I've noticed and agree...it's the number of people who refuse to see what's in front of them that astounds me. He is the enemy within.

I agree.

they dont attack switzerland, known for neutrality- at least not yet. The alternative is to throw out all the muslims that live in the USA and shut down all the mosques and lock down the border (which we should do anyway). We cant have religious freedom here if one of the religions is out to get us.

Won't work. These people (and I say that tongue in cheek) will not recognize neutrality. You are either Muslim or not. If not, you are either converted or are cattle for slaughter or enslavement. None of those scenarios are palatable to me.

I think that we should immediately announce neutrality in this regional religious war and leave the muslims alone, If that tactic doesnt prevent attacks on the US, then we will be forced to defend ourselves- but not until then

It already is done. And the vast majority are...

young men aged 18-35.

Not women, children, or the elderly, but the very age groups that sympathize with terrorists all over the world.

Thanks, State Department!

Yes, and the problem is that the idea called Islam is not rationally based. One can not rationally deal with people who are willing to die for their religion, or who are willing to inflict harm on others who do not believe in their religion - especially when they are winning!

There are an estimated 1.6 billion Muslims on earth out of a total population of about 7 billion give or take. And those who by polling who agree with the tenets of Islam and support terrorism are about 1/2 of these. I don't know about you, but that's a lot of people who you aren't going to be able to reason with - a lot of people for whom the only answer is the sword.

I don't fault you for wanting to talk to them, but the first thing that will have to take place before that will be possible is to put them in a position where they are forced to come to grips with the evil that is the religion of coercion. And for many, that wont take place until many around them are dead.

I don't support going into the Middle East, guns blazing, just so you know. But I also don't support bringing them here to our nation, where they refuse to live by our standards and ideals.

I would venture that it has actually been centuries - for the US alone. Europe has been at war with them since about 800 AD when they built up an armada and tried to invade.

And one of the problems I see is that to a Muslim, their religion IS their politics. There is no live-and-let-live in their mind and their holy book (read it) even says so multiple times. It is probably the one and only religion for which I would make an exception on First Amendment grounds and solely because it is because they are willing and able to enforce their intolerance by the sword.

I actually talked to a young man several times who used to be with the PLO. He was a part of the propaganda wing (rather than the military wing), but he said that that was one of the things Islam had over the rest of the world: the rest of the world just refused to come to grips with the notion that these people were willing to die for their religion - just as long as they could take out someone else on the way. I think we - as the Western World - need to come to grips with this very notion: that while the idea of tolerance is fine and noble, there are some things you just can not tolerate at all.

Worse, they are religious zealots who are intolerant of any thought other than their own and are willing to kill themselves and others in pursuit of their ideals.

Collectivists are evil in that they want to take your money. These people are far, far worse.

If you haven't noticed, Obama is at the very least a Muslim apologist - if not a Muslim himself. Look at the actions he takes:
- he refuses to name Islamic radicals as terrorists
- he continually calls Islam the "religion of peace"
- he re-tasked NASA and set their first priority as Muslim outreach
- he has repeatedly met with CAIR - a pro-Islamic front group
- he has continually pushed for the Iran deal despite the fact that the Iranians are the #1 sponsors of world terror and wholly a Muslim nation run by religious leaders
- his administration was quick to blame Benghazi on a Youtube video when he knew it was a terrorist attack
- the first 10,000 Syrian refugees he brought into the country were predominantly young men 18-33 - not women, children, or the elderly.
- and lots more. I could go on and on.

This article (dated today) is a good, short, explanation of the losing proposition of the current tactics.
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2015/11/j...

True. I think we should announce neutrality in the Isis regional religious war and let the Sunni and Shiite fight it out on their own

Keep in mind all but Rand of the GOP propose a yet bigger military. Incredible as that may seem. The military industrial complex (google the big suppliers of military stuff and the big donors to both parties --- they walk the line between the two) has a lot of power with the establishment.

I think it might be that there is too much money to be made by the military industrial complex that pays for Obama's presidency and especially Hillary's.

I agree with 90% of what you are saying. I think we have the same goal: eliminate the use of force and fraud. The issue is how best to accomplish that end.

What I would like to see is to dull the axe they have to grind by us getting out of their hair, but letting them know harm a hair on the head of western people and they die.

But, the tactic I think has to change is we (we = US in this context even though I am in Chile) have to stop interfering in their politics. 100 years ago, there was no Iraq and no Israel. The mideast is not a US problem. Time to bring our military home.

My post was in address to your statement "The Islamic people are still avenging the Crusades" as told to you by a Muslim. By innuendo the Muslim expects you to believe the lie that the problem began with the crusades and, therefore, the Mohammedans have some axe to grind with Western Civilization. The historical facts prove otherwise. It isn't MY justification, but that lie is THEIR justification make war on the West. The "so what" is having a knowledge of its history can give an insight to what Islam is all about. The "so what" is the totalitarian nature of Islam hasn't changed in 1400 years and you need some historical knowledge to understand that. The "so what" is if Western Civilization wants to retain any of its liberty it must resist Islamic incursion. One lesson of history provided to us by the crusades is if Islam is given a good kick in the teeth and knocked on its butt, like any bully, it will leave you alone at least for a while.

Yes, some tactics have changed as in instead of visible invading armies, the Mohammedans are using more infiltration and terror tactics. This tactic is actually made easier by the West's adherence to, among other things, false doctrines such as "political correctness" and multiculturalism. The jihadists use these doctrines as "Trojan horses" to get behind the walls of Western Civilization and bring it down.

If personally threatened, and I have been in that position, I would kill the attacker. But we are talking about policy issues which go beyond individuals and deal with what the nation should do. A good start would be make sure the US is protected and close the 900+ bases in 140+ foreign countries. I am in Chile at the moment, and asked several people what they would think about the US presence in Chile. They are not happy.

For Chilean civil society, which has longtime experience with US interventionism going way back to the dark days of the Augusto Pinochet military dictatorship, the Concón base raises eyebrows. Human rights groups charge that the actual design of the base - which simulates an urban zone with eight buildings as well as sidewalks and roads - suggests that the Chilean military is interested in repressing protest. According to United Press International, Concón "is growing into a major destination for regional military trainers and defence industry contractors".

The facility is run by the US Southern Command, headquartered in Miami, Florida. The US, which, ever since the nationalist/populist regime of Rafael Correa booted Washington out of its base in Manta, Ecuador,(I think a good move even though I do not like Correa) the US has been on a quest to find alternative sites in South America.

When they do, if it follows the Manta example, areas of the sea become off limits to local fisherman (as one example) and they blame the US. Locals have uncomfortable memories of US-backed military dictatorship, and do not look fondly upon the intrusion.

So what to do? I think Ron Paul is on the right track. In his recent book he outlines it pretty well.

While I agree that current tactics are not working and that past tactics have also failed. I have to ask what you suggest.

I personally think obliterating enemies is the only workable solution but am willing to listen to other options at this point. Though if personally threatened I will take as many with me as possible.

i loved traveling to Paris and beyond...it is gone...soon the same is coming to America....prepare...

A small handful of terrorist accomplished this. Let us stop and punish all initiation of force no matter from what "cause" and swiftly without getting off in the weeds of blaming all of Islam or Muslims immigrants generally. The latter is the path of collectivism and we would do well to avoid it.

The quisling in the oval office has his feet up in satisfaction that the destabilization and destruction that bring about fundamental transformation are taking place, not just in the USA but everywhere.
Does Merkel have her feet up too?

By what right did the UN - a political body that had just been formed - claim to own the land of Palestine - one of the most religiously "Hot" pieces of dirt on the planet - or at least claim "Eminent domain" on it - and after so doing relocate thousands of foreign nationals on this "reposessed" land, call it Israel (because, gee, it'd be cool to direct world events from a biblical perspective), and let the Jews (who back then no one wanted except through guilt - for the horror inflicted on them by another superpower) fight it out. Maybe they'll die... maybe they won't. But since we gave them some land (we as the UN stole from someone else, BTW), our collective guilt over ignoring what had happened in Germany is assuaged.

It would be like this so-called Islamic State Caliphate, once they had the military might, deciding they owned the southeast corner of the USA and declaring eminent domain on it, calling it "New Mecca", and then sending every Islamist that does not strictly follow their brand of Islam to it. Make it a Muslim Homeland. And then arming them to the teeth, and providing military might to kick the ass of the rest of the USA because we didn't agree with it, and wanted to push these "newcomers" back into the sea.

The U.S. has held Israel back numerous times, thanks to our economic connections, but if survival becomes the issue, they won't be prepared to be cautious, no matter what we say.

Ignore history if you will, but the worst, most backward elements of Islam are on the ascendant, and are already promising they intend to see all Americans forced to submit to the will of Allah. When someone tells me he intends to kill me, I tend to take him seriously.

Could be you are right, I always leave that option open. But Isreal is not a US fight. For those who want to support Isreal, I say go do it. But the US government should not be involved. As to most of the rest, to me it has the "selling fear" odor. I can tell you are fervent in your belief. But, then, so are those on the other side. I think the US needs to protect the US, and follow the advice of Pres Washington: Trade with all but don't mess around in the politics and troubles of other nations.