>> ^criticalthud:

ummm, from a propaganda standpoint, there are some corollaries for sure.
But, let's look at some geopolitics.
(1) In a world of diminishing resources, Iran is sitting on some of the largest oil reserves.
(2) Israel, on the other hand, is sitting on a piece of worthless desert called the holy land and depends on foreign oil imports and American Aid. That American aid is also highly dependent on the US continuing to essentially control the oil trade. Oil is traded in dollars, and it is that massive circulation that helps keep the American dollar afloat (each dollar is HIGHLY leveraged (ie: debt)).
(3) So who wants what? Religious crazies aside, from a geo-political standpoint Israel has very little to offer Iran, but control or influence over Iran's oil reserves has quite a bit to offer Israel.
Now...why would Iran want to have a nuclear energy program when it has vast oil reserves?
-- just like Venezuela, who is limiting the amount they produce, if they can use less of their oil now, in a world of diminishing energy resources, it means that in the future they wield more and more geo-political power. And energy is wealth. The more they control their own resources, the more they can control price points of resources, which is a large part of how the world powers have become world powers.


(1) True, but nevertheless it is only ~11% of the world's proven oil reserves:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_proven_oil_reserves

(2) Going from point 1, Iran hardly holds a control on the monopoly of oil. Furthermore all developed countries have an interest in ensuring steady supply to oil. If for example Iran were to close the Strait of Hormuz, they would attract opprobrium from far more than just Israel and the US.

Oil trade in US dollars is surely a big part of the contributor to the strong US dollar, but the currency is used as a global trade and reserve currencies for its pre-eminence as a global economy not as a result of oil.

Also, even if the US dollar value were to collapse (which is hardly something likely in the next decade), I would bet that aid to Israel would be one of the last things to go because of the religious ties, the power of AIPAC in the US as a lobbying group and the history between the two countries.

(3) I think there's little denying that Iran has a nuclear weapons program, and I agree that geopolitics and influence in the region is surely a reason they are seeking it. But considered simply from the standpoint of Iran's autocratic leaders that it's simply a deterrence to outside intervention from the US.

Right now it seems implausible especially under Obama that the US itself would launch an attack on Iran, but when GWB invaded Iraq and the US economy was in much better shape that was hardly a fantasy. Iran's leaders have a genuine reason to fear this and while in the short term they risk a pre-emptive attack from Israel, in the long term they benefit immeasurably from the kind of deterrence that NK now has. Keep in mind that Iran's nuclear program is hardly the machinations of right wing ideologues like Ahmadinejad. Mousavi, the de facto leader of the green movement supports nuclear development and was instrumental in the inception of the program as previous prime minister.

So I really think it's that and not a long term play for energy independence. Oil is going to be with us for many decades to come and if this wiki is correct, Iran has a 100 years of supply available. With the economy the way it is and our current dependence on dirty fuels, we're hardly going to jump on the green train any time soon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_reserves

ummm, from a propaganda standpoint, there are some corollaries for sure.

But, let's look at some geopolitics.

In a world of diminishing resources, Iran is sitting on some of the largest oil reserves.

Israel, on the other hand, is sitting on a piece of worthless desert called the holy land and depends on foreign oil imports and American Aid. That American aid is also highly dependent on the US continuing to essentially control the oil trade. Oil is traded in dollars, and it is that massive circulation that helps keep the American dollar afloat (each dollar is HIGHLY leveraged (ie: debt)).

So who wants what? Religious crazies aside, from a geo-political standpoint Israel has very little to offer Iran, but control or influence over Iran's oil reserves has quite a bit to offer Israel.

Now...why would Iran want to have a nuclear energy program when it has vast oil reserves?
-- just like Venezuela, who is limiting the amount they produce, if they can use less of their oil now, in a world of diminishing energy resources, it means that in the future they wield more and more geo-political power. And energy is wealth. The more they control their own resources, the more they can control price points of resources, which is a large part of how the world powers have become world powers.

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^artician:
I'm so curious to why people reject that notion. Is it purely fear of other religions and cultures? Are that many americans actually for invading other countries? I've never encountered that state of mind before, at all. From my experience most people are pretty quick to equate War with Evil.

I have a theory that most Americans know pretty much what we're doing. The fight between the indoctrinated (both the right and the left) is actually a fight about how we should go about doing what we're doing in the world. Indoctrinated Democrats have no problem with bossing other countries around and getting our way, we just have to be nicer about it and do it carefully so that we at least LOOK like we're good. Whereas the indoctrinated Republicans believe we are "Special" and should not only do it but do it with complete disregard for what ANY else thinks or says.
This is just a theory based on what I've seen from what our presidents do. Democratic presidents aren't any better on war crimes than Republican presidents. They just seem to be in the business of trying to tell everyone they're being nice and when they have to do something awful it's all the other countries fault.
I mean look at Bush and Obama...Bush locked up people indefinitely and said they deserved it and he does it because they're they enemy. Obama doesn't bother he just assassinates them. If Bush assassinated more like Obama he'd come out and take full credit and say it was AWESOME that he was doing it...Obama not so much, more hand wringing and deflection.
This is also helped along by the media who play their role well. It's just a theory but I like it.


Wow Yogi, we agree on something .

I think your view is pretty much bang on. The only difference between Dem. and Rep. presidents is the reasons they give for acting purely in their own self interests(which very often coincides with making decisions that are in America's self interests).

Where I disagree with Ron Paul's conclusion is about what the answer to all this should be. I don't for a second believe Ron Paul would be any different than all those before him. Instead of selfish wars he'd maybe follow the course of selfish isolationism. Take the recent example in Libya. America had two selfish options, go in or don't. Not going in would mean keeping the President's hands clean and money in America's pocket, and Ron Paul insists that what he'd have done. It also would have meant leaving thousands of Libyan civilians to Gaddafi's death squads. It would mean a Libya still ruled today by Gaddafi, with a newly subdued and less numerous population.

I don't see a clearly white/black obvious ethical choice in most geopolitical decisions, it's always messy. The Iraqi's that hate America the most(the Sadrists) don't hate them for all the things that America did to them, but for America's failures to act. The hate America for it's failure to push into Baghdad in the first Gulf War. In lieu of that they want revenge on the Sunnis. They want to commit their own eviction of all Sunni's from Iraq, or in it's stead to kill them for what Saddam had done with their aid. Was America wrong to stick around in Iraq after evicting Saddam and trying to stand in the middle, stopping a civil war driven by revenge against the Sunnis?

Ron Paul and Chomsky are generally agreed on minding our own business is the only ethical choice. It's hard to make that argument for Libya. It's impossible to make that argument for Rwanda. There are situations in our world were the ethical choice IS to go to war and stop something even more evil than war inherently is. What Ron Paul and Chomsky understand though is that no matter how grave the evil you oppose, your actions will create people who hate you for interfering. War makes it inevitable that your own forces will commit crimes against innocents, and their families will hate you. Ron and Chomsky conclude that means never get involved, I call that cowardice and insist there are situations that demand paying that price and coming to the aid of our fellow man when faced with terrible evils like genocide. In theory, every signatory nation to the convention on genocide agrees with me on this point too.

>> ^hpqp:

@marbles
You really are an "either/or" kind of person aren't you. Either we adhere to your paranoid conspiracy theories or we are the brainwashed mouthpieces of the guv'mint propaganda and fully support the violence and death caused by America's wars.
Sure there are Al Qaeda elements amongst the Lybian rebels, geopolitics is a messy thing. But to go from there to saying that the Arab Spring uprisings is some mass conspiracy takes the kind of singleminded ignorance that conspiracy theorists and religious fanatics have in common.
"You're either with us or against us" may be good enough for Jesus, W. Bush and conspiracy nuts, but the rest of us like to have a nuanced view of things.
As for Tapley: "The notion of anthropogenic global warming is a fraud." ( The Obama Deception: The Mask Comes Off 2009). Sounds very much like denialism to me.


No, I just try to see the world for what it is. Cut through the bullshit, and find the truth. Regurgitating talking points from sources that over and over lie to me just seems like a fool's errand, but you find solace in being a dis-info/government apologist.

I guess that makes you an "I know, but" kind of person: I know Obama said he was going to end the wars, but we've got finish what Bush started. I know we've killed millions of people, but we're trying to spread democracy. I know we armed and supported Al-qaeda rebels in Libya (remnants of the same ones attacking US troops in Iraq), but "geopolitics is a messy thing". The list is endless.

And "you're either with us or against us" is the same motto used by "progressive" war-mongers like Obama, Hillary, and Reid, not just neocons. I think the real problem is you're just hostile toward the truth whenever it exposes your false reality, whenever it bursts your blissful ignorance of illusion.

And for Tarpley, of course it sounds like "denialism" to you. Narrow-minded government sycophants would equate the two as the same.

@marbles

You really are an "either/or" kind of person aren't you. Either we adhere to your paranoid conspiracy theories or we are the brainwashed mouthpieces of the guv'mint propaganda and fully support the violence and death caused by America's wars.

Sure there are Al Qaeda elements amongst the Lybian rebels, geopolitics is a messy thing. But to go from there to saying that the Arab Spring uprisings is some mass conspiracy takes the kind of singleminded ignorance that conspiracy theorists and religious fanatics have in common.

"You're either with us or against us" may be good enough for Jesus, W. Bush and conspiracy nuts, but the rest of us like to have a nuanced view of things.

As for Tapley: "The notion of anthropogenic global warming is a fraud." ( The Obama Deception: The Mask Comes Off 2009). Sounds very much like denialism to me.

I won't deny the other two examples. I said already Obama isn't a hardcore progressive. I wouldn't even label him on a scale as progressive. Those are examples of where he isn't. If that's the indictment, no one is disagreeing with you.

Dude, how are you not getting this. Obama hasn't justified a single policy with Christianity. This guy sited directly his warped Christian beliefs in his manifesto. It's pretty clear as day the difference. Obama refutes the notion of the US as a "Christian Nation", etc. He's ridiculed by the Religious Right in fact for this. Isn't this pretty obvious?

Yes, it is accepted as collateral damage. Thank you for making my point. Were the attacks launched with the purpose of killing these civilians? NO! Was it the intention of Osama bin Laden to kill as many civilians as possible in the 9/11 attacks on purpose? YES! THAT is the difference. If Obama could conduct these attacks without killing innocent civilians, he'd do it in a heartbeat. If bin Laden could have killed 1 million American civilians instead of the number he did, he'd do it in a heartbeat. That's the difference. You're assuming that because civilian deaths occur, that how many people are killed in collateral damage never influences decision making. That's simply not true. You'll rarely ever achieve objectives without accepting some collateral damage, unfortunately. This is unfortunately part of being the President.

So we're gonna terrorize the population of Libya why exactly?! What would that possibly achieve in and of itself? That's utterly ridiculous.

It's against international law how exactly to be intervening in Libya? It was approved by the UN Security Council. Are you speaking to military strategy? So you're saying we should just put ground troops in there and go door to door, which will cause even higher casualties and more terrorizing of the civilian population? I don't pretend to know all the difficulties the military is facing when coming up with the best plan to achieve objectives.

It's silly to believe part of why we're in Libya is to help establish a democratic gov't there? Look, I was a big critic of the second Iraq war, but I don't doubt for a second part of why the Bush administration wanted to go in was to establish democracy in the region. It was a stated goal. You can call it silly all you want, but it is even within the US's self interests to have as Libya be a democracy. Why wouldn't we want them to be democratic?!

It is progressive to intervene in a country to help protect human rights. Schools of geopolitical realism would have determined intervening in Libya to not benefit the US enough to justify involvement. Again, I'm not suggesting the entire reason we went in was to help the Libyan people. There are many reasons why. But one of them was to help the Libyan people. I fully accept there were geopolitical calculations as well. All of those things have to contribute to the decision making.

Was it progressive to partner with Stalin to defeat Hitler? If no, then FDR wasn't a progressive?! We did it because Hitler was a bigger threat than Stalin at the time. Once Hitler was out of the equation, we became enemies of Stalin. To think you can just make international policy based exclusively on progressive ideas is fantasy.

On this site, I've defended progressivism when under attack from people who think progressivism is Communist, doesn't work, blah blah blah. Progressivism, like other ideologies, provides a lot of answers and ideas to solving problems, but it is also imperfect, just like every other ideology.

So Obama isn't progressive in the slightest?

Are the following progressive in nature?

Ending "don't ask, don't tell."
Advocating raising taxes on the rich
Increasing availability of Medicaid
Preventing health insurance companies denying based on pre-existing conditions

He's a moderate. Yes, I fully accept you could give a big long list of things that aren't progressive he's done, too. He's a moderate, who leans left. That's why I get really irritated when QM and WP call him a socialist or communist because it's simply not true.

>> ^bcglorf:

>> ^marbles:
>> ^bcglorf:
I think there is a lot of grieved and disgruntled young Arab people who want freedom who are being manipulated and used by geopolitical forces outside their country.
You are insulting and demeaning those young Arab people. Who is using who among the Libyan rebels? As much as the UN is using the rebels, the rebels are equally using the UN sanctioned air support.
Much akin the the Kurd's while Saddam still ruled(presumably what you consider the good old days). As much as America used them to undermine Saddam, the Kurds equally used America's support to.... what for it.... undermine Saddam.
When two groups have the same goal and work together to achieve it, it is NOT the same as the smaller group being some helpless proxy puppet of the larger.
Let's be more open here Marbles, if the people of Iran and Syria actually DO want regime change, do you still vehemently oppose that happening solely because America shares that goal and offers assistance?

Yeah, much akin to the Kurds. Where did that get them? We encouraged them to support us in Desert Storm and then let hundreds of thousands get slaughtered after we pulled out. Saddam was our puppet. WE DID THAT. We armed Saddam with chemical weapons to fight Iran. We told Saddam to invade Kuwait after Kuwait was slant drilling and stealing oil. We told Saddam we would back him up. And then we get on our high horse and bitch slap Saddam around. WTF It's all bullshit, it always has been.
So now we're in Libya on a humanitarian mission? We're bombing civilians in Tripoli for humanitarian purposes? The groups that we're "working together" with in Libya is al-Qaeda linked rebels. Libya was a world leader in Al Qaeda suicide bomber recruitment during the Iraq war and North-eastern Libya has one of the greatest concentrations of jihadi terrorists anywhere in the world. Obama's humanitarian mission to protect "civilians" is a complete farce. He's aiding a rebel force of jihadi terrorists, the same terrorists that were killing US troops in Iraq.

That IS disgusting. We do know who is killing them. The refugees that have succeeded in fleeing to Turkey are telling us it was Assad's troops killing them. The SAME Assad that kicked out all journalists that didn't work directly for him. Defectors who've fled to Turkey have similarly reported witnessing first hand that Assad's secret service executed Syrian soldiers that refused orders to fire upon unarmed civilians.
We KNOW who is killing who. Your refusal to acknowledge it is sick.
---------

Your a piece of work. You understand nothing of the regions actual history. Instead, you've invented a fantasy built upon every single shred of anti-american propaganda being true and every shred of anything decent being said about them by anyone is utterly and blatantly false.
Go try following Al-Jazeera for awhile, you need some pro-western grounding to the perspective you've invented for yourself. I don't say that in jest either, I follow Al Jazeera more closely than any other news source, and the 'facts' you believe are 100% at odds and in contradiction to Al Jazeera's reporting on the region's activity.


Sorry, your support for foreign-funded sedition is disgusting. Of course they're blaming Assad, that's what foreign-funded activists are paid to say.

BTW, Al Jazeera is state owned by Qatar, the same government sending weapons to Libya's Benghazi rebels (al-Qeada) which is in direct violation of their own contrived UN Security resolution in 1973.

>> ^marbles:

>> ^bcglorf:
I think there is a lot of grieved and disgruntled young Arab people who want freedom who are being manipulated and used by geopolitical forces outside their country.
You are insulting and demeaning those young Arab people. Who is using who among the Libyan rebels? As much as the UN is using the rebels, the rebels are equally using the UN sanctioned air support.
Much akin the the Kurd's while Saddam still ruled(presumably what you consider the good old days). As much as America used them to undermine Saddam, the Kurds equally used America's support to.... what for it.... undermine Saddam.
When two groups have the same goal and work together to achieve it, it is NOT the same as the smaller group being some helpless proxy puppet of the larger.
Let's be more open here Marbles, if the people of Iran and Syria actually DO want regime change, do you still vehemently oppose that happening solely because America shares that goal and offers assistance?

Yeah, much akin to the Kurds. Where did that get them? We encouraged them to support us in Desert Storm and then let hundreds of thousands get slaughtered after we pulled out. Saddam was our puppet. WE DID THAT. We armed Saddam with chemical weapons to fight Iran. We told Saddam to invade Kuwait after Kuwait was slant drilling and stealing oil. We told Saddam we would back him up. And then we get on our high horse and bitch slap Saddam around. WTF It's all bullshit, it always has been.
So now we're in Libya on a humanitarian mission? We're bombing civilians in Tripoli for humanitarian purposes? The groups that we're "working together" with in Libya is al-Qaeda linked rebels. Libya was a world leader in Al Qaeda suicide bomber recruitment during the Iraq war and North-eastern Libya has one of the greatest concentrations of jihadi terrorists anywhere in the world. Obama's humanitarian mission to protect "civilians" is a complete farce. He's aiding a rebel force of jihadi terrorists, the same terrorists that were killing US troops in Iraq.


Your a piece of work. You understand nothing of the regions actual history. Instead, you've invented a fantasy built upon every single shred of anti-american propaganda being true and every shred of anything decent being said about them by anyone is utterly and blatantly false.

Go try following Al-Jazeera for awhile, you need some pro-western grounding to the perspective you've invented for yourself. I don't say that in jest either, I follow Al Jazeera more closely than any other news source, and the 'facts' you believe are 100% at odds and in contradiction to Al Jazeera's reporting on the region's activity.

>> ^bcglorf:

I think there is a lot of grieved and disgruntled young Arab people who want freedom who are being manipulated and used by geopolitical forces outside their country.
You are insulting and demeaning those young Arab people. Who is using who among the Libyan rebels? As much as the UN is using the rebels, the rebels are equally using the UN sanctioned air support.
Much akin the the Kurd's while Saddam still ruled(presumably what you consider the good old days). As much as America used them to undermine Saddam, the Kurds equally used America's support to.... what for it.... undermine Saddam.
When two groups have the same goal and work together to achieve it, it is NOT the same as the smaller group being some helpless proxy puppet of the larger.
Let's be more open here Marbles, if the people of Iran and Syria actually DO want regime change, do you still vehemently oppose that happening solely because America shares that goal and offers assistance?

Yeah, much akin to the Kurds. Where did that get them? We encouraged them to support us in Desert Storm and then let hundreds of thousands get slaughtered after we pulled out. Saddam was our puppet. WE DID THAT. We armed Saddam with chemical weapons to fight Iran. We told Saddam to invade Kuwait after Kuwait was slant drilling and stealing oil. We told Saddam we would back him up. And then we get on our high horse and bitch slap Saddam around. WTF It's all bullshit, it always has been.


So now we're in Libya on a humanitarian mission? We're bombing civilians in Tripoli for humanitarian purposes? The groups that we're "working together" with in Libya is al-Qaeda linked rebels. Libya was a world leader in Al Qaeda suicide bomber recruitment during the Iraq war and North-eastern Libya has one of the greatest concentrations of jihadi terrorists anywhere in the world. Obama's humanitarian mission to protect "civilians" is a complete farce. He's aiding a rebel force of jihadi terrorists, the same terrorists that were killing US troops in Iraq.

I think there is a lot of grieved and disgruntled young Arab people who want freedom who are being manipulated and used by geopolitical forces outside their country.

You are insulting and demeaning those young Arab people. Who is using who among the Libyan rebels? As much as the UN is using the rebels, the rebels are equally using the UN sanctioned air support.

Much akin the the Kurd's while Saddam still ruled(presumably what you consider the good old days). As much as America used them to undermine Saddam, the Kurds equally used America's support to.... what for it.... undermine Saddam.

When two groups have the same goal and work together to achieve it, it is NOT the same as the smaller group being some helpless proxy puppet of the larger.

Let's be more open here Marbles, if the people of Iran and Syria actually DO want regime change, do you still vehemently oppose that happening solely because America shares that goal and offers assistance?

>> ^theali:

I was not aware of that, could you reference unbiased sources on this claim?
I saw similar accusations when the protests broke out in Iran, but people have real grievances and are disgruntled with lack of freedom and mismanagement of the country.
>> ^marbles:
>> ^theali:
Yep, this is why these oppressive regimes don't allow reporters to cover the events. Its easy to dismiss citizen journalism and question its authenticity. Both Iran and Syria kicked out all international reporters right before the crackdown.
Well to be fair, I'm pretty sure they kicked out all foreigners. Can't really blame them when Foreign Intelligence members are the main instigators of the rebellions.



Unbiased? So no mainstream news media then?

I'll see what I can find tomorrow. CIA or MI6 doesn't exactly issue press releases.

There was a failed color revolution in Iran in 2009. I believe there are Wikileaks cables confirming it and the operation in Syria.

I think there is a lot of grieved and disgruntled young Arab people who want freedom who are being manipulated and used by geopolitical forces outside their country.

Whereas nation states where religion is part of the law of the land. Well look at those nations. These are isolated states that have remained in a development vacuum but got rich off selling oil. There is no freedom of speech or democracy in those states. The very fact that the first world deals with say OPEC allows the theocracy to be sustained in those nations.

Religion was a form of government for most of Europe. Then we had the enlightenment, democracy, revolution, kings, wars, history and so on. Religious denominations in Europe are now rapidly fading. This process never occured in the Middle East. Suddenly they have BILLIONS to spend on spreading their 'faith' as a form of government intervention. Saudi Arabia building schools in Pakistan that eventually created the Taliban was not an act of religious domination but a ham fisted attempt at geopolitics via religious doctrine. Because for some fucking reason the Saudis believed the Taliban would actually listen to them or something LOL. (Is this of course ignoring specific political issues of the time, USSR, evil empire, Regean, cold war, US allies with Saudi Arabia, fighting proxy wars, stinger missiles, Charlie Wilson and so on).

Saudi Arabia is cool because its such a fucking relic of government policy they have little room for any type of social policy because that is dictat by Religion. Thus their policies stem from it. They are like evil but religiously ahaha so they just fund fundamentalists everywhere thinking it will give them political clout and power when in reality it backfires. Kinda like this US thing where it's like FREEDOM FOR ALL... THROUGH FUCKING DAISY CUTTERS. To Save Iraq We have to destroy it. To save Afghanistan. We have to keep sending troops for a dubious objective. Oh wait let's pull out now. etc.

Fundamentally we have to appreciate the fact that religion is but a theory of the that explained things prior to science. With the rise of science, it tried to fight it. Finally slowly it's either merging or being eliminated or reconstituted in new ideological belief sets.

What I mean to say is that it's only through the evolution of man, knowledge and ideas that humanity has reached a point where it starts to doubt a very flawed perception of reality. First gods were manifest everywhere. Then they were nature. Then they are ghosts. Now we are supposed to believe or have faith.

Those of a stronger mental make up could possibly accept that we live and die and that is the end. Others cling to religion because it is safe. Others believe in living eternally through genes, about the only thing we consistently carry on through time.

Time will see the end of man man religions, into new constructs of stupidity, because science still, while providing much of the answers lacks many fundamental resolutions for most issues at the core of religious belief. Time will tell us all. But so far so good.

>> ^hpqp:

How did Christianity get to Europe? Conquest. To the Americas? Conquest and colonisation. To Africa? Colonisation, slave trade. To Australasia? Colonisation. Does that mean that these means have been taking place all the way 'till now? Of course not. After a few generations of growing up with the imposed religion, you forget it was imposed in the first place. Unless you were "cleansed", then there are no next generations.
Same story with Islam. Only eventual difference: violent conquest/conversion is directly condoned, one could even say "ordained", by the holy text (e.g. 2:191-3/2:216); oh, and the prophet was also a tribal leader and war general, unlike the possibly fictional Jeebs of the Christians.
I'm not saying people don't convert, just that the majority of religion's spread is through breeding and childhood indoctrination, and that the origins of the desert monotheisms' spread (especially Christianity and Islam) was conquest and colonisation so your original comment does not seem to be making any relevant point.
edit: add to that the continual use of majority pressure and intimidation, especially when religion is part of a country's legal and political system.
>> ^Farhad2000:
Naa. Islam reached 1 billion in the 21st century.
The assumption you are making is that it's been spreading at the knife edge from what the Moor times?
>> ^hpqp:
Uh, you do know that more often than not it was spread, like Christianity, at the edge of the sword, right? Conquest, colonisation, slave trade, same old same old.
>> ^Farhad2000:
Furthermore people forget that Islam represents 22% of world population. Much of it not in the Middle East. If the religion was so shit it wouldn't have taken every other religion out there.

Some comments:

1) "Idolators" really doesn't refer to followers of Judaism or Christians. Idolatry was outlawed in the Ten Commandments. That being said, there's a whole lotta bowin' and genuflectin' in the Roman Catholic Church. Still, that's NOT what was meant by 'idolators'. It referred to the pagan/animistic precursors of Islam, and it called for a zero tolerance policy toward those who were not 'people of the book'. So effective was this that there really are none around today.

2) If I read him right, he's calling for Crusade. I mean, all those guys were fighting defensive wars, and they managed to drive the Muslim invasion away from their doorsteps. However, the reason WHY they were fighting in Vienna and Constantinople and Lepanto was that Charles Martel stopped them at Tours, then let them walk away--keep all of Spain, in fact. Now all this seems to ignore that there was a whole lot of tit-for-tat fighting going on. They'd attack Christian Europe, and Christian Europe would attack them right back. In almost all cases, the conflict was couched in a religious context, but was really more of a geopolitical struggle. The only thing that could stop this struggle is the aforementioned Crusade, except this one would end with two significant cities in the Arabian Peninsula wiped off the map. The thing is--he tells us what might help, but he doesn't for a moment suggest what we could do in the modern context. This is the worst kind of 'expert'--someone who will freely share all the problems, and say that the solutions are quite apparent, and then fail to share what those solutions might be.

3) I've had several students over the years (I taught high school) actively try to convert me to Islam. I'd listen to them, because it was something about which they were passionate, and you never want to dampen their spirits. I would then pull out a map, and show them the growth of Islam. I'd ask them how it got from Mecca to Tours in 100 years. Inevitably they'd come up with some wonderful fairy tale about how people would hear the words of the Prophet, and convert on the spot. I then pointed out that they pretty much cut their way across North Africa, and swept into Spain, and if not for Charles Martel, Christianity might have been wiped off the earth. Did they think that Martel was the first person to say, "No, thanks?" This usually made them quite uncomfortable, because what followed that period was a time of (relative) peace in an area not known for its stability. "How many people honestly and openly chose Islam, do you think?" Again, they'd get uncomfortable. Is Islam all about peace? Sure it is--as long as Islam is on top. But that's pretty much the story with Christianity, right? That's the source of all this talk about America being a "Christian" nation. It seems to have little to do with actual tenets of faith, and everything to do with BRAND IDENTITY.

The real question, then, is this: How many modern Muslims are willing to go back to the old way of doing things? Damn few, it turns out. That's what this whole "perversion" thing is about. Those who would ignore EVERYTHING the modern world offers and KILL PEOPLE to get it are, in fact, very few in numbers, but the fruits of this modern world allow small groups of determined people to unleash mayhem. People like that can be found in every faith, political party, and ideology. The idea that their way might not be the right way scares the hell out of them, and they'd do anything to feel absolutely sure. How do we fight this? How have we ever fought ignorance? Knowledge and time. Crusade never works.

So, out of 6332 verses, about 100 of them call for violence against non-believers. That's less than 2% of the total verses. I wonder how the Bible would fair in such an analysis?

Oh, and of course none of those historical events he mentioned had anything to do with geopolitical/economic gain. It was all religion's fault, right? Just like, say, the massacre at Columbine was all video games fault? And America's economic problems are all illegal Mexicans fault? See, scaremongering is both easy AND fun!

If a person were on a mission to understand what's going on in the world and only had CNN to watch, I bet they'd have no trouble pointing out a timeline of events of what Lady Gaga wore to what event, but would have no historical context or timeline of the geopolitics of Iran and their country's relation to them.