In Muslim religion and culture, there are actually two types of jihad. Defensive and offensive. An offensive jihad, used to expand the reach of a Muslim empire by the sword can only be called by a Caliph. And given the last Caliphate was effectively eliminated for good with the fall of the Ottomon Empire, there is little chance of this happening.

What we are witnessing now is a defensive jihad which can be called for by any learned Muslim. Many Muslims, even moderate Muslims, see our POLICY towards the Middle East as an attack upon Muslim lands, culture, and religion. If you deny this, you are simply blind to how the Muslim world operates.

According to Ron Paul “they” is “us”, in that we are somehow responsible for the 9/11 bombings instead of the people who actually perpetrated them. So, is Ron Paul saying that if he is president he will fight himself?

This is just a stupid statement. You’ve been watching too much Fox News. Ron Paul is saying that our policies towards the Middle East enraged and provoked many Muslims to such a degree that they carried out the 9/11 attacks. Ron Paul has unequivocably stated multiple times that the terrorists who hijacked the planes were RESPONSIBLE for the attacks. But he also says that our policies played a role in those people being angry enough to do such a thing. If you can’t understand the difference between those two statements, then you are incapable of understanding motivation.

When things are said like “They want to kill us because we’re not Islamic” or “They want to institute Sharia Law” or “They hate us because we’re free”, it just denotes a sheer ignorance of the motivation and world view of those people we are “fighting”.

Dan, I think you need to understand and read Imperial Hubris by Michael Schuerer. It goes into alot of detail as to why the Islamo-nutjobs are pissed at us. One thing he points out is that radical Islam largely ignored the atheist, communist Soviet Empire until then invaded Afghanistan.

The whole “fight them over there instead of over here” is a straw man.

Ron Paul had a perfect Constitutional response to non-state actors and terrorism. Letters of Marque and Reprisal. It’s how we dealt with the Barbary Pirates. Authorize the President to grant LMRs to specific special forces units or Blackwater, et al to go after specific terrorist organizations.

The problem conservatives have with a non-interventionist foreign policy is they start from a supposition that the United States SHOULD be “leading the world”.

Ah, so much topic, so little time to type.

From 1996 to 2006 the Mexican Military has crossed our borders 105 times, and Mexican Police have crossed 148 times, that we know of.

If we can’t keep out obvious and blatant Mexican military and police incursions how in the heck do weexpect to keep out trained terrorist sneaking across?

It is absolutely not a handfull of extremists. This is what I believe is called a canard. Yes, I know what it means, and I’m not saying that you are purposely confusing the debate. You are, however, using this argument which I claim is false.

The thig is that ALL “regular Muslims” embrace Sharia Law by which the extremists claim as their law. If they do not embrace Sharia Law then they are not Muslims. The fact that many Muslims live under other laws does not mean they reject Sharia Law.

Just because someone isn’t actively engaged in combat against the enemy does not mean they are against the enemy.

Ask any true Muslim if the world should be run under the thumb of Sharia Law, and they will answer yes.

Ask them if they support global warfare to do accomplish this and most either agree or refuse to answer. The number of people who claim to be Muslim but do not support global domination under Sharia Law is quite small.

According to Ron Paul “they” is “us”, in that we are somehow responsible for the 9/11 bombings instead of the people who actually perpetrated them. So, is Ron Paul saying that if he is president he will fight himself?

“Who would be fighting us if we withdrew from the Middle East?”

Islamofascists are fighting us. By their declaration, not ours. Our declaration is one of defense.

We chose the Middle East as our battle field to defend ourselves. Leaving the battle field of our choosing does nothing to stop the Islamofasict movement from seeking to dominate the planet, and they are still going to fight us anyway. All this does is allow them to fight on the battle field they choose, giving them yet one more advantage.

“We would not lose. America is still strong enough to turn “them” back at the boarders.”

If we believe that giving up our current battlefield is not losing, then yes, we would not lose.

As far as turning them back at the borders, our culture isn’t ready or willing to do seal our borders. We can’t put a dent in drug smuggling or illegal immigration, so why would it even be consider realistic that we could keep out trained and dedicated Islamic terrorist bombers?

Don’t get me wrong, I understand your position and I can’t really argue against your overall ideology. I just do not view your position as realistic under the circumstances.

The problem is not that we are fighting them, but that they are fighting us.

Who are “they”? Ron Paul voted to go after “them”, that is, those who were fighting us, that is, those responsible for 9/11.

Who would be fighting us if we withdrew from the Middle East?

Quiting the fight does not mean they must also quit. It just means we lose.

Do you believe that? We would lose? To whom? What would a loss look like? Would my kids be speaking Arabic?

We would not lose. America is still strong enough to turn “them” back at the boarders. If we were not in the Middle East, America would be a big, powerful trading partner. Sure there might be a handful of extremists who would want to take that on, but they would have very low success at convincing any of the regular Muslims going about their daily routine that they should take up arms against us. I don’t think that it is inevidible that we would fight them in the future.

Sorry about the cowardice crack.

Quiting the fight does not mean they must also quit. It just means we lose.

Okay, throwing out the word “cowardice” ad hominem is the reaction of a coward, but the core point of your response is astute.

If we don’t annihilate them now we will be fighiting them until the end of time.

If we don’t fight them now, we will be fighting them later, until the end of time.

I think we would agree that we probably do not have the internal fortitude to annihilate them now, so what’s the point to fighting? We should just stop now and leave the conflict for future generations to deal with?

That is a remarkable statement. I am trying to think of a way to express the sheer cowardice of that remark. Is that a direct quote from Darth Vader?

If you fight “them” now when they’re weak, you better be sure to you are prepared to utterly annihilate “them.” Destroy them so completly and salt the earth so they can’t ever pick themselves off the ground. Otherwise you will be fighting them while they’re weak until the end of time.

At any rate, the US simply can’t keep up the pace. It is bankrupting the government and bankrupting the dollar. The people are paying for it.

Ever wonder why there is need for a Department of Defense and a Department of Homeland Security? Because the DoD is distracted from its function of “defense.” Bring the troops home and let them defend the country.

If the government would just let Americans be Americans, America would be prosperous and strong. Strong enough to defend ourselves and deter anyone from taking on the challenge. Have a little faith, that if we, as Americans, are prepared to defend ourselves, but otherwise treat other nations how we would like to be treated, God will take care of the rest of the world.