Looking at all of your various posts, it's obvious you don't understand the mass psychosis of a mass movement. There isn't an option to "leave the Middle East alone." History shows that left unreformed, Islam will result in the "strongest horse" finally gaining control over other Muslim elements, and after slaughtering any remaining Christians, the next target will be the annihilation of Israel. Israel will not go easily, and nuclear annihilation of most of the Middle East will likely result, creating an environmental disaster affecting us all.

Should the Muslim "strong horse" decide the only way to subjugate Israel is to eliminate its Western allies, the attacks on Europe and the Americas will only step up, regardless what we do. This is a war of civilization against barbarism, and standing on the sidelines will only make you one of the innocent bystanders (or "collateral damage" as it's called in the military).

Assuming, arguendo, all of this is true. The question in today's world is: so what? It seems to me you are trying to justify the 1,000 year war by giving reasons why --- from centuries ago --- we should keep up the fight. My point is the time has come to change tactics. The old revenge tactic is not only not working, it is escalating the war on both sides.

Esceptico, I think the Muslim giving you the history lesson forgot the part where a good piece of the Middle East and North Africa was a "Christianized" Roman Empire before Mohammad was even born. When he and his followers came on the scene they slaughtered and enslaved their way through the Jewish and Christian regions of the ME and NA all the way into parts of Europe including France and Austria. The crusades were a poorly planned and executed counter attack in defense of Christendom, but fortunately for us did manage to preserve what would become Western Civilization as we know it. When it comes to discussing this matter, Muslims seem to start with the crusades as an incursion on Muslim territory and "conveniently" forget the invading Muslim activity that lead up to those events. The Muslims would like us to forget that part of history, too. Do not fall for that propaganda because pre-crusade Muslim history is what truly defines it's ideology, even as it still exists today.

I agree in part. The Bible tells the people to do the same thing and multiply. Which the Christians did for centuries during which they annihilated entire populations. For example in the southern part of South America, the Christians did not leave one person surviving (even converts) giving rise to the phrase "Kill them all and let God sort it out" philosophy of the murders.

Going back to years before the Crusades does not help, in my opinion, today because we humans have learned a lot during the interim period.

In any event, since the policy followed for a thousand years has not changed, and since we are now 1,000 years later during which the Christians changed somewhat, I think we need to look at different tactics. We need to act more like our cousins the bobono than chimps.

I totally get Ron Paul's point. But my answer to you is: because the Qu'ran tells the faithful to go out into the world and smite at the necks of the infidel, which they tried to do 350 years before the Crusades. That's the essence of my point, that they are commanded by their holy book - which is purported to be the direct, unassailable word of Allah - to bring their war to us, to establish a world caliphate. Islam is a different breed of cat. Leaving their world to them won't stop that quest.

JCL, I originally thought that this was all caused by a hangover from the Crusades and the whole Muslim war in europe adventure. Then I saw a program about Hitlers Arabs and found out the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Mohammed Hussein, in the 20's-30's, was an extreme Jew Hater, and he allied with the Nazis, and spent WW2 in Germany. He advocated killing all the jews so they didn't go to Palestine, and made very nasty radio broadcasts through WW2 to the middle east. According to what they said, he basically programmed the arab world into the Jihad idea, against the jews, and instigated numerous attacks against them. he led the battle to destroy the initial Israeli gov't and was considered the patron of the modern Arab political ideal. Whats was more interesting, was Hitler "Best" soldier, a guy named Skorzeny worked post war with numerous ex Nazis to train the Egyptian Army. This was also said to be the real reason that there is such a hatred between the Arabs and Jews, and their mind set was established by the Mufti as "no price to high" for their death. It seems that whole attitude then twisted in the wind to include anyone and everyone who does not support their particular view, and is treated in the Nazi way: we'll just kill you. So, the reflection is this is essentially a continuation of the whole WW2 battles, just with different players.

http://www.jpost.com/page.aspx?articl...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_Sk...

Not all. My point is simply that at some point in a war that has lasted 1,000 years one must rethink the tactics used to end the war --- if ending it is what the goal is. Both the Christians and the Muslims have repeatedly done the same thing time after time: retaliation. Obviously, that has not worked. New Zealand has tried a different approach to criminal activities (there is some relationship between criminal and terrorist activities) and have been quite successful. But, as Ron Paul points out, the Arabs keep repeating they are retaliating for the West being on their territory. Why not have, for example, the US stop meddling in other peoples' affairs, close all if 900+ bases in 140+ countries and mind our own business instead of behaving as the imperialist nation our last 200 year history reveals..

Thank you. Yes, Most of the family lives in Paris, none were involved, but they say Paris is "a mess" at the moment. Now is probably a safer time to visit because the terrorists will most likely not strike again until things calm down, a la Beirut and the other cities they love to bomb.

We are in Arica, Chile, and were watching CNN Chile when the news hit saying Paris had at least 3 explosions with 16 known dead. This was within an hour of when they occurred

"Repress a religion and it will flourish"
--- Frank Herbert, from "Dune"

Blackswan: You say, "This kind of inane discussion didn't take place after Pearl Harbor..."
Well, we didn't have the atomic bomb yet either. The development came later on the race to invent something powerful enough to keep from continuing to lose several more 100's of thousands of our soldiers to the Japanese. That invention led to where we are today with nuclear power and is one of the reasons we are in this mess in the first place since we are constantly harassing, as we should, Iran over their attempt to develop one of their own. Now, you either drop another one or two or three and risk creating total world chaos because that very act would trigger the beginning of a disintegration of any world order. And because that is the only way to get it over with without dragging it out with continued horrifying attacks from both sides.

Now, if you think 9/11 and the Russian plane bombing and the Paris attacks are worth killing millions more to "take it to their asses until they surrender..."

It is never wrong to contemplate the collateral damage to such an action. I respect Khalling for her concern for such a volatile situation and I repeat that it does not have an apparent answer. Now, you can take that to mean what you declare is, and I paraphrase here," a pansy ass response and that nobody is interested in fairness or changing hearts and minds." Well then I am certainly guilty.

Are you trying to draw a moral equivalence between post reformation Christianity and no-reformation present day Islam?

He was elected. Now we're stuck with him, until 2017. Maybe we should be more careful about who we let into the WH.

This kind of inane discussion didn't take place after Pearl Harbor, and no one was interested in "fairness" and changing hearts and minds. All we did was take it to their asses, and we didn't stop until they surrendered unconditionally. Why is there such a problem now?

You can last that long?

Yes, he did. You are certainly right about that.

The man speaks in opposites so frequently that most of the statements he makes are rather chilling. When he says "'contained," I hear "the way is now open for them."

I'd ask O's permission to leave my weapons home... Guns are Dangerous, y'know?

I've been watching Bama beat somebody else and then did other stuff..
Just read it. I agree with Steyn's-- EVERYTHING!

http://www.steynonline.com/7293/the-b...

I'd hardly think of France as 'Rational' or any other place in Europe...but 'We'...in the current idiotic climate... aren't much better...depends upon where the hit happens.

Is Shrillary blaming an Internet video for provoking the attacks?

I stand with you Esceptico and I am truly sorry that you have family in Paris. I hope they are safe and I hope you have heard from them.
I understand what you are trying to say and we agree on many of these points.

That, my dear Khalling, is the question of the century... that has no apparent answer.

Look, I have no idea where you are coming from.But, it is obvious that you prefer to argue than discuss. My statement the "The Islamic people are still avenging the Crusades" was stated to me by a Muslim. In addition, the Paris issue is personal to me because most of my family lives in Paris. Faith and Force, and Rand put it, are the destroyers of the world. Want to go fight? Go do it. And, get donors to pay for it. I object to money being taken from me to go fight a fight I think is not being managed properly.

I find 0 to be almost impossible to listen too for more than 60 seconds.

Mark is extremely intelligent.
some years ago when I would listen to Limbaugh Mark would host the show and I was hooked on him.

Esceptico: Then your statement that, "The Islamic people are still avenging the Crusades", is too loosely stated since it could be interpreted that they have some inherent historical reason/right to "avenge" something against the West. It is clear that they do not.

Fundamentally, I agree with many of your comments but the truth is built upon brick by brick and if the house of truth is to be able to stand it requires that every brick be in place. Even one brick in the wrong place will erode the truth.
-The French opted to bomb on their own. They did not confer with "O", actually it was more a slap in the face to Washington.
On the Crusades and Islam some of your statements are not factual:
-it is about European invasion by Islamic jihadists and not vice versa.
-it did start with the Islamic invasions and after with European retaliation.
-there is no historical truth that Islamists are the victims with the right to avenge

I agree that it would be ideal if the Islamic nations would expiate their own sins/failings and not export them, transfer them to the responsibility of other nations. They should close their borders and either decimate each other or agree to what differences they accept to honor. Either way, the Western world would come out a winner.

I by no means want a WWIII. I agree with you on this and I agree that the situation is highly volatile. However, the more truth we know, the more we can understand, the better decisions we make.