Ron Paul Backs "Ground Zero Mosque," Splitting with Son Rand

  • Thread starter Thread starter SedesDomi
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

SedesDomi

Guest
Libertarian Congressman Ron Paul is breaking with many of his fellow Republicans - among them his son Rand - to support the creation of the planned Islamic cultural center near the former site of the World Trade Center that has come to be known as the “ground zero mosque.”
In a statement decrying “demagogy” around the issue, the former Republican presidential candidate wrote late last week that “the debate should have provided the conservative defenders of property rights with a perfect example of how the right to own property also protects the 1st Amendment rights of assembly and religion by supporting the building of the mosque.”
“Instead, we hear lip service given to the property rights position while demanding that the need to be ‘sensitive’ requires an all-out assault on the building of a mosque, several blocks from ‘ground zero,’” Paul continues.
He goes on to argue that “the neo-conservatives who demand continual war in the Middle East and Central Asia…never miss a chance to use hatred toward Muslims to rally support for the ill conceived preventative wars.”
Adds Paul: “It is repeatedly said that 64% of the people, after listening to the political demagogues, don’t want the mosque to be built. What would we do if 75% of the people insist that no more Catholic churches be built in New York City? The point being is that majorities can become oppressors of minority rights as well as individual dictators.”
“This is all about hate and Islamaphobia,” he argues.
 
This is one area where I will disagree with Ron Paul. While Islam is not responsible for all terrorism, there is something amis when nearly all major terrorist attacks in the past few decades can be attributed to islamic terrorists and suicide bombers. People don’t want a Mosque near the ground zero area because they know that something is wrong with Islam, or at least islamic countries. Countries that treat women like dirt, and criminals like animals, that execute converts.
 
Wow. There’s something I agree with Ron Paul about. I think his reasoning is sound.

That being said, besides injecting my opinion I won’t say anything else.
 
This is one area where I will disagree with Ron Paul. While Islam is not responsible for all terrorism, there is something amis when nearly all major terrorist attacks in the past few decades can be attributed to islamic terrorists and suicide bombers.
Have you heard of Tim McVeigh or the Tokyo subway bomber?
 
Do you wanna re-read Alexander’s comment? Especially the “nearly all” part?
“Nealy all” is too much of a blanket statement for me. Y’all heard of the Basque separatists or the ‘troubles’ in Northern Ireland? Those were not Muslims either.
 
“Nealy all” is too much of a blanket statement for me. Y’all heard of the Basque separatists or the ‘troubles’ in Northern Ireland? Those were not Muslims either.
Ok, let’s take all the relevant parts: “nearly all major terrorist attacks in the past few decades”.

So, do you consider the Basque and IRA incidents “major terrorist attacks”?
 
Well, I’m not going to hijack this thread to deal with rhetorical trivialities.
 
Well, I’m not going to hijack this thread to deal with rhetorical trivialities.
…especially since no one here has enumerated the exact number of terrorist acts over the (2? 3? how many?) decades, so that we can objectively calculate a definite percentage due to Muslims.:rolleyes:
 
Well, I’m not going to hijack this thread to deal with rhetorical trivialities.
You were the one that brought up irrelevant counterexamples in an attempt to dismiss Alexander’s post when he was clear in what he wrote. And if you think defending against such efforts are trivial, well, I guess you aren’t much interested in the truth.
 
…especially since no one here has enumerated the exact number of terrorist acts over the (2? 3? how many?) decades, so that we can objectively calculate a definite percentage due to Muslims.:rolleyes:
Well, let’s see.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents

Staring in the 70’s, there were so many terrorist attacks they had to have separate articles. A cursory review indicates that most are in fact perpetrated by Muslims (with a close second being LTTE).

Another site (obviously not impartial, but looks to have well researched data) shows the sheer volume of attacks by Muslims since 2001: thereligionofpeace.com/index.html#Attacks

Check out the Global Terrorism Database (start.umd.edu/gtd/). They don’t list by the religion of the perpetrator, but I did a custom search. Look at the list of perpetrators, and note how it is dominated by Islamic organizations. And I started to click on the Islamic groups, but I only got through the A’s, and it noted over 1,500 incidents. It didn’t separate them by size or severity, but given that trend, it appears that yes, most incidents of terrorism are perpetrated by Muslim people.
 
Have you heard of Tim McVeigh or the Tokyo subway bomber?
McVeigh was not a Christian.

I’ve heard this a dozen times now from you liberals.

He was agnostic. He said science was his God. Again HE WAS NOT A CHRISTIAN.
 
And if you think defending against such efforts are trivial, well, I guess you aren’t much interested in the truth.
No, the moderator told me he had enough of my hijacking threads. If you want to know the truth.

Back to the topic.
 
I really don’t think that either Rand or Ron Paul, or Barack Obama have anything to say about the subject. Not a federal issue, a decision for the local zoning authority. The only reason I can think of for this location being selected is to deliberately create a situation and get coverage; another “Don’t taze me bro” incident.
 
To add to my previous statement, I would like to say that despite how I feel about Islam and a Mosque near GZ, I do NOT think the state or federal government has a right to prevent this from happening. They have their building permits, they have their contractors, it’s their right to build it. That said, I do understand why people would object to it, but if the government steps in to prevent this, it will be a bad move, and an overplay of their power.
 
McVeigh was not a Christian.

I’ve heard this a dozen times now from you liberals.

He was agnostic. He said science was his God. Again HE WAS NOT A CHRISTIAN.
Not to mention McVeigh’s issue wasn’t with the American people but with the Federal government. He also acted alone. Islamic terrorist do such acts as a direct slap against the people and their way of life. They do not act alone but in unison with a group.

Having said this I don’t agree with the Federal government stepping into this. But that doesn’t mean that the mayor and board should have just blindly agreed to allow this. If this group that is wanting to build this mosque, where truly interested in building bridges they would take into account the many people they are hurting by this and the even larger group who are objecting to this and build the mosque somewhere else. The fact that they are refusing says volumes about their interesting, or lack thereof, in building bridges.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top