Ron And Rand Paul Duel Over Root Causes Of Charlie Hebdo Attack

NACBA

Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2010
Messages
784
In responding to the Charlie Hebdo attack, Rand Paul distinguishes himself from his father on immigration, terrorism, and foreign policy.
JANUARY 9, 2015 By D.C. McAllister
Sen. Rand Paul is proving that the apple does fall far from the tree. While his father, Ron Paul, is out blaming France’s foreign policy for the Charlie Hebdo massacre due to its involvement in Libya, Paul the younger is putting the blame exactly where it needs to be: on radical Islam and the danger of open borders.

Robert Tracinski has written that Rand needs to tell his “dad to shut up” because France’s foreign interventions had nothing to do with the killings. It looks like Paul the younger is doing that—in a very subtle way, of course. Tracinski is right: Charlie Hebdo wasn’t attacked because of French foreign policy. It was to avenge the prophet Muhammad.

If you take the attackers’ own reported claims at face value, they were attacking to ‘avenge the prophet’ against insults from the tabloid’s cartoonists. And if you still don’t believe that this is the motive, British radical Anjem Choudary has taken to the pages of USA Today and helpfully explained to us that Islamists such as himself ‘do not believe in the concept of freedom of expression’ and regard blasphemy as a capital offense.
Rand Paul gets this. On Sean Hannity’s radio show Thursday, he said, “What it points out to us is the utter barbarity of the people who are opposing us. . . This barbarous aberration of religion is opposed to the free flow of ideas.” As such, he said, “civilized Islam” needs to speak out and condemn the shootings.

Not only that, France needs more border security. “You’ve got to secure your country. And that means maybe that every Muslim immigrant that wishes to come to France shouldn’t have an open door to come.”

Paul brought that message home: “It’s also my concern here. I think our border is a danger to attack, as well as our student visa program. Several of the attackers on 9/11 were here on student visas they had overstayed.”

Paul’s statement is a strong reminder of his position on immigration, setting himself apart from others in the GOP presidential field, such as pro-amnesty Jeb Bus
http://thefederalist.com/2015/01/09/ron-and-rand-paul-duel-over-root-causes-of-charlie-hebdo-attack/
 
Last edited:
I'm sure Ron probably believes what Rand is saying to some degree. I understand his immigration position, but I think he's more paleocon-leaning than libertarian-leaning on immigration imo
 
Holy shitballs, Ron actually believes France was attacked because of what happened in Libya? That doesn't even remotely make sense.
 
12 decades in 1400 years that were Jihad free. So Islam is 9% peace.

The Non-state jihads are sustained and fueled by constant intervention and occupation in the Middle East, true. If America and Europe disengaged the profile of Jihad would be quite different.

But it does need to be viewed in its proper context. See below.

 
Ron's right and Rand can't say it. /thread

Ron is 100% wrong. The cartoon that offended muslims motivated the attackers. To say that the French foreign policy played a role in an attack on of all places this newspaper is flat out insane.

I donated thousands of dollars to Ron and on this he is flat out wrong. You can be a Ron Paul supporter/fan and realize he is wrong and sees the same answer without analyzing each incident on its own.
 
Ron is 100% wrong. The cartoon that offended muslims motivated the attackers. To say that the French foreign policy played a role in an attack on of all places this newspaper is flat out insane.

I donated thousands of dollars to Ron and on this he is flat out wrong. You can be a Ron Paul supporter/fan and realize he is wrong and sees the same answer without analyzing each incident on its own.

You say so therefore it must be right. /sarcasm. And it was a YouTube video that motivated Bengazi....until we found out that was a lie.
 
What did the actual perpetrators say the reason was? Honest question.

U.S. foreign policy.

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/pa...ickly-radicalized-2005-filmmaker-says-n282591

Cerif Kouachi, one of the two brothers accused of carrying out the bloody attack on the satirical weekly magazine Charlie Hebdo, was just a troubled French kid until he met a Islamist activist who "radicalized" him a decade ago, a filmmaker who researched Kouachi for a documentary told NBC News on Thursday.

Magalie Ferre, who made the film for France 3 television in 2005, said Kouachi never appeared to be interested in religion until he met Farid Benyettou, with whom he was convicted along with five other men for helping funnel fighters to Iraq in 2008. Benyettou, then a 26-year-old preacher, was the subject of the documentary.

"His evolution was very quick," Ferre said of Kouachi. "He met Farid Benyettou in 2004, and in six months he changed and he tried to go to Iraq." She said Kouachi was "shocked" by the images of abuse of detainees by U.S. forces at the Iraqi prison at Abu Ghraib and "wanted to help his Muslim brothers."

Ferre said she didn't get to meet Kouachi because he was in jail, but she said she researched him extensively and met with people who knew him for the 2005 film. "His life was pretty chaotic because he was living in shelters and he had no link with his identity, and then he met Farid Benyettou, who said: 'You can discover your identity. You can learn Arabic and know the Quran,'" Ferre said. "From time to time, [Benyettou] told him he had to fight for his brother."

"He was radicalized by this imam," she said. "He didn't know what to do, and that's why Farid Benyettou knew how to play with him. Suddenly he has something to do — to help Muslim brothers in Iraq. He has a purpose in life."
 
Ron Paul [misses the mark on an epic level on this issue (mod edit)]. No Ron, not everything bad that happens is due to overseas intervention. This is what is known as dogmatism.
 
Last edited:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/duel
1du·el noun \ˈdü-əl also ˈdyü-\
: a fight between two people that includes the use of weapons (such as guns or swords) and that usually happens while other people watch
: a situation in which two people or groups argue or compete with each other

I see no "duel" here. Ron and his son are not arguing or competing each other at all. Once again this is spin by their enemies looking to divide their supporters and make it seem like you can't like/agree with both. Don't take the bait; as with many things they can both be correct to some degree.
 
Ron Paul [misses the mark on an epic level on this issue (mod edit)]. No Ron, not everything bad that happens is due to overseas intervention. This is what is known as dogmatism.

Except....in this case the evidence is already in that the young men who carried out the attacks were radicalized due to U.S. foreign policy. So I guess Ron was "wrong" to blame it on French interventionism in Libya, but his overall "blowback" point seems pretty solid. Of course everybody was claiming Benghazi was due to a video until the truth came out. And Republicans would probably have stuck to that story except for the fact that they get to attack Obama and Hillary over the lie.
 
If anyone called Rand "clueless" in his subforum we'd never hear the end of it. Why is it acceptable to call Ron "clueless" when the entire board bears his name?

I have criticized Rand many times so bringing him up doesn't neutralize me.

Oh I forgot, as unacceptable as it is to criticize ""the prophet" is it similarly unacceptable to criticize Ron Paul. We must all follow and obey the commands of Ron Paul.
 
Ron Paul is clueless on an epic level. No Ron, not everything bad that happens is due to overseas intervention. This is what is known as dogmatism.

How would enough Jihadis be radicalized to support 19,000 independent terror attacks, without 60+ years of sustained assault, bombing, coups, and occupation by American and European forces? It takes a lot to make you abandon a solid career and go blow yourself to smithereens with little tangible result.
 
Except....in this case the evidence is already in that the young men who carried out the attacks were radicalized due to U.S. foreign policy. So I guess Ron was "wrong" to blame it on French interventionism in Libya, but his overall "blowback" point seems pretty solid. Of course everybody was claiming Benghazi was due to a video until the truth came out. And Republicans would probably have stuck to that story except for the fact that they get to attack Obama and Hillary over the lie.

So you have all these Muslims pouring into France, to support a country they hate. Not likely. They are trying to destroy it from within. And not because of interventionism, but because they are from the dark ages.

Ron said the attacks were retaliation for interventionism. They were NOT retaliation for interventionism, but retaliation for mocking the "prophet," which people simply must not be allowed to do, according to true believers of Islam. Unless the location of the newspaper was a complete coincidence...

I mean seriously, nobody thinks of France as a great interventionist nation. They are almost invisible on the world scale. Muslims dislike the U.S. and Israel, they don't care about France.

Ron shouldn't be trying to connect interventionism to everything just to promote his worldview. It only lessens his legitimacy. It isn't appropriate either. Perhaps, as a libertarian, he should be out there advocating for the virtues of free expression.

I agree with his overall points on blowback, but he fails to understand that blowback is not a universal explanation.
 
I have criticized Rand many times so bringing him up doesn't neutralize me.

Oh I forgot, as unacceptable as it is to criticize ""the prophet" is it similarly unacceptable to criticize Ron Paul. We must all follow and obey the commands of Ron Paul.
LOL, not at all. I was just wondering if the same rules apply to Ron as they do to Rand.
 
How would enough Jihadis be radicalized to support 19,000 independent terror attacks, without 60+ years of sustained assault, bombing, coups, and occupation by American and European forces? It takes a lot to make you abandon a solid career and go blow yourself to smithereens with little tangible result.

19,000 independent terror attacks in France? That is news to me.

Intervention+screwed up violent religion=a bunch of terrorist attacks. On the GRAND SCALE.

The latter part of the equation is why the Hebdo attack happened. Not the former.
 
Insulting the prophet is punishable by death under Sharia law. Hundreds of millions of Muslims agree with these killings whether they would do it themselves or not, as Bill Maher has pointed out.

gsi2-chp1-3.png
 
Back
Top