A Muslim Ban Is Logical, Moral, And Even Libertarian

[Swordsmyth]

^^^ Strawman serving up a red herring... #NoThanks

From the guy who compared modern muslim culture to 1400's Christian culture.

 

[nikcers]

And how many Christians believe in those doctrines today?

From the guy who compared modern muslim culture to 1400's Christian culture.

Russia has declared that Jehova witness's are a terrorist organization

 

[Swordsmyth]

Russia has declared that Jehova witness's are a terrorist organization

AND?..........

This is proof that Russians are just as anti-liberty as muslims?
If you think it is then you should note that I said:

But until it does we have a right and a duty to our children's children to limit or even ban immigration from ANY anti-liberty culture. (That may include most of the world at this point)

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Um... Yeah... You don't know what "liberty" means.

"When THEY wish to exterminate you..." They?! Are you really suggesting that there is no diversity of opinion in the Muslim world?! So if some of them mean you harm, it means that ALL of them mean you harm?! And since some of them commit violence, you feel justified in using pre-crime to exclude them all?! Well, I'm pretty sure you can apply that to, oh I don't know, EVERY religion in the world! So yeah, you either do what AF suggests or you treat people as individuals - with their own free will and freedom of thought.

I take it you don't have any Muslim friends. Or maybe you think they secretly wish you dead and are just waiting for the right time. "Liberty" is an individual state of being - not a group state of being. You may not understand this, but your means ensure that your ends will never be achieved.

Pretty much this^^ I get the impression that some people think "muslim=arab". Nope. Lots of Muslims in sub-sarharan Africa too. And there are plenty of Arab Christians. (One of the Great Orthodox Christian patriarchates is in Syria)

 

[ronpaulhawaii]

From the guy who compared modern muslim culture to 1400's Christian culture.

So, you just make stuff up? Interesting. There is no such comparison. Just historical facts adding perspective to the discussion.

In the bigger picture, wounds take time to heal, but that aint gonna happen til we stop inflicting them.

Earlier in the thread someone mentioned that Islam is trailing Christianity modernizing, and while that is mostly true, it would help if they didn't have to worry so much about crazy Westerners who want to bomb them all back to the stone age. If you look you'll see that Islam is not a borg praying 5 times a day; plenty of countries within the muslim world itself don't want Saudi-like shariah, etc... Maybe, if we just stopped meddling they would modernize themselves. That seems the libertarian thing to do.

 

[Swordsmyth]

So, you just make stuff up? Interesting. There is no such comparison. Just historical facts adding perspective to the discussion.

No, since that is not a guide telling people how to 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.

Followed by:

That would be the Papal Bulls of the 1400s. Sending forth warriors to, "attack, conquer, and subjugate Saracens, pagans and other enemies of Christ wherever they may be found." And that is just what they did. The Age of Discovery was quite ugly, the reverberations still rock us today. Interestingly, while the church started walking back on the slavery thing the next century, they did not walk it back concerning muslims for centuries more...

That is NOT comparing 1400's Christians to modern muslims as a strawman?????

In the bigger picture, wounds take time to heal, but that aint gonna happen til we stop inflicting them.

Earlier in the thread someone mentioned that Islam is trailing Christianity modernizing, and while that is mostly true, it would help if they didn't have to worry so much about crazy Westerners who want to bomb them all back to the stone age. If you look you'll see that Islam is not a borg praying 5 times a day; plenty of countries within the muslim world itself don't want Saudi-like shariah, etc... Maybe, if we just stopped meddling they would modernize themselves. That seems the libertarian thing to do.

Yup, we ALL know the wars must end, the recent injuries inflicted on the middle east are just another reason we shouldn't let in hordes of people with a motive for vengeance.

 

[ronpaulhawaii]

Followed by:


That is NOT comparing 1400's Christians to modern muslims as a strawman?????

No, as I said, it is adding historical facts for perspective. In this case something that "The West" started with these bulls, and hasn't really stopped in the 600 years since.

Yup, we ALL know the wars must end, the recent injuries inflicted on the middle east are just another reason we shouldn't let in hordes of people with a motive for vengeance.

Not sure who you are talking to. I'm certainly not for letting in any hordes, but blanket bans are as un-libertarian as I can imagine

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Russia has declared that Jehova witness's are a terrorist organization

And now they want to bomb the Vatican? #NeoconLogic

 

[Swordsmyth]

No, as I said, it is adding historical facts for perspective. In this case something that "The West" started with these bulls, and hasn't really stopped in the 600 years since.

Mohammad started it when he attacked the Byzantines and Persians.

Not sure who you are talking to. I'm certainly not for letting in any hordes, but blanket bans are as un-libertarian as I can imagine

It is neither Libertarian or Un-Libertarian, they have no inherent right to come here so it is not a matter of rights or liberty, unless you want to talk about our children's children's rights to inherit a liberty culture; in which case you could say that it is Libertarian.

I do not even necessarily endorse a COMPLETE ban, but IF we let any in from such an anti-liberty culture it should be so few as to be almost a ban.

Again before the race SJWs get involved: I feel this way about most of the world so it has nothing to do with race.

 

[Ender]

Mohammad started it when he attacked the Byzantines and Persians.

The Romans (Byzantines) and Persia had been at war for 6 centuries. Roman had taken land from England to Syria and the Persians fought with them continually until they were both conquered by Mohammad's army that was on it's way to Mecca.

So, no- Mohammad did NOT start that war- he finished a 600 year war that was all about power and ego.

 

[Swordsmyth]

The Romans (Byzantines) and Persia had been at war for 6 centuries. Roman had taken land from England to Syria and the Persians fought with them continually until they were both conquered by Mohammad's army that was on it's way to Mecca.

So, no- Mohammad did NOT start that war- he finished a 600 year war that was all about power and ego.

We are talking about cultures that presently exist, Christianity and islam, between those two islam started it.

If you want to go back into the mists of ancient history then you had better side with Israel and help them take all the land between the Euphrates and the sea.

The real answer is to pull out and let GOD deal with the problem, but who started it actually has no bearing on who we should allow into our country, islam is one of the most anti-liberty cultures on the planet and we should let in few to none of it's followers.

 

[AZJoe]

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.

This is a logically flawed false straw response to the point to idiocy. Nowhere was it stated, implied or suggested that "all Muslims hold" libertarian beliefs.
Rather it was pointed our there are indeed libertarian Muslims countering Kahless' collectivist mindset that all Muslims hold the beliefs that Kahless collectively imputes to all 2 billion Muslims in the world.

 

[AZJoe]

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.

Talk about self contradictory irrational doublespeak. In the very same passage claims to treat people as individuals, while in the very next sentence imputes entire collectivists traits, beliefs, and motives based on happenstance of geography and birth regardless of the individual's actual beliefs and character.

And what of the qualification "for the most part". Either one views individuals as individuals or not.

 

[AZJoe]

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.

This is correct. However, this is not what the Original Post argued. This is both scope shift diversion and straw arguments, more logical flaws. The Original Post "OP" did not call for "limiting" or "screening." Instead of some vetting process, the OP called for a total ban on Muslims worldwide.

Also the alternative to a total ban on all Muslims worldwide is Not an "automatic right to come here". That is an illogical false dichotomy.

 

[AZJoe]

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."

Yes. Listen even closer Kahless. A temporary halt on select countries is Not a call for a blanket worldwide ban on Muslims.
Again, there is nothing Rand has said that supports what is advocated in the Original Post.

 

[AZJoe]

It is a fools errand to welcome someone into your home, giving them a key, when they wish to exterminate you through time and slow conquest. An abusive spouse, a thief, or a government entity hell bent on spying and forced compliance.

This is true Thor, however this is non-sequitor response to my post. You response suggests that the only alternative to a ban on all Muslims worldwide is to have open immigration without vetting. That is irrational. Those are not the only two alternatives.

It is akin to arguing that either you must ban all immigrants or visitors or else you must import every immigrant and visitor in the entire world. That is an absurd false choice.
Likewise is the alternative to banning all 2 billion Muslims worldwide is Not to accept every possible Muslim worldwide. It is disappointing to see Thor and other making such ridiculous illogical arguments.

 

[AZJoe]

[video=youtube;pSPvnFDDQHk]we also defend against a political movement/ideology/aggression - veiled as a religion - that is the antithesis of Freedom and Liberty. If you do not see that, then you are no defender of Freedom and Liberty. But an accomplice to the demise of Freedom and Liberty.

This is a regurgitated collectivist falsehood.
With some 2 billion Muslims in the world they are not all running around committing terrorists acts.
Thor is improperly imputing a small radical subset of Sunni Islam called Wahhabi/Salafi to every individual Muslim worldwide.
The perpetrators of terrorists acts overwhelmingly belong to Wahhabi/Salafi belief - which includes the various Al Qaeda organizations, ISIS, Mujaheddin/Taliban, etc.
This Wahhabist are based out of Washington's BFF Saudi Arabia. They are and have been funded, promoted and supported by Saudi Arabia.
Washington itself helped establish Al Qaeda as a funding network to support and recruit more radicals for its other creation Mujaheddin/Taliban.
Washington helped establish and arm and fund ISIS for its geopolitical objectives.
Washington helped spreading the radical ideology.

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.
Washington itself and the neocons are a greater "antithesis to Freedom and Liberty."

The alternative to a total ban on Muslims worldwide does not mean no vetting, no scrutiny and no limitations at all.

 

[Thor]

It is disappointing to see Thor and other making such ridiculous illogical arguments.

Sorry you are disappointed. Not really. LOL.

Look, I understand the other side of the argument. Everyone deserves liberty no matter their religion, as to restrict that is infringing upon liberty. But I think the risk in supporting that as a blanket statement is far greater than the reward, when that equally applies to those who follow a belief system that is diametrically opposed to liberty. We have witnessed Europe and what has happened there. We know how muslim countries behave. Why replicated that in as much as it relates to islam and muslims here in the US? I want to preserve freedom and liberty FOR THOSE WHO WANT TO PRESERVE IT AS WELL. Not for those who wish to destroy it, and islam clearly wants to destroy it. Otherwise, if we allow it in the name of Liberty, it is long term, slow, "suicide by stupidity." Our children's children, and probably even our children themselves, will bear the brunt of our failures if we do nothing to protect Liberty (from the goals of islam.)

Islam is not just a religion, it is a political party/agenda as well. And all these people on here who are OK with giving rights and liberty to members of that political party are basically saying they are OK with supporting everything else opposed to freedom and liberty, like the socialist party and their goals as well. Arming your enemies.

I too am disappointed with so called liberty lovers on here that don't recognize a threat to liberty when it is slapping them in the face. We can bash the neocons and their agenda, bash the democrats and socialist... Hillary hating is OK... but god forbid we bash a so called "religion" (with political motives) that also wants to destroy Liberty. SMFH over and over....

This is a regurgitated collectivist falsehood.
With some 2 billion Muslims in the world they are not all running around committing terrorists acts.
Thor is improperly imputing a small radical subset of Sunni Islam called Wahhabi/Salafi to every individual Muslim worldwide.
The perpetrators of terrorists acts overwhelmingly belong to Wahhabi/Salafi belief - which includes the various Al Qaeda organizations, ISIS, Mujaheddin/Taliban, etc.
This Wahhabist are based out of Washington's BFF Saudi Arabia. They are and have been funded, promoted and supported by Saudi Arabia.
Washington itself helped establish Al Qaeda as a funding network to support and recruit more radicals for its other creation Mujaheddin/Taliban.
Washington helped establish and arm and fund ISIS for its geopolitical objectives.
Washington helped spreading the radical ideology.

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.
Washington itself and the neocons are a greater "antithesis to Freedom and Liberty."

The alternative to a total ban on Muslims worldwide does not mean no vetting, no scrutiny and no limitations at all.

I am still waiting on feedback from the videos I posted, from anyone who bothered to watch any/all of them.... They address your comments above. Get along Charlie's until they become a majority.

 

[AZJoe]

Islam is not just a religion, it is a political party/agenda as well. ...

Verbose response but again based on false premises. Fails to address at all what was posted in prior comment.

 

[Thor]

Verbose response but again based on false premises. Fails to address at all what was posted in prior comment.

Not false.

Still fails to watch and address the videos.