Vote whats best, not whats party.

You wouldn't happen to know the Major personally, would you?
Funny the timing of the three posts.

No, I don't know the Major personally... But I'm sure it would be my pleasure to... And by the way- we happened to be online at the same time. Do you think we're buddies who sit with our laptops signed on next to eachother? Or call the other one when we get on just to agree with the other's statements? Oh, you caught us! It's a conspiracy!

But I wish you wouldn't make such long and complicated posts.

So you too believe that every republican candiate is better than any other candidate?

I only wish that I had commanded a Battalion so I could earn the respect of our token troll. Basmanti by the way I believe was also in the service, but forget if he made Platoon Sergeant, First Sergeant, Command Sergeant Major or not. If not he was obviously a failure as he claims that I am.

Both parties would sell their eternal souls for more power. The dems will burn the constitution to control your wallet. The republicans would burn the constitution to control your morality.

"Democrats believe the Constitution has a higher authority than the President." True, but they also believe the congress can just legislate around the constitution as they wish.

Republicans believe the President has a higher authority than the Constitution. Also true, no need to legislate when you have executive priviledge.

remember, I think the bill to ban the burning of it recently failed to get through the Republican Controlled Senate. It's nothing but an election year issue.

I wish we had more of both parties willing to follow strictly the Constitution. I'm not sure I agree with either of your takes on the parties re the Constitution. I think they would both just as soon trample it as not. In different areas for sure, but the damage is the same in my opinion.

Vote Libertarian.....

Seem to represent their bigger contributors moreso than the electorate. Vote Libertarian.....

I always do!

The Major gave us only two choices like thats all there is?

Vote republican, they're more likely to raise military wages and pensions.

How about the communist party? I hear they're pretty big on keeping things secure.

Or write in Ralf Nader and Ross Perot - the one with more votes is president, the other is vice president.

How about a Liebermann/McKinney ticket? That'd be one heck of a violent pull out from Iraq.

Of course if there isn't one yet we could always form an Extremist Islamic party and vote in Sharia law. That would make our country not only strong but secure too.

I agree that generalities are not what we need. If there's a leader out there that know what he's doing, not fully corrupted, willing to use his talents to lead the country (I'd even take 2 out of 4 there), and can get us back into the peace and prosperity of the '50s - uh '60s? no, '70s ... well, whenever we last had peace and prosperity, vote for him/her, whatever their party may be.

Well, your well reasoned response has convinced me, I'm voting the Whig party or even the Bull Moose party.

Come on ex, I expect better from you. Given yesterday's events in England can you not admit the Democrats, backed by the ACLU, moveon.org and the NY Times are doing their best to keep this administration from combating terrorists?

They are more concerned with the rights of non-citizens than the safety of Americans.

No matter what your opinion of Iraq, leaking info about wiretaps and tracking money seems treasonous, making politics out of it is pathetic. Do you really think that if Kerry won in 04 that terrorists would suddenly decide that we weren't the Great Satan and stop thier plans to destroy us?

Oh, and even if a Democrat wins the White House in 08, the Ismalic terrorists will still try to kill us. The only difference will be that it will be a law enforcement matter.

Oh yeah.
All republicans are perfect and everyone else is bad.
They will fix all our problems by showing a strong America. They will kill or imprison each and every one of Americas enemies, they understand that we are better in all aspects than every other country in the world, and they will make sure that they all line up or be exterminated. They're tough enough to get it done.
All democrats are stupid, hate America, want to sell us out, hate the troops, made us weak blah blah blah.

Major, you apparently misunderstood the irony I used so I'll try to make it a bit plainer. There are better leaders and there are worse leaders. Voting for a party and supporting every candidate of it just because you are a member is like trying to see the world in black and white, right and wrong, yin and yang.
So Major, were all of Americas historicaly best leaders Republicans? Or Democrats? I don't think so.

Maybe, just maybe, Americas arrogance has soemthing to do with why we are so disliked?

Show me a candidate that can lead the country well and I'll vote for him/her. If that leader is not Republican, would you vote for them anyway?
Gee, the Republicans are running things but events in England were the democrats fault?
Oh, ok.
The dems (and Libs?) want to do everything they can to keep the administration from fighting terorrism?
And you can see into the future? Very cool.

Please just tell me how much of my civil liberties I need to give up in order to live in your version of utopia?

Despite what Mr. Unfit-For-Battalion-Command believes, invading Iraq and diverting our attention away from Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden is not being strong on national security.

Blind allegiance to Bush and his failed "stay the course" strategy is not being strong on national security.

And no, Herr Major, no matter how you demonize your opponents, there is no "anti-security wing" of the Democratic Party.

As usual, you make personal attacks and your drug induced stupor deny you rational thought.

Read the original post! Two words, PATRIOT ACT, who supported it who didn't? Even you should be able to grasp that simple concept between sips of the Kool Aid!

Oh and I'm glad you learned one word of German, is that a clever Nazi slur? Just like your type.

Here's a few more for you Arschkriecher and scheisskopf.

You can Verpiss Dichand, Arschgesicht!

That I didn't even expect from you. Apparently, somone touched a nerve with you and you must feel pretty inferior to use such language.

It demonstrates to me a high level of frustration. If you can't voice your opinions without resorting to foul language, why bother? Are your opinions not based on a decsion made after careful analysis of the facts available - or were you born into the republican party?

If the reason you retired as a Major really was that you were unfit for command, that post demonstrated it well.

How about keeping it clean in the future?

Herr Major takes anyone who dares to disagree with his political philosophy as a personal affront. In that regard he's little more than a Faux News blowhard, a Bill O'Reilly wannabee if you will.

What separates Herr Major from the rest of Dittohead Nation is a notable absence of honor and character: Herr Major is on record as endorsing the torture of civilians and also has stated in these blogs that the U.S. military should "take no prisoners".

I simply stated that in light of his extremist beliefs, I was glad that the United States Army recognized these flaws in his character and properly denied him the opportunity to command at the battalion level. And I still feel that way.

Herr Major fails to realize that there are a number of veterans and retired military who post in these blogs, I myself am one. Very few of us feel compelled to "pull rank" and act as if our military service gives us some sort of omniscence with regard to political matters.

Herr Major's posts often seem as if they were written by another major, the fictional Major Frank Burns of M*A*S*H. The snide and sniveling commentary of Herr Major takes on a humorous aspect when viewed in this light.

When you get some, then you should comment. Your glass house stone throwing behavior is getting old.

I never supported torture of civilians. Now if you are referring to my disagreeing with granting constitutional rights and geneva Convention protection to IED attcaking, beheading unlawful combatants I think you are the person short on facts.

I don't know where you're from, but growing up here in the south calling someone white a cracker was the equalivant of calling a black the "N" word. It is offensive to me, so please stop doing it or I'll contact the nearest rep of the NAAWP.

Get your money back from psych 101. When someone thows a verbal punch at me, they get a can of whoop @$$ back. Kind of the way you have to treat bullies. Did I start attacking Basmanti personally, no I don't think so.

Your response demonstartes to me a superiority complex with delusions of grandure.

You learn insults well, no my father was a died in the wool union democrat, but I respected the way he worked two jobs to support his family and give his children opportunities that he never had. Were you born into a morally superior holier than thou family or did you pick it up along the way.

I guess the other 80% of officers that did not command are unfit also huh? I'm sure somehow if I was ArmyCOLretired with a brigade command basmanti would just step it up to unfit for general officer and Division command. No I'm proud to have served my country in combat and have earned my Ranger tab and jump wings punk.

I'm sorry my language upset your delicate sensibilities. Try to ignore my posts as I will certainly ignore yours.

Auf Wiedersehen.

Just so ya know, some of your fans are still out here reading and enjoying your posts (for a little longer anyway). It appears, though, that many of the center/right folks who are more representative of this county have (temporarily, I hope) abandoned the board to the name-callers and food-throwers.

As you will have noticed by now, it's a new tactic of the left to call themselves veterans. You uncovered one of them the other day, but you'll see them popping up everywhere now. They want folks to believe the people fighting the war embrace the left's belief system. They'll be wandering around collecting unearned respect because the ends have always justified the means for people like this.

A superiority complex with delusions of grandeur??? I'd say you need to get the refund but I hope you didn't actually pay to learn that.

I was not intending any insults. If you took them as insults I apologize. I was only stating what I believed about you based on what you posted. If you feel I have it wrong, I would hope that you would have the honor and intelligence to verbally defend yourself and your position without having to resort to insults and obscenities.

But again in this answer you show how painful that missing command must have been for you. You remember all that hard work getting the Ranger tab and jump wings, and end the sentence by calling me a punk (whatever that is).

I will not ignore your posts. That would be a form of putting my head in the sand and hoping it will go away, something I find very common when people have no arguments - they just ignore the evidence.
I will continue to try to understand your arguments for your political position but I will evidently have to filter out the fluff.

The original subject of your blog here was teror threats and who should be voted for. How about we get back on that subject?
You put forth several reasons why you believed the "dems" are bad and the "Repubs" are good.
My comment was that there are other parties and candidates out there with qulifications better and/or worse than repbulicans and democrats. Others countered with their beliefs.

Let me throw you a few questions and I dare you to publish an answer free from insults and obsceneties;
- Why do so many Islamic groups dislike us?
- Does Isreal have anything to do with it?
- Would getting us off the foreign oil dependancy improve our ability to protect ourselves?
- Do you believe if we killed Bin Ladn, Saddam, and the extremist Leaders of Hezbollah, Hamas, and Iran that we would have less of a terrorism problem?

If it had not been for Scottland Yard this plot would not have been foiled. It had nothing to do with our half wit president.

"If it had not been for Scotland Yard this plot would not have been foiled. It had nothing to do with our half wit president."

You are so right!

"I'll vote...for the candidate (from whatever party) who will get us less entangled in the middle east, not more."

and Amen to that.

So where to begin. I shouldn't even vent because you morons won’t believe the truth and will continue to put you heads in the sand. Clinton turned a blind eye to terrorism. See when Bush Sr. left office the terror "network" did not exist. They were a bunch of half wits acting autonomously. Then good ole Clinton decided to shrink the military, cut intelligence spending and redirect their efforts. He PERSONALLY declined a chance to kill Osama himself. Remember this went on for 8 years. 8 years you Dems let him get blow jobs in the oval office while the terrorist "network" could get developed. Osama could travel the world uniting the terror groups. Then he had time to plan 9/11. Do you really think they planned this in the 3 month Bush Jr. was in office? Are you that retarded? As a matter of fact your own Dems in the 9/11 report documented the fact they were here several years prior to the attack. Flight schools reported suspicious activity to the Clinton depleted intelligence services about Muslim men training to fly planes. These are the facts. Now, Carter screwed up by allowing the embassy thing to happen the way it did, Reagan screwed up by allowing 220 Marines to get killed with out retaliation. Bush, Sr. screwed up by allowing Sadam to stay I power when I personally was 60 miles from Baghdad in '91. All the presidents in the past have handled these situations the same way. Do nothing and stick their heads in the sand. They chose to go to the United Nations. Embassy after embassy, attack after attack. You remember Yemen and those Sailors dieing. The terrorist have been attacking us for 20 years. Now, we have a president willing to take the fight to them and you FREAKIN MORONS, want to stop it. I only wish you are touched directly in the next attack. Either you, or someone you know or you family member should be the next victim. Yeah, that sounds crazy but so do you Dems. If that is what it takes to get you to take you heads out of the sand then so be it. Collateral damage they I see it and screw you if you don’t like it. One last thought. Reagan did screw up with the Marine attack but he made up for it later. Know what he did? Little thing called flight 800. Remember that one??? Little dictator named Kadafi (sp??) We found out he was involved, so we went to the United Nations and told everyone. They chose to do nothing. We then chose to attack Libya. We attacked Kadafi himself and killed most of his family including his son. (A baby by the way) What has Libya done since then? What? Anything?? NO!!!! NOTHING!!!! NOT ANYTHING!!!! As a matter of fact 15 years later they are now a part of the world community helping us fight terrorism. Weird how that works………

The brain dead bush administration had been warned early in 2001 about the possibility of an attack. Then they were more stronly warned in July of that year and still did nothing.
After years of this "war on terrror" we still are no closer to killing osama. Why? More importantly what is president cracker time doing about it?
Why is it that another country can recieve information about a terrorist plot to kill Americans and they react immediatly to save lives, yet our own country did nothing?? We had months of warnings while president cracker a$$ was on vacation for a month and did nothing to prevent 9/11.

You are right about one thing; every single president we have had including the current cracker clueless, is responsible for the mess we are in now.

You might make alot more sense with a rational argument than your hate Bush rant. Good news, just 2 more years until you have somene else to blame for all the worlds troubles.

If you think any president really "vacations" when they are away from the White House you are very mistaken.
I guess it was better when Clinton was "working" with his intern.

Don't forget that Kerry had a letter from an employee at Logan several months ahead of 9/11 and DID NOTHING either. There is plenty of blame about 9/11, not the least of which was the "wall" that Gorelick erected between the CIA and FBI. That wall kept a terrorist compuer from being searched.

Why don't you run for president so I can call you a cracker? BTW are you a big Cythia McKinny supporter? You sure talk like her.

You call someone a McKinney lover, because they disagree with president idiot cracker? Thank God we only have two more years of this. The problem is it might be to late.

This whole osama thing really called for mercenaries to take care of it, not U.S. military. The mercenaries are paid assasins and I have never heard of a case where they failed on a mission. They probably would have cost less than our current war.

Okay, the thought of Skyspy supporting Cynthia McKinney made me literally laugh out loud.

I guess that was the best insult he could throw at me. I would have been insulted but I was laughing too hard.

But you support the very name calling that you detest!

Oxymoron,emphasis on the moron.

wing.

Despite your arrogance and personal attacks which almost made me ignore your post I was amazed to find you making one or two points that I will mull over for a while.

So maybe Clinton didn't increase the defense budget, but I sure don't remember ever asking the question: "Are we safer now?" while he was president.
I dunno, maybe he used enough diplomacy?

Killing Kadafis family made for not reacting to the Marine attack?

Do you believe that the only reason we are disliked around so much of the Middle East is because they are religious zelots or is there some other reason?

I was expecting to read yet another feel-good post. You know what though? Some people will never get it. As you wrote, until they are directly affected by terrorism, they will never understand. At least we have a president that can make a decision and stand behind it. I'm all for his decision. It makes me feel safer. We don't live in a "peace and love and all things groovy" world. We probably never did (Pearl Harbor as a quasi-example) and probably never will.

As I recall Jimmy Carter was President when our "entanglement" in the Mid east started. We weren't doing anything when our embassy in Iran was seized.

Don't forget the evil peace keeping Marines that were bombed in Beruit.

Will you throw Israel under the bus for our safety? That is what Iran, Hezbollah and Hammas want. Once you give them that, they will come after you anyway.

I would love to drive a solar powered car and give them the finger, but no matter what we do the Muslim extremists want to slit your throat and kill your family just because you are an infidel.

I will vote for the candidate that kills them before they kill us. There is no negotiating with a rabid dog, you put it down!

...if you think our entanglement started with Jimmy Carter. We and the Brits have been messing around in that region for a century -- creating new countries, putting people in charge of old ones, propping up potentates and generally treating it like a colonial enterprise. Ever heard of the Balfour Resolution of 1917? How about the Iranian coup of '53, which replaced an elected prime minister with an unelected Shah and eventually led to the '79 revolution and hostage crisis, as well as the rise of the fundamentalism we now face? And I'm sure you recall that at one time we actively supported a tall guy who led anti-Soviet guerillas in Afghanistan -- his name was Osama something or other, I think.
Our intentions are mostly good, of course, and we'd like to get everything "just right" so everyone will live in stability (while also selling us cheap oil and buying lots of arms from our defense contractors). But the law of unintended consequences is hell.
Now our decades of messing with the middle east has produced the worst remodeling project in the history of man. The essential problem is that it was never our house to remodel, and over time that's created a real bad attitude among some of the people who live there.
Our policy goal for the new century ought to be to leave them alone and demand only that they do likewise.

Just a spit and polish "jar-head" more properly describes you. Maybe you were in the Marines? Just do wut yah are tooled tu doo and obey. Get that there pension, priority uno. Army people need to be rotated every few months so that we don't get guys like you dead-heading time in. We need the draft back and a bunch of good trainers to teach guys how to serve well 1-2 years and go home. Really pick and choose the few keepers needed. Otherwise we will end up again with an army like the 1918-1941 army, worthless.

Your brilliant observation of military history and knowledge of the art of war amaze me. You have a long way to go to be as aggrivating as some other trolls on this board.

Your post makes no sense whatsoever, you provide no facts or studies to back up your opinion.

Talk to anyone that served in both a draft supported army and our current volunteer system and you may get a different opinion. If you gave children are you ready for your children to be drafted or are you one of those who have no skin in the game?

That same army that you say was worthless was the framework that won WWII. Are you really saying that Eisenhower, Marshall, Patton, MacArthur, Bradley and the rest were worthless?

Do us all a favor and stick to commenting on subjects to which you are familiar, whatever those may be.

We weren't doing anything when our embassy in Iran was seized.

Like he!! we weren’t. I guess supplying arms doesn’t count.
Who do you think PUT the Shaw in power? It wasn’t France.

Our dependence on Middle East OIL is what got us involved over there.

If this country could come up with an alternative to their oil, we’d be gone from there in a New York minuet.

Sorry...just had to. I agree that terrorists could care less if a dem or repub or my Grandma is in office...they hate us and want us off the planet. My civil liberties are important to me, and I lean toward the Libertarian party (no, I'm not big on the legalize drugs thing, but that's another issue). But in these uncertain times, I'd rather the NSA track phone conversations cause if they're listening to me they'll only get the latest gossip about family and how great the new Ross store in PTC is. If you're talking about your sleeper cell activity, then you deserve to have your civil liberties infringed upon for the safety for my children's homeland security.

That’s the $20,000 question. What’s your definition, not Webster’s, of infringed?

I’m right there with you about how boring my phone conversations must be to the NSA. As far am my bank transfers go, let’s see, I think I wired my brother some money about five years ago.

I’ve said it before, this ‘war on terror’ hangs right in there with the ‘war on drugs’. I’m not saying that it doesn’t need to be fought, I’m saying that it’s not being fought effectively. Pouring $10 BILLION a month into a hole in the ground and sacrificing American lives with no clear objective other than fighting ‘terror’ just isn’t working.

The only thing I’ve seen come out of this so far, aside from the loss of American lives, is a lot of people getting RICH off the idea that we’re fighting terrorism.

How long do you think we can sustain this?

If, by some act of GOD, we could magically make our dependence on foreign oil go away we wouldn’t need to be over there. It’s not just al Qaeda.

Egypt want’s us over there in the worst possible way. If we’re not dependent on their oil, they go broke and would have to eat it.

Israel want’s us over there because they need weapons and money. Come to think of it, Egypt is rather fond of our weapons too.

If the idea is create a “lasting peace” in the middle east, the first thing we need to do is leave.

...for the candidate (from whatever party) who will get us less entangled in the middle east, not more.

But how do you know beforehand?
That'll be a huge job but there are a lot more other things he needs to do too.

Citizens, hopefully aided by the press, need to ask candidates for national office exactly what their philosophical position is on the middle east.

What do they think our strategic interests there really are and should be? If we all agree it would be better to not be reliant on middle east oil, what is their plan for achieving that? (Five years after 9/11 there still isn't one, just some empty rhetoric.)

Do they consider it our role to guaranty Israel's right to exist for ever and ever, to the tune of $3 bil a year in direct aid (almost all of it military)? Or is there ever a point at which we say, we did our part to create and support a Jewish homeland, but at some point it has to exist with its neighbors on its own or it's a failed experiment?

Other than oil and Israel, do we have any interests at all there? Personally I can't think of any. And if that's the case, what business is it of ours what sort of governments they have, or whether their women wear bikinis or burkhas?

Tough questions but I think they must be asked. Otherwise we are in an endless cycle of trying to keep a lid on a boiling pot, with each successive boil-over getting worse.

I also hope people will start asking the WWIII superhawks like Newt Gingrich some tough questions. He and his boyfriend Sean Hannity keep bleating about how we have to "deal with" Iran and Syria right now this minute. What exactly are they proposing? That we stage a few coups? That we invade? Then what? Occupy and install a viceroy? Subjugate their people for as long as it takes to impress them with our good intentions?

And finally if we decide to continue our not-so-excellent adventure in the middle east, how do we pay for it? We're already charging Iraq and Afghanistan on our children's accounts, which is morally bankrupt.

I think Newt an Sean are suggesting that we cannot allow Iran, or any rogue nation, to acquire nuclear capability. That's really a no brainer for those of us that can think.

If your only interest is the short term notion that we have no business in the middle east, or anywhere else for that matter, then you're not likely to ever see the bigger, long term picture, so relax, light another joint, and let the brainer ones of us handle things. It will be to your advantage.

Based on your post, you must have found my stash.

Question for everyone:

Does Iran have the right to develop and produce nuclear reactors under the terms of the Non-Proliferation Treaty they signed?

...but I believe the answer is yes. I think the NPT gives all nations the right to develop nuclear technology for peaceful purposes, which is what I assume you mean by "reactor." The issue with Iran, which has been subject to inspection, is whether it's using the program as a cover for weapons development, which would be a violation.

Another question: which middle east countries refuse to sign the NPT? Pakistan and Israel. Pakistan has openly tested nukes and Israel has an unacknowledged nuclear weaponry program.

You are correct sir, Iran has every right under the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty to develop a nuclear program to produce nuclear power for peaceful purposes.

Iran realized long ago that by supplying their own power needs via nuclear power, they could export more oil and make more money. Few people remember this but the United States spent 20 years building a nuclear infrastructure in Iran, roughly from 1957 to 1977 (google “Atoms For Peace”).

When the Shah dictatorship was overthrown by the theocrats in 1979, the theocrats initially didn’t want a thing to do with nuclear energy. Times change, though, and eventually the mullahs saw dollar signs just as the late Shah did.

So Iran right now has two power plants in the works: The Russians are building a “light water” reactor in Bushehr, and the Chinese are helping to build a “heavy water” reactor in Arak.

The light water reactor is used worldwide to generate power. Theoretically, a light water reactor could enrich uranium to weapons-grade uranium, but in the real world the odds of that happening are highly unlikely.

The real issue is the heavy water reactor. The Iranians claim they need a heavy water reactor for total energy independence, i.e. they have access to raw uranium yellowcake but do not want to be dependent on foreign nations (USA, Russia, China, France) to sell them the enriched uranium made from yellowcake. They want control of the entire supply chain, sorta like Wal-mart. Given Iran’s long-standing desire to be completely energy-independent, that seems to be a valid argument. Unlike the United States, Iran is actually trying to DO something about becoming energy independent (besides talking about it).

But there is one critical downside to heavy water reactors: they can be and have been used to create nuclear weapons. It’s difficult to enrich uranium to the point where it can be made into a bomb, but it can be done. The United States, fearing the worst, assumes that that is Iran’s intention.

It’s worth noting that Great Britain made accusations of this nature last year and was forced to publicly retract their accusations in May of this year before the IEAE. It would appear that Iran has basically obeyed the letter of the law regarding their treaty obligations (which is not to say their hands are clean, the treaty is worded for example to say that a country does NOT have to inform the IEAE about constructing a new reactor until six months after nuclear material has arrived onsite). Having said that, the United States has, to date, failed to substantiate its charges that Iran is developing a nuclear weapon.

It’s also worth noting that there is a huge loophole in the NPT treaty: if another country declares war on you, you have the right to develop nuclear weapons to defend yourself.

There’s a lot of animosity from Iran towards the US, they haven’t forgiven the US for propping up the Shah dictatorship for a quarter century. Likewise, there is considerable animosity from the US towards Iraq, the US has not forgotten the humiliation it endured for 444 days of the “Iran Student Hostage” affair.

I personally think that both sides have somewhat dirty hands in this current situation, I think it will be interesting to watch how this plays out.

No

But will that make a difference to them?

No again.

So how far away are they from nuclear bomb capabilities?

In the US media I've heard "months"

In the European media I've heard "Ten years".

And, if they do acquire nukes, what should our reaction be?
(I'd also ask about the provisions of the nuke prolif treaty but that probably doesn't matter much).

If you think they believe they have any obligation to honor treaties with non-Muslim counries you need to go do some actually study on what they believe and how they see non-Muslims.

-----------------------------
Keeping it real and to the core of the issue, not the peripherals.

I am very concerned over all foreign spending.

Are you concerned about the billions sent to Africa for AIDS, where they will not change the life style and the money is wasted?

Also, you better learn something about the Islamic beliefs. As a non-Islam your role is to convert, bow or die.

-----------------------------
Keeping it real and to the core of the issue, not the peripherals.

...when I have you. But help me understand, since I can be a slow learner and because I'm sincerely interested in this view of terrorist motivation. Your contention is that it's strictly religion-driven: go kill the non-believers?

How did Mohammed begin spreading Islam?

He formed and army and marched out. City after the city the ultimatum was covert or be virtually enslaved or killed.

Look at the the Ottoman Empire. Christians and jews that were not killed were forced to wear colored scarves, designating them as inferiors. Religion by the sword.

Islamic could do as they wished to them and the did not break any laws, because they were not Islamic.

Coversion to Christianity in Islam in the Islamic nations is a death penalty. To be carried out by ones own family in many cases.

The Koran teaches Islam MUST govern the world. Not a good idea, but must. And Muslims MUST work toward that goal.

The suras say Jews and Christians are to be converted, enslaved, killed or driven out of places where Muslims live. Never equals.

Infidel means one is godless, thus sub human. You cannot lie or commit sin against an infidel.

There is no separation of religion and state in the Koran.

And on and on.

That is why it is absurd for the world to wonder why the Muslims will never have peace with the Jews concerning Jerusalem. Why they can never coexist where the Dome of the Rock is.

Yes, there are extremes of Islam. Moderate Islamics allow more for cnversion through persuation, if possible. Extremists go right to the sword.

But all have to goal of ultimately coverting the world to Islam.

Look where there is moderate Sunni control. There is no room for sharing power or society with Christians within their borders. They are tolerated, not good neighbors of equal standing.

Shia and Sunni do not really consider each other Islamic. So they fight, and have been fighting for many long centuries.

Even within, say Shia, there are two man schools, which reject each other as non Muslim.

Iraq Persian Shia are of one school and Kurdish Shia of another. They hate each other with a passion.

Look at the link in my profile. There is already a bunch of info there and plenty of people who will help you understand and learn.

A bunch on the Citizen get a hernia over theological talk. Which is foolish, since that IS the heart of the issue here.

-----------------------------
Keeping it real and to the core of the issue, not the peripherals.

PTC Guy, Do I understand you correctly to say that the islamic terrorists/extremists are driven to kill anyone not of their religion? If so, why do they seem to target Americans and western europeans? Why do we not hear about plots to crash jets into Beijing or Tokyo or New Delhi or Johannesburg or . . . Surely there is something that motivates their actions beyond just "kill all non-muslims."

PTC Guy, Do I understand you correctly to say that the islamic terrorists/extremists are driven to kill anyone not of their religion?

Yes.

If so, why do they seem to target Americans and western europeans? Why do we not hear about plots to crash jets into Beijing or Tokyo or New Delhi or Johannesburg or . . . Surely there is something that motivates their actions beyond just "kill all non-muslims."

Who is involved in the Middle East extensively, business and otherwise?

US and Western Europe.

They see us as polluting Islamic culture and society. Bringing in new things and ways.

A woman wearing clothes that highlight their bodies is more abhorrant to them than a woman walking down the street naked in the US.

Technology and media brings knowledge and information that side steps their mullahs and immams.

Schooling females is just not done.

We are their immediate and greatest threat. Once we are out of the way the others can be dealt with.

Did you know it is common for such as Philipino and Indonesian women to be hired as servants within many of these countries? And that many are raped, but it is not a crime, since they are non-muslims within their households, thus property?

Western thinking, culture and society is viewed as Satanic to them.

-----------------------------
Keeping it real and to the core of the issue, not the peripherals.

...so it isn't just theology that motivates them after all. It's striking back at outside powers who are "involved in the middle east extensively, business and otherwise" -- emphasis on "otherwise." Now we're getting somewhere...