Hell, they kill each other if you differ from their strand of Islam. Just like Christians. Emo Phillips tells it best (and he is very funny) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BDmeq...

I am a Libertarian. It is the only party of principle. the only party that requires its members to agree that the initiation of force is not allowed. As to the threats, perhaps you need to reexamine WHY we are threatened and what are the options. Certainly what the US has been doing for 70 years has not worked and as made the situation worse. More of the same will get more of the same.

Ron Paul explained this as clearly as I have seen it done (below), but more complex studies at Cato reveal the same.

*Beging Quote
Professor Robert Pape, author of the books Dying to Win and Cutting the Fuse, is the expert on suicide terrorism. His studies on the issue, described in his books, are convincing. According to Pape, it’s not religious fanaticism, except for in very few cases, that prompts people to commit suicide in an effort to kill combatants and civilians alike. Rather the driving force behind such acts, according to Pape, is occupation by foreign military. This occupation motivates both secular and religious people to use the tactic of suicide terrorism in response.

Religious people to use the tactic of suicide terrorism in response. Iran, a country of over 70 million people that may be considered among the most theocratic Islamic countries in the world, produces no al-Qaeda suicide terrorists. The civil war in Sri Lanka, where the Tamil Tigers sought an independent state, generated a record number of suicide terrorists. Most of the people who committed suicide attacks in that war were secular pro-communists trying to secure independence. Whenever foreign military operations have been reduced in any country suffering from suicide terrorism, the incidence of suicide terrorism dropped or stopped completely.

Pape came to the conclusion that suicide terrorists have precise goals that are secular and political in nature and focused principally on forcing withdrawal of foreign military forces. He maintains that the suicide attacks against Americans, including the 9/ 11 attack, are a consequence of neither radical Islamic fundamentalism, poverty, nor lack of education.

There is no evidence to back up the neoconservatives’ contention that the 9/ 11 attack was motivated by dislike of Americans’ freedom and prosperity. This attributed motivation is a deliberate deception spread by war-promoting politicians and special interests. It will be impossible to successfully counter the terrorism threat so long as this false motivation is accepted. Efforts to prevent attacks on American citizens by increasing US invasions and occupations, and now killings with drone attacks, will actually make future attacks more likely. The more the US kills, the greater the number of people who will want to retaliate against us. Even if there is a lull in the attacks against us, be assured the aggrieved, especially those in the Middle East, have long memories.

Ronald Reagan, after 241 US military members were killed by a suicide terrorist in Lebanon in 1983, removed the remaining US troops from the area. When Israel and the United States backed off, all suicide incidents ended in Lebanon. This was one huge learning experience for Reagan who wrote in his memoirs of how irrational the people and the politics of the region were. Reagan noted that “the sending of the marines to Beirut was the source of my greatest regret and my greatest sorrow as president.”

It is more difficult to deal with the dangers of suicide terrorism if the actual motivation to engage in it is denied or not understood. US government policy is not crafted to reduce the motivation for terrorist attacks. Instead, the policy generates greater motivation for such attacks. So long as this remains the case, it is certain that the Global War on Terror can’t make us safer and will in time result in more attacks on us.

* End quote

No problem. I thought that it demonstrated very well the self-hatred existing in the Muslim culture. One Muslim extended a tolerating message toward those not of his faith and his fellow Muslims intolerantly beat him to death for that act.

But we are indeed threatened! You are still sounding like a Libertarian.

I clicked, but I fail to see how it is relevant. Sorry.

Slavery as draft is one aspect, though not mentioned by me. The other is theft of my money to pay for these illegal and useless wars.

Not unless we are threatened. They can be terrorists among themselves forever, as far as I am concerned.

Just saw this today and thought it was relevant to your comments:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2016/...

"Is Kelley right?"

I answered the question: No. Muslims hate because it is in their culture. You could take away every other culture and they would still hate themselves - see Iran/Iraq. The Gulf War was one Islamic nation invading another. Western civilizations just provide a convenient excuse/diversion.

"Pape came to the conclusion..."

He's welcome to his opinion, but I look at the history of Islam and see that they have been aggressors from the very start. The US didn't have a military presence in Tripoli yet the Barbary Pirates had no compunctions preventing them from looting and pillaging our merchant vessels - until we invaded Tripoli in response. This researcher is entitled to his opinion, but if one looks back at history, Islam has been waging wars of aggression on the rest of the world for centuries before any nation - let alone the US - began setting up military bases across the world.

I empathize with Ron Paul with his calls to audit the Fed, but on foreign policy, I view his proposed policies as isolationist and naive.

"the Christian culture does not tolerate a difference of opinion either"

This is a red herring. The topic was on Islam - not Christianity. One does not justify one course of action as moral or ethical because someone else is accused of doing the same thing. It is further a terrible argument because one does not see Christians engaging in terror attacks - anywhere. Do they preach their religion? Yes. But they don't go about attempting to enforce it at swordpoint. Furthermore, if one looks at the tenets of it, one finds many opposites to that in Islam, not the least of which is the notion that all are equal (the so-called Golden Rule). One does not have to agree with Christianity, but to assert that it is no different than Islam is to either assert profound ignorance or just blatant bias.


I really appreciated the article you posted at the bottom. I would highly recommend opening a dedicated thread to its discussion (if you did not already).

No one said anything about a draft.
But destroying the terrorist threat is certainly in our interest. .

My proposition that started this who discussion was a simple "yes" or "no." Kelley implied what he wrote was all there was. Is Kelley right? was the question. My question was intended to expand the possible motives stated by Kelley, the media, politicians, etc.

The force part of the "Faith and Force," as a motivating cause, Ron Paul explains by quoting a researcher. It is the next three paragraphs.

(Begin quote)
Professor Robert Pape, author of the books Dying to Win and Cutting the Fuse, is the expert on suicide terrorism. His studies on the issue, described in his books, are convincing. According to Pape, it’s not religious fanaticism, except for in very few cases, that prompts people to commit suicide in an effort to kill combatants and civilians alike. Rather the driving force behind such acts, according to Pape, is occupation by foreign military. This occupation motivates both secular and religious people to use the tactic of suicide terrorism in response.

Religious people to use the tactic of suicide terrorism in response. Iran, a country of over 70 million people that may be considered among the most theocratic Islamic countries in the world, produces no al-Qaeda suicide terrorists. The civil war in Sri Lanka, where the Tamil Tigers sought an independent state, generated a record number of suicide terrorists. Most of the people who committed suicide attacks in that war were secular pro-communists trying to secure independence. Whenever foreign military operations have been reduced in any country suffering from suicide terrorism, the incidence of suicide terrorism dropped or stopped completely.

Pape came to the conclusion that suicide terrorists have precise goals that are secular and political in nature and focused principally on forcing withdrawal of foreign military forces. He maintains that the suicide attacks against Americans, including the 9/ 11 attack, are a consequence of neither radical Islamic fundamentalism, poverty, nor lack of education.

There is no evidence to back up the neoconservatives’ contention that the 9/ 11 attack was motivated by dislike of Americans’ freedom and prosperity.
(End quote)

Getting back to your response, the Christian culture does not tolerate a difference of opinion either and its history is every bit as bloody as the Muslim history. If you substitute the bible for the Koran in you two numbered paragraphs, it is the same. Not close. The same. As to the Constitution, or what shreds are left, Paul Craig Roberts wrote a good analysis of it a couple days ago. http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2016/...

As long as there are differences of opinion, there will always be conflict unless the people are willing to allow for a difference of opinion without resorting to violence. That is the brilliance of the Constitution and our way of government: it allows for those differences of opinion without encouraging violence. Or at least it should.

The Islamic culture, however, does not tolerate differences of opinion and even goes so far as to espouse violence even on people within their culture who don't completely adhere (women especially). I can not excuse their religious philosophy as a primary source of the problem as I have read the Qu'ran. It has two fundamental idea within it that I think worthy of note because they are directly at odds with the notions of natural rights:

1. The Qu'ran sets up and perpetuates the notion that a person's religious philosophy entitles them to different rights than others - not that people have inherent rights simply by being people.
2. The Qu'ran sets up and perpetuates the notion that women are inferior to men and as such must suborn their rights to men.

Because of these two principles, they encourage a culture not of equals with equal standing, equal rights, equal protections, and equal participation, but a tiered approach which establishes ranks of privilege based on birth, sex, and religion. A society of equals fosters tolerance because if one expects respect, one must also show respect. A society of unequals fosters hate, arrogance, and disdain everywhere: between those of a "lower" tier towards those of a "higher tier" just as much as the other way around. Islam hates the very notion that people would be considered equals because it destroys their justification to hate others.

Wars are not begun from tolerance, but from hate.

I don't dismiss the imperialism justification you set forth as an argument. I merely point out that the conflict is not one of territories, but ultimately of ideals.

I also think they are both correct. Kelley’s piece did not present what I will call the Paul point of view and came across to me as if the reasons outlined by Kelley were the only possibilities. My question (was Kelley right or are there other possibilities?) was aimed at expanding the Kelley discussion to include the Paul point of view. This was my first post ever, and if I ever do it again, I will be more precise in my wording.

I can't answer yes or no because I believe both Kelley and Paul to be right in that they each identified actual causes. It is possible for a movement to have multiple motives.

To me, and I speak for no others, I am under no obligation to fight. Even if think I should fight evil every place in the world, I certainly do not have the right to force others to fight or pay for the fight. On a national basis, I think the same way, and I see no US interest in any of wars of 20th or 21st centuries — they simply are not our battles.

But, for a person seriously committed to fight evil (something I do admire), that person should go do so and try to convince as many as he can to join him. My objection is when such a person wants to compel me to go fight to pay for the fight. Those 900+ US military bases in 140+ countries are not paid for with contributions. They not only piss off most of the nations in which they are, but they are expensive for the US.

I agree wrt not ruling the world; but it is Libertarian to say we should not fight evil outside our country if such evil is a threat to us - as is Totalitarian Islam.

I was not trying to limit the discussion, but to keep it on track. The question requires a yes or no response, after which one can explain why you selected one or the other.

Damn that passive voice. All those writing classes gone up in smoke. As to who is doing the telling, we know the victors are the ones.

Sorry Chief, I have done that, too.

I think we Objectivists all agree that totalitarian anything is evil UNLESS the submissives agree to be dominated, beat up and killed. If Islam wants to live or dirt floors and mistreat each other, I really do not care. I just think it is time we got out or trying to rule the world and spend more of our time and resources in the US --- this "novel idea" was advice given by Pres Washington when he left office and said trade with all and do not get involved with the internal politics of any foreign country. In short, we should mind our own business.

My question was a simple "yes" or "no." Is Kelley right, was the question. However, I do agree mysticism is a primal reason. The faith part of "Faith and Force" and used as a supporting (make weight) argument.

My question was intended to expand the possible motives stated by the media, politicians, etc.

The force part of the "Faith and Force," as a motivating cause, Ron Paul explains by quoting a researcher. It is the next three paragraphs.

* (Begin quote)
Professor Robert Pape, author of the books Dying to Win and Cutting the Fuse, is the expert on suicide terrorism. His studies on the issue, described in his books, are convincing. According to Pape, it’s not religious fanaticism, except for in very few cases, that prompts people to commit suicide in an effort to kill combatants and civilians alike. Rather the driving force behind such acts, according to Pape, is occupation by foreign military. This occupation motivates both secular and religious people to use the tactic of suicide terrorism in response.

Religious people to use the tactic of suicide terrorism in response. Iran, a country of over 70 million people that may be considered among the most theocratic Islamic countries in the world, produces no al-Qaeda suicide terrorists. The civil war in Sri Lanka, where the Tamil Tigers sought an independent state, generated a record number of suicide terrorists. Most of the people who committed suicide attacks in that war were secular pro-communists trying to secure independence. Whenever foreign military operations have been reduced in any country suffering from suicide terrorism, the incidence of suicide terrorism dropped or stopped completely.

Pape came to the conclusion that suicide terrorists have precise goals that are secular and political in nature and focused principally on forcing withdrawal of foreign military forces. He maintains that the suicide attacks against Americans, including the 9/ 11 attack, are a consequence of neither radical Islamic fundamentalism, poverty, nor lack of education.

There is no evidence to back up the neoconservatives’ contention that the 9/ 11 attack was motivated by dislike of Americans’ freedom and prosperity.
***(End quote)

Yes. I noticed you used the passive voice. it depends on who's doing the telling. If it's the extremists and their indirect Western supporters, it's entirely a clash of religions.

I was responding to someone else's suggestion I'm looking at groups instead of individuals. It was not a response to you.