I was`nt clear in my comment. By isolate, I mean isolate the countries that are proven to sponsor, export and support islamic law in any fashion. Obviously, we have a large number of islamists already in our Nation, there is no way to root them out (unless we can summon the will to infiltrate mosques, after all, EVERY islamic terrorist in the U.S. has attended one prior to the attack) As to the murderers being "turned around", I doubt any of the kin of any of the murdered would give any kind of a damn about the murderer "seeing the light", their kin is just as dead. This has been going on for centuries, there is no solution but to eradicate, or deny access to the civilized world, sometimes the only way to solve a recurring problem is to kill it - works every time.

To speed up your Koran reading experience, the first about 1/3 consists of mostly peaceful verses. It was written when Muhammad was building the religion and his strength - before the conquests. The following verses (chapters) get more and more militant as he began a successful career of conquest and pedophilia.
As to the communists in the US, today most are native born, but there were those that immigrated here and simply didn't admit to their party membership. Vetting immigrants was never a perfect process. Some have been quite notorious spies that have books written about. But to this day, immigration (not sure about visits) to people admitting membership in the communist party or other organizations who's goal is a violent change of the US government is forbidden.

I admit I didn't know that. I had been reading the
Koran to see what it said about different things (such as murdering "infidels"), but didn't finish it, and eventually returned it to the library. But there are plenty of Communists already in the U.S. Were they born here, then?

There would seem to be a genocide in our near future. The question that remains to be decided is who will write the history books.

I can agree in part with Starznbarz about almost total isolation and I also agree with most of what you posted above. It does appear that terrorists do come from above average families no matter where they come from or what their religious beliefs are. At this point in our worlds life it also appears the vast majority of terrorists come from the Islamic nations and they tend to use the Jihad as the impetus which I honestly do not believe. Rather I think most terrorists are deranged individuals with some chip on their shoulder that leaves them in search of some deranged relief. We see that in many of our own minority communities. A young black kid likes and wants a nice Cadillac Escalade but they have no hope of ever getting one unless they #1 work hard, #2 get educated or, #3 steal it. Numbers 1 & 2 tend to elude many who do not get the support in the early years but they still have the wants and desires like everyone else. If it was a simple matter of economic class then how can we explain all the offspring of so very many wealthy celebrities, politicians and executives that go to drugs and illegal activities and end up imprisoned. Most are not what we classify as terrorists but they do have terror in them and there are plenty of career law enforcement officials with children in prison and in gangs. All of that aside, I do believe it is a privilege to come to this country and that privilege is and should be based on your worthiness for gaining entrance. You wish to attend schools of higher education for instance or to work in a field you are trained in that does not exist where you are. Instead, our politicians rely on the Refugee status for bypassing the laws and rules of immigration to our country. That in itself can only end badly! Remember the Skittle analogy? There is a bowl of 1,000 skittles or M&Ms and in the bowl there are 5 candies laced with deadly drugs that will kill you. How many will you eat? I am willing to bet that in 1,000 refugees from the Islamic countries there are a lot more than just a few deadly characters. If an American youth finds it hard to excel while living in Michigan imagine how hard it might be for a youth from Syria who is transplanted to Deerborn?

See my reply to GaryL above. Crimes are committed by individuals. We do isolate offenders. We put them in prison. Your solution is to put every offender in prison for life. That's fine, perhaps, but it means locking up people for insider trading, anti-trust violations, speeding tickets, and jay walking.

You might say that you only want to imprison people who commit objective crimes such as robbery or murder. The problem is more basic than that, however. We know for a fact from statistical outcomes that isolating offenders is expensive and wasteful. What does seem to work is re-integrating them into the community by first introducing them to themselves.

See "Moral Reconation Therapy" here:
http://www.moral-reconation-therapy.c...
and see The Redhook Justice Center here:
http://www.courtinnovation.org/projec...

There are many stories from the Middle East about Palestinian fighters and others who were turned around once their eyes were opened (from the inside). The People's Liberation Army of China made great strides against the Nationalists by treating their captives well and then releasing them.

It's little more complicated than that. Allow me to recommend "Engineers of Jihiad." The original research paper is online here http://www.sociology.ox.ac.uk/materia...
And it has been expanded into a book. (My university library has it only in electronic format. My city library does not shelve it all.)

First of all, it is not so much poverty per se or the lack of education per se as it is the perception of thwarted ambitions. If you read the biographies of Dylann Roof, Timothy McVeigh, and Eric Rudolph, you see the same frustration.

Unlike their Islamic counterparts, American rightwing terrorists tend to come from those bucolic, romanticized small towns and rural areas.

The sociology of cities does underscore the point you made about the lack of industry. "Engineers of Jihad" looks at the differences among terrorists from Singapore versus the Palestinians, for instance. Industrial centers are commercial centers where strangers co-operate.

However, if you read the biographies of the September 11 hijackers, you will see that they came from middle class or upper class families. Their economic aspirations were not frustrated.

As for the oil-rich nations, perhaps the ones that fit your model are in west Africa. The Gabon is stereotypical, being ruled by a single family that gets its money in cash. The only paved road is the five miles from the palace to the airport. The Gabon is not a center of Islamic Jihad. On the other hand Saudi Arabia is. Rather than grinding poverty, the foreign workers there in all industries across all ethnicities tend to do as well as anywhere else. Waiters and welders make about the same standard of living there as where you live.

You are right about the disparity between the ruling families and the foreign workers. That was a factor in Kuwait. No one was willing to fight and die to save the country when Iraq invaded. The royals fled and the Palestinian workers welcomed Saddam Hussein's army. That is why Saudi Arabia hired the USA to defend them against Iraq. It was not clear to the al-Saud family that they had enough native fighters to save them in case of an invasion.

However, it was that very American presence in Mecca and Riyadh and Medina that inflamed the Wahhabi.

That all being as it may, the ruling families all along the Gulf know full well that their prosperity depends on foreign workers. They simply do not have enough of "their own people" to do all of the work, let alone to sacrifice them in a senseless war. Qatar and Dubai are centers of international trade.

Most of all, these terrorists - right wing, left wing, Islamic, Christian, Hindu, communist, whatever - do not come from any one place. Though statistical trends are clear, the fact remains that crimes are committed by individuals.

Isolate the problem, contain it completely. Allow no access to, or from. A crude example would be "Escape from N.Y. " Let it feed on itself until its done. It only requires the will to do it, the only weapon we dont possess.

According to the US law, it illegal to enter the country if a person belongs to a communist party or to any other organization that advocates a violent overthrow of the government. Somehow, they forgot to open the Koran and see that it says precisely that.

That's why the Neutron Bomb is so beautiful - except for the destruction at the epicenter, vast areas are left completely intact and lifeless! OK, seriously, I had to throw this out at you because your understanding of the facts related to WWII, on all fronts, is so lacking, that you really need to start over. Past that, the errors only accumulate. Sorry.

To add to my previous comment, one should understand that the goal of Islam is to spread out and conquer or convert other countries. That is plainly written in the Koran. The Muslims are not coming to the US because they want to assimilate and take on American values and become American. On the contrary, they keep their values and want to transform America into an Islamic state. Notice that none of the so called "refugees," supposedly escaping war and imminent death, go to other Muslim countries. They go to Europe and the US. Why? Why are they not going to closer places that have their values and language? When previous real refugees from worldwide conflicts have come to countries that accepted them, they have brought gratitude and tried to assimilate, except for the Muslims who do neither.

Obviously, those that are US citizens cannot be deported. But stopping all immigration of Muslims will prevent, or at least postpone, them reaching critical mass so that they could enact Sharia, as they have already done in parts of England and even Canada.

Beyond that, Islam needs to be recognized as a theocracy (not just a religion) that is militantly opposed to the US Constitution. As such, an educational program should be launched teaching the true meaning of Islam. Islamic schools that breed martyrs need to be shut down, along with mosques that practice and preach militant rhetoric. It is ironic that it is quite acceptable today to completely shut down anyone disturbing a delicate flower's safe space, but hate rhetoric advocating the killing of US citizens is not only allowed, but encouraged with taxpayers' funds! If the American Muslims are willing to break away from the Cairo and Saudi Islamic schools and transform Islam similar to the way Christianity was transformed since its Inquisition heyday, then perhaps is could in the future be viewed as a peaceful religion, as opposed to today's (and unchanging since the 7th century) "the religion of peace," meaning submission. [For those unaware, the correct translation of "Islam" is "submission." The meaning in that there will be peace on earth when everyone submits to Sharia. I am willing to be called a "bigot," but I am not willing to submit to Sharia.]

The hiccup here is that another player, Russia, has injected itself into the conflict, primarily because the Alawite-led Syrian government has been willing to apply brutal pressure to suppress radical Sunnis and maintain the secular state. Russia sees this involvement as necessary, given Muslim activists within its own borders that could be encouraged by Sunni successes and a call for a caliphate.

It is in our interests not to help the Saudis who have instigated the mess in Syria, and strike a deal with Russia for our non-interference. The exchange might involve a closer tie between Russia and Israel, both of whom face real existential threats from radical Islamic forces.

I agree that we should step back and let Iran and Saudi Arabia conduct their power struggle. We should concentrate on keeping the danger of radical Islam away from our shores, but at this point I doubt seriously we can step back and simply say "Never mind." We've been involved too long already, so I expect incoming fire to continue.

How do you isolate the Muslims already in our country? Do we deport them and ban any further immigration by Muslims? Will conversion to Islam be an automatic loss of American citizenship and immediate deportation? Just curious.

DrZarkov, I'd like to apply Ayn Rand's logic, and the thinking of other American isolationists (e.g. Lindberg, B.K. Wheeler, J.T. Flynn), who contested FDR's manner of entry into the second Euro-Asian war, to your reasoning.

I submit that no U.S. intervention in the Middle East is necessary unless you are committed to preserving Israel at American taxpayer expense: essentially distracting Muslim factions into attacking the U.S. rather than Israel or other heretic Islamist factions. As an analogy, the contention of interventionists that Hitler would have destroyed the USSR without U.S. aid, then compelled a surrender of Britain through U-boat strangulation, and then, in turn, destroyed the USA as a superior military force has often been advanced but never logically demonstrated or proven.

A fundamental flaw in this interventionist theory is the concept that modern warfare creates wealth-- that successive military victories over modern states (equally committed to national survival) necessarily make the victor wealthier and more powerful. Another flaw is the fact that, even if Hitler was successful in overcoming and destroying Stalin, Hitler would then have been directly facing the equally racist and expansionist Japanese empire along a broad Siberian-Mongolian-Manchurian front.

The problem with the interventionist theory of Neocons and Ziocons is that modern warfare generally leaves a "scorched earth" in its path. As a statist power drains the blood out of its own nation to advance its borders (as in the case of Barbarossa), it is simultaneously draining the blood out of its intended victim, so after hard-fought victory it is then compelled to move on to another adversary, another victim. This is why an ultimate confrontation between the two hypothetically surviving powers (Hitler and Imperial Japan) would have been inevitable--and in the meantime, the U.S. could have been "keeping its powder dry," preparing for eventual war with what would by that time have become the internally corrupted and drained surviving "victor."

This same scenario should be applied in considering U.S. options in the Middle East. Let Iran, Saudi Arabia, Israel, ISIS and whoever first slug it out (without U.S. participation in the fray)--and then see if that survivor genuinely remains a threat to U.S. interests. Newly achieved U.S. internal access to fracked oil reserves only buttresses the isolationist argument that the U.S. should remove itself from all Middle East confrontations.

"Any attempt to sugar-coat the truth and appease the enemy of life is evil." - and ultimately self-destructive.

Beautifully articulated.
The battle is between those who love death and those who love life.
Any attempt to sugar-coat the truth and appease the enemy of life is evil.

"Mak[ing] a radical [or any other] belief system "il-
legal"?!--This is American?! And then why is not
the Communist Party illegal in the United States?
--No, the terrorist actions should be illegal (though I believe they already are) but there is a difference between a belief and an action. If
people are actually being trained to overthrow
our government, (for instance, being drilled in
the use of guns or other such weapons for it,
yes, then the centers where it takes place should be shut down. Otherwise, possibly
surveillance.

I shouldn't have called it a list.

The books are "Iran's Deadly Ambition" by Ilan Berman and "Winning the Unwinnable War" by Elan Journo

Slight disagreement. The cultures are not mixing. When fundamentalist Muslims move into a country, they work very hard to get their legal system implemented in the areas they line in. They then expand the area they live in , establish their legal system, expand again. a continual process until the county is over 50% Muslim then they say "our way or the Highway". they are the majority and do not shy away from using force to get their way. That is the colonization approach. The other is to just move in militarily and take the country by force. Both ways work. One is quick the other slow, but in the end, the target country is Muslim.
Fundamental Islam does not assimilate. It takes over.

Where did you list the books?

You've read neither of the books I listed. Please read them, then write again.
James Wright

Not at all. Isolate it. Just like Saudi Arabia isolates itself. You don't see any refugees going to Saudi Arabia, do you? Continue doing business with them, if it pleases both sides, but do not mix the cultures. What is happening now, with an unnatural and forceful mixing of the incompatible cultures, will in fact lead to a fascist resolution - by either one side or the other.

So the only solution is to turn the Middle East into green glass, then? "Special" showers and crematoriums next for any we don't eradicate at first? Nietsche said that the danger in fighting monsters is that it's entirely too easy to become one yourself.

Somehow I just believe we're going to have to get fanatic in order to resolve this dilemma. With some minds even in our country believing that someone has a right to terrorize, how can you fight it? Things like "Black Lives Matter", and "Hands Up, Don't Shoot", and other methods of dividing us are little different than any physical terrorism. It’s that mentality of division that creates the physical terrorism. Look at what some of the phony rhetoric has done for our country and to those that we pay to protect us. I think someone (we) will have to go all out to put a stop to the lies and teachings of hate and division, or the whole world will need some kind of a dictator to attempt to control its populations. A dictatorship seems like a much easier way to control people. If they don’t behave, just make them disappear. And the media being complicit in the nonsense has got to stop, perhaps we need a new facts based media to drive the CNN's, MSNBC's, etc., out of business. It's no wonder we had to elect someone that might blunder his way through it, but at least he's got the guts and stamina to really create some "Hope and Change". I've noticed recently that more people, businesses, and even advertisers are again greeting us with "Merry Christmas". That's a good start. It might not be that way had our election gone the other way. In fact I believe that this common sense for the people is more important than the president’s views on any other topic, restoring the faith and support of the people. I was almost frightened to the point of becoming fanatical before the election results. It again restores my faint in the American people. What goes around (eventually) comes around.