Is Kelley Right in his article "The Face of Evil is ISIS"

Posted by Esceptico 5 years, 1 month ago to Politics
135 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag

Kelley substantially states the same arguments made by the neocons and standard conservatives, to wit: the Muslims hate us because of our culture. But, could this be wrong? Is there at least one other motive which drives the Muslims even more than that the standard answer? For example, about 90% of the “bad guys” have said the motivation is the Western World putting their noses under the Muslim Tents. So, if the West simply left them alone to live on dirt floors, would they withdraw with this fight against West go back to happily doing something else, like fighting among themselves? Ron Paul (and others) makes a good case for this position.


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by philosophercat 5 years ago
    Please take them seriously. They believe and act on their beliefs. As Rand said when there is a conflict between ideas the winner is the most consistent. Of all the Islamic sects the one most loyal to the sacred texts is the most consistent. So believe them when they say the West, the secular Objectivist and Christian West, is against Allah. So until the sacred texts are discredited by reason look out.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 5 years ago
      This may not be about beliefs. That is point of my question. That may be a major error in the analysis.

      Some of this can be addressed by reversing positions and the US faces a nation which has over 900 military bases in more than 140 countries and that nation is constantly making war in the US and tell the US how it should run the country. What would be your recommended response? Something like the French Resistance during WWII? If yes, how does what ISIS is doing differ? Or, were the French wrong in WWII?

      Cato has many well researched papers on the subject, but I think an excellent synthesis is Ron Paul’s very personally written and readable, book “Swords Into Plowshares — A Life in Wartime and a Future of Peace and Prosperity” Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity. It is in a Kindle Edition.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Dennis55 5 years ago
    It seems that since the middle ages, the shores of Tripoli, piracy, kidnapping, martyr operations, the reinstatement of a Jewish homeland, they have been killing (and worse) infidels long before our generation had a presence in their sandbox.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 5 years ago
      True, long before "or generation" played in their sandbox (I love the phrase). I don’t think you directly address to issue I posed, which is do the Muslims hate us because of our culture? I think not.

      Some of this can be addressed by reversing positions and the US faces a nation which has over 900 military bases in more than 140 countries and that nation is constantly making war in the US and tell the US how it should run the country. What would be your recommended response? Something like the French Resistance during WWII? If yes, how does what ISIS is doing differ? Or, were the French wrong in WWII?

      Cato has many well researched papers on the subject, but I think an excellent synthesis is Ron Paul’s very personally written and readable, book “Swords Into Plowshares — A Life in Wartime and a Future of Peace and Prosperity” Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity. It is in a Kindle Edition.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Olduglycarl 5 years ago
    First we have to go back to Pikes/Peko...that was the French/English intervention and probably had a great deal to do with today.
    Then came The oil industry and Henry Kissinger, aside from a deal for these resources there was probably the thought that this might be a way to bring Arabs and Muslims into the 20th century...this deal in itself had little to do with today's situation except that they now would have economies that would allow for a push for the Caliphate.

    But lets go back to the founding of our country...almost at the very same time, muslims started attacking French ships with American goods and the demand for Blackmail payments.
    Later when Jefferson investigated it was found that the muslims were ideologically predisposed to hate America...and probably the rest of the world as well...hence our direct intervention.

    Now I have looked at the Quran and it's 109 subversive commandments to do harm to each other and others, not to mention the fascist like insistence rhetoric to convert everyone...lost count after 500 versus.
    Muslims...whom are Islamist by mysticism, by law and politics has NEVER been a ideology of peace and cooperation.
    Now, had the world ignored them there is only a slight chance they would have been happy to fight among themselves in a pagan bicameral barbaric society.
    I think that once one side or the other won and took hold...they would still set their sites upon the rest of the world according to their mysticism's.
    That's my informed opinion and I'm sticking to it, unless you have evidence to the contrary.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ blarman 5 years ago
      And if it hadn't been for the American Oil companies and their work to exploit the natural resources in the Gulf Region, they would still be using sabres and destroying themselves rather than being a real threat to the rest of us.

      When all but two of the FBI's top 100 terrorist groups is Islamic, I'm not going to ignore that. I'm not going to ignore the history that since its inception sometime around 800 AD, Islam has been a religious cult bent on enslavement of others. To think that this somehow is a result of the Western World is naive.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by ewv 5 years ago
        It wasn't the western oil companies that made them a threat -- it was the fact that they nationalized the oil fields discovered and developed by western companies and we did nothing about it.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by plusaf 5 years ago
          I disagree.... my observations back to when I was a kid were that the oil companies DID try to screw over the oil producing companies by not pricing the oil well to the producers.

          After a bunch of Saudis and others got rich enough to send their kids to Stanford for MBA's, the kids went home and said, "Hey, Dad, they're fucking us over. We need to change that."

          And that's when oil prices started to rise above zero and ten-cent per gallon gas was never seen again.

          But I don't think that's Root Cause.

          I think the Islamist fundamentalists are carrying grudges and 'honor revenge mentalities' that date back to The Crusades and maybe earlier than that.

          It ain't just the oil or the oil companies. It's a cultural memory and THAT kind of revenge-driven belief system is REALLY fucking hard to quench.

          And no, it's NOT Boooosh's fault, either.... not him alone. US policies of trying to pick the winners and losers For Other Countries have a batting average close to 0.000, and THESE are some of the results, too.

          Yes, it's complex, and any simple "they're to blame" or 'nuke 'em back to the Stone Age' "solution" is Guaranteed To Not Work.

          but shit, what do I know?...
          Critical Thinking is DEAD.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ Olduglycarl 5 years ago
        I made that distinction ...they would of still riding camels...
        But most say exploit...you do realize that these countries took the lions share of profits...not exactly exploitation.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 5 years ago
      There were may pirates over the years. You make several points with which I agree, but (there is always a “but) I don’t think you directly address to issue I posed, which is do the Muslims hate us because of our culture? I think not.

      Some of this can be addressed by reversing positions and the US faces a nation which has over 900 military bases in more than 140 countries and that nation is constantly making war in the US and tell the US how it should run the country. What would be your recommended response? Something like the French Resistance during WWII? If yes, how does what ISIS is doing differ? Or, were the French wrong in WWII?

      Cato has many well researched papers on the subject, but I think an excellent synthesis is Ron Paul’s very personally written and readable, book “Swords Into Plowshares — A Life in Wartime and a Future of Peace and Prosperity” Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity. It is in a Kindle Edition.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by mia767ca 5 years ago
    muslims are anti-life and anti-civilization...when they attacked our shipping during Thomas Jefferson's presidency, he created the Marines and sent them to Tripoli with orders to kill every man, woman, and child...it worked...the muslims left us alone...it is time to re-send the message..
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 5 years ago
      Jeffy must of missed some or we would not be facing them today. Yeah, go get those guilty children, save the women if virgins. The Treaty of Tripoli made clear that was about pirates and not religion.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by mia767ca 5 years ago
        even the merchants of other countries flew the u.s. flag to keep the muslims away from them...
        today, they do not perceive Obama as having the backbone of Jefferson...
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by 5 years ago
          This, right or wrong, does not address my point, And, to answer in passing, why would not the flying of the US flag for such a purpose in a foreign country serve embitter people against the US?
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 5 years ago
      It isn't we who has to do the job it's given to someone else while 'we' sit safely while the message is re-sent. I spent many years as one of those who were sent and then abandoned by those who did the sending.....Remember that next time you choose that solution. Also remember that when a society treats it's military despicably they end up with a military that despises that society.

      You may well be seeing the results of that right now when I state in this forum 'I wonder if the military is going to uphold it' oath of office?'

      You might well discuss... 'why should they?"
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by mia767ca 5 years ago
        my war was vietnam...every member of my pilot training class who went was killed...my last commander was a 7 year pow...i flew thru boston two days before 9/11...
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by 5 years ago
          How is your comment relevant to my question? I don’t think you directly address to issue I posed, which is do the Muslims hate us because of our culture? I think not.

          Some of this can be addressed by reversing positions and the US faces a nation which has over 900 military bases in more than 140 countries and that nation is constantly making war in the US and tell the US how it should run the country. What would be your recommended response? Something like the French Resistance during WWII? If yes, how does what ISIS is doing differ? Or, were the French wrong in WWII?
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 5 years ago
        I notice there are no objections. Where's the scrotes? Good enough to send us out to die. Good enough to turn your back on the country and the Constitution but not good enough to defend that decision. If I added up all those who claim the opposite then LBJ, Carter, Clinton, and Obama would never have been elected. That does not apply to everyone here. Then there is the despicable left and that includes the RINOs
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by johnpe1 5 years ago
    I believe that their hatred has two tiers::: seeing that
    we are living "high on the hog," they resent the hell
    out of our pleasures in life, which contrast heavily with
    their cultural and religious history. . if they couldn't
    see us, we wouldn't be the great satan. . second,
    they are told by their clergy that the world is shaped
    by their men who expect to be in charge of the future
    as they are told. . and whenever they see influences
    which don't match that expectation, they fight them.
    our intrusion is unwelcome on both counts. . we
    should not exist, messing up their expectations. -- j
    .
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 5 years ago
      Some schools in Muslim Africa use only one textbook, the Koran --- which is shy somewhat in things such a physics. I don’t think you directly address to issue I posed, which is do the Muslims hate us because of our culture? I think not.

      Some of this can be addressed by reversing positions and the US faces a nation which has over 900 military bases in more than 140 countries and that nation is constantly making war in the US and tell the US how it should run the country. What would be your recommended response? Something like the French Resistance during WWII? If yes, how does what ISIS is doing differ? Or, were the French wrong in WWII?

      Cato has many well researched papers on the subject, but I think an excellent synthesis is Ron Paul’s very personally written and readable, book “Swords Into Plowshares — A Life in Wartime and a Future of Peace and Prosperity” Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity. It is in a Kindle Edition.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by DrZarkov99 5 years ago
    Islam has engaged in conversion by the sword since its inception. The Frankish warlord, Charles "The Hammer" Martel stopped the first effort by Islam to conquer the West at the battle of Tours in 732. The times of peace between Islamic forces and Western civilization have only happened because the Muslims were busy rebuilding for the next round of attempted conquest.

    Falsehood is ingrained in Muslim culture, and the "Western nose under the tent" argument is used because it works with the self-hating, guilt-ridden liberal culture that's infected us. ISIS has stated more than once that their goal is the worldwide caliphate. That's one statement I believe to be true.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 5 years ago
      My experience is falsehood is a part of the middle eastern culture. I have known middle eastern Jews and Christians, and lying is part of their lifestyle. I don’t think you directly address to issue I posed, which is do the Muslims hate us because of our culture? I think not.

      Some of this can be addressed by reversing positions and the US faces a nation which has over 900 military bases in more than 140 countries and that nation is constantly making war in the US and tell the US how it should run the country. What would be your recommended response? Something like the French Resistance during WWII? If yes, how does what ISIS is doing differ? Or, were the French wrong in WWII?

      Cato has many well researched papers on the subject, but I think an excellent synthesis is Ron Paul’s very personally written and readable, book “Swords Into Plowshares — A Life in Wartime and a Future of Peace and Prosperity” Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity. It is in a Kindle Edition.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by Dennis55 5 years ago
        You're correct-I didn't address the point directly. I don't think they hate us for our culture UNLESS that includes the culture of being non-Muslim. I don't agree with Bush 43 that they hate us because of our freedoms.
        I believe on a thousand year time line they-in general hate us because we are infidels. Today-specifically-they hate us because as you said we are occupying the "holy sites.".
        I said they hated us before we occupied the sand box. I think events bear that out. The last 15 years and the occupation just stirred the hornets nest.
        As a flag waving patriot and a "radical for capitalism" I must say I do not hold to the neo-con view of occupation, policing the world, nation building and interventionism. As a non Christian, non Jew, non Muslim, non Hindu......I am not necessarily automatic pro Israel. I am not negative Israel, I just don't think we are helping to secure God's home field. I don't think we should have a military presence in countries that hate us. There's the other half of the Middle East. And there's two huge points here. That occupation includes the fore mentioned holy sites and I believe the oil. Now, as long as we are spending our time at home...... let's build the pipeline, drill in ANWAR, simplify the permitting process for nuclear plants. Become energy independent. We could "occupy" and "protect" a lot less of the world. Your Ron Paul reference is spot on .
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by 5 years ago
          I am sure they did hate us (us being the West). Hell, there were untold wars between Christians and Muslims with historians and old wooden depictions of them decapitating each other and send the heads to the opposing side with catapults. But their fights were along the “front lines” and not with tactics of random attacks far inside the lines. Your point, I think, says they hated us long ago, long before there was a difference in our life styles. Therefore, as I understand you, it is not the culture differences that motivates the attacks.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Temlakos 5 years ago
    Let's examine that closely. As far as a Muslim is concerned, they own the world. And also as far as a Muslim is concerned, we are the Byzantine Empire reborn, after they defeated it in 1453 by conquering Constantinople and shortening its name to Istanbul.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 5 years ago
      It's all about socialism vs the Muslim version and controling by any and all means possible. Two wrongs that leave no room for right. But the difference between then? Not much.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 5 years ago
      Christians claim to own the world and heaven. No difference. I don’t think you directly address to issue I posed, which is do the Muslims hate us because of our culture? I think not.

      Some of this can be addressed by reversing positions and the US faces a nation which has over 900 military bases in more than 140 countries and that nation is constantly making war in the US and tell the US how it should run the country. What would be your recommended response? Something like the French Resistance during WWII? If yes, how does what ISIS is doing differ? Or, were the French wrong in WWII?

      Cato has many well researched papers on the subject, but I think an excellent synthesis is Ron Paul’s very personally written and readable, book “Swords Into Plowshares — A Life in Wartime and a Future of Peace and Prosperity” Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity. It is in a Kindle Edition.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by wmiranda 5 years ago
    It is not within Islam to mind their own business. Islam has an fundamental element to conquer and convert by whatever means, using whatever methods. Wishing it were not so, is at one's own peril.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 5 years ago
      Perhaps, but Iran was not very aggressive until more recent times. I don’t think you directly address to issue I posed, which is do the Muslims hate us because of our culture? I think not.

      Some of this can be addressed by reversing positions and the US faces a nation which has over 900 military bases in more than 140 countries and that nation is constantly making war in the US and tell the US how it should run the country. What would be your recommended response? Something like the French Resistance during WWII? If yes, how does what ISIS is doing differ? Or, were the French wrong in WWII?

      Cato has many well researched papers on the subject, but I think an excellent synthesis is Ron Paul’s very personally written and readable, book “Swords Into Plowshares — A Life in Wartime and a Future of Peace and Prosperity” Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity. It is in a Kindle Edition.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by wmiranda 5 years ago
        Your position has been subject to countless hours of debate. But the simplest common denominator has been that Islam has been at war and conquering since its creation. And yes, fundamentalist Muslims don't like (or hate) our culture as well as any other infidels. Everything else is commentaries.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by WDonway 5 years ago
    To understand ISIS, David Kelley refers to Ayn Rand's analysis of the human motivations that drive certain men to want nothing more than to destroy the success, the happiness, of those who have achieved what they could not. I am sure that this motive exists; we see it all around us in the glee at the misfortunes of the notably successful. Yes, there is an "envy" of success that finds its only relief in attempting to wipe the smile of happiness off the face of success.

    Is this the primary motivation of the leaders of ISIS, who instill it into their cadres? I think it is one motivation because ISIS is fundamentalist Islam, the ideological child of Islamic strains such as Wahabism, which dominates religion in Saudi Arabia. Indeed, throughout Arabic Islam, there is a fundamentalist upsurge. And religion, viewed fundamentally, is everywhere and always threatened by human success and happiness on this world.

    What I ask myself, and so far it is a speculation, is what motivated the original, powerful, thrusting spread of Islam in the Seventh Century--you can't get more fundamentalist than that. Or can you? To accept all of the original tenets of Islam in the 21st Century implies a very different level of evasion than it did in the 7th Century. What motivated the Arab armies that charged across North Africa and into Iberia, sweeping all before it, was a conviction of spreading the truth and salvation. I do not discount that looting and sex slavery motivated the specific troops.

    And yet, Wahabism and related variants of Islam have long existed in Arabia, arguably as fundamental as ISIS but without its central focus on attacking the West. If ISIS espouses the same variant of Islam as Wahabism, then what is different? Why are the cadres of ISIS mad dogs frothing with hatred for Western reason, material success and enjoyment, freedom of women and sexual enjoyment--in a word: the modern world of man at home on Earth?

    I would suggest only that we consider the nature of terrorism as a tactic. Modern terrorism originated in the Middle East--indeed, British historian Paul Johnson identifies its beginning with the emerging Jewish state and its struggle to drive Britain out of Palestine.

    Later, terrorism was manifested in the struggle in Algeria against the French presence. Today, it is rampant in Hamas, which kills more Palestinian
    "collaborators" with Israel than the Israelis kill in suppressing rebellion.

    A key is to understanding how "fundamentalists," "radicals," hardliners" use terrorism. The goal of terror tactics everywhere is to destroy the moderate leaders--murder or silence them, as does Hamas--and to radicalize the population, sway them toward radical opposition.

    It is possible that the Islamic fundamentalists, radicals, of ISIS are acting on the logic of terrorism, which is to provoke the liberal, tolerant rulers of a country like France or Belgium into attacking, isolating, and alienating their moderate, peaceful Muslim citizens. In other words, to use horrific bombings to terrorize a population, forcing the state to repress all Muslims and so to convince them that their fundamentalists are their only recourse and represent their best interests.

    This terrorist tactic is not inconsistent with the motivation of fundamental Islam to strike out at the worldly West. But the targeting at European states with large Muslim populations, and the specific tactic of terrorizing purely civilian populations, is so typical of the dynamics of terrorism that we cannot ignore that explanation.

    The true hatred of the fundamentalist is directed at those of their own religion who live their lives in peace and enjoyment, aware of the "great cause" by unmoved by it. If Europe can be terrorized into disrupting that live of the Muslim moderates, then the cadres of the faithful, of ISIS, will grow.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ blarman 5 years ago
      I would argue that terrorism actually goes back much further, but that it is our constricted notions of civility and nation-states which have changed. I would suggest the Geneva Convention and its definitions of "conventional" warfare as the culprit. Remember, Muslims were terrorizing the trade routes of the Mediterranean well before even the US under Jefferson retaliated.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by 5 years ago
        Terrorism does go way back, but that is not what I am asking. You make several points with which I agree, but (there is always a “but) I don’t think you directly address to issue I posed, which is do the Muslims hate us because of our culture? I think not.

        Some of this can be addressed by reversing positions and the US faces a nation which has over 900 military bases in more than 140 countries and that nation is constantly making war in the US and tell the US how it should run the country. What would be your recommended response? Something like the French Resistance during WWII? If yes, how does what ISIS is doing differ? Or, were the French wrong in WWII?

        Cato has many well researched papers on the subject, but I think an excellent synthesis is Ron Paul’s very personally written and readable, book “Swords Into Plowshares — A Life in Wartime and a Future of Peace and Prosperity” Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity. It is in a Kindle Edition.

        Last week I went to the site of a beheading massacre of indigenous people because they were "in the way" and this was done by Christians on Tierra del Fuego island (Chile) --- and only a few hundred years ago. Religion is not the issue, in my opinion.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ blarman 5 years ago
          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.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by 5 years ago
            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/...
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by $ blarman 5 years ago
              "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).
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by $ blarman 5 years ago
              Just saw this today and thought it was relevant to your comments:

              http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2016/...
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by 5 years ago
                I clicked, but I fail to see how it is relevant. Sorry.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by $ blarman 5 years ago
                  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.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by 5 years ago
                    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...
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by $ blarman 5 years ago
                      Excuse me? I don't see anything on the news about Christians assaulting each other (let alone others).

                      To quote a line from Star Wars IV: "Stay on target!"
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by 5 years ago
                        Are you a Christian?
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Posted by $ blarman 5 years ago
                          Your post was on Islam and the question of whether or not their anger as directed towards the rest of the world was justified by the presence of foreign military installations. Now since you own the post, I'll give you some leeway as to taking the topic where you want (despite lecturing others about diverging), but if you're going to diverge and start including other religious groups, you'd better start off by making a very firm equivalency between them based on principle. Christians seem to be a big target for some reason, but I'd defend Sikhs, Buddhists, Hari Krishnas, Wiccans, Jews, or anyone else from a comparison to any other group (especially Islam) simply because their basic tenets differ to the point that they render objective comparisons void.

                          That's why I stay away from the generalizations period. I stick to principles. Once I determine that any given principle is invalid, I can automatically eliminate any religion or philosophy which advocates that principle.

                          If you are bent on looking at the atrocities committed in the name of philosophy, I don't think any religion can come even close to that of the communist regimes of Hitler's Germany, Stalin's Russia, Mao's China, etc., which between them racked up an estimated 200 million deaths in the past century alone. I would also remind one that Russia controlled Afghanistan for more than 40 years during the era of Communism and the Afghanis (primarily Islamic) fought against the Russians there even though they aren't part of Western thought.

                          If you want to pm me about specific belief sets, I'll entertain your question.
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                          • Posted by 5 years ago
                            You need to re-read my post. My question was simply whether Kelley was right in his article because I thought Kelley omitted other motives and asked about that --- from which you (and others) have expanded the discussion.
                            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 5 years ago
        God created man in his image and bid him go forth thou art equal. Gave him the capacity to think, but left the manual, the on and off switch location, and the requirement to do so out of the Ten Commandments and the Golden Rule. What a trick to play on the leftists. Cruel and Unusual? Not in the least . Deserved and unavoidable -..heh heh heh Exactly.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
        • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 5 years ago
          All gave the same to the Muslims except one in how many are not equipped with the switch. No problem. Appointments are still available. It would be inhuman otherwise.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 5 years ago
      A quite accurate portrayal but it leaves out the use of terrorism and how it spread in different parts of the world. Something we studied quite closely at Fort Bragg. and on duty assignments in various places. The rule was if you wanted to study something that was frowned upon you did it by reversing the name.

      For example Lock Picking became Defense Against Mechanical Entry.

      Much of terrorism as a strategy and a tactic were taught at schools in the Soviet Union, no big secret, as well as in the schools of the US military. One was listed as revolutionary warfare and was political heavy. The other was listed as counter-revolutionary or insurgency and counter insurgency.

      No matter which side it was heavily political which led to detailed area studies of any particular society. Included were psychological warfare and propaganda techniques designed to influence a target population. You can find the same modified or purpose built in the USA political system and especially in the Secular Progressive group. All the principles and tenets are the same.

      Carlos Marighella of Brazil (Mini Manual for Urban Guerrilla) developed (with others) the circle or cycle of repression and used it in an attempt to take over Brazil. Executed. But the system refined itself and went to nearby Uruguay for use by the Tupamaro Guerrillas.

      The system was oriented towards suburbs and cities more so than the backwoods mountain and jungle terrain favored by the Cuban revolution and adopted by Che Guevara. An interesting and fairly accurate portray of Guevara is included in the fiction series by W.E.B.Griffin.. He was captured after being turned in by a local Bolivian farm who grew weary of having his crops stolen. And executed by the Bolivian Army reportedly because one of his little band was having his way with a local farmers daughter. The brother seeking revenge. That's unconfirmed. Bolivia wanted him dead, The US counter insurgency people wanted him kept alive to show his continued string of failures Africa included.

      The cycle or circle itself states and calls for the use of terror tactics so a small underfunded and weak revolutionary movement could find success against a popular government. In the Switzerland of South America or Uruguay they came close to succeeding.

      It called for an action with a lot of blood, deaths, and local innocent meaning not in the government or the military people killed but EACH time using a different location, method, etc. so the government never knew what to defend. The government did have to suspend civil liberties in increasing numbers and that cycled through time and again gradually turned the populace against the defenders and in favor of the perpetrators.

      Marighella missed one point which is now in use world wide. The perpetrator did not have to be a rebel force but could be the government itself.

      Flash forward to TSA and the Patriot Act where the initiation of each action is based on manufactured or actual crisis points and a few other embellishments.

      What I'm getting at is what we also learned decades ago at Fort Bragg ....It's a more effective strategy ye olde cycle of repression when part of an in country political control movement. Add the word economic and look no further than the socialist left for your answer and never forget it's members are what I call the Government Part or Coalition and what now can also fairly be called a one party system of government.

      Terrorism for a long time has been more state sponsored around the world. We are not exempt.

      So far it's cost us the Bill of Rights, Civil rights and a good chunk of our monies buying power.


      How effective? You see any possible candidate of the three front runners who don't fit the picture? The success of this effort is laudible when measured by the amount of people that still babble about civil and constitutional rights and have yet to have a clue those are gone.

      The events of December 31st were all but ignored as the ability to arrest you or me or anyone was extended from suspicion of terrorism (no explanation or evidence required) to suspicion of supporting terrorism.

      Forget about probable cause, rights card, phone call, lawyer, judge, jury etc. Stay fat, dumb and happy until it's your turn.

      Ignorance is no excuse. You brought it on yourself. State sponsored terrorism at it's refined finest.

      Ready, and waiting....

      Don't Worry Be Happy you have one right left. Picking the flavor of the next cycle Clintonistas or Trumpeteros. I'm discounting Bernie at this point. In the end he'll rejoin the fold having prepared a flock of new recruits for the Protective Echelon. How do you like that choice of apples. Worms on the inside Red on the outside.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 5 years ago
      You make several points with which I agree, but (there is always a “but) I don’t think you directly address to issue I posed, which is do the Muslims hate us because of our culture? I think not.

      Some of this can be addressed by reversing positions and the US faces a nation which has over 900 military bases in more than 140 countries and that nation is constantly making war in the US and tell the US how it should run the country. What would be your recommended response? Something like the French Resistance during WWII? If yes, how does what ISIS is doing differ? Or, were the French wrong in WWII?

      Cato has many well researched papers on the subject, but I think an excellent synthesis is Ron Paul’s very personally written and readable, book “Swords Into Plowshares — A Life in Wartime and a Future of Peace and Prosperity” Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity. It is in a Kindle Edition.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 5 years ago
    I would like to think that Kelly is right. However, let me tell you about an old friendship I had with an African man who was related to some important people in the struggles in that beleaguered continent. We talked with complete honesty for many hours. I met him in college and saw him off and on over the years. His distillation of hatred for America was nothing like I hear today. I'll try to replicate it for you in a few sentences. He said (paraphrase) "If I went barefoot all my life, and I met someone wearing shoes, I'd want those shoes. It didn't matter if they hurt my feet, they awakened a desire for shoes. But, I can't get them. I have no money. However, as civilization encroaches upon me, I find many things I cannot have. Before my exposure to Western Culture, I was content with what I had. But now I am filled with envy knowing I can never have those things. I am filled with envy which leads to hatred. Then I am told that I am blessed, because if I can help destroy those wealthy people, I will go to a paradise so beautiful that I can hardly imagine it."
    I'm sure you can figure out the rest. This was what this man observed and fervently believed. It combined ignorance, envy, and anger. Throw in a mystical promise to a superstitious people and you eventually have 200 million useful idiots. Actually not idiots, just fools.
    This man disappeared around 25 years ago.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 5 years ago
      Maybe not only fools. It is impossible to know what drives people with any clarity. This, of course, was necessarily anecdotal and I wonder how widespread this is as compared with constant drilling in that the imperialist US wants you country.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jbrenner 5 years ago
    Kelley is right on this one, although you and Ron Paul are right for the most part as well. The one question that is critical though is "Would they withdraw with this fight against the West to happily do something else?" Unfortunately, the answer is no. The primary reason why Muslims did not attack us much prior to the last 25 years is because of the difficulty in getting across oceans prior to then. When we ventured into their part of the world, but did not involve them, they thought that it was necessary for us to pay tribute (i.e. the Barbary pirates' situation during Jefferson's presidency).
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by tdechaine 5 years ago
    Kelley is right except in defining the enemy properly (at least by the quote above): the face of evil is totalitarian Islam, not merely ISIS.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 5 years ago
      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.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by tdechaine 5 years ago
        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.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by 5 years ago
          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.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by tdechaine 5 years ago
            No one said anything about a draft.
            But destroying the terrorist threat is certainly in our interest. .
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by 5 years ago
              Not unless we are threatened. They can be terrorists among themselves forever, as far as I am concerned.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by tdechaine 5 years ago
                But we are indeed threatened! You are still sounding like a Libertarian.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by 5 years ago
                  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
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by tdechaine 5 years ago
                    You and Pape are simply wrong. And - BTW - Libertarianism holds very contradictory principles and lacks others (too much to discuss here but you can find it within Obj. materials).

                    You can't blame the US for terrorism. No one would commit suicide simply because of our M.E. involvement. Islam has preached hate for thousands of years; terrorism did not start with our actions. Your argument is no different in principle than that made in favor of Palestinians over Israel which is equally ridiculous.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by 5 years ago
                      You sound like an adherent to ARI, the dogmatic part of Objectivism when you repeat their mantra about LP.

                      Upon what basis do you make the proposition "No one would commit suicide simply because of our M.E. involvement?"
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by tdechaine 5 years ago
                        Yes I am an Obj.ist; and there is no dogmatic part.

                        It is not in the nature of man - especially a large sector of mankind - to commit suicide in order to get revenge. But it is a part of the Islam teachings to do so, and you know what people do in the name of religion.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Posted by 5 years ago
                          ARI strand is dogmatic, well analyzed by Shermer years ago in one of his books, but so much so I elected not be involved with ARI.

                          The Japanese had suicide bombers in WWII, and they were not Muslim. Your perhaps a broader perspective is in order.
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                          • Posted by tdechaine 5 years ago
                            Note that you are demonstrating why the Libertarian foreign policy will always stop that party from winning elections. Lib.s started off as an off-shoot of Obj.ism, then deviated significantly on moral and political grounds. This has led to many contradictions with Obj. metaphysics and epistemology that Lib.s tend to ignore.
                            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                            • Posted by 5 years ago
                              The Libertarian Party DID NOT start as an offshoot of Objecitivism and it is far larger than adherents to Objectivism have ever been. Rand, at her height, had only 20,000 subscribers to her newsletters (of which I was one).

                              LP is nothing more than a political party that says you cannot initiate the use of force. This is true despite what Rand claimed the LP to be.

                              In that regard, Objectivism (which is a philosophical system) holds the same principle. The whole offshoot myth started with Rand setting up a strawman definition of Libertarian, then attacking it. I know. I was there.

                              I have been an Objectivist since 1962 and I have seen a lot of dogmatism and "inner clique" crap in Objectivism. In the old days, Rand and her inner circle attacked anyone not in the inner circle who claimed to be an Objectivist and ordered that such people are not Objectivists unless blessed by Rand and must call themselves a “Student of Objectivism” until such time as receiving the blessings. Objectivism has been every bit as cultish and dogmatic as Scientology. ARI seems to have continued the cult tradition.

                              Shermer wrote a very good chapter entitled “The Unlikeliest Cult of All” (or something similar) in one of his books, I seem to recall the book was “Why People Belief Weird Things,” but I am out of the country now and cannot check my library.
                              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                              • Posted by tdechaine 5 years ago
                                I attended one of the first Lib meetings in NY - it was primarily full of Rand followers - obviously not true Obj.ists. But you are right: nothing more than a political party - void of Epis./Moral principles that has caused it members to be all over the lot philosophically and inconsistent wrt foreign policy.

                                You are not an Obj.ist. You must properly define "dogma". The so-called inner circle simply did not - could not afford to - allow people to call themselves Obj.ists who were not consistently holding her principles. That's the difference between philosophy and merely a non-principled-based political movement. It is absurd to call Obj.ism a cult or dogmatic. It is sad that you use Shermer as your source.
                                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                                • Posted by 5 years ago
                                  You are more than a little arrogant to tell me I am not an Objectivist. Sounds just every other cult claiming anyone who does not toe the line of dogma spouted, then the denounced individual is not one of the blessed. I found this to be the attitude of the Rand/Peikoff adherents and chose not to associate with such individuals because I deemed them to be closed minded.

                                  I am not going to define every commonly used word like dogma. For this I refer you to the Oxford Dictionary of the English language.

                                  I don't know what you mean by Shermer as my source. What I said is his explanation of dogmatic Objectivism is excellent.

                                  To me, the most miserable part of the Gulch is that the attitude of too many people is like yours. You want to fight, not explore. But, worse, your reactions are textbook cognitive dissonance, and that is not good.
                                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                          • Posted by tdechaine 5 years ago
                            What is "ARI strand"?
                            You are reading the wrong books!
                            I have been an Obj.ist for nearly 50 years and have never seen dogmatism. There is rational justification for all Obj. beliefs and principles.

                            Japan: that was about imperialism and their view that their country was the land favored by the Gods. Their attack was partially a result of the West push-back of their military expansion.
                            Wherever religion and totalitarian power over a country's people were not a significant component of revenge, suicide has not been so acceptable in the name of said revenge.
                            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 5 years ago
    I do think we are getting retaliation for attacking muslims in their lands. It just makes sense. That said, it IS in their "bible" to kill all infidels, and non-muslims ARE infidels by definition.

    We should leave them alone in their lands, but I think its perfectly OK to not want people in our lands who believe in their culture and are willing to kill me for not believing in it.

    This political correctness about wanting all immigrants no matter what they believe is BS. I want to live around people who think the way I do, and thats that. Why should we be forced to be happy around violent muslims, entitled blacks, socialist south americans, or whatever. Doesnt mean we string up anyone we dont like, but why not have tribal neighborhoods as in most of human history.

    Whats so wrong about people of a culture feeling more comfortable around others who think alike, and wanting to live around them? Probably would make a good topic sometime for an interesting politically incorrect discussion.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 5 years ago
      We agree, again. You might add that according the Abrahamic bible says to kill all infidels, and non-believers in their view of the bible, should be killed. Last week I visited the scene of massacre of beheading indigenous people on Terra del Fuego, Chile, because they were in the way of farming. The murderers were Christian.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by term2 5 years ago
        Religion of alll types has been used to justify killing a lot of people over the ages. Currently the Shiite and Sunny muslims cant even keep from killing each other. Crazy. I loved Bill Maher's RELIGULOUS movie (about the ONLY thing I like that he has done). Its probably on netflix even.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by jimjamesjames 5 years ago
    Islam is a belief. Christianity is a belief. A belief, by definition is neither truth nor fact. Beliefs are chosen, facts and truth are not. Islam's belief system is used to justify what they do, just as the Christian belief is used to justify what they do. As long a Muslims "believe" what is in the Koran, they are justified..... It is not ISIS that is the "face of evil," is the foundation of the belief system: It is Islam.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by jabuttrick 5 years ago
      Close. It is mysticism.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by 5 years ago
        Judge, I don’t think any of this directly address to issue I posed, which is do the Muslims hate us because of our culture? I think not.

        Some of this can be addressed by reversing positions and the US faces a nation which has over 900 military bases in more than 140 countries and that nation is constantly making war in the US and tell the US how it should run the country. What would be your recommended response? Something like the French Resistance during WWII? If yes, how does what ISIS is doing differ? Or, were the French wrong in WWII?

        Cato has many well researched papers on the subject, but I think an excellent synthesis is Ron Paul’s very personally written and readable, book “Swords Into Plowshares — A Life in Wartime and a Future of Peace and Prosperity” Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity. It is in a Kindle Edition.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by jabuttrick 5 years ago
          Some muslims hate all non-muslims because they believe their God tells them to convert, hate or kill the non-muslims. They think this because they believe an invisible, omniscient, omnipotent guy in the sky communicates with them via ancient writings or direct communication and has told them so either directly or through intermediaries. They think they are waging a God directed holy war and will be rewarded in the afterlife. As noted, these are only some muslims. The other muslims have other beliefs regarding non-muslims also based on what their religion tells them. You are correct that some muslims also dislike the US because of the US government's incessant meddling in the middle east. That is the Paul argument. There is some validity to the culture argument also. Some muslims, I would guess, have all three sets of motivations (and, I dare say, there are other motivations that don't come immediately to mind). I would say this, however. I think mysticism is at the root of the religious conflicts which themselves constantly devolve into political and military conflicts in the middle east. That is because religion and politics are fused in those societies in a manner mostly unknown to us.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by $ Dobrien 5 years ago
            They are taught to hate us.
            It's mind control in the madrassa not to different from our current public Ed system.
            Join the crowd don't think for yourselves.
            Blame, be a victim , all know mentalities that lead to no personal responsibility and the destruction of civility.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by 5 years ago
            True as that may be, The Christians are no different. Emo Phillips tells it best (and he is very funny) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BDmeq...

            That, however, still not address my point: which is do the Muslims hate us because of our culture?
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by jabuttrick 5 years ago
              That is one factor, yes. But mysticism is the primal reason.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by 5 years ago
                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)
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by jabuttrick 5 years ago
                  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.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by 5 years ago
                    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.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by plusaf 5 years ago
      I try to call 'it' Radical Islamism or something like that.
      I don't believe it's "all Muslims" although I'm still waiting for their Vast Majority to make more noise and try to stop the Radical factions from doing the horrible shit they do.
      Sometimes I call 'em just Islamists: the morons who think they're getting virgins in heaven if they kill non-Believers. Killing people who don't follow the beliefs of their particular cult, and cult is what it is, by any rational definition or observation.
      Fortunately, it looks like more people are waking up to the danger, at least in parts of Europe and maybe a few in the US.
      I just hope it's not too late. I'd love to live out my days in comfort and peace and health, and with my head attached firmly to my body.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by 5 years ago
        I don’t think you directly address to issue I posed, which is do the Muslims hate us because of our culture? I think not.

        Some of this can be addressed by reversing positions and the US faces a nation which has over 900 military bases in more than 140 countries and that nation is constantly making war in the US and tell the US how it should run the country. What would be your recommended response? Something like the French Resistance during WWII? If yes, how does what ISIS is doing differ? Or, were the French wrong in WWII?

        Cato has many well researched papers on the subject, but I think an excellent synthesis is Ron Paul’s very personally written and readable, book “Swords Into Plowshares — A Life in Wartime and a Future of Peace and Prosperity” Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity. It is in a Kindle Edition.



        Last week I visited the scene of massacre of beheading indigenous people on Tierra del Fuego, Chile, because they were in the way of farming. The murderers were Christian.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by plusaf 5 years ago
          Quantity (body count) and goal of the massacres?
          I think there might be apples-and-oranges going on there...
          Did the farmers have a choice of convert (i.e., move) or die?
          I'm not trying to say other cults don't do wanton killing in the name of their 'gods.' Whether it was Christians or Muslims doing the beheading is horrible to me.
          Christians drowned alleged witches, too, and in the US, right? Doesn't mean any of them were justified in what they did.

          It's just when a religious cult advertises that it's their way or the highway and they're going to subjugate or kill anyone who argues or resists, it just occurs to me that their doctrine and tactics deserve a new examination and some changes to the 'way we do business with them' is in order.
          Hope that helps. I never said other cults never do shitty things. But like the atrocities of WWII, the cult's reasons and strategies (and "success rates") can make a BFDifference in how I think we should respond to them.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by 5 years ago
            I agree, and that includes the Christians who were the victors and wrote the history we are taught in government and other schools. Convert or die was the message given to the indigenous people by the Christians in what is now Argentina and Uruguay. The locals said no. The Christians murdered every man, woman and child. In Patagonia, Tierra del Fuego, the indigenous people were told to get out of the way and allow the Christian farmers to farm. They said no. The Selknam Genocide was authorized and conducted by the farmers and between 1884-1900 resulted in a severe indigenous population decline. Large companies paid sheep farmers or militia a bounty for each Selk'nam dead, which was confirmed on presentation of a pair of hands or ears, or later a complete skull. They were given more for the death of a woman than a man — thus giving more than equal pay to women. Almost all were murdered and the last of the Selknam survivors (a woman) died of old age (as I recall) in the 1980s.

            As to response in today's world, what the US and West has being doing for the last 70 years obviously does not work as show by the fact the violence is increasing rather than decreasing. Perhaps it is time to reassess the situation.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by CircuitGuy 5 years, 1 month ago
    "Is there at least one other motive which drives the Muslims even more than that the standard answer?"
    I reject the premise that it's about religion. I think it's about reason vs lack of reason. Here is a good post on that: https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post...
    "if the West simply left them alone to live on dirt floors, would they withdraw with this fight"
    Maybe, but I still think there were be unhinged mass murderers in the world, and occasionally they'll act in a way that affects a city you or I know. We want an extraordinary cause to attach to the extraordinary sorrow. We're tempted to blame it on guns, religion, or poverty, not the uncomfortable answer that mass murder is a human behavior that crops up. Maybe we'll find away to stop it. It's not as simple as blaming it on religion.

    The Daily Show explained it this comical way:
    John Oliver: When you’re a bankrupt ideology pursuing a bankrupt strategy, the only move you have left is the dick one.
    Jon Stewart: When will these mother$#@&ers go away?
    John Oliver: They probably won’t, there have always been mother$#@&ers, there will always be motherfuckers, but what we can’t do is let them control our mother$#@&ing lives.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ Olduglycarl 5 years ago
      "We're tempted to blame it on guns, religion, or poverty, not the uncomfortable answer that mass murder is a human behavior that crops up. Maybe we'll find away to stop it. It's not as simple as blaming it on religion."
      Your forgetting the very basic thing that determines the action of human like entities: Conscience...those that have and those that have not. Those that have not are not, essentially...Consciously Human, whether or not they chose to be or not. What prevents them from "Being"?... culture, education, politics, laws, religion and possibly...genetics or other sicknesses, physiologically or psychologically. In the case of islamic islamism...it's largely that religion...that religion teaches this sickness and is perpetuated in culture, politics and laws...but if we go back far enough, I think we'd see that it has it's genetic basis as well.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by 5 years ago
        You make several points with which I agree, but (there is always a “but) I don’t think you directly address to issue I posed, which is do the Muslims hate us because of our culture? I think not.

        Some of this can be addressed by reversing positions and the US faces a nation which has over 900 military bases in more than 140 countries and that nation is constantly making war in the US and tell the US how it should run the country. What would be your recommended response? Something like the French Resistance during WWII? If yes, how does what ISIS is doing differ? Or, were the French wrong in WWII?

        Cato has many well researched papers on the subject, but I think an excellent synthesis is Ron Paul’s very personally written and readable, book “Swords Into Plowshares — A Life in Wartime and a Future of Peace and Prosperity” Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity. It is in a Kindle Edition.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ jbrenner 5 years ago
          As someone who deals with Muslims daily, there are some who do hate us because of our culture, and many who don't. Very few choose to assimilate. Many do just want to be left alone. I interact with those who want to learn. Those who do not want to assimilate are almost always those who are at the bottom of my classes.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by wiggys 5 years ago
    what a dumb question! open your eyes so you can see what they are doing.he and anyone who agres with him is correct!
    they live on dirt floors now, they have been living on dirt floors since their inception. you can't leave them alone at this moment in time because they have been fueled by us in the western world so they are trying to make us like them or just kill us. therefore, the best approach is to liquidate them, that is the purpose of atomic bombs. but the so called world leaders are a spineless lot and chose to do nothing other than talk! could it be that these so called world leaders are on the islamic payroll?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by wiggys 5 years ago
      followup; the un chief warns about atomic bomb use by the radicals i.e. isis, and some of you think i am to harsh when i say liquidate all of the muslim world, given the chance they will do it to us and then what will the so called leaders do? they are a JOKE and a bad one at that!
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 5 years ago
        Easier solution stop importing them and their oil. Not like we need it.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
        • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 5 years ago
          More I think about it the more reasonable it sounds. After all it' isn't the State Departments field of dreams that gets to die when they screw up - unless Hillary is involved.

          Once you've got it up....keep it up and take care of your own first.

          Now if I thought Trump was serious about national defense and knowing what he really sounds like I would be sore tempted that route to get rid of socialism and then reinstate the Constitution. The rest have nothing to offer. And it's such a slow road to the much needed counter-revolution.

          throwing gas on the fire i remain
          sincerely yours
          The Cynical Realist.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by plusaf 5 years ago
        wigs, the use of atomics as a weapon of control or elimination of islamists just can't work.
        The blast radius is still too small, and I'd let YOU handle all the countries subsequently pissed at us or whoever for the radioactive fallout on Their "Innocent" Citizens.

        Get serious, please!

        The fanatical islamists are not located together where even carpet-bombing would be effective, and to think so is a lack of Critical Thinking.

        Cutting off their financial sources might work, but also hard to do. Everyone keeps thinking that This War Is Like The Last Big Wars and that the strategies, tactics AND Weapons of those wars will work on the Islamist Fundamentalists.

        They won't. A whole new mindset is needed, and for sure, the voting citizens of the US haven't reached that point, and the smart folks in the Pentagon, IF they've got it figured out, have NOT communicated it to us in a way that we can understand and support.

        I hope that helps frame the Problem/Solution discussion a bit.

        Otherwise, my observation that Critical Thinking Is DEAD will stand.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo