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

RandallFan said:
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.
Click to expand...

In all the years when Saddam was torturing people at Abu Ghraib did you ever recall a single attack against a U.S. interest where the terrorist had been radicalized by Saddam's tyranny? No? Didn't think so. :rolleyes:

For the record, what we did at Abu Ghraib was in some ways worse. Saddam persecuted people, but he usually did it for a reason. By our own report (General Tagubu's report) we were picking up people at random for minor offenses and they were all being sent to Abu Ghraib. There were children being abused there. There is a reason why hundreds of thousands of Christians fled Iraq after the fall of Saddam and most went to Syria. If you minded your own business and didn't try to institute "regime change", peaceful or violent, Saddam by and large left you alone.
 
If "Sharia Law" is the basis for all Muslims, why don't all Muslim countries have sharia law incorporated into their judicial system? Perhaps you guys should stop letting the MSM tell you about Islam. Here is a start:

Application of sharia law by country

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Application_of_sharia_law_by_country

Take note of the countries in green. Muslim countries that have NO SHARIA law in their judicial system what so ever. How do you experts explain that? Maybe email Bill O'Reilly and ask him to guide you?
 
I find all the outrage over this attack to be outrageously hypocritical. When I see people who have in the not-distant past advocated the death penalty for flag burning suddenly become free speech advocates it turns my stomach. Same thing for those who turn a blind eye to the incredible death and destruction being dealt out every day by our armed forces who are suddenly up in arms about the humanity of it all when the West gets some of its own medicine. Hell, in the days since the attack, our drone program has probably killed more innocents in Pakistan alone, never mind the other misery we are dealing out all over the rest of the world.
 
thoughtomator said:
I find all the outrage over this attack to be outrageously hypocritical. When I see people who have in the not-distant past advocated the death penalty for flag burning suddenly become free speech advocates it turns my stomach. Same thing for those who turn a blind eye to the incredible death and destruction being dealt out every day by our armed forces who are suddenly up in arms about the humanity of it all when the West gets some of its own medicine. Hell, in the days since the attack, our drone program has probably killed more innocents in Pakistan alone, never mind the other misery we are dealing out all over the rest of the world.
Click to expand...

^This
 
twomp said:
If "Sharia Law" is the basis for all Muslims, why don't all Muslim countries have sharia law incorporated into their judicial system? Perhaps you guys should stop letting the MSM tell you about Islam. Here is a start:

Application of sharia law by country

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Application_of_sharia_law_by_country

Take note of the countries in green. Muslim countries that have NO SHARIA law in their judicial system what so ever. How do you experts explain that? Maybe email Bill O'Reilly and ask him to guide you?
Click to expand...

Here's a somewhat related question. How many Americans have actually talked face to face with a Muslim? With more than one Muslim? With Muslims from more than one part of the world? And how many people's knowledge of Muslims comes purely from the media?

A person could conclude after meeting one Christain that "Christian law" forbids drinking alcohol depending upon who they spoke to...
 
B7Fh73YCUAAsxGq.jpg
 
The Sunday morning blatherers were unanimous...


acptulsa said:
Bottom line: Because a couple of guys with no ties to ISIS attacked free speech in a country that doesn't even really pretend to have free speech, and about the same time in the same country, some guy who robbed some random grocery store has no ties to ISIS in Yemen either but allegedly pledged alliegence to it anyway, we should attack ISIS in Syria.
Click to expand...

And millions of internet sycophants who admit they have no idea what Sharia Law says go ballistic on anyone who denies it's 110% evil and observed by 110% of Muslims.
 
Last edited:
Why would they attack a magazine in France that mocks their prophet if their immediate grievance was interventionism?

That doesn't even make sense.
 
twomp said:
Oh really? How old is the muslim religion? Why is it they have only started strapping bombs onto themselves in last 30 or 40 years? What could have caused this? The Quran just got updated?
Click to expand...
Bombs and their proliferation are a relatively new development; more than a few decades ago, it would have been very difficult to obtain a bomb which one could strap to oneself for a suicide attack. Islamic extremism, in the sense of aggression and intolerance of dissent, however, goes back to the very beginning of the religion. When the hornets' nest of Islamic extremists is jabbed by Western foreign policy, you get a group like Al Qaeda.
 
KingNothing said:
Why would they attack a magazine in France that mocks their prophet if their immediate grievance was interventionism?

That doesn't even make sense.
Click to expand...

Why would a gang member shoot someone for dissing him if someone accidentally steps on his gang colors?

A perceived complete lack of respect for an entire demographic can't possibly lead to violence against that entire demographic?

MaxPower said:
Bombs and their proliferation are a relatively new development; more than a few decades ago, it would have been very difficult to obtain a bomb which one could strap to oneself for a suicide attack. Islamic extremism, in the sense of aggression and intolerance of dissent, however, goes back to the very beginning of the religion. When the hornets' nest of Islamic extremists is jabbed by Western foreign policy, you get a group like Al Qaeda.
Click to expand...

Oh, sure, nobody could have walked into a place a hundred fifty years ago with a vial of nitro glycerine and dropped it. And World War I wasn't started over a hundred years ago by opponents of the Austro-Hungarian Empire lobbing both bullets and bombs at the crown prince, either.
 
Oh, sure, nobody could have walked into a place a hundred fifty years ago with a vial of nitro glycerine and dropped it. And World War I wasn't started over a hundred years ago by opponents of the Austro-Hungarian Empire lobbing both bullets and bombs at the crown prince, either.
Click to expand...
Did you or did you not read my statement that it would have been "difficult" (particularly for people living in third-world countries) to obtain bombs? To your understanding, is "difficult" synonymous with "impossible"? Suicide bombing by militant Muslims is relatively new because possession of bombs by militant Muslims with a motivation to commit that sort of attack is relatively new; do you really want to try to make controversy over something as plain and reasonable as this? That there have been many militant Muslims committing violence and aggression for essentially the same reasons the current ones do (from imperialistic expansionism to reaction against violent provocation to the targeting of those who have spoken/written against Islam) is easily verifiable. Tactics change with technology, access, and circumstances.
 
MaxPower said:
Did you or did you not read my statement that it would have been "difficult" (particularly for people living in third-world countries) to obtain bombs?
Click to expand...

It's easy now, with the advent of tagging agents even in ammonium nitrate? Croatia was First World a hundred years ago?
 
thoughtomator said:
I find all the outrage over this attack to be outrageously hypocritical. When I see people who have in the not-distant past advocated the death penalty for flag burning suddenly become free speech advocates it turns my stomach. Same thing for those who turn a blind eye to the incredible death and destruction being dealt out every day by our armed forces who are suddenly up in arms about the humanity of it all when the West gets some of its own medicine. Hell, in the days since the attack, our drone program has probably killed more innocents in Pakistan alone, never mind the other misery we are dealing out all over the rest of the world.
Click to expand...

True. But America is the American religion. Kill someone for "religious" reasons and that's evil, UNLESS its the religion of "patriotism"... then its wonderful:rolleyes:

People who wonder why I'm not harder on Calvin than I am, this is why.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top