The Orlando shooting and the motivation for Islamic terrorism...

[jrodefeld]

http://www.bmcc.cuny.edu/lrc/studyskills/factsandopinions.pdf


While you choose to worship at the altar of Pape, we choose not to. 

Pape isn't the only one expressing these views.  However, his work is the most authoritative, scientifically rigorous and important.  What I've expressed isn't a non-consequential opinion such as "I like the color blue".  The question at hand is what motivates Islamic terrorists.  You all have claimed that Islam as a religion is the cause.  So you seek out obscure passages from the Quran and paint all Muslims with a broad brush.  I have claimed that the primary motivation for Islamic terrorism is foreign occupation.  I have claimed that most Muslims are not extremists and don't hold the views you attribute to them.  And I've claimed that if we changed our foreign policy and stopped intervening into the middle east, terrorist attacks against us would vanish or be greatly reduced.

This is not a matter of opinion.  This is an empirical matter and we have to look to something concrete to figure out which one of these positions is correct.  The facts of the matter are that virtually all empirical work on the subject has come to the conclusion that my argument is the correct one and that yours is the incorrect one.

[tac]

What you,Pape and the rest are preaching is Hate America Bullshit. 

[taxed]

Pape isn't the only one expressing these views.  However, his work is the most authoritative, scientifically rigorous and important.  What I've expressed isn't a non-consequential opinion such as "I like the color blue".  The question at hand is what motivates Islamic terrorists.  You all have claimed that Islam as a religion is the cause.  So you seek out obscure passages from the Quran and paint all Muslims with a broad brush.  I have claimed that the primary motivation for Islamic terrorism is foreign occupation.  I have claimed that most Muslims are not extremists and don't hold the views you attribute to them.  And I've claimed that if we changed our foreign policy and stopped intervening into the middle east, terrorist attacks against us would vanish or be greatly reduced.

This is not a matter of opinion.  This is an empirical matter and we have to look to something concrete to figure out which one of these positions is correct.  The facts of the matter are that virtually all empirical work on the subject has come to the conclusion that my argument is the correct one and that yours is the incorrect one.

Is it safe for people in the media to draw pictures of Mohammad?

[Billy's bayonet]

Peruse through this site at your leisure:

http://cpostdata.uchicago.edu/search_new.php

It is not obvious that Pape has an agenda that would compromise the integrity of his work.  Perhaps you could spell out exactly what his agenda is?


Did you seriously claim that Russia and the old Soviet Union never faced a threat from Islamic terrorism?  This is simply factually untrue.

Pape's agenda is abundantly clear, BLAME AMERICA for terrorism....the same nonsense the left is trying to perpetrate, blame it all on Bush. I reiterate, his unabashed lie re OBL's support from the USA is factually not true and almost on the order of ENEMY PROPAGANDA....from the Islamofacists themselves. He has Zero credibility due to his position...CASE CLOSED.

I never said that Russia was NOT subject to terrorist attacks, I said that ISIS, PLO, HAMAS, Al Q'ieda  etc know they get nothing by staging such attacks against Russia, due to the brutality of their response. You probably don;t know this coz you likely haven't left Mommy's basement, but when you get out into the real world overseas NOBODY(Islamic terrorists) FKS WITH RUSSIAN CITIZENS, you do and your family will get a package containing your balls....for a while, a short while it was that way when Bush launched his war on terror.

Most of the attacks you are referencing are likely committed by Chechin's....much different that your Al Q'Ida and ISIS type of Islamic terrorists.... these people are more on the order of freedom fighters.

You (or your Hero Pape) miss the point, there is no wholesale blowback from Russia/Former USSR's meddling in Islamic State affairs. Their main terrorist problem is the Chechin "independance" movement.

[jrodefeld]

What you,Pape and the rest are preaching is Hate America Bullshit. 

Sticking to your talking points I see.  You should probably realize that by parroting the mantras that are spoon-fed to you by conservative talk-radio (among other sources) you are really doing the bidding of neo-con think tanks, military contractors and very ANTI-American lobbying groups who all profit from war.

[jrodefeld]

Is it safe for people in the media to draw pictures of Mohammad?

In many cases, no.  There are admittedly a very small number of fundamentalist Muslims who would react very badly to something like that.  I've already made it very clear that there are people out there who use religion to justify committing atrocities against their fellow man.  I never denied any of that so I don't know what you are trying to prove.  Of course, 98% of Muslims would never justify using violence against the author no matter how offended they were so we are still talking about a very small number of people.

Even if I were to stipulate that there are plenty of internal problems with Islam that would exist no matter what our foreign policy is, that still does not justify our foreign policy of aggression against the Muslim world!  It wouldn't make it any less understandable that many Muslims feel that the West has been waging an unprovoked war against THEM for decades.

[walkstall]

In many cases, no.  There are admittedly a very small number of fundamentalist Muslims who would react very badly to something like that.  I've already made it very clear that there are people out there who use religion to justify committing atrocities against their fellow man.  I never denied any of that so I don't know what you are trying to prove.  Of course, 98% of Muslims would never justify using violence against the author no matter how offended they were so we are still talking about a very small number of people.

Even if I were to stipulate that there are plenty of internal problems with Islam that would exist no matter what our foreign policy is, that still does not justify our foreign policy of aggression against the Muslim world!  It wouldn't make it any less understandable that many Muslims feel that the West has been waging an unprovoked war against THEM for decades.

Sooooo only 2% of the Muslims are doing all that killing.   

[jrodefeld]

Pape's agenda is abundantly clear, BLAME AMERICA for terrorism....the same nonsense the left is trying to perpetrate, blame it all on Bush. I reiterate, his unabashed lie re OBL's support from the USA is factually not true and almost on the order of ENEMY PROPAGANDA....from the Islamofacists themselves. He has Zero credibility due to his position...CASE CLOSED.

I never said that Russia was NOT subject to terrorist attacks, I said that ISIS, PLO, HAMAS, Al Q'ieda  etc know they get nothing by staging such attacks against Russia, due to the brutality of their response. You probably don;t know this coz you likely haven't left Mommy's basement, but when you get out into the real world overseas NOBODY(Islamic terrorists) FKS WITH RUSSIAN CITIZENS, you do and your family will get a package containing your balls....for a while, a short while it was that way when Bush launched his war on terror.

Most of the attacks you are referencing are likely committed by Chechin's....much different that your Al Q'Ida and ISIS type of Islamic terrorists.... these people are more on the order of freedom fighters.

You (or your Hero Pape) miss the point, there is no wholesale blowback from Russia/Former USSR's meddling in Islamic State affairs. Their main terrorist problem is the Chechin "independance" movement.

Why was it that Russian government officials are so concerned about the potential for blowback due to Russia intervening into Syria?  As per the Bloomberg article I linked to earlier:

"As evidence grows that a bomb may have downed a Russian passenger jet over Egypt, the Kremlin is focused on countering the threat of terrorism at home from sympathizers of Islamic State.

Officials insist they were prepared for the risk of terrorist reprisals after President Vladimir Putin ordered air strikes against militants in Syria."

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-11-09/russia-fears-islamic-terror-blowback-over-syria-amid-sinai-crash


The truth is that Russia has not been intervening into the Middle East anywhere close to the frequency that the United States has over the past twenty five years or so.  And they aren't considered an ally of the United States in the "War on Terror" so it is predictable that they would have faced fewer terrorist attacks by groups like Al Qaeda.

Robert Pape has no agenda to "blame America".  His research isn't even about the United States in particular.  His focus has been on compiling and documenting all suicide attacks against every country in the world.  His goal is to learn what the motivations are for suicide terrorists in general.  It just happens to be the case that his research revealed that Al Qaeda and other terrorists who have attacked Americans are motivated by anger over our foreign policy.  He never set out to prove that "America" was at fault for terrorism.  In fact, he started his research believing the conventional tale about how it is religion that motivates most Islamic terrorists.  His studies revealed the opposite of what he expected to find.

What is it about you that you cannot understand how our military interventions into the Middle East have been grossly immoral when judged on their own merits?  Why can't you put yourself in the shoes of someone who happened to be born in Iraq or Afghanistan?  Wouldn't you grow to resent the United States when all you knew about them was that they were crippling your economy, interfering with your government and dropping bombs from the sky?

This is so plainly common-sense that it boggles the mind why you cannot grasp it. 

Putting this issue aside for a moment, do you think it has been worth the cost in money and lives lost to wage this "war on terror"?  Terrorism, even with our current foreign policy that makes us less safe, is a very insignificant threat to most Americans.  Would you have us re-invade Iraq and stay there for another decade or two?  Would you like to "see if the sand glows" like Ted Cruz wants?

How do you reconcile the advocacy of aggression into foreign lands with any standard of morality?  As I stated earlier, our drone program kills mostly civilians.  As many as 90% of those killed are completely innocent, and even the ones that are "suspected" to be terrorists haven't been proven to be terrorists in a court.

We all should object to the atrocities committed by Muslim terrorists, but we should also object to the atrocities our government commits against the Muslim world.

Here is Pape again explaining it to you:

Though no one wants to talk about it, 9/11 is still hurting America. That terrible day inflicted a wound of public fear that easily reopens with the smallest provocation, and it continues to bleed the United States of money, lives, and goodwill around the world. Indeed, America's response to its fear has, in turn, made Americans less safe and has inspired more threats and attacks.

In the decade since 9/11, the United States has conquered and occupied two large Muslim countries (Afghanistan and Iraq), compelled a huge Muslim army to root out a terrorist sanctuary (Pakistan), deployed thousands of Special Forces troops to numerous Muslim countries (Yemen, Somalia, Sudan, etc.), imprisoned hundreds of Muslims without recourse, and waged a massive war of ideas involving Muslim clerics to denounce violence and new institutions to bring Western norms to Muslim countries. Yet Americans still seem strangely mystified as to why some Muslims might be angry about this situation.

In a narrow sense, America is safer today than on 9/11. There has not been another attack on the same scale. U.S. defenses regarding immigration controls, airport security, and the disruption of potentially devastating domestic plots have all improved.

But in a broader sense, America has become perilously unsafe. Each month, there are more suicide terrorists trying to kill Americans and their allies in Afghanistan, Iraq, and other Muslim countries than in all the years before 2001 combined. From 1980 to 2003, there were 343 suicide attacks around the world, and at most 10 percent were anti-American inspired. Since 2004, there have been more than 2,000, over 91 percent against U.S. and allied forces in Afghanistan, Iraq, and other countries.

Yes, these attacks are overseas and mostly focused on military and diplomatic targets. So too, however, were the anti-American suicide attacks before 2001. It is important to remember that the 1995 and 1996 bombings of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia, the 1998 bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, and the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole in Yemen were the crucial dots that showed the threat was rising prior to 9/11. Today, such dots are occurring by the dozens every month. So why is nobody connecting them?

U.S. military policies have not stopped the rising wave of extremism in the Muslim world. The reason has not been lack of effort, or lack of bipartisan support for aggressive military policies, or lack of funding, or lack of genuine patriotism.

No. Something else is creating the mismatch between America's effort and the results.

For nearly a decade, Americans have been waging a long war against terrorism without much serious public debate about what is truly motivating terrorists to kill them. In the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, this was perfectly explicable — the need to destroy al Qaeda's camps in Afghanistan was too urgent to await sober analyses of root causes.

But, the absence of public debate did not stop the great need to know or, perhaps better to say, to "understand" the events of that terrible day. In the years before 9/11, few Americans gave much thought to what drives terrorism — a subject long relegated to the fringes of the media, government, and universities. And few were willing to wait for new studies, the collection of facts, and the dispassionate assessment of alternative causes. Terrorism produces fear and anger, and these emotions are not patient.

A simple narrative was readily available, and a powerful conventional wisdom began to exert its grip. Because the 9/11 hijackers were all Muslims, it was easy to presume that Islamic fundamentalism was the central motivating force driving the 19 hijackers to kill themselves in order to kill Americans. Within weeks after the 9/11 attacks, surveys of American attitudes show that this presumption was fast congealing into a hard reality in the public mind. Americans immediately wondered, "Why do they hate us?" and almost as immediately came to the conclusion that it was because of "who we are, not what we do." As President George W. Bush said in his first address to Congress after the 9/11 attacks: "They hate our freedoms: our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other."

Thus was unleashed the "war on terror."

The narrative of Islamic fundamentalism did more than explain why America was attacked and encourage war against Iraq. It also pointed toward a simple, grand solution. If Islamic fundamentalism was driving the threat and if its roots grew from the culture of the Arab world, then America had a clear mission: To transform Arab societies — with Western political institutions and social norms as the ultimate antidote to the virus of Islamic extremism.

This narrative had a powerful effect on support for the invasion of Iraq. Opinion polls show that for years before the invasion, more than 90 percent of the U.S. public believed that Saddam Hussein was harboring weapons of mass destruction (WMD). But this belief alone was not enough to push significant numbers to support war.

What really changed after 9/11 was the fear that anti-American Muslims desperately wanted to kill Americans and so any risk that such extremists would get weapons of mass destruction suddenly seemed too great. Although few Americans feared Islam before 9/11, by the spring of 2003, a near majority — 49 percent — strongly perceived that half or more of the world's 1.4 billion Muslims were deeply anti-American, and a similar fraction also believed that Islam itself promoted violence. No wonder there was little demand by congressional committees or the public at large for a detailed review of intelligence on Iraq's WMD prior to the invasion.

The goal of transforming Arab societies into true Western democracies had powerful effects on U.S. commitments to Afghanistan and Iraq. Constitutions had to be written; elections held; national armies built; entire economies restructured. Traditional barriers against women had to be torn down. Most important, all these changes also required domestic security, which meant maintaining approximately 150,000 U.S. and coalition ground troops in Iraq for many years and increasing the number of U.S. and Western troops in Afghanistan each year from 2003 on.

Put differently, adopting the goal of transforming Muslim countries is what created the long-term military occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan. Yes, the United States would almost surely have sought to create a stable order after toppling the regimes in these countries in any case. However, in both, America's plans quickly went far beyond merely changing leaders or ruling parties; only by creating Western-style democracies in the Muslim world could Americans defeat terrorism once and for all.

There's just one problem: We now know that this narrative is not true.

New research provides strong evidence that suicide terrorism such as that of 9/11 is particularly sensitive to foreign military occupation, and not Islamic fundamentalism or any ideology independent of this crucial circumstance. Although this pattern began to emerge in the 1980s and 1990s, a wealth of new data presents a powerful picture.

More than 95 percent of all suicide attacks are in response to foreign occupation, according to extensive research that we conducted at the University of Chicago's Project on Security and Terrorism, where we examined every one of the over 2,200 suicide attacks across the world from 1980 to the present day. As the United States has occupied Afghanistan and Iraq, which have a combined population of about 60 million, total suicide attacks worldwide have risen dramatically — from about 300 from 1980 to 2003, to 1,800 from 2004 to 2009. Further, over 90 percent of suicide attacks worldwide are now anti-American. The vast majority of suicide terrorists hail from the local region threatened by foreign troops, which is why 90 percent of suicide attackers in Afghanistan are Afghans.

Israelis have their own narrative about terrorism, which holds that Arab fanatics seek to destroy the Jewish state because of what it is, not what it does. But since Israel withdrew its army from Lebanon in May 2000, there has not been a single Lebanese suicide attack. Similarly, since Israel withdrew from Gaza and large parts of the West Bank, Palestinian suicide attacks are down over 90 percent.

Some have disputed the causal link between foreign occupation and suicide terrorism, pointing out that some occupations by foreign powers have not resulted in suicide bombings — for example, critics often cite post-World War II Japan and Germany. Our research provides sufficient evidence to address these criticisms by outlining the two factors that determine the likelihood of suicide terrorism being employed against an occupying force.

The first factor is social distance between the occupier and occupied. The wider the social distance, the more the occupied community may fear losing its way of life. Although other differences may matter, research shows that resistance to occupations is especially likely to escalate to suicide terrorism when there is a difference between the predominant religion of the occupier and the predominant religion of the occupied.

Religious difference matters not because some religions are predisposed to suicide attacks. Indeed, there are religious differences even in purely secular suicide attack campaigns, such as the LTTE (Hindu) against the Sinhalese (Buddhists).

Rather, religious difference matters because it enables terrorist leaders to claim that the occupier is motivated by a religious agenda that can scare both secular and religious members of a local community — this is why Osama bin Laden never misses an opportunity to describe U.S. occupiers as "crusaders" motivated by a Christian agenda to convert Muslims, steal their resources, and change the local population's way of life.

The second factor is prior rebellion. Suicide terrorism is typically a strategy of last resort, often used by weak actors when other, non-suicidal methods of resistance to occupation fail. This is why we see suicide attack campaigns so often evolve from ordinary terrorist or guerrilla campaigns, as in the cases of Israel and Palestine, the Kurdish rebellion in Turkey, or the LTTE in Sri Lanka.

One of the most important findings from our research is that empowering local groups can reduce suicide terrorism. In Iraq, the surge's success was not the result of increased U.S. military control of Anbar province, but the empowerment of Sunni tribes, commonly called the Anbar Awakening, which enabled Iraqis to provide for their own security. On the other hand, taking power away from local groups can escalate suicide terrorism. In Afghanistan, U.S. and Western forces began to exert more control over the country's Pashtun regions starting in early 2006, and suicide attacks dramatically escalated from this point on.

The research suggests that U.S. interests would be better served through a policy of offshore balancing. Some scholars have taken issue with this approach, arguing that keeping boots on the ground in South Asia is essential for U.S. national security. Proponents of this strategy fail to realize how U.S. ground forces often inadvertently produce more anti-American terrorists than they kill. In 2000, before the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan, there were 20 suicide attacks around the world, and only one (against the USS Cole) was directed against Americans. In the last 12 months, by comparison, 300 suicide attacks have occurred, and over 270 were anti-American. We simply must face the reality that, no matter how well-intentioned, the current war on terror is not serving U.S. interests.

The United States has been great in large part because it respects understanding and discussion of important ideas and concepts, and because it is free to change course. Intelligent decisions require putting all the facts before us and considering new approaches. The first step is recognizing that occupations in the Muslim world don't make Americans any safer — in fact, they are at the heart of the problem.

http://foreignpolicy.com/2010/10/18/its-the-occupation-stupid/


As far as Bin Laden being assisted by the CIA in the 1980s when the Soviet Union was occupying Afghanistan, I don't think I cited Pape on that subject.  But your case against him being aided in this way is not credible.

Let me quote a source to reveal some history:

Prime suspect in the New York and Washington terrorists attacks, branded by the FBI as an "international terrorist" for his role in the African US embassy bombings, Saudi born Osama bin Laden was recruited during the Soviet-Afghan war "ironically under the auspices of the CIA, to fight Soviet invaders."1

In 1979 "the largest covert operation in the history of the CIA" was launched in response to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in support of the pro-Communist government of Babrak Kamal.2:

"With the active encouragement of the CIA and Pakistan's ISI [Inter Services Intelligence], who wanted to turn the Afghan jihad into a global war waged by all Muslim states against the Soviet Union, some 35,000 Muslim radicals from 40 Islamic countries joined Afghanistan's fight between 1982 and 1992. Tens of thousands more came to study in Pakistani madrasahs. Eventually more than 100,000 foreign Muslim radicals were directly influenced by the Afghan jihad."

The Islamic "jihad" was supported by the United States and Saudi Arabia with a significant part of the funding generated from the Golden Crescent drug trade:

"In March 1985, President Reagan signed National Security Decision Directive 166, ...[which] authorize[d] stepped-up covert military aid to the mujahideen, and it made clear that the secret Afghan war had a new goal: to defeat Soviet troops in Afghanistan through covert action and encourage a Soviet withdrawal. The new covert U.S. assistance began with a dramatic increase in arms supplies – a steady rise to 65,000 tons annually by 1987, ... as well as a "ceaseless stream" of CIA and Pentagon specialists who traveled to the secret headquarters of Pakistan's ISI on the main road near Rawalpindi, Pakistan. There the CIA specialists met with Pakistani intelligence officers to help plan operations for the Afghan rebels."

The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) using Pakistan's military Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) played a key role in training the Mujahideen. In turn, the CIA sponsored guerrilla training was integrated with the teachings of Islam:

"Predominant themes were that Islam was a complete sociopolitical ideology, that holy Islam was being violated by the atheistic Soviet troops, and that the Islamic people of Afghanistan should reassert their independence by overthrowing the leftist Afghan regime propped up by Moscow."

You really should read the whole article:

http://www.antiwar.com/rep/chuss10.html

The claims that Osama bin Laden never really benefited from all this aid and support during the 1980s is not credible.  It is plainly obvious to anyone who knows history that the United States greatly aided the radicalization of Muslims in the middle east during the 1980s.  This in turn came back to bite us as the Mujahideen transformed into groups like Al Qaeda a decade later.  Not ALL of the former Mujahideen joined Al Qaeda of course, but there is a great deal of overlap.

[jrodefeld]

Sooooo only 2% of the Muslims are doing all that killing.   

There are 1.6 BILLION Muslims in the world.  If all of them believed it was their religious duty to murder anyone who draws a picture of Mohammed or otherwise insults there religion there would be murders against authors every single day.

How many TOTAL Muslim attacks outside of the Middle East can you cite that are attributable exclusively to free speech "crimes"? 

How much killing is the United States government doing around the world every year? 

[Solar]

In many cases, no.  There are admittedly a very small number of fundamentalist Muslims who would react very badly to something like that.  I've already made it very clear that there are people out there who use religion to justify committing atrocities against their fellow man.  I never denied any of that so I don't know what you are trying to prove.  Of course, 98% of Muslims would never justify using violence against the author no matter how offended they were so we are still talking about a very small number of people.

Even if I were to stipulate that there are plenty of internal problems with Islam that would exist no matter what our foreign policy is, that still does not justify our foreign policy of aggression against the Muslim world!  It wouldn't make it any less understandable that many Muslims feel that the West has been waging an unprovoked war against THEM for decades.

Your myopic view of the world borders on pathological, or outright psychoneurotic, but suffice it to say, it's pure bull shit and a distraction from the real issues facing the nation at the moment, that being, Marxist destruction of the US.
Screw the Muscums, no one really gives a fuck what they want or think, because they have a serious problem with radicals in their political system, which reflects on each and everyone of the scumballs.

So here's the thing, this forum is here for Conservatives only, though you've been afforded a platform to make your case, and obviously you've failed miserably in making converts to your religion.
Which is why I'm giving you an ultimatum. Either start posting in the political forum on current events, or say thanks, and goodbye, because you are done hijacking the distraction forum.

[walkstall]

There are 1.6 BILLION Muslims in the world.  If all of them believed it was their religious duty to murder anyone who draws a picture of Mohammed or otherwise insults there religion there would be murders against authors every single day.

How many TOTAL Muslim attacks outside of the Middle East can you cite that are attributable exclusively to free speech "crimes"? 

How much killing is the United States government doing around the world every year?

So it's ok to do all that kill inside the Middle East.   

[taxed]

In many cases, no.  There are admittedly a very small number of fundamentalist Muslims who would react very badly to something like that.  I've already made it very clear that there are people out there who use religion to justify committing atrocities against their fellow man.  I never denied any of that so I don't know what you are trying to prove.  Of course, 98% of Muslims would never justify using violence against the author no matter how offended they were so we are still talking about a very small number of people.

Even if I were to stipulate that there are plenty of internal problems with Islam that would exist no matter what our foreign policy is, that still does not justify our foreign policy of aggression against the Muslim world!  It wouldn't make it any less understandable that many Muslims feel that the West has been waging an unprovoked war against THEM for decades.

Like, what percentage?

[jrodefeld]

Your myopic view of the world borders on pathological, or outright psychoneurotic, but suffice it to say, it's pure bull shit and a distraction from the real issues facing the nation at the moment, that being, Marxist destruction of the US.
Screw the Muscums, no one really gives a fuck what they want or think, because they have a serious problem with radicals in their political system, which reflects on each and everyone of the scumballs.

So here's the thing, this forum is here for Conservatives only, though you've been afforded a platform to make your case, and obviously you've failed miserably in making converts to your religion.
Which is why I'm giving you an ultimatum. Either start posting in the political forum on current events, or say thanks, and goodbye, because you are done hijacking the distraction forum.

I'll post in the political forum, but I'm not "hijacking" anything.  I'm confining myself to a single thread and people can participate or not.

I know this is a forum for conservatives but I think most people don't want to confine themselves to a group of like-minded individuals, never speaking to those that disagree with them.  This thread here has been focused on foreign policy, but on other issues we'd probably have plenty to agree about.  Someone described himself as a "constitutional conservative", and as a libertarian I'd probably have plenty to agree with if someone legitimately wants to reduce the State to its constitutional functions.  I'd like to abolish the State entirely, but we'd be moving in the direction of more liberty so we can be allies.

The reason I'm pushing so hard on this foreign policy subject is that, as Randolph Borne said, "war is the health of the State".  Killing people is the worst thing that governments do and the greatest expansions of State power occur during wartime.  So, if you are a constitutional conservative, you have to make a choice.  Either you favor Empire and avoidable wars of aggression or you favor limited government.  Because you can't have both.

[Possum]

I'll post in the political forum, but I'm not "hijacking" anything.  I'm confining myself to a single thread and people can participate or not.

I know this is a forum for conservatives but I think most people don't want to confine themselves to a group of like-minded individuals, never speaking to those that disagree with them.  This thread here has been focused on foreign policy, but on other issues we'd probably have plenty to agree about.  Someone described himself as a "constitutional conservative", and as a libertarian I'd probably have plenty to agree with if someone legitimately wants to reduce the State to its constitutional functions.  I'd like to abolish the State entirely, but we'd be moving in the direction of more liberty so we can be allies.

The reason I'm pushing so hard on this foreign policy subject is that, as Randolph Borne said, "war is the health of the State".  Killing people is the worst thing that governments do and the greatest expansions of State power occur during wartime.  So, if you are a constitutional conservative, you have to make a choice.  Either you favor Empire and avoidable wars of aggression or you favor limited government.  Because you can't have both.

People are participating, but have you noticed that none are falling for your b.s. Many situations have been posted which prove your theory wrong and you ignore them and keep on the same talking points. It gets boring. One suggestion,look for another forum that will embrace what you are teaching, facts or no facts, there are places which live to blame the victims. Here's the hint again, in the search bar write "liberal".

[quiller]

Sticking to your talking points I see. 

That Super-Glue holding you to the wall is leaking out again and showing.

You should probably realize that by parroting the mantras that are spoon-fed to you by conservative talk-radio (among other sources) you are really doing the bidding of neo-con think tanks, military contractors and very ANTI-American lobbying groups who all profit from war.

  At this point you over-achieved in self-parody but were too stupid to see it. At least send in your $2 to get the new leftist agitprop, comrade!

First: what is a "neo-con," and what makes you think anyone here actually is one, knows one, or even listened to one? And for those like myself who don't watch TV or listen to talk radio, just WHOSE think tanks and military contractors am I beholden to?

Name those anti-American groups. If you make these charges, back them up.

Oh. That's right. You're just another troll and this is just another election cycle.