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

[jmdrake]

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.

Yeah. That's why one of the police killed in the attacks was a Muslim. Clearly he was trying to destroy France from within by dying.

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...

Yes. And Benghazi was retaliation for a YouTube video....until we learned that it wasn't and the lie was good fodder for attacking the Obama administration.

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.

The French helped murder Khadafi. In fact it was likely a French agent that finished Khadafi off. That said, it sounds like U.S. interventionism was the catalyst. Charlie Hebo was a soft target.

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.

Yes. Because Charlie Hebdo hates Muslims and Christians but will fire someone (and see that they are criminally prosecuted) if he criticizes Jews. Oh freedom!

 

[maybemaybenot]

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 are you saying that all the Muslim countries that execute blasphemers are doing it because of US foreign policy? Are you saying its in the Quran in response to US foreign policy? Blowback doesn't explain everything. There have been religious wars for millennia, read the Quran if you don't believe me. Are you saying 16% of France supports ISIS because they're all the victims of US foreign policy? The middle east has always been killing eachother, since the Ottoman Empire and before that, we didn't start this. Blowback has turned into an excuse to avoid a fact-based discussion on the conflict. Some crazy statist radicals weren't create by the US, there are crazy evil ppl all over the place. 45% of western European Muslims say they can't trust a Jew, and you think this is because of US foreign policy? Anyone who responds to a war by saying they can't trust Jews, or by supporting ISIS, can go fuck themselves. Anti-Jewishness is written into the Quran; when ppl stop interpreting the Quran literally, Islamic radicalism will end.

 

[TaftFan]

Yeah. That's why one of the police killed in the attacks was a Muslim. Clearly he was trying to destroy France from within by dying.

Are all of the Muslims coming from Africa joining France to support them and their evil Western and interventionist ways, or are they coming to take over just like they are doing in the rest of Europe?

Yes. And Benghazi was retaliation for a YouTube video....until we learned that it wasn't and the lie was good fodder for attacking the Obama administration.

Is your plausibility scale turned off? It is a grand sin to do what Hebdo did. But you seem to think his offices were chosen at random.

The French helped murder Khadafi. In fact it was likely a French agent that finished Khadafi off. That said, it sounds like U.S. interventionism was the catalyst. Charlie Hebo was a soft target.

Radical Muslims (Muslim Brotherhood) supported the ouster of Khadafi. So why would they be upset?

Yes. Because Charlie Hebdo hates Muslims and Christians but will fire someone (and see that they are criminally prosecuted) if he criticizes Jews. Oh freedom!

The issue of free expression isn't about Hebdo and whether he is consistent with it. It is an important principle that should not be cower in the face of Muslims.

 

[acptulsa]

You don't even know what a sockpuppet is, moron.

He understands the term. You don't understand what he said.

The rest of us seem to. Which begs the question of who really fits your polite little description...

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...

Your insistence on blathering that adherence to Sharia makes a muslim a 'True Believer' is about as believable and intelligent as saying the only true Christians are the snake charmers from Dogshit County, Arkansas.

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.

Your grasp of world history seems to be just a tad limp. I suppose we got into Vietnam entirely on our own stupidity?

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 don't recall him blaming imperialism for inflation (though he has given it credit where due as a contributing factor forcing the Fed's hand), or failing small businesses, or any number of other things. Just because you want to condemn the largest religion in the world for anything and everything doesn't mean the adherents to that religion wouldn't be as easy to get along with as they once were if we were to stop jacking with them night and day to the tune of millions dead in the last decade.

And I suppose we kicked the shit out of Japan because we hated Shintoism? Or did Pearl Harbor enter into it just a bit?

The issue of free expression isn't about Hebdo and whether he is consistent with it. It is an important principle that should not be cower in the face of Muslims.

If you have ever used the phrase 'freedom fries' you have just achieved your Black Belt in Hypocrisy. Congratulations.

 

[TaftFan]

He understands the term. You don't understand what he said.

The rest of us seem to. Which begs the question of who really fits your polite little description...

The implication is that I am a sock puppet, which is incorrect. So unless he is a liar, he must not know what the term means. If he wants to plead dishonest though I'll accept it.

Your insistence on blathering that adherence to Sharia makes a muslim a 'True Believer' is about as believable and intelligent as saying the only true Christians are the snake charmers from Dogshit County, Arkansas.

Which shows you know nothing about basic Christianity or Islam. Sharia is literally Islamic law and is foundational to the religion. Snake charming is not part of Christianity, originating in 1910 and remaining in insignificant circles to this day.

Your grasp of world history seems to be just a tad limp. I suppose we got into Vietnam entirely on our own stupidity?

I did not bring up Vietnam, you did.

I don't recall him blaming imperialism for inflation (though he has given it credit where due as a contributing factor forcing the Fed's hand), or failing small businesses, or any number of other things.

I would hope not.

Just because you want to condemn the largest religion in the world for anything and everything doesn't mean the adherents to that religion wouldn't be as easy to get along with as they once were if we were to stop jacking with them night and day to the tune of millions dead in the last decade.

Since when were Muslims easy to get along with? I suppose they were a bit easier to get along with when they minimized the Islam part and accepted Western influences.
Poorly thought out intervention has exacerbated a lot of problems. But it didn't cause the problems.

And I suppose we kicked the shit out of Japan because we hated Shintoism? Or did Pearl Harbor enter into it just a bit?

Inapplicable example.

If you have ever used the phrase 'freedom fries' you have just achieved your Black Belt in Hypocrisy. Congratulations.

I have said the phrase freedom fries, never as a substitute for French Fries, but in part of discussions surrounding attempts to do so. Nice try...

 

[Brett85]

Terrorism is caused both by U.S foreign policy and radical Islamic extremism. The end.

 

[dannno]

Man, some of you guys are so completely clueless.

Our foreign policy has included pouring trillions of dollars into creating more Islamic extremism.

You want to know how to fight Islamic extremism? The same way you fight communism. I thought we already learned our lesson that we don't need to go around the globe fighting communism from taking over because it destroys itself. I thought we learned about the hypocrisy of pouring hundreds of billions in aid into communist countries while simultaneously fighting them militarily.

Some people never really learn the basics.

 

[acptulsa]

The implication is that I am a sock puppet, which is incorrect.

Ah, I see. Every post on the whole forum is about you.

Should have known...

Which shows you know nothing about basic Christianity or Islam. Sharia is literally Islamic law and is foundational to the religion.

Amazing how many Muslims get along without this 'foundational' thing...

I did not bring up Vietnam, you did.

Which naturally makes my point invalid...

I have said the phrase freedom fries, never as a substitute for French Fries, but in part of discussions surrounding attempts to do so. Nice try...

That's good, but does not guarantee you're no hypocrite.

 

[TaftFan]

Ah, I see. Every post on the whole forum is about you.

Should have known...

Just those following mine and referring to me.

Amazing how many Muslims get along without this 'foundational' thing...

Most Westernized Muslims do not "religiously" follow their religion. Similar to many Christians. Most non-Westernized Muslims take Sharia law seriously. http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/...ligion-politics-society-beliefs-about-sharia/

Which naturally makes my point invalid...

The point was not relevant.

That's good, but does not guarantee you're no hypocrite.

I do not change my speech to appease Muslims. Just yesterday I captioned and shared a photo with my favorite Bob Beckel phrase, "Fatwa this."

 

[maybemaybenot]

Ah, I see. Every post on the whole forum is about you.

Should have known...



Amazing how many Muslims get along without this 'foundational' thing...



Which naturally makes my point invalid...



That's good, but does not guarantee you're no hypocrite.

You haven't refuted the argument that Sharia law is inherent to Islam. I'm not saying you can't disconnect the two, but it takes reform from a literalist approach to the Quran. Right now, almost every Muslim majority country implements Sharia law. Lol even Israel has Sharia law family courts for Muslims. So your comment that Muslims "get along without this foundational thing" is simply untrue. Almost every Arab country executes ppl for criticizing Islam, they're no different from the Paris terrorists. Its in the f'n Quran. All you ppl know how to do is say "blowback" or change the subject to Vietnam and communism. Not every conflict is the same. You're right that we shouldn't get involved with these countries, you're wrong for thinking that its the only explanation for this violence. 45% of western European Muslims say they can't trust Jews. That's not f'n blowback. That's bigotry from the Middle East immigrating to the west.

 

[Free Radical]

Charlie Hebdo was a righteous publication with heavy radical anarchist influence. None of these champagne liberals and neocons defended it then, in fact, many denounced it. Now the political elite establishment has co-opted the situation, knowing that those few who could legitimately say "Je suis Charlie Hebdo" are now dead. As for the attack, it was high time sometime stirred the pot a little in France. For the state, this killed two birds with one stone - eliminated Charlie Hebdo and allowed for the expansion of the state's policing and surveillance powers, particularly for use against a certain minority group. While I am sad that the journalists had to take responsibility for the Hollande regime's failures, I have little remorse for the agents of the state who were killed...that is the nature of revolution...of civil war...and Europe is in the midst of it. It is really only a matter of time before it reaches our shores as well. Our economy is on the verge of collapse.

 

[ctiger2]

The Hebdo attack was just another Zionist false flag op.

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2015/01/08/charlie-hebdo-viral/

BTW... Ron is right, again.

 

[rich34]

Hell let them blow this up, may actually help Rand with traditional republicans. Well, so long as foxnews includes Rand in the polling results. I swear I saw just yesterday they completely left Rand off the list while showing the top 5 in Iowa. They managed to include Carson though. They were essentially debating who was going to win the nomination between the possibility of Romney running yet again, in contrast to Bush. You just gotta love their "fair and balanced" reporting.

 

[jmdrake]

So are you saying that all the Muslim countries that execute blasphemers are doing it because of US foreign policy?

No moron. I'm talking about the facts known about the particular Muslims who attacked Charlie Hebdo. One of the brothers is known to have been radicalized because of U.S. foreign policy. Now why does some Muslim living in Iran want to kill some blasphemer? You have to go ask him. I tell you what. Are you still so stupid that you believe the Benghazi attack as because of a YouTube video? Because....nobody is saying that. Not the Republicans nor the Democrats. And if there was some way to make Obama look bad for saying so, Republicans would tell the truth regarding Charlie Hebdo.

 

[Rudeman]

Terrorism is caused both by U.S foreign policy and radical Islamic extremism. The end.

This. Not sure why it should even be an argument over who is right or more right. Why can't they both be right? IMO they both are.

 

[PatriotOne]

Or....they are both right.

 

[maybemaybenot]

No moron. I'm talking about the facts known about the particular Muslims who attacked Charlie Hebdo. One of the brothers is known to have been radicalized because of U.S. foreign policy. Now why does some Muslim living in Iran want to kill some blasphemer? You have to go ask him. I tell you what. Are you still so stupid that you believe the Benghazi attack as because of a YouTube video? Because....nobody is saying that. Not the Republicans nor the Democrats. And if there was some way to make Obama look bad for saying so, Republicans would tell the truth regarding Charlie Hebdo.

I never thought Benghazi was because of a video, Libyans attacked the embassy in Libya of a country at war with Libya. Don't know why you're bringing it up, I didn't. Again, the Quran calls on Muslims to execute ppl for criticizing Islam. This didn't happen in Europe decades ago because there were fewer Muslims in Europe. The fact that US foreign policy radicalized him is not an explanation for attacking a french newspaper and a french kosher market. That's just the f'n Quran. And contrary to what you said, I don't need to talk to an Iranian to ask them why they execute blasphemers, because extremist Muslims don't have a fucking thought process, they're sheep. They believe it because the Quran tells them to. Imagine a country where they execute blasphemers, and where the majority of ppl support said law, let's call it Pleasebombmestraighttohell. If a civilized western nation allows millions and millions of Pleasebombmestraighttohellians to immigrate there, then a lot of those Pleasebombmestraighttohellians will carry those same beliefs to their new country. They don't magically lose their mental illness when they immigrate. They're still crazy. The crazy Muslims who support execution for blasphemy immigrated to France, and didn't magically change when they get there.

And if wars radicalized Muslims, then this explains why Muslims have been radical for 1,400 yrs. They love war, they think they go to heaven if they die murdering infidels. We didn't start the Middle Eastern conflict. The Ottoman Empire was in a civil war FOREVER. It was never peaceful. The west obviously didn't help, but we didn't start it.

 

[jmdrake]

Are all of the Muslims coming from Africa joining France to support them and their evil Western and interventionist ways, or are they coming to take over just like they are doing in the rest of Europe?

Door number 3. They're coming to France for the same reason Catholics from Latin America are coming to the United States. Their own countries economies are in the dumps and they are looking for a better life. Or maybe you think those coming to the U.S. from south of the border are part of an Opus Dei plot?

Is your plausibility scale turned off? It is a grand sin to do what Hebdo did. But you seem to think his offices were chosen at random.

I never said it was random. Charlie Hebdo blasphemed the Trinity. God had it in for them. 12 dead, one for each of the apostles. /sarcasm

Now pay attention. The person doing the killing was radicalized way back in 2004 long before Charlie Hebdo published the offensive cartoons. He was radicalized due to Abu Grahib. Once that happened, one target was as good as the next. Yeah....gotta make it an "anti Muslim" target for it to have the desired effect. (Get France drawn deeper into the GWOT.) But without the catalyst of U.S. foreign policy would this Muslim have carried out that particular attack? Doubt it.

Radical Muslims (Muslim Brotherhood) supported the ouster of Khadafi. So why would they be upset?

Those particular "radical Muslims" were working with U.S. and French intelligence. As unwitting pawns? Unsure. But the Muslim world is not in uniform agreement on anything. Look up the Shiite/Sunni split when you want to learn about that.

http://www.vudu.com/movies/#!overview/525141/CIA-Declassified-Killing-Mad-Dog-Gaddafi

Now here's the real question. Once the CIA winds up these toy assets and sets them loose, what happens when the CIA no longer has use for them?

The issue of free expression isn't about Hebdo and whether he is consistent with it. It is an important principle that should not be cower in the face of Muslims.

Right. Let's just blindly support the GWOT now in the name of "free expression" for a bunch of hateful hypocrites. Yeah. That's the "important principle" at work here. Am I on the right forum? I thought we were about principles like equality under the law. If there are hate speech laws that only apply to certain groups and not others we should be on the side of pressuring governments to be consistent. And we should be against foreign policy that creates jihadists in the first place. But instead your on some medieval "Let's get the Muslims" crusade. Okay Mr. "I'm not going to cower." What's your plan? Start another children's crusade? How many need to die in your cause?

 

[jmdrake]

I never thought Benghazi was because of a video, Libyans attacked the embassy in Libya of a country at war with Libya.

Ummmmm....no. I'm not sure what planet you are on, but on planet earth the U.S. was not at war with Libya when the U.S. embassy was attacked. The war was over, and the side that attacked the embassy was the side we had helped win. If you are that clueless than I don't know why you are even attempting to have a discussion. Then again I do know. It's because you're so clueless you don't even realize it.

 

[RandallFan]

The terrorists would have been pissed about Abu Ghraib and Gitmo even if they were no foreign intervention. If Saddam was torturing people and the west ignored it, Muslim terrorists would complain.

If they took some domestic Muslim Terrorists from the mainland to Gitmo and didn't let them face Mecca that would piss them off.