War poll

Why Ron Paul Is Right About Terrorism: A Letter to the GOP Base by David T. Beito and Scott Horton


"Policy toward Iraq is ... not designed to protect U.S. national security. It is instead a threat to our security because it may lead to war and loss of American lives, increase terrorism and certainly an additional expense for the U.S. taxpayer. The hyped rhetoric coming from Washington which describes Hussein as the only evil monster with which we must deal in the world is a poor substitute for wise counsel. "

~ Rep. Ron Paul, Letter to President Bill Clinton, November 19, 1997

"If we don't stop extending our troops all around the world in nation-building missions, then we're going to have a serious problem coming down the road."

~ Gov. George W. Bush, Presidential debate with Al Gore, October 3, 2000

Many conservatives have said that they agree with Republican presidential candidate Rep. Ron Paul on just about everything, but they just can't see things his way when it comes to dealing with the Middle East. Paul's views – correctly or incorrectly perceived – could well be a deal breaker for some in the base of the Republican party who look for strong presidential leadership to protect us from foreign threats. This open letter is an attempt to persuade you that Paul has been, and continues to be, right about the terrorist threat and what should be done about it.

Ron Paul understands something that the other candidates from both parties apparently cannot: Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda is a relatively small organization with limited reach. The attack of September 11th was a desperate act from a desperate group who has failed miserably in their quest to conquer and unify the Islamic world. They do not control a single state on earth. By all indications Bin Laden, al Zawahiri and their closest followers remain isolated in the no-man's-land between Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Al Qaeda is not an Islamo-fascist caliphate on the march, but they have attacked us and remain a threat. It is al Qaeda – not extremism everywhere – that Dr. Paul means to fight. Responding appropriately demands a cold and objective assessment of the situation, not unchecked, knee-jerk emotion.

Let us start with the question "Why did they attack us on September 11th?"

Dr. Paul's fellow GOP candidates may publicly denounce him all they want for his view that the September 11th hijackers, their accomplices and financiers were motivated by a hatred of American policy in the Middle East. The terrorists themselves cite U.S. support for Israel and an indefinite military occupation of the Saudi desert, necessary for the enforcement of the blockade and no-fly zones against neighboring Iraq during the 1990s.

Similarly, former Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, a primary architect of the Iraq invasion, explained to Vanity Fair magazine soon after the fall of Baghdad, in May, 2003, that the ability to move the bases from Saudi Arabia to Iraq was a great benefit of the war because it detracted from one of bin Laden's motivations for attacking the U.S.:

"There are a lot of things that are different now, and one that has gone by almost unnoticed – but it's huge – is that by complete mutual agreement between the U.S. and the Saudi government we can now remove almost all of our forces from Saudi Arabia. Their presence there over the last 12 years has been a source of enormous difficulty for a friendly government. It's been a huge recruiting device for al Qaeda. In fact if you look at bin Laden, one of his principle grievances was the presence of so-called crusader forces on the holy land, Mecca and Medina. I think just lifting that burden from the Saudis is itself going to open the door to other positive things."

According to authors Lawrence Wright, Terry McDermott, Michael Scheuer, Loretta Napoleoni and James Bamford, the purpose of al Qaeda terrorism, and specifically the September 11th attacks, was to provoke a reaction. Bin Laden and his partner Zawahiri have both explained that they already saw the U.S. as being in a state of war with them, but through their own governments and from far away North America. Their strategy was to hit us hard enough to provoke a full-scale invasion of Afghanistan. Essentially, their goal was to recreate their war against the Soviets a generation before – a war that they, of course, consider to be the primary cause of the USSR's collapse. In other words, they meant to lure our military to their sandtrap to bleed our treasury dry, forcing our empire out of their region for good.

In this sense, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld's decision to keep the invasion "light and fast" – at least at first – was smart insofar as it would deny the terrorists the quagmire they sought to provoke. Unfortunately, the administration's decision to topple Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq stole defeat from the jaws of victory, ridding the largest Arab state of its secular and formerly Western-backed dictator and creating a second chance for bin Laden to claim gains against the United States.

Years before 9/11, In February 1998, Dr. Paul told the Congress:

"Mr. Speaker, the Saudis this past week expressed a sincere concern about an anti-American backlash if we start bombing Baghdad. We should not ignore the feelings of the Saudis. If a neighbor can oppose this bombing, we should be very cautious."

Later that year, while Bill Clinton was shooting cruise missiles at antibiotics factories and empty training camps in Afghanistan, Ron Paul spoke from the floor of the House of Representatives, warning the public and the Congress that our policy was in fact making enemies of our former friends, the mujahedeen warriors of Afghanistan (who he had opposed funding in the first place during his stint in Congress in the 1980s):

"Osama bin Laden and his Afghan religious supporters were American allies throughout the 1980s and received our money and training and were heralded as the Afghan 'Freedom Fighters.' Even then, bin Laden let it be known that his people resented all imperialism, whether from the Soviets or the United States. ...

"[T]he region's Muslims see America as the imperialist invader. They have deeply held religious beliefs, and in their desire for national sovereignty many see America as a threatening menace. America's presence in the Middle East, most flagrantly demonstrated with troops and bases in Saudi Arabia, is something many Muslims see as defiling their holy land. Many Muslims – and this is what makes an extremist like bin Laden so popular – see American policy as identical to Israel's policy; an affront to them that is rarely understood by most Americans.

"Far too often, the bombing of declared (or concocted) enemies, whether it's the North Vietnamese, the Iraqis, the Libyans, the Sudanese, the Albanians, or the Afghans, produces precisely the opposite effect to what is sought. It kills innocent people, creates more hatred toward America, unifies and stimulates the growth of the extremist Islamic movement and makes them more determined than ever to strike back with their weapon of choice – terror."

You can see now why Ron Paul did not endorse Bill Clinton's endless bombing campaigns back then and why he opposed the war in 2003. He saw the consequences of U.S. policy on their way back when most were caught up with the dot-com bubble and White House sex scandal.

Between these two warnings from Dr. Paul about the possible terrorist blowback from U.S. foreign policy, Osama bin Laden had re-released his 1996 "fatwa" against the United States. Titled "Declaration of War Against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places" (the Arabian peninsula), he invoked support for Israel, the occupation of Saudi Arabia, the backing of local dictatorships and the continuous bombing of Iraq as his major grievances against U.S. policy.

For those determined to see bin Laden as simply a cold-blooded murderer who hates us because we are free, what is important to understand is that no matter what he actually believes, his message is one of specific complaints against U.S. policy. And it is this, as Ron Paul noted back in 1998, that makes bin Laden's message useful in gaining new recruits to his "jihad."

Even though some on TV complain that recognizing these facts somehow implicitly excuses the actions of those who attacked the United States, this, of course, is a red herring. Nothing could excuse the acts of September 11th. A Congressman identifying the motives at play is not justifying the attacks any more than when a local DA tries to figure out why someone has committed any other crime. If we believe that the terrorists are motivated to attack us because we have freedom, or have yet to invade their countries and give them freedom, then our policy prescriptions for multiple regime changes across the Middle East can only make matters worse. With opinion of the United States falling all across the world, and especially in the Muslim world, the continued presence of U.S. combat troops on Arab soil makes attacks against this country much more likely, not less. Paul voted to give the president the authority to use military force against bin Laden's group in Afghanistan and has repeatedly stated that were he president, actually doing so would be a top priority.

Not only did Paul foresee the problem with terrorism stemming from our continuous bombing campaign in the 1990s, he also predicted the consequences in Iraq were Saddam and the Ba'athists to fall. In the February '98 speech quoted above, he also asked:

"And even if we do kill Hussein, what do we do? We create a vacuum, a vacuum that may be filled by Iran. It may be filled by some other groups of Islamic fundamentalists."

The invasion of Iraq created what the CIA calls a "training and recruiting ground" for al Qaeda wannabes in that land, though it seems the low numbers of so-called "foreign fighters" being brought into "al Qaeda in Iraq" have had even less influence than the skeptics had predicted.

These al Qaeda wannabes in Iraq have worn out their welcome with the local Sunni insurgency and have not been able to mount attacks outside Iraq. The local Sunnis tolerated them only as long as they were useful in fighting the occupation and were able to flick off "al Qaeda in Iraq" like a switch when they felt like it, as seen in the 2006–2007 "Sunni Awakening" in provinces where they had been welcomed.

The president threatens that if the U.S. withdraws, Osama bin Laden and his followers could somehow take over Iraq and create a new terrorist state bent on attacking the America. This just does not hold water. Osama's movement remains small and marginal. The "central front" in the fight against them is in the Waziristan region of Pakistan, not in far away Iraq.

The end of Saddam's rule has also empowered Iran, which has used the democracy provided by the American occupation to get their proxies elected to power. The Bush administration apparently tolerated this for no other reason than that the pro-Iran factions needed the U.S. occupation and so welcomed it, while the nationalist Shi'ite leaders like Muqtada al Sadr insisted on withdrawal. Were the American occupation to end, it is much more likely that nationalist types such as Sadr's Mahdi Army would drive the Iranians back to Persia.

Ironically, the U.S. has spent 2007 accusing Iran of backing and waging war against American forces in Iraq through the Sadrists, who are not Iranian proxies and who are not fighting the occupation. They have provided no evidence that this is the case and our Shi'ite allies in Iraq have nothing but praise for Iran's support of their government.

When it comes to Iran, Ron Paul's view isn't much different than that of Gen. John Abizaid, George Bush's former head of Central Command. The General stated recently that Iran is not much of a threat and still would not pose one were they to obtain nuclear weapons – an achievement they are years away from, according to Mike McConnell, Bush's National Intelligence Director.

The Iranians pose no real threat to Israel or the West. Their nuclear enrichment equipment is nothing more than first-generation crap bought second-hand from the Pakistanis, every bit of which is monitored by international inspectors. Ninety percent pure Uranium-235 or Plutonium-239 is needed to make an atom bomb; the Iranians have yet to enrich their uranium higher than 4 percent and could not do so in the presence of the International Atomic Energy Agency monitors and sensors. Harvesting plutonium from their nuclear reactors would take years and likewise could not even begin without everyone knowing.

Iran's much touted "support for international terrorism" has nothing whatsoever to do with Osama bin Laden, al Qaeda or the September 11th attacks on this country. Iran supports Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in the Gaza Strip. While often times extremely violent, these groups are not global in their reach, are not enemies of the United States and pose no threat to this country.

It has been claimed that the president of Iran, who actually holds the power of a glorified Secretary of the Interior, has threatened to "wipe Israel off the map," in a speech in October, 2005. But according to those who are fluent in Farsi, he said no such thing. What he said was that the "regime" over Jerusalem would one day "vanish from the page of time." This was not even a subtle or implied threat, much less a promise of imminent attack. The fact also remains that Iran has no capability to destroy Israel, conventionally, with nukes they don't have or through nearly powerless groups like Hamas.

No country in the world would attempt to "annihilate" Israel. The politician who did so would be dooming himself and his entire nation to perish in nuclear flames. Israel has at least 300 nuclear bombs and the delivery systems necessary to "wipe Persia off the map" in the space of an afternoon. As Paul has noted, the U.S. triumphantly faced down the Soviet Union (who actually were an existential threat), while our modern day think-tankers say the only way to deal with nearly-helpless Iran is with preemptive war.

Many Americans believe they need the government to defend them from "radical Islam," but those who hold truest to enforcing the strictest interpretations of Islam as a way of life have no chance of gaining or maintaining real dominance over humanity in the 21st century. Even if 100 impossibilities found Osama bin Laden leading the new caliphate in the Middle East, it would be as doomed as Communism was in the last century. Do we really fear that a stateless band of pirates in exile in the Hindu Kush will destroy us? Have we so much confidence in the capabilities of those who had to steal our planes in order to launch their Kamikaze attack and so little belief in the resilience of our own civilization?

Speaking of (Japanese Shintoist and Buddhist) Kamikazes, why should we believe that terrorism is intrinsically connected with Islam at all? Suicide bombings are rife in Sri Lanka where neither side is Muslim. By contrast, radical Islam is prevalent in Sudan, where it has no relationship to the current widespread violence (both sides are Sunni Arabs) and there has never been a suicide bombing. Did radical Catholicism motivate the IRA?

In the book Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism, Dr. Robert A. Pape's research shows that suicide terrorism is a strategic response to occupation by foreign armies, plain and simple. The only role religion plays in this struggle, according to Pape, is that the willingness of the occupied to resort to suicide attacks increases when the occupying army is made of people who come from far away, look different and believe differently due to the fear that their entire way of life will come under attack.

Americans are the same way. Our irrational fear that Arab Islamic terrorists from the Middle East are coming here to force us all to convert to Wahhabism has convinced us to spend thousands of lives, trillions of dollars, pass piles of new laws and nearly break our defenses in our efforts to preempt them. Now that's suicide.

The hyperbole about "radical Islam" has also helped to obscure divisions among those who oppose the U.S. in the Middle East and Central Asia. Even presidential candidates speak as though al Qaeda, the Ayatollahs in Iran, Sunni radicals in Palestine and Hezbollah in Lebanon are all one unified threat that must be "preempted." This may be good for defense manufacturing firms and votes, but if we can't even tell who our adversaries are, what distinguishes one from another, how are we supposed to win the fight?

A recent local newspaper story from Dr. Paul's Texas Gulf Coast district quoted one of his constituents complaining that if Paul were elected president and withdrew U.S. troops from the Middle East, we would have no oil at all. This is just not the case. In fact, it is the economic theory of mercantilism that Adam Smith refuted in The Wealth of Nations back in 1776.

It is not necessary for the Japanese, Chinese or Swiss to send armies to the Middle East in order to get the petroleum their economies demand. They simply buy it on the market like anything else. The only reason one would need the Marine Corps to "secure" the oil is to ensure which companies get to do the pumping and distributing. The fact that the price of oil is now approximately triple what it was before the war ought to tell us that someone is benefiting. But who? Is it you and me? Or is it politically connected big-wigs such as oil company shareholders and executives? The oil will always be for sale. Even if unfriendly regimes sit on the wells and sell only to others, it will free up other supplies elsewhere in the market and we'll be just fine.

It is a mistake to think of Ron Paul's foreign policy as some sort of liberal exception to the rest of his conservative outlook. Instead, his views follow the tradition of the Old Right Taft Republicans. They opposed foreign interventionism for the same reason America's founders did – out of caution for the inevitable domestic detriments that accompany permanent military establishments. It has only been since the Vietnam War era that the antiwar position has been perceived as the province of hippies and leftists. Paul's prescriptions for dealing with the world are the most conservative in the race. Meanwhile, the current National Security Strategy – unlikely to change substantively under Giuliani, Romney or Hillary administrations – is itself a radical doctrine, called "Hard Wilsonianism" by its closest adherents. Paul's policy is to pull back the empire in order to preserve the republic and the Constitution from the radical changes brought about by avoidable conflict. These are conservative principles of independence and prudence, friendly relations and open trade. As Gov. George W. Bush once advised,

"se of the military needs to be in our vital interest, the mission needs to be clear, and the exit strategy obvious. ... I think one way for us to end up being viewed as the ugly American is for us to go around the world saying, 'We do it this way. So should you.' ... I think the United States must be humble ... in how we treat nations that are figuring out how to chart their own course."

Sooner or later the U.S. must leave Iraq – for financial reasons if nothing else – and the jihadists will attempt to claim credit for it no matter when it happens. Leaving Iraq and the larger Middle East as a matter of principle, however, is the only way to do so with any hope of restoring some of the integrity that has been lost since the invasion. Dr. Paul believes we have no business maintaining a world empire and that its consequences cost us far more than the gains. A withdrawal from Iraq under a Ron Paul administration would not be a victory for the terrorists, but an event to which they quickly become irrelevant bystanders.

When someone finally captures or kills Osama bin Laden and his few hundred followers, the larger "Global War on Terrorism" must end as well. The sooner the U.S. disengages from the Middle East, the quicker al Qaeda's support will dry up. International cooperation from the various national police forces and intelligence agencies will be plenty to handle the problem. The more America intervenes in the affairs of others, the more blowback we can expect to suffer, but it is not too late to put our country back on the right track.

Thanks to Chad McMahill for helping to edit this article.

1.. If by referring to our "culture" you actually mean our "way of life".. every American should honestly realize that our "way of life".. is pretty much impossible to continue in the long run without the inevitability of complete collapse at some point.

2.. Life.. and human anatomy/condition is fragile.. we may be able to adapt.. but this war is not about "adaptation".. it's about "exploitation".
Hell.. time has proven that the only species to survive.. are those that are willing and able to adapt.

3.. I don't believe there are that many "legions" of muslims that wish to kill me and/or deny me my "entitlement" to any particular "way of life".

4.. I'm more afraid of getting arrested for growing than I am of being subject to attack from foreign invaders.
Remember.. Our own government with it's vast resources has already declared war upon us.. we continue to exist because of a lack of desire to persecute/hassle/arrest all of us individually.. or complete ineptness.

5.. I'm more worried about being killed from one of the pisspoor drivers in my city than I am of being targeted by Osama Bin Laden.. or his followers.

6.. I've seen and heard some of the "Christian" leaders in this country.. and I fear them MUCH more when it comes to my way of life than anyone I've ever met before.

Bin Laden already got his message out.. and I don't see all of the worlds Muslims grabbing arms and killing people.. I haven't heard of any of the many Muslim doctors blowing up our hospitals.

Ya'd think if anytime was appropriate for "the great calling".. this would be about as an appropriate time as any that has presented itself.

Fear will be the only thing to "embolden the enemy".. since this is the one and only outcome of terrorism.

A man once said.. "The only thing we have to fear ..."

The fact remains that the US Gov't gets to declare who it's enemies/terrorists are.. and has given itself full reign to attack any and all enemies/terrorists.. both real and imaginary.

Personally.. I'm tired of the fuckin "Religious Right.. and the do-gooders" taking over my Gov't.. and fuckin with my "way of life".

Hell.. stories of how duck livers.. fou gras.. or whatever.. get's banned in a city just because it's fattened goose livers.. unhealthy. WTF??

I don't need.. nor do I desire "Big Brother".. neither in Gov't nor Religious matters.

This is the "true" war that we need to be fighting.. one for our own freedoms.. and unfortunately.. the enemy lies within.

Ron Paul has the right ideas.. and I can only hope he becomes the Republican candidate.. but even with the recent injection of web-based grassroots contributions.. I don't think he has a chance of beating "The Machine".

Personally.. as a lefty(wannabe lefty alone).. hippie.. now card carrying member of the Democrat's.. I'll place a vote for Richardson.

We'll have to haggle over the scraps after the primaries.

May you all be well till we next meet.


PFR

the war in iraq was not meant to be won... it was meant to be sustained...

just like vietnam..

there is no 'exit strategy'... there is no hope for these people...

the entire thing wasnt about the people.. it was about money.

oil. blood. weapons.

if someone was giving you 100,000usd every week... would you want them to stop?

me neither.

Let me jump in here.....

I dont believe all westerners are 'live and let live'. The fanatical Christian right for one, having been fighting the Muslim heretics for thousands of years, will continue until they convert or die. It's in the Bible, It's also their duty, thats why we are in the middle east, Convert or Die, and why we back Israel 100%, them being Gods chosen people and all. Because they also demand everyone Convert or Die.

The three major religions are all the same.. Convert to our way or Die! You will be assimilate, resistance is futile...

Thats why this will never end, ever. As long as religion can cloud our minds with myth and lie there will never be true peace. I hate to sound pessimistic but I see myself as more a realest. As long as religion can promise 40 virgins and heaven to it's holy warriors it will never end until there truly is only 1 left, or none...

The only way out of this is to end religion, become an enlightened human race, but that would also require we demand to the world convert or die... Damed if you do, damed if you don't.


What we need as a human race is to find a hostile alien race. That way we can all unite as one convert or kill the aliens.

non-intervention vs. isolation

can you site, in the Christian Bible were it says, Convert or Die?
there are many Bibles online, would you please link to that passage


It's all more of the same.


We need bullets to kill bad people. The Bad People are, who we say they are. Isn't that so much simpler?

If it were really all about security and our, "way of life", there would be a fence. Where's the fence? It's the cheapest, fastest and most cost effective quick fix! (I know, our "way of life" doesn't have a fence.) Ask the American Indian if they should have had a fence.

It's the spreading of capitalism- over there, that is pissing them off.

God is telling them to blow-up McDonald's and Kentucky Fried Chicken; do you really think it's about holy land? Only a few control the money over there and you are helping the WTO and such, to flees them; just as they are fleecing the middle class here in North America.

The question is: what deal did you make with China to shut down North Korea's plans? Placating them last time didn't work and it won't work this time either but you gave something to China.

PAT WAS 100% RIGHT, the wrong side has been in charge of the GOP!


Don't jerk, squeeeeeeze.

thanks

Sure can....

Ask and ye shall receive….

That last one is one of my personal favorites. “We can do no wrong, only God can judge us”

I can keep going, but I think you get my point. BTW BibleGateway.com is a great reference site as you can search multiple version of the bible at one time.

Oh and remember... Jesus Loves you.

True, but some see what we and our allies are doing in the middle east as Christian nations waging war with Islam. But I understand what your saying and somewhat agree with your point, and PFR.. LOL It's a complicated issue for sure.

Again true, but then again the Torah (or old testament) is still part of the Christian bible and part of their modern belief structure. and I was asked to provide proof of my statement in the 'Christian Bible', which I did. I can also find plenty in the new testament if you would like, but I would think that pointless. to me you cannot piece-meal the bible together, you take it as a whole or not, Christianity is not a buffet line, the fanatics I speak of believe just as strongly in the old testament as in the new. so those quotes will still apply.

And yes I threw the last two in because I like them, not because they fit the topic, lol. But to me they show a pattern, a pattern of intolerance, just like almost all other religions, which was my whole point. And open to individual interpretation, you see it it one way, I see it another, someone else sees something completely different, yet another reason scripture should not be seen as 'The Word of God' But thats a whole different thread.

YouTube - Ron Paul - The Just War Theory & The Peace President
Why Are Americans So Angry?
christian just war - Google Search

I agree...

I do have to say that I understand that most Christians are not of the fanatical type and are WAY more enlightened then there predecessors, but even Jesus said in Matthew 5:17 that he would not change one letter of the old law, the Torah. He didn't come to end the old laws but to fulfill them. So even though they aren’t actively practicing the genocide and ethnic cleansing of the Old Testament, the laws are still on the books so to speak, and that creates an environment in where fanatics can spin things to the bad. From June to September 1692 it only took a few girls from Salem to cause the unjust death of 19 men and women. All it takes is a few fanatics and a bit of hysteria and otherwise good people can do very bad things, all in the name of god, any god: Yahweh, Allah, Jesus, Baal…

Same thing happened in Germany, does anyone actually believe the entire country just one day wanted to exterminate all the Jews? Some slick talking and a charismatic leader a little sprinkle of religion and POW….

To me this is why ALL religion is an evil blight. Even in its benign form it still provides a fertile environment for fanatics to manipulate events to their ends. There can be only one! But see it’s like that on all sides…. They all want to start that last holy war, Armageddon if you will. Of course Al Qaeda wants to hit us so hard we freak the fuck out on all Muslims because then those backsliding weak “compassionate’ Muslims will have to act and fulfill the old laws. The Christian fanatics would like that too, because they could then call out all the milk-toast weak compassionate Christians to take up the holy war against the evil anti-Christ….I believe these fanatics to be in control of this country right now and the reason we are even in Iraq. It’s the new world order… There shall be only one…

And while it might sound ridicules right now that normal law abiding compassionate people would be so barbaric, history has proven this formula over and over.

Religion + hysteria = Weapons of Mass Destruction

I totally agree that the next terrorist attack in this county will be horrendous and will spawn hysteria even worse then the 911 hysteria that got us into this problem. What makes the Muslim fanatics any worse then the Christian fanatics? They scale of there attacks? Because there beliefs are the same, Convert or die.. You will be assimilated, resistance is futile… The Christian fanatics might be appear to tame compared to there Muslim brethren but I see it as being more tactical. Christian Politics to their “brute force”. The Christian fanatics managed take over the most powerful country in the world to start their holy war, But it’s all about the same thing.. Be like us or die.

That’s why we are doing this in Iraq, there were no weapons of mass destruction, Iraq was no military threat, never was, ever. Al Qaeda was not in Iraq because dictators don’t like sharing power with religious fanatics, a good policy if you ask me, lol. So why are we in Iraq? Oil? I think it’s bigger then that, religious fanatics all have a goal of ultimate world domination. We are in Iraq because GOD told bush to go into Iraq, and to me that’s some scary ‘End of the world’ shit. That the leader of the most powerful nation in the world it taking orders from an imaginary old man in the sky scares the shit out of me.

We as the humans have got to get rid of the religions, we do not need religion, maybe at one time we needed someone to explain why the ground rumble and the sky darkened with ash. But now we understand tectonic plates and volcano’s, we don’t need religion to be moral, religion it self is not very moral.. I can site many times of rape, child neglect, genocide, infanticide, ethnic cleansing, and lots of other non-family values things in all the holy books, so religion is no cornucopia of morals, so why do we need religion? Any religion?

Because it’s a very effective way of controlling a population that’s why, It has nothing to do with your eternal salvation. it’s all about repressing your knowledge, keeping you ignorant and blind to the truth so you wont see all the evil shit there rulers are really doing. Blind Faith is not a virtue.. It’s a curse you must question, and question everything. Show me proof, show me truth don’t tell me fairy tales of androgynous winged creatures and a all knowing all seeing old man in the clouds. It’s not true, it’s a myth, a ledged, a fable, a story, but a story that has killed millions of humans. Imagine that people dieing because of literature, imagine people killing and dyeing for Shakespeare. But that’s what’s happening, has been happening and will continue to happen until we remove all religion or only one is left.. or non at all I guess.. You don’t see atheists out there killing in the name of nothing.. Convert to our belief in the great nothing or DIE…. lol

I know I come off as a Christian hating heathen but really it’s all religion that I hate, I see it as the one true evil in the world. You can be a compassionate, loving, tolerant, moral person and not be religious, matter of fact most compassionate, loving, tolerant, moral people I know are not religious, but maybe that’s just my circle of friends.

The only way to end holy wars is to end religion everywhere, become a secular people with a moral code based on what we as an enlightened society agree on, one based in fact not fairy tale one based on the best needs of our society and the survival of our species as a whole, not as some fragmented “convert or die” culture, that only leads to more death.

God is the reason good people do bad things….

…Now I’m off to prepare my bed in hell.

"Convert or die" as stated, suggests Christianity at the end of a sword and denotes an aggressive offensive tone.

Best I can tell, from what you've sited St0ney, is a protectionist, even defensive posture within the tribe. In that these sounds like rules for outsiders and/or the crimes of Heresy within the tribe, not spreading Christianity at the tip of a blade.

I suggest, this a major difference.

Is McDonald's and Kentucky Fried Chicken heresy? maybe?