6), Canada (6), the United Kingdom (6), Finland (9), and the Netherlands (10). The United States is ranked in 23rd place.

They also ranked Japan higher than Singapore:

Other countries rank as follows: Germany (13), Chile (29), France (31), Japan (32), Singapore (40)

 

[AZJoe]

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

Again with the logical fallacy scope shifts. Supporting limits on immigration is not the equivalent of a broad collectivist ban all on 2 billion individuals who may subscribe to any of the very many myriad Muslim belief systems regardless of the individual's personal achievements, background and beliefs.
Even a temporary halt on select countries is not a blanket Muslim ban.
There is nothing Rand has said that supports what is advocated in the Original Post.

 

[CaptUSA]

Up next... the “libertarian” case for torture and rendition.

 

[Ender]

And yet there exists Muslim libertarians: http://www.muslims4liberty.org/ . Doesn't matter about the individual's beliefs , accomplishments, background must ban those libertarians.

So much for Kahless' claim that , "I take people as individuals .."

Exactly!

 

[AZJoe]

according to this piece the problem is inherently with the Islamic belief system.

This is where the writer of the Original Post fails greatest both factually and logically.
With some 2 billion Muslims in the world they are not all running around committing terrorists acts.
What the Original Post neglects to recognized, is the fact the perpetrators of terrorists acts overwhelmingly belong to a small sub-sect of Sunni Islam called Wahhabi/Salafi - which includes the various Al Qaeda organizations, ISIS, Mujaheddin/Taliban, etc.
The Wahhabi/Salafi also happens to be based out of Saudi Arabia, funded, promoted and supported by Saudi Arabia. They also happen to be funded and armed by Washington for its geopolitical objectives.
A more logical argument by the Original Post would be a ban on Wahhabi/Salafi and Saudis. A ban on all Muslims is the equivalent of a blanket ban on all Christians based on the acts of the IRA in during twentieth century.

When you consider there are 2 billion Muslims in the world, proportionally (and likely in absolute numbers) there are far more Americans involved in terrorists acts (drone assassinations, bombing civilians, invading nations, regime change, creating funding and arming terrorists organizations, etc.). The belief system behind these terrorists acts happens to be the neocon philosophy. It is also the neocons' policies that have been creating, arming, funding and using these Wahhabi/Salafi terror organizations.

 

[kahless]

And yet there exists Muslim libertarians: http://www.muslims4liberty.org/ . Doesn't matter about the individual's beliefs , accomplishments, background must ban those libertarians.

So much for Kahless' claim that , "I take people as individuals .."

You take a minority of people from a small website and with a broad brush paint all Muslims for holding that belief. So much for you taking people as individuals.

I in fact do for the most part take people as individuals but also believe in self preservation. When polls show 70-90% or more from a specific region support an authoritarian belief system as a form of government and jihad as a way of life to get there, it is wise to consider screening or limiting entry from those regions. Like Rand said you do not have an automatic right to come here.

 

[Ender]

Your interpretation? You see quotes like that above is why I had asked you in the past whether you are a Muslim or Muslim activist.

Here is what I see.



Does this not concern you?

Does this concern you?

Numbers 31
31:1 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
31:2 Avenge the children of Israel of the Midianites: afterward shalt thou be gathered unto thy people.
31:3 And Moses spake unto the people, saying, Arm some of yourselves unto the war, and let them go against the Midianites, and avenge the LORD of Midian.
31:4 Of every tribe a thousand, throughout all the tribes of Israel, shall ye send to the war.
31:5 So there were delivered out of the thousands of Israel, a thousand of every tribe, twelve thousand armed for war.
31:6 And Moses sent them to the war, a thousand of every tribe, them and Phinehas the son of Eleazar the priest, to the war, with the holy instruments, and the trumpets to blow in his hand.
31:7 And they warred against the Midianites, as the LORD commanded Moses; and they slew all the males.

31:9 And the children of Israel took all the women of Midian captives, and their little ones, and took the spoil of all their cattle, and all their flocks, and all their goods.
31:10 And they burnt all their cities wherein they dwelt, and all their goodly castles, with fire.
31:11 And they took all the spoil, and all the prey, both of men and of beasts.
31:12 And they brought the captives, and the prey, and the spoil, unto Moses, and Eleazar the priest, and unto the congregation of the children of Israel, unto the camp at the plains of Moab, which are by Jordan near Jericho.

31:15 And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive?
31:16 Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD.
31:17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.
31:18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

 

[kahless]

Does THIS concern you?

No, since that is not a guide for people today on how to live and behave or a government belief system pretending to be a religion.

While Sharia and this is a cause for concern.

“Fight against those who do not obey Allah and do not believe in Allah or the Last Day and do not forbid what has been forbidden by Allah and His messenger even if they are of the People of the Book until they pay the Jizya with willing submission and feel themselves subdued.” 9:29

“Kill them wherever you find them and drive them out from where they drove you out. Persecution is worse than slaughter.” 2:191

“When you meet the unbelievers, smite their necks.” 47:4

“Oh you who believe, fight those of the disbelievers who are close to you and let them find harshness in you.” 9:123

“Muhammad is the apostle of Allah. Those who follow Him are merciful to one another but harsh to the disbeliever.” 48:29

The specific need to ”strike terror in the hearts” of infidels” is unambiguously stated in many places in the Qur’an, as here:

“Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority.” (3:151)

I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them” (8:12).

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.

I would be just as apt to support limiting immigration from that region as well.

 

[kahless]

There is nothing Rand has said that supports what is advocated in the Original Post.

You should listen closely to what he is saying here without saying Muslim.

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."

 

[acptulsa]

You take a minority of people from a small website and with a broad brush paint all Muslims for holding that belief. So much for you taking people as individuals.

Where did you get that? Oh, of course. You made it up yourself, put it in his mouth, discarded everything in his quote about other Muslims--all seven sentences in their entirety--and accuse him of saying something about all Muslims. Painting Muslims with that broad brush is your sin, not his. But just as when you go around accusing people of engaging in personal attacks, you accuse others of your sins. You seem to think that distracts people from noticing that you are committing those very sins.

It ain't working.

I in fact do for the most part take people as individuals but also believe in self preservation. When polls show 70-90% or more from a specific region support an authoritarian belief system as a form of government and jihad as a way of life to get there, it is wise to consider screening or limiting entry from those regions. Like Rand said you do not have an automatic right to come here.

Are you changing your tune? Because before you were saying let in no members of a particular religion from anywhere.

I advocated what and equated to Rand's policy, did not happen. For the 4th time in this thread I did not write the article. I asked for you open border or Muslim immigration activists to give your opinion on the author's article less the personal attacks for posting it. But if you want me the RPF resident anti-liberty boogeyman which you seem intent to do from the last two threads, have at it.

And none of the four statements you were responding to accused you of writing that article. Not one. In fact, none of them even hinted that you might possess a sufficient command of the English language to pull it off.

What the man said was that Rand Paul has said nothing which agrees with that article. What part of that is a personal attack on you, again? Indeed, even if there were one crumb of a reason to believe AZJoe did think you wrote that article (there is not, just to be clear, but since you seem so fixated on the idea), how would that statement would have been a personal attack on you? And if you were accusing him of waging a personal attack on you in another thread, why didn't you quote it here or address it in the other thread? Because if you were to call attention to it, everyone could see it isn't a personal attack on you? That, in fact, there's no more reason to think Joe was personally attacking you than to think that anyone anywhere thinks you wrote the article you quoted and excerpted and presented to the forum like it was actually worthy of our attention?

You should listen closely to what he is saying here without saying Muslim.

You should pay attention to the fact that he did not say 'Muslim'. And you just might ask yourself why that is.

 

[Ender]

No, since that is not a guide for people today on how to live and behave or a government belief system pretending to be a religion.

While Sharia and this is a cause for concern.



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.

I would be just as apt to support limiting immigration from that region as well.

I do not believe that most Muslims believe that those are rules for government- that were written over 1000 years ago- any more than most Christians believe that Moses's rules are for today's government.

 

[Influenza]

I do not believe that most Muslims believe that those are rules for government- that were written over 1000 years ago- any more than most Christians believe that Moses's rules are for today's government.

Tell that to the dude who has the ten commandments in his signature (although he probably doesn't realize those aren't the same ten commandments that moses supposedly brought down)

 

[kahless]

Where did you get that? Oh, of course. You made it up yourself, put it in his mouth, discarded everything in his quote about other Muslims--all seven sentences in their entirety--and accuse him of saying something about all Muslims.

I admit I phoned that half ass reply in, yet really in discussion is regions of people where 70-90%, we are talking millions of people and we are going compare that to some fringe liberty website of a handful of people. Come now.

Painting Muslims with that broad brush is your sin, not his. But just as when you go around accusing people of engaging in personal attacks, you accuse others of your sins. You seem to think that distracts people from noticing that you are committing those very sins.

Is that was the Iman is telling you to say? Since what you describe is not happening.

Are you changing your tune? Because before you were saying let in no members of a particular religion from anywhere.

That was another poster in this thread. Show me where I said that? Considering the responses I am becoming more and more convinced it is a good idea.

And none of the four statements you were responding to accused you of writing that article. Not one. In fact, none of them even hinted that you might possess a sufficient command of the English language to pull it off.

I never said that. "OP said", as if I wrote it, I can not take credit for it and simply asked for opinions.

What the man said was that Rand Paul has said nothing which agrees with that article. What part of that is a personal attack on you, again? <snipped>

No, I edited that quote out since really have no idea who it was intended for. It is what happens when you leave multiple threads and tabs open and walk away then come back, cut-paste stuff which is why it was removed, but too late, you quoted.

You should pay attention to the fact that he did not say 'Muslim'. And you just might ask yourself why that is.

Obvious, politically a bad idea.