Rand Paul

Rand Paul to Hannity: "I'm seeing Christians beheaded"; Wants "Civilized Islam" to Fight ISIS

|

Yesterday, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) appeared on Sean Hannity's radio program to talk about "Islamophobia" in the wake of the Charlie Hebdo massacre. According to the transcript by the National Journal's Emma Roller, Paul said

"I haven't seen any Christians or Jews dragging people of the Islamic faith through the streets, but I am seeing the opposite. I'm seeing Christians beheaded. I'm seeing people who say anything about Islam being shot," Paul said. "And so, yeah, should the rules always protect everyone's rights? Yeah. But I'm not too worried right now that we've infringed on their rights. I'm worried that Christians and Jews are being killed around the world."

More here.

Vox notes that when Hannity asked if a New York Times editorial urging people to not smear all Muslims with "a terrorist brush" made sense, Paul replied, "I think they must be totally deaf and dumb."

"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." [Rand] continued: "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."

It's not clear to me exactly what Paul means by "our border" in this context. Is it a dig at the U.S.-Mexico border, which so far has contributed zip to Islamic terrorism in America? Or is he talking more figuratively? As Joel Mowbray pointed out in an award-winning 2002 article for National Review, the most amazing thing about the vast majority of the 9/11 hijackers was that they came into the country through a fully legal "visa express" program under the old Immigration and Naturalization Service and State Department rules.

In any case, thought it's not reflected in the quotes above, Paul actually noted that many of the issues dealing with Muslims and assimilation in France are tied to that country's colonial legacy and policies that stymie integration into social mainstream. He didn't note that the accused gunmen are not immigrants themselves but the children of immigrants of who spoke French well and reflect a sort of second-generation disdain for the very cosmopolitanism that might have lured their parents to Paris in the first place. Islamic terrorism, at least in the U.K., Europe, and the U.S. seems to mostly executed by residents of cities such as London, Paris, and Hamburg, not backwater villages in Afghanistan.

In a large sense, Paul still needs to come up with a fully coherent stance on immigration, one that is clearly separate from fears about terrorism. He wavers between a "secure the border" mentality that flirts with xenophobia toward Mexicans and the phantom menace of large numbers of Islamic terrorists sneaking into the country (to the extent that's a legitimate problem, it's exactly what national intelligence agencies should be covering) and an open borders mentality. If Paul really wants to stand apart from other Republicans and reach the independents and moderates who dig his stances on limited government, criminal justice reform, and devolving drug and marriage issues to the states, he's far better off keeping his immigration talking points like these: "If you want to work, if you want to become an American, we welcome you." (And if he wants a slate of proposals that go toward that popular goal, he should read Shikha Dalmia's article in the new issue of Reason).

The discussion with Hannity is much more nuanced and interesting than the more bombastic quotes cited by Vox and National Journal suggest. After Hannity invokes the radical cleric Anjem Choudary (who insists that Muslims have an obligation to kill those who blaspheme Mohammed), Paul responds:

We need to call for and there needs to be members of civilized Islam who will step forward and not only militarily but verbally as well as, you know, throughout their demonstrations, show that this is not part of Islam….Civilized Islam really does need to stand up. Saudi Arabia needs to have soldiers on the front lines fighting ISIS. So do the Qataris, so do the Kuwaitis….If that happened, they would wipe out ISIS in a matter of months. If it doesn't happen, I wouldn't fund these countries.

Paul then discusses his bill to end aid to the Palestinian Authority because of its alliance with Hamas, stressing that he pushed similar legislation a year ago. There's no question that Paul has switched positions regarding foreign aid. He once called for a ban on aid to everyone, including Israel, the largest recipient of U.S. money on that score. Now he's targeting Palestinian aid, in a pretty clear attempt to woo Republican interests. As Brian Doherty noted, Paul's foreign policy causes some consternation among libertarians, who remain his most ardent supporters both in the GOP and in the general population.

One of the reasons for that support is his willingness to talk specifics on cutting the size, scope, and spending of the federal government. He tells Hannity that he is committed not just to ruling with the new GOP congressional majority, but actually cutting government.

I'm not just for restricting Obamacare spending or immigration spending. I'm for having thousands and thousands…of instructions on how we spend money, so we spend it wisely…. It's a short leash for Republicans. Yes, we won, but if we don't do the right thing, if we add more government programs, and we add to the debt, [voters] will throw Republicans out as easily as they threw Democrats out.

He also pledges to insist on working through all 12 appropriations bills.

Listen to the program yourself by clicking here (Rand Paul comes on around 17.30 minutes). 

NEXT: Charlie Hebdo Suspects Intend to 'Die As Martyrs', More Hostages Taken at Paris Supermarket, Connecticut Orders Teen to Get Chemo: A.M. Links

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I don’t see the Muslim world rising up to fight these people.The Saudis and their ilk have helped cause some of this.As did the war in Iraq and the never ending Afgan adventure.The best way to stop ISIS is if their dumb enough to attack Israel.The IDF will wipe the ground with them.

    1. To be totally fair the Kurds are fighting ISIS and those on Syrian lands at least want a secular state that respects all races & religion (kurds are a race apart from arabs, hence why Saddam tried to commit genocide against them).
      Sufi muslims don’t believe in violence, they’re Dervish-dancin’ hippies but are considered apostates by radicals.
      Shia Seveners like Tarek Fatah believe in reinterpreting the Quran to fit modern times – they’re anti-Sharia & anti-Jihad. Also, they’re considered apostates by radical jihadists & The Twelver Iranian gov’t.
      Hmm, I think I see a pattern here…

  2. He tells Hannity that he is committed not just to ruling with the new GOP congressional majority, but actually cutting government.

    I guess he doesn’t want to be president after all.

    And I don’t think anyone knows what France can do about a segment of its population that can’t or won’t assimilate.

    1. assimilate

      Isn’t that really and empty word? The whole melting pot concept is a blending, not a reprogramming. I’m guessing these murderers spoke French and wore French clothes and drove French cares and ate French food. What more do you expect?

      There’s no shortage of “fringe” beliefs anywhere. And the variety in any “melting pot” culture is phenomenal.

      The fact that their particular moral code puts their religion above human life is not a failure to assimilate.

    2. France doesn’t let immigrants assimilate.

      The shooters at Charlie were 2nd generation immigrants.

      2nd generation immigrants have greater than 20% unemployment and live in ghettos on the edges of the major French cities.

      It is only a matter of time before there is a major scale uprising (and not just the random burning dozens of cars over a weekend).

      1. That’s a good point. We don’t really know all the motives of the shooters, but anger at their overall treatment in France could be one of them–with Charlie’s lampooning of their revered prophet be the trigger.

        1. A lot of 2nd generation immigrants have moved to Syria to join ISIS. When they return to France, there will be lots of problems.

        2. Nice to see someone bringing the victim-blaming and nuanced understanding of the poor oppressed murderous jihadists’ motives. Die in a fire.

          1. I didn’t intend to excuse the murderers. I’m merely trying to understand why someone would hate so much.

            It is interesting that wish me to die in a fire. Hate much?

          2. There is a fundamental difference between root-cause analysis and victim-blaming.

            And achieving a “nuanced understanding of the poor oppressed murderous jihadists’ motives” is key strategy in trying to prevent future attacks.

            So go fuck yourself you simple-minded prick.

            1. There’s also a fundamental difference between root cause analysis and reaching up on your tippy toes to grasp for an alternative motivation for a crime that better suits your world view.

              Sometimes it’s okay to take people at their word.

              1. Two dumbfucks from the projects in France get radicalized; go to Syria to get militarized; come home and shoot up a magazine that offended their religious sensibilities. So yes, I take them at the word for “why” they did it.

                I am interested in how to stop 2nd generation immigrants from becoming radicalized in the first place.

                1. I am interested in how to stop 2nd generation immigrants from becoming radicalized in the first place.

                  Not being a muslim would be the place to start. Islam isn’t a race or ethnicity that’s inseparable from the person, it’s a set of beliefs and ideas that lend ideological credence to murder. We owe promoters of murderous ideas no tolerance.

                  1. Not being a muslim would be the place to start.

                    There are about 1.6 billion Muslims in the world.

                    The violence is being perpetuated by a fraction of a fraction of a percent of the world’s population of Muslims.

                    Being Muslim is not the problem.

                    1. The violence is being perpetuated by a fraction of a fraction of a percent of the world’s population of Muslims.

                      Being Muslim is not the problem.

                      Yeah a tiny minority of them pull the trigger. But huge minorities and relatively large majorities in some cases, actively support the actions of those who pull the trigger. Both in Islamic countries and in immigrant populations in the west. That “tiny minority of extremists” you’re talking about is a total myth.

                    2. I have to go with some of the skeptics here. The reality is that we’re not talking about a tiny minority who support such actions, but a rather sizable one. Remember, ISIS gets its funding from the Saudis and even moderate Muslim nations like Qatar. And, all you have to do is look at a fellow like Yusef Islam’s support for killing Salmon Rushdie to see it’s not purely an issue of underprivilege. There’s a very real problem with Islam and violence against the rest of us. Now, it may well be that there is no solution to that problem that is worth its cost in liberty or civilization. But, I think it’s kind of silly to pretend there’s no actual issue.

                    3. Remember, ISIS gets its funding from the Saudis

                      The foot-soldiers come from war-torn, poverty-stricken countries in the middle east or from ghettos in Europe.

                      Funding comes from some of the richest people on the planet.

                      Yet, somehow, religion is the only thing that matters.

                    4. Yet, somehow, religion is the only thing that matters.

                      Isn’t that the common factor?

                2. I am interested in how to stop 2nd generation immigrants from becoming radicalized in the first place.

                  You say this as if radicalization were a case of the clap. You don’t catch it accidentally. Preventing radicalization would entail preventing people from exercising their free will. That’s a far worse outcome than the occasional terrorist attack. Chalk it up to bad people doing bad things. It really doesn’t need to be any more complicated than that.

            2. The root cause is radical Islam. They hate us for our freedoms.

      2. Is it still true the French still have a caste system? Depending on you family you will be in certain groups? Also,the well off are the ruling class?

      3. Cherif Kouachi, 32, was convicted in 2008 of being part of a jihadist recruitment ring in Paris that sent fighters to the war in Iraq.

        Less is publicly known about Said Kouachi, 34. But CNN affiliate BFMTV reported that his ID card was discovered during the investigation into the attack, helping police single out the suspects.

        A U.S. official said the United States was given information from an French intelligence agency that Said Kouachi traveled to Yemen as late as 2011 on behalf of the al Qaeda affiliate there.

        Once in Yemen, the older brother received a variety of weapons training from al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula — the affiliate in Yemen — the official said, including on how to fire weapons.

        A French source close to the French security services said that investigators are looking at evidence to suggest the younger brother, Cherif, went to Syria, and that he returned from this trip — of unknown length — to France in August 2014. USA Today reported that they both returned from Syria in the summer.

        Source

        Yeah, I mean, it could have been literally anything. Except religion. Probably that unemployment thing.

        1. Let’s try thatsource link again.

          If I ever go postal at the Reason editorial offices, let it be known my motivation was the lack of preview and edit functions.

          1. “If I ever go postal at the Reason editorial offices ….”

            Shooting up the NYT would be terrorism, shooting up Reasons editorial offices is almost certainly be classified as “workplace violence”.

            1. “would be classified as …”

              , just put me down as a second shooter motivated by the lack of preview and edit functions.

      4. France has this over-arching snobby superior attitude that their language, their culture, everything French is the best in the world.

        The country has a government organization devoted to the purity of the French language. They don’t adopt words from other languages, especially not for new technologies. They think up new, French names for it. ‘Walkman’ is ‘baladeur’, ‘software’ is ‘logiciel’ and ’email’ is ‘courriel’. Don’t say ‘CD-ROM’, to be French you must call it a ‘cederom’.

        That extends across the Atlantic to Quebec, Canada. There they require street signs in French and all businesses to have their name in French, at the top of the sign and in much larger letters than in English or any other language.

        Then there is international sports, including motorsports. How did France gain control of nearly all of it?

        How is French the first language of the GREEK Olympic games? It doesn’t matter where the games are held, announcements are made first in French, then the language of the host country, then English, then finally Greek.

        The IOC is a SWISS organization! Why all the French? Shouldn’t it be Swiss?

        It should be Greek first, then the language of the host, then English. If the French want French spoken at the Olympics, wait for France to host the games.

    3. I don’t think anyone knows what France can do about a segment of its population that can’t or won’t assimilate

      Deportation is still an option for those who are there at France’s bequest, and who are not citizens.

      Why would it not be?

  3. A potential problem with any religion (including leftism) is the focus on contrasting the “enlightened” with others. The difference between Islam and other religions is that it teaches the killing of all unenlightened folk. Assimilation cannot change that.

    By design, Islam cannot assimilate anywhere. It’s Sharia or death and destruction.

  4. I don’t have to agree with Rand Paul’s characterization of this issue…to want him to win the Republican nomination. And if winning the Republican nomination requires Rand Paul to say stuff like this, then for goodness’ sake, he should say it.

    Rand Paul is a politician, and politicians have to say things sometimes to get elected. But the rights of Muslims will be more secure in this country with Rand Paul as President–certainly safer than they were when George W. Bush or Barack Obama were guarding them.

    1. Rand Paul is in full right-wing-pandering mode. But he’s still the best candidate with a chance, by far.

      Maybe he’s referring to the US-Canada border. Can’t be too careful about those Canadiens.

  5. Funniest line is your suggestion that there was more nuance to the conversation with Hannity. Hannity and nuance never go together. The fact that Paul even goes on his show indicates that Paul intends to reach out to, and make peace with, xenophobes. And your surprised that Paul continues to waver on Libertarian principles? Its not his concern…getting elected is…whatever it takes.

    1. Xenophobes vote too.

    2. Coming from someone whose views are as nuanced as a typical 5 year old, this is beyond fucking rich.

      1. I am never nuanced, and I doubt a 5 year old is either.

        For once, you are right!

        1. I’ll admit I didn’t think you’d actually cop to your child-like binary view of the world, but the honesty is a refreshing change.

          1. Thanks!

    3. I think Paul will talk to anyone,I mean he has talk to Al Sharpton also.

      1. He talked to Rachel Maddow, then she asked him a tough question and he immediately adopted Sarah Palin’s attitude toward the press (it’s an invalid question if it makes me uncomfortable, like “what do you read?”).

        1. Don’t lock eyes with ’em, don’t do it. Puts ’em on edge. They might go into berzerker mode; come at you like a whirling dervish, all fists and elbows. You might be screaming “No, no, no” and all they hear is “Who wants cake?” Let me tell you something: They all do. They all want cake.

    4. “The fact that Paul even goes on his show indicates that Paul intends to reach out to, and make peace with, xenophobes.”

      I’m not sure he’s saying anything specifically xenophobic, but he is competing with others for the nomination from a pool of establishment Republicans who see Islam as a threat to their safety and well being.

      He’s a politician, and he’s not competing for the nomination of the Libertarian Party. Once he secures the nomination, things will probably change for the better. It’s sort of like when Bill Clinton executed a retard to show that he was tough on crime…

      …except Rand Paul isn’t executing anybody. He’s just making some statements that are sympathetic to a certain mindset. It’s not a mindset I’m fond of–I think islamophobes are cowards. But I understand that Rand Paul is not a paragon of libertarian virtue.

      Rand Paul is a politician running for the nomination from establishment Republicans, and if he wins the nomination (and the presidency), it’ll be the best thing that happened to the libertarian movement.

      1. You are right.

        I will say this, thought. The debates in the GOP will surely be interesting. I think Libertarians will be even more disappointed when Paul distances himself even further from principle. Just a guess, but we will see.

        And he will be forced to make commitments…Huckabee, Santorum, et. al. will force him into it.

      2. The fact that Paul even goes on his show indicates that Paul intends to reach out to, and make peace with, xenophobes.

        This again? You must share, in toto, the beliefs of every audience you address?

        1. Not at all…actually, its good that he does go on the show.

          But here is the problem Nick is alluding to…it would be nice if Paul went on the show in an attempt to confront xenophobia, rather than pander to it.

          He pandered…and that is not just my opinion, read the article…its Nick’s as well.

          1. What’s that cartoon with the naked cupids and the caption always reads something like “Love is…never having to say you’re sorry”.

            http://www.redletterarchive.co…..rtoons.jpg

            Well, “Libertarianism is…never being disappointed in a politician”.

            There is something inherently suspicious about any libertarian that seeks the power of the state.

            1. True, its a fine line to walk. And I have no problem in his attempts to walk it…he needs to.

              I guess I would say this…if there ever is an interviewer that a guy like Paul would need to confront on a bunch of things, it would be Hannity. There really isn’t all that much those two would agree on (drugs, military spending, even states rights on abortion), and yet, he seemed to do his best to avoid it.

      3. It’s not a mindset I’m fond of–I think islamophobes are cowards.

        A phobia would be an irrational fear. I think Islamoskepticism would be a better term when we consider that the extremist Muslims are not a tiny minority, they’re quite a large minority and on some issues and in certain places they are by far the majority.

        World Public Opinion: 61% of Egyptians approve of attacks on Americans
        32% of Indonesians approve of attacks on Americans
        41% of Pakistanis approve of attacks on Americans
        38% of Moroccans approve of attacks on Americans
        83% of Palestinians approve of some or most groups that attack Americans (only 14% oppose)
        62% of Jordanians approve of some or most groups that attack Americans (21% oppose)
        42% of Turks approve of some or most groups that attack Americans (45% oppose)
        A minority of Muslims disagreed entirely with terror attacks on Americans:
        (Egypt 34%; Indonesia 45%; Pakistan 33%)
        About half of those opposed to attacking Americans were sympathetic with al-Qaeda’s attitude toward the U.S.
        http://www.worldpublicopinion……09_rpt.pdf

        One third of Palestinians (32%) supported the slaughter of a Jewish family, including the children:
        http://www.ynetnews.com/articl…..51,00.html

        1. Just because you’re the one that’s irrationally afraid of Muslims doesn’t mean it’s rational. Take a trip to your local mosque, sometime. Watch average Americans trying to teach their children wrong from right, and if you’re still afraid of Muslims, seek the help of a psychiatrist.

          P.S. Given that more than 100,000 civilians were killed in the Iraq War, using your logic, is it rational for Muslims to be afraid of Americans?

          P.P.S. In March of 2003, 58% of Americans approved of attacks on Iraqis.

          1. Just because you’re the one that’s irrationally afraid of Muslims doesn’t mean it’s rational.

            Numbers don’t lie, except when they diverge from Ken Shultz.

            P.S. Given that more than 100,000 civilians were killed in the Iraq War, using your logic, is it rational for Muslims to be afraid of Americans?

            Of the American government and military apparatus probably. But conversely American civilians aren’t immigrating to Muslim countries en mass and terrorizing and threatening local populations with death and servitude.

            P.P.S. In March of 2003, 58% of Americans approved of attacks on Iraqis.

            And that’s very shitty. It doesn’t take away from the fact that radical Islamists are not a tiny minority of their population.

            1. “Numbers don’t lie, except when they diverge from Ken Shultz.”

              Did you look at my numbers?

              58% of Americans approved! 100,000 dead civilians!

              And don’t you realize there are AMERICANS ALL AROUND YOU!!!

              “But conversely American civilians aren’t immigrating to Muslim countries en mass and terrorizing and threatening local populations with death and servitude.”

              Buddy Ro, if you’re really one of these people who thinks Muslims are going to take over America and implement Sharia, then you really have lost your mind.

              Christian conservatives can’t even get the time of day in this country anymore! Why would the Muslims fare any better?

              “It doesn’t take away from the fact that radical Islamists are not a tiny minority of their population.”

              1) The terrorism we’re seeing there is mostly coming from Sunnis, who only make up about 15% of the population of Iraq. What percentage of that 15% do you imagine is out there committing acts of terrorism?

              2) There were even fewer terrorists before we invaded Iraq. Occupations and wars tend to radicalize people.

              3) The reason ISIS achieves its goals through the force of arms–is because they have to.

              1. Did you look at my numbers?

                58% of Americans approved! 100,000 dead civilians!

                And don’t you realize there are AMERICANS ALL AROUND YOU!!!

                Yeah I saw your strawman numbers. How does that poll of the murderous inclinations of Americans detract from the murderous inclinations of Muslim populations?

                Buddy Ro, if you’re really one of these people who thinks Muslims are going to take over America and implement Sharia, then you really have lost your mind.

                Strawman #2; Where did I say they would? I said no small fraction of them have that desire.

                1) The terrorism we’re seeing there is mostly coming from Sunnis, who only make up about 15% of the population of Iraq. What percentage of that 15% do you imagine is out there committing acts of terrorism?

                Strawman #3; I posted polling that shows how many within the population are SUPPORTIVE of the terrorism carried out by that tiny few.

                2) There were even fewer terrorists before we invaded Iraq. Occupations and wars tend to radicalize people.

                Strawman #4; I never supported the Iraq War.

                1. 3) The reason ISIS achieves its goals through the force of arms–is because they have to.

                  Yeah the reason they behead journalists, rape a village’s women and kill children is because they have to. Just like the reason Kim Jong-Un murders his people is because he has to to stay in power. The necessity of barbarism in the pursuit of barbaric goals does not excuse the barbaric tactics.

                2. Your fear is palpable.

                  Laypeople tend to think of phobias and paranoia as irrational fears, but that’s not what they’re really about.

                  Fear of heights? Why shouldn’t you be afraid of heights? That’s a long way down. Some spiders are poisonous! And fear of the dark? who knows what’s in the dark? Why shouldn’t you be concerned about what you can’t see?

                  And paranoia isn’t just about delusional fears. It’s sometimes about people looking at the world around them and interpreting it in the scariest possible way–because they’re consumed by fear.

                  “Yeah I saw your strawman numbers. How does that poll of the murderous inclinations of Americans detract from the murderous inclinations of Muslim populations?”

                  There wasn’t anything straw man about them. Those are real numbers. 100,000 dead civilians. 58% of Americans approved of the invasion in March of 2003…

                  That doesn’t make Americans murderous, my frightened friend. That argument had a completely different interpretation–that you missed. …probably because of your fear.

                  1. Your fear is palpable.

                    So when you aren’t strawmanning an argument, you’re not making an argument at all, just more of a different fallacy. This is what we can expect from Ken Shultz.

                    There wasn’t anything straw man about them. Those are real numbers. 100,000 dead civilians. 58% of Americans approved of the invasion in March of 2003…

                    Yes those are real numbers that say absolutely nothing about the issue of whether or not extremists are truly a tiny minority of the Muslim population world-wide. That’s the definition of a strawman. It may be annoying to argue you, but Jesus Titty Fucking Christ it’s easy.

          2. Given that more than 100,000 civilians were killed in the Iraq War, using your logic, is it rational for Muslims to be afraid of Americans?

            I’d say it’s perfectly rational for Iraqis, regardless of their religion (this may come as a bit of a shock, but the world’s entire Muslim population doesn’t live in Iraq and may not be motivated or influenced by what happens there), to be afraid of Americans. It’d also be rational for them to be afraid of Muslims and guys with mustaches, given that a portion of those 100,000 casualties were caused by terrorists and Islamic fighters during and after the American invasion and occupation, and somewhere between 2 and 5 times that number were killed during the previous nominally-Islamic totalitarian regime of a mustachioed dictator. It wouldn’t be entirely irrational for Iraqis to be suspicious of pretty much everybody.

            On the other hand, it would be completely and totally irrational for Iraqis to ignore the obvious and terrible reality of their everyday lives by presuming only the best of everyone they meet because the alternative makes them uncomfortable.

            1. I’d say it’s perfectly rational for Iraqis, regardless of their religion (this may come as a bit of a shock, but the world’s entire Muslim population doesn’t live in Iraq and may not be motivated or influenced by what happens there), to be afraid of Americans.

              American military abroad yes. But for an accurate comparison, would they have a reason to fear the US civilian population? As in if they moved to the US, would they be worried one day they’d be snatched off the street to be brutally tortured and murdered? It seems obvious to me that American living in an Islamic country has far more validity to fear being snatched off the street than a muslim would in the US.

          3. Given that more than 100,000 civilians were killed in the Iraq War, using your logic, is it rational for Muslims to be afraid of Americans?

            If you lived in Fallujah, definitely.

            And while there is a fair amount of silliness and awfulness on conservative boards wrt overestimation of threat and/or deprivation of rights, I haven’t seen that on this board.

            Truth is always and everywhere a valid defense for accusations of bigotry. It is certainly within the realm of possibility that these believes do not stem from Islam itself, but it is irrational to a priori rule it out as a possibility. Unless you can specifically address these tenets in a way which closes the door to this being true, you cannot call those who say it is irrationally prejudiced when they convincingly cite from the religious tradition’s documents and clergy suggesting that such attitudes are a valid part of Islam.

          4. Take a trip to your local mosque, sometime. Watch average Americans trying to teach their children wrong from right, and if you’re still afraid of Muslims, seek the help of a psychiatrist.

            That’s a bit binary a model, though, isn’t it? Either all Muslims are monsters who want to slaughter us in our sleep or there is no problem whatsoever in Islam with regard to violence toward non-Muslims. That seems a false dichotomy to me. It is possible that Islam may have ideas and arguments that are open to an interpretation by a large swath of Muslims that is problematic for the rest of us without assuming that all, or even most, Muslims subscribe to that interpretation.

            1. “That’s a bit binary a model, though, isn’t it?”

              In context, it was advice to someone who, as shown elsewhere in this thread, sees Muslims as an existential threat.

        2. “when we consider that the extremist Muslims are not a tiny minority,”

          And the ongoing situation in France seems relevant. Apparently they have two separate hostage standoffs with terrorists simultaneously.

          1. “And the ongoing situation in France seems relevant. Apparently they have two separate hostage standoffs with terrorists simultaneously.”

            That doesn’t make me any more afraid of Muslims than school shootings make me afraid of the Second Amendment.

            1. That doesn’t make me any more afraid of Muslims than school shootings make me afraid of the Second Amendment.

              I don’t think large minorities or even majorities of gun owners are supportive of other gun-owners committing school shootings. Great analogy though, Ken.

            2. That’s a horrendously bad comparison. School shootings don’t have anything to do with the Second Amendment. There is no Second Amendment right to murder people.

              On the other hand, Muslim terrorists killing people in France for three days running does have a direct bearing on the threat posed by extremist Muslims.

              1. Both school shootings and terrorism are used as fear inducing justifications for the government to take action and do something.

                And the very worst thing the Bush Administration ever did was make it seem manly for a while to be afraid.

                There are still people alive today–maybe even in this thread!–who have come to believe that being afraid is something everyone should be proud of.

                If Orwell were writing 1984 today, in addition to Freedom is Slavery, War is Peace, and Ignorance is Strength, he’d have included “Cowardice is Bravery”.

                If I can’t convince people that just like school shootings don’t make me afraid of people being free to own guns, you shouldn’t be afraid of Muslims just because of a terrorist attack that kills 12 people? Then I’d at least like to get across to people that being afraid is shameful.

                Fear really is the mind-killer. It makes people compliant and drops their IQs precipitously. It makes people sell their rights down the river for false promises of security. I know everybody feels some fear sometimes, and it can be a healthy thing. But proudly expounding fear as a mechanism to drive public opinion on anything is shameful. It’s like being proud of cowardice.

                Seeing people say, “I’m so fucking scared of Muslims, I don’t even know what I’m willing to do about them!” is embarrassing to watch. …especially if it’s coming from Libertarians.

                1. If I can’t convince people that just like school shootings don’t make me afraid of people being free to own guns, you shouldn’t be afraid of Muslims just because of a terrorist attack that kills 12 people? Then I’d at least like to get across to people that being afraid is shameful.

                  Who said anything about fear? I’m suggesting we don’t ignore that large numbers of Muslims are directly opposed to your continued existence. Skepticism isn’t the same thing as fear.

                  It’s embarrassing to watch you, a supposed libertarian, flail around tossing strawmen everywhere in defense of one of the most vile ideologies in existence.

                  1. “Who said anything about fear? I’m suggesting we don’t ignore that large numbers of Muslims are directly opposed to your continued existence.”

                    I’m not joking or being smug when I say the following: I think you need to seek counseling.

                    This pattern of thinking is probably spilling over into other areas of your life–not about Muslims but on completely different issues. …and it’s almost certainly preventing you from living the kind of life you want to have.

                    A lot of counselors work on a sliding scale, so affordability shouldn’t be a problem. Actually, if the pattern of thinking displayed in that bit I quoted is typical of your thinking, you really can’t afford not to go seek some help.

                    1. I’m not joking or being smug when I say the following: I think you need to seek counseling.

                      Again no argument at all. Just Ken Shultz being Ken Shultz. How boring.

                    2. “KS – I’m not joking or being smug when I say the following: I think you need to seek counseling.”

                      And there you fucking jumped the shark. It’s an incredibly illogical & petty debate tactic to state that your opponents points are insane. Particularly when they have rationally based their argument upon observable data.

                    3. “Who said anything about fear? I’m suggesting we don’t ignore that large numbers of Muslims are directly opposed to your continued existence.”

                      Illogical and petty?

                      Read that quote for yourself?

                      What’s the more pointless activity?

                      1) An atheist trying to use evidence to prove that God doesn’t exist.

                      2) Using reason to convince a paranoid person that their fear is in their head.

                      I worked in a psychiatric hospital for a number of years, and I know that psychiatrists don’t waste their time with option 2.

                      Some of them are paranoid schizophrenics, in which case, they’re delusional and so are their fears. But then there’s your garden variety paranoia–and those people all have rationalizations for their fears. They’re just glass half-scared sort of people.

                      There’s no sense in arguing with those people.

                  2. Yes, I’ll second this. The Fear point seems to be a bit of a straw man argument. Rational fear is justified.

                    It’s rational to assume that Muslim terrorist might behead journalists, blow up sky scrapers and shoot cartoonists in world capitals. Because they have!

                    1. “Who said anything about fear? I’m suggesting we don’t ignore that large numbers of Muslims are directly opposed to your continued existence.”

                      You think that’s rational?

                    2. You think that’s rational?

                      Basing claims on observable data seems pretty rational. Doing the opposite is the territory of cognitively dissonant people.

                2. I’m a gay man and an atheist, I also happen to think that if the prophet Mohammed wasn’t a pedophile then nobody is. So tell me, Ken Schultz, how many times will I be executed in a Muslim country? Islam is a violent totalitarian ideology that spreads hatred toward people like me. I have nothing but disgust and contempt for it. While I’m not afraid of Muslims living in America my partner and I wouldn’t travel to Muslim countries. Check your heterosexual people-of-the-book privilege.

                  1. While I’m not afraid of Muslims living in America my partner and I wouldn’t travel to Muslim countries.

                    And you have several very good and valid reasons not to do so. I wouldn’t characterize that as a phobia or tell you that you need clinical help. I would call that rational.

                  2. ” While I’m not afraid of Muslims living in America my partner and I wouldn’t travel to Muslim countries.”

                    A mild rebuttal to this point. I think just being rationally afraid to go to a Muslim country isn’t justification for fear of Muslim extremists in general.

                    I think a much larger and relevant point is that Muslim terrorists are willing to travel to NYC, Washington DC, Paris, Amsterdam, etc and kill people to silence or intimidate them is what should drive a rational fear of their expected future behavior.

                  3. Certain strains of Islam are more totalitarian than others, that’s for sure. I think it’s safe to say that gay people aren’t officially tolerated by the fundamentalists of any Abrahamic faith.

                    That being said, there are gay subcultures in Muslim countries, and I understand that in practice, gay people are tolerated in certain parts of the Muslim world.

                    In certain parts of North Africa, you’re probably safer as a gay man than you are as an atheist. But then again, in certain parts of North Africa, they’ve been cultivating wine for centuries.

                    But there is no doubt that there are Muslim terrorists who would stone you to death for being gay or atheist, and there are Muslim terrorists in ISIS who would behead me for being an American. The question is how much these people need to be feared by average people like you and me, and what courses of action that fear might justify.

                    I should also pipe up that in the past, my Muslim and gay coworkers got along great. We all used to even socialize outside of work together. I can tell you for a fact, pretty much, that you have nothing to fear from the Muslims I used to work with, and if you were afraid of them for some reason, that would be kinda irrational.

                    1. That being said, there are gay subcultures in Muslim countries, and I understand that in practice, gay people are tolerated in certain parts of the Muslim world.

                      And when the cover on their network is blown, they are usually tortured and murdered, often times not even at the hands of the government but by their family, coworkers and neighbors.

                      But there is no doubt that there are Muslim terrorists who would stone you to death for being gay or atheist, and there are Muslim terrorists in ISIS who would behead me for being an American. The question is how much these people need to be feared by average people like you and me, and what courses of action that fear might justify.

                      It would be unfair to blame such bigotry on a tiny group. 61% of British Muslims want homosexuality punished
                      http://www.civitas.org.uk/pdf/…..ForAll.pdf

                      And you can imagine what sharia advocates (themselves of no insignificant number) have in mind for punishment.

                      I should also pipe up that in the past, my Muslim and gay coworkers got along great. We all used to even socialize outside of work together. I can tell you for a fact, pretty much, that you have nothing to fear from the Muslims I used to work with, and if you were afraid of them for some reason, that would be kinda irrational.

                      Cool story.

                  4. “Check your heterosexual people-of-the-book privilege.”

                    Just for the record, too, I don’t think there’s anything about being gay that makes cowardice any less shameful.

                    Seems to me that things started getting better for gay people in this country once they stopped being afraid and started coming out of the closet. In fact, I thought that’s what gay pride parades were all about.

                    They certainly aren’t about taking pride in being afraid, right?

                    So, fear is still the mind-killer. …even if you’re gay. I understand being afraid of traveling in ISIS controlled territory, but how far removed is a generalized fear of Muslims from homophobia?

                    1. Seems to me that things started getting better for gay people in this country once they stopped being afraid and started coming out of the closet. In fact, I thought that’s what gay pride parades were all about.

                      They certainly aren’t about taking pride in being afraid, right?

                      So, fear is still the mind-killer. …even if you’re gay. I understand being afraid of traveling in ISIS controlled territory, but how far removed is a generalized fear of Muslims from homophobia?

                      Reverend Mother Ken Shultz, of the Bene Gesserit here to tell you gays in Muslim communities that the problem is your fear of discovery, not the murderers who await your discovery with nooses and sharpened blades.

                    2. “Just for the record, too, I don’t think there’s anything about being gay that makes cowardice any less shameful.”

                      You are a coward. You’re an apologist for Islam, a militant totalitarian ideology. That’s shameful. Stop slandering people who criticize Islam. Insinuating that those who disagree with you suffer from mental disorders is repugnant. That’s right out of the Soviet psychiatry playbook.

                    3. “You are a coward. You’re an apologist for Islam, a militant totalitarian ideology. That’s shameful.”

                      Actually, the fact that fearmongering is disgraceful and cowardly–even if you’re gay–doesn’t make me an apologist for Islam, and I am not convinced that Islam is a totalitarian ideology in all its forms and for all its believers–certainly not just because you say so, and you’re gay and atheist.

                      Check your LGBTQ privilege.

                      “Insinuating that those who disagree with you suffer from mental disorders is repugnant.”

                      I didn’t insinuate. I was pretty up front about it.

                      When an individual displays signs of islamophobia and paranoia, I won’t apologize for pointing out a phobia or paranoia when I see it.

                      If people don’t like having their paranoia called out, then maybe they should cut it out with the fearmongering. Fearmongering is disgraceful, and being scared of 1.5 billion people (99.9% of which have never engaged in terrorism) because of their religion is something to be ashamed of.

                      Not something to be proud of. Being able to call out people who are proud of their cowardice–and trying to spread it through fearmongering–is part of what free speech is all about. And I’m thrilled to get to do my patriotic duty to call out the cowards (and paranoids) when I see them bragging about their fear.

                    4. This thread is dead, so I won’t waste my time here. But be assured your despicable (are they also unprofessional?) attempts to pathologize criticism of Islam, your pathetic defense of a totalitarian cult won’t be ignored.

    5. Pew Research (2007): 26% of younger Muslims in America believe suicide bombings are justified.
      35% of young Muslims in Britain believe suicide bombings are justified (24% overall).
      42% of young Muslims in France believe suicide bombings are justified (35% overall).
      22% of young Muslims in Germany believe suicide bombings are justified.(13% overall).
      29% of young Muslims in Spain believe suicide bombings are justified.(25% overall).
      http://pewresearch.org/assets/…..df#page=60

      1. Europe has big problems,I’ll bet polls in this country and Canada would not show the same.

        1. Europe has big problems,I’ll bet polls in this country and Canada would not show the same.

          MacDonald Laurier Institute: 35% of Canadian Muslims would not repudiate al-Qaeda
          http://www.torontosun.com/2011…..-in-canada
          http://www.macdonaldlaurier.ca…..in-canada/

        2. Ours are right in between Germany and Spain.

          I wonder how it shakes out with regard to origin demographics. Arabs in their home countries seem to be quite a bit more aggressive than other Muslims, so if we have a higher proportion of Arabs than France, the UK, etc, you would actually expect that number to track higher than theirs. This could be evidence that we are doing a much better job of assimilation.

          1. I think we are doing a better job at assimilation but at some point we’ll start experiencing diminishing returns as Islam itself is fairly resistant to it’s adherents being assimilated.

            Muslim-Americans who identify more strongly with their religion are three times more likely to feel that suicide bombings are justified
            http://pewresearch.org/assets/…..df#page=60

            The most interesting thing is the European and Central Asian countries with a majority of (native) Muslim populations, like Bosnia, have the lowest proportion of fundamentalists of any Muslim population.

            Support for killing converts to other faiths falls below one-in-ten in Albania (8%)
            and Kazakhstan (4%). 15% in Bosnia, 11% in Kosovo, 17% in Turkey.
            http://www.pewforum.org/files/…..report.pdf

            Those numbers offer hope that Europes immigrant Muslims can become civilized after a few generations, but on the flip side these countries are outliers compared to Islam elsewhere the world, where many of these uncivilized immigrant populations hail from.

      2. “Free Society”,

        I was impressed that you provided a source for your opinions today so I read your comment with interest.

        Quoted from the study to which you provided a link: “Among Muslims younger than 30, for example, 15% say that suicide bombing can often or sometimes be justified (2% often, 13% sometimes), while about two-thirds (69%) say that such tactics are never justified.

        Among Muslims who are 30 or older, by contrast, just 6% say suicide bombings can be often or sometimes justified, while 82% say such attacks are never warranted.”

        The chart you quote doesn’t tell us the whole picture, but does tell me how you want to view the world, and how you want others to view it as well.

        Don’t bother replying. I intend to resume ignoring you.

        1. Don’t bother replying. I intend to resume ignoring you.

          Oh it’s no problem. I don’t see what your point is. The sources I provided are fully detailed and I’m glad you felt the need to peruse it for validity of the claims. Nothing you said detracts from the point that no small proportion of these populations are not cute snugly moderates.

    6. In this case I would suggest that xenophobia is well-merited.

      Or do you think that the inferential distance between a Westerner and someone who would commit or condone anti-blasphemic vigilante executions can be bridged casually.

      1. I don’t think xenophobia is ever merited. It doesn’t mean that I disagree with everything Rand Paul said…he was right, in my opinion, to call out moderates in the Mideast, as well as here, to denounce violence. That is hardly xenophobic, and I don’t believe Rand is either.

        Its really all just a point on how willing Rand will be to confront those in his own party on a whole host of issues, not just immigration policy. And so far, he really hasn’t done much of that. Just a little. And as Nick is indicating he seems to be walking back some of his stances.

        In Nick’s words, some of Rand’s thoughts seem to be muddled.

        1. Xenophobia is defined as a dislike or fear of those from other countries. While it is not particularly justified if country of origin is the only trait in question that is held different, it is justified if there is a high correlation between country of origin and objects which it is legitimate to fear. If (and it is an object of inquiry) a religion posits that it is invalid for its members to be under the rule of secular authorities or those of different religions, and that violent struggle is justified to allow these members a religious government wherever they live (along with the requisite second-class status for non-believers), it is valid for those of other religions to dislike or fear this religion. Again, the inferential distance between Westerners and most Muslim immigrants is simply enormous; why shouldn’t a specific xenophobia be an appropriate response?

          1. Your definition is incorrect, so I’ll let Webster’s define it for you:

            “fear and hatred of strangers or foreigners or of anything that is strange or foreign”

            Anything foreign, simply because its foreign.

            Nick used it specifically in regard to Mexico, and that so many seem to have a xenophobic fear of immigration, and that Rand Paul seemed to touch on that.

          2. By the way, like I said, xenophobia is never justified.

    7. ” and make peace with, xenophobes …”

      Are you suggesting the correct action is to make war with Xenophobes?

      1. Confronting them on the error of their ways would ben nice, rather than pander.

  6. “Wants “Civilized Islam” to Fight ISIS”

    Is he high? Like that exists, or is going to happen. The best you can hope for is Shia savages and Sunni savages duking it out.

  7. Is it a dig at the U.S.-Mexico border, which so far has contributed zip to Islamic terrorism in America?

    Why would they need to sneak across the border, when we pass out visas like potato chips?

  8. I’m not sure that fundamentalist Muslims beheading people and shooting cartoonists because they think their imaginary friend tells them to is significantly different from the US bombing tens of thousands of civilians because of imaginary weapons of mass destruction. Except for body count. Major difference there.

    1. Moral equivalence works a lot better if you’re not a naked utilitarian who defends the use of violence up to and including genocide in furtherance of what you perceive as higher purpose.

      1. I’m not making a moral equivalence. I’m saying Western Christians have killed a fuck-ton of a lot more Muslims than the reverse. We don’t behead them because we literally prefer not to get our hands dirty in the act.

        1. Lol.

          It’s still a moral equivalence even if you fabricate a strawman for the purpose of the comparison.

        2. So it’s not moral equivalence. Western Christians are actually WORSE than radical Muslims. Got it.

          1. If you’re going by body count. If you’re going by who’s swarthier and knife-ier, that’s a different story.

        3. I’m not making a moral equivalence. I’m saying Western Christians have killed a fuck-ton of a lot more Muslims than the reverse. We don’t behead them because we literally prefer not to get our hands dirty in the act.

          The Muslims racked up a few mil in the Armenian genocide to name but one.

          1. Come on now, if that counts then Christians get the Holocaust.

            1. Sure. Except that Muslims were actively recruited by the Nazi state, in part for the rampant anti-Jewish sentiments among them and their fighting spirit. To my knowledge, Muslims weren’t rounded up and killed for being Muslims. So I’m wondering how that’s relevant in a body count between Christians and Muslims.

            2. Nazis weren’t Christians, you ignorant troll.

              1. “We tolerate no one in our ranks who attacks the ideas of Christianity … in fact our movement is Christian.”

                That would be Mr. Hitler referring to the Nazi movement.

                1. In a speech in 1928 trying to garner support for the party among the ranks of lower working class Germans. If you ventured further in than quotes gleaned from yahoo answers, you’d see that Hitler was first a nationalist and for him Christianity was a pillar of support for his nationalism. Hitler’s profound crimes, were for nationalism not the church.

        4. “I’m not making a moral equivalence.”

          Bullshit, that’s precisely what you did. Are you incapable of reading or remember what you wrote less than 10 minutes previously?

          1. No, you see. It’s not equivalent if we’re more eviller than them.

            1. Ding ding. Of course, I’m perfectly comfortable living my nice fat decadent American lifestyle while doing the absolute bare minimum in tribute to the society that affords it to me, and will likely not shed a tear if a few barbarous Muslims psychopaths get droned. But I do think it helpful to consider that they have a different perspective, and understanding that perspective can’t be a bad thing.

              If anything we should be grateful for the cartoon villains making beheading videos in the name of Allah. They suck all the air out of the room and leave their innocent civilian countrymen we’ve bombed by the tens of thousands without any voice. If they did, it might make us uncomfortable.

              1. They suck all the air out of the room and leave their innocent civilian countrymen we’ve bombed by the tens of thousands without any voice. If they did, it might make us uncomfortable.

                They wouldn’t be able to do what they do if they didn’t have at least the passive support of a large segment of the population.

                1. I guess that makes it all OK.

              2. But I do think it helpful to consider that they have a different perspective, and understanding that perspective can’t be a bad thing.

                Yes, the murdering psychopaths need understanding. They’d agree. As long as that entails doing everything they say. Have fun with that. Maybe they’ll kill you last.

    2. And the prize for Most Convoluted False Equivalence O’ the Day goes to…

      1. Not equivalent. We’ve killed a lot more. The motivations are both equally imaginary though.

        1. Not equivalent. We’ve killed a lot more.

          Citation needed.

        2. ” The motivations are both equally imaginary though.”

          That’s called projection. Just because your motivations are imaginary doesn’t mean other peoples motivations are all imaginary.

        3. We’ve killed a lot more.

          Once again, Tony is being an idiot. Tony, we also killed more Germans and Japanese in WWII than they killed Americans. Does that reflect badly on us? No, not to anyone with a brain, because that was also a defensive war that we didn’t start.

          1. I believe it was General LeMay who said that if we’d lost the war, they’d all be charged as war criminals.

            1. I believe it was General LeMay who said that if we’d lost the war, they’d all be charged as war criminals.

              I believe it was Klaus Barbie who said almost the same thing but in reverse.

  9. Poor dumb Rand. He keeps trying to look ‘presidential’ but doesn’t really have any idea what a president looks like..

    The civilized Muslim world IS fighting ISIS. Who does Paul fils think ISIS is shooting at, in all those war videos?

    Young Rand will never get the prezdnomination, just like his dad. He’s local amusement and has risen as high as he ever will.

    1. “The civilized Muslim world IS fighting ISIS. Who does Paul fils think ISIS is shooting at, in all those war videos?”

      ISIS is shooting at Syrians and Iraqis. Most Muslim countries do not have any troops involved in actual fighting.

  10. “And so, yeah, should the rules always protect everyone’s rights? Yeah. But I’m not too worried right now that we’ve infringed on their rights. I’m worried that Christians and Jews are being killed around the world.”

    So are there other groups whose rights he doesn’t worry about infringing?

    1. Yeah, that line concerned me too.

      1. Indeed.

  11. Gunfire and explosions at the Charlie Hebdo siege site, and six explosions in the kosher deli in Paris, and the cops are now scrambling phone signals. Looks like the endgame

  12. I must have missed all the calls for “civilized Christianity to step forward” after Anders Behring Breivik murdered all of those children in Norway to in an attempt to preserve a Christian Europe.

    1. He was roundly condemned by various Christian groups.

      “Yet the Christian community, which has been quick to condemn the attacks, has been making it known that authentic Christianity does not espouse such heinous and immoral acts.”

      “”Norway’s strong Christian history has created a long history of peace within her borders and has been a significant contributor to Norway’s very positive impact on global peace efforts,” Showell-Rogers said in a statement on the WEA website. “Evangelical Christians globally condemn religious violence in the strongest possible terms, and are sickened when such violence is carried out in the name of Christ.”

      “Norways’ Pro Deutschland group said in a statement: “As Christians and Conservatives, we want to express solidarity with the victims of the attacks of July 22. The hate that is driving Islamic assassins and fanatic individuals a la…Breivik is foreign to Christians and Conservatives.””

      http://www.christiantoday.com……/11623.htm

      1. Yeah, but finding out about those would require reading a Christian publication. Ew!

    2. I must have missed all the calls for “civilized Christianity to step forward” after Anders Behring Breivik murdered all of those children in Norway to in an attempt to preserve a Christian Europe

      From what I can see, there’s not even a sizable minority of European Christians who share his interpretation of of Christianity if that was in fact his motivation. I had thought it was about white nationalism. But meh…

  13. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link,
    go to tech tab for work detail ???????? http://www.jobsfish.com

  14. Is it a dig at the U.S.-Mexico border, which so far has contributed zip to Islamic terrorism in America?

    Since no burglar has ever come through the back door, there’s clearly no need to lock it.

    1. There’s no reason to think terrorists would want to cross the border to attack us. It’s not like we have a right to free speech and they don’t want us to use it or anything.

  15. The foreign policy stand of many Libertarians is not to have one, to disengage from the world, pull back, let our allies twist in the wind and stupidly believe in the same ineffective isolationism the USA had before WW1 and WW2.

    The day this country showed the British Empire the door was when it became a player on the world stage and every time we have tried to ignore that it has bit us in the ass.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.