"Provided we that we deal with and manage the threat intelligently, Jihad can be avoided."

... what is your intelligent management solution?

I made a silly mistake. Australia has been an ally of the US and UK is a potential target for Islamic terrorism. Where is the evidence that the Jihad is being fought in countries such as Switzerland?

The threat of Jihad in Europe is increased by uncontrolled immigration from Moslem countries and allowing extremist clerics to radicalise young Muslims. Provided we that we deal with and manage the threat intelligently, Jihad can be avoided. The threat would increase dramatically if the US and its allies attacked or invaded Iran.

BTW, the brother of Tobias Ellwood MP (whom I know well) was killed in the Bali bombing. Ellwood opposed the invasion of Iraq when speaking at the Conservative Party conference.

Islamic extremists are not a "threat to Western Civilization" as many melodramatic Objectivists claim

Assuming that you haven't underestimated the threat.

Why have they not attacked Switzerland?

Attack doesn't always mean bombs. The Jihad is underway globally, Switzerland included:

http://www.nysun.com/article/55439

"Why have they not attacked ... Australia?"

WTF? What do you call the bombing of the Australian embassy in Jakarta? Or the Bali bombing that killed 202 people, almost all tourists, most of those Australian. That wasn't an Islamic plot against the residents of Bali, it was the easiest way to attack Australia. That it didn't occur IN Australia makes it no less an attack ON Australia.

"Why have they not attacked ... other countries with free societies?"

Have you not been reading your papers? They've been attacking semi-free people around the globe for fifty years or more.

PC

"Islamic extremists are not a "threat to Western Civilization" as many melodramatic Objectivists claim..."

The Islamic extremists have stated time and time again that they "will win this war in the womb." They are most certainly the gravest threat to Western Civilization (and nations like India) where they are following the dictates of their mullahs and breeding like rabbits. Demographers are predicting that Europe will have a Muslim majority as early as 2040!

The only other threat that comes close is the false sense of security the west has in democracy, which without a solid constitutional foundation will allow these bastards to vote themselves into Islamo-Fascist power.

Well said.

Scott DeSalvo

Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur!

Usually I don't agree with Scott, but on this he is clearly right. Ron Paul is decent in a lot of ways, but he is so wrong on this subject that I couldn't support him.

I don't see Islamic extremists under the bed at night like many SOLOists do, but regardless of any grievances certain groups might have against the Americans (which for the most part are the result of irrational and dishonest political propaganda) when it comes to the Islamic extremists force has to be met with force. Any lack of response is a victory and an incentive for them to do more damage. Islamic extremists are not a "threat to Western Civilization" as many melodramatic Objectivists claim, but they sure as hell are a serious safety and security concern for Americans and people from many other parts of the world.

I commend Ron Paul, and I salute the principled work he has done in Congress. I'd be glad to have many more like him in Congress. I just don't want him as the Commander in Chief.

- Jason

Why have they not attacked Switzerland (with its huge banking centre), Australia or other countries with free societies?

Guiliani is a liar, an authoritarian and cannot be trusted. Here is a quote from one of his speeches in 1994 -

"Freedom is about authority. Freedom is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do."

Those are the words of a fascist. Benito Guiliani indeed!

...is a popular position.  In this case, it just happens to be incorrect. 

If it is our Imperialism and not our status as non-Muslims which provokes these attacks, then why do Saudis not attack their own government?  Why were we attacked before Afghanistand and Iraq were invaded?

Of course, you will answer that we had occupied so and so back in [insert year]. 

One cannot ascribe Western logical motivations to Muslims.  It is a grave mistake.  Another mistake is to ignore than jihad is a central pillar os Islam.  Says so rght in the Koran, and is repeated by every Muslim mullah and holy man--along with 'death to America."

Scott DeSalvo

Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur!

While all the African despots deserve the Saddam-solution, Mugabe et al have not been threatening to blow up the west with nukes and other WMDs. Nor have they declared an ideological war against us. Apples and orangutans, my man.

China and Russia are moving toward capitalism, and as far as dealing with the Islamic Jihadists goes...

"...while the Soviet Union, by virtue of its endeavors to mediate the quarrel in its later stages, may pose again as the friend of Moslem lands."

Neville, Neville, Neville...

Ron Paul's have been vindicated by the 9/11 Commission Report. Russell Kirk, founder of modern American conservatism, predicted the "blow back" in a lecture to the Heritage Foundation in 1991.

"Now indubitably Saddam Hussein is unrighteous but so are nearly all the masters of the "emergent" African states (with the Ivory Coast as a rare exception), and so are the grim ideologues who rule China, and the hard men in the Kremlin, and a great many other public figures in various quarters of the world. Why, I fancy that there are some few unrighteous men, conceivably, in the domestic politics of the United States. Are we to saturation-bomb most of Africa and Asia into righteousness, freedom, and democracy? And, having accomplished that, however would we ensure persons yet more unrighteous might not rise up instead of the ogres we had swept away? Just that is what happened in the Congo, remember, three decades ago; and nowadays in Zaire, once called the Belgian Congo, we zealously uphold with American funds the dictator Mobutu, more blood-stained than Saddam. And have we forgotten Castro in Cuba?".....

"We must expect to suffer during a very long period of widespread hostility toward the United States – even, or perhaps especially, from the people of certain states that America bribed or bullied into combining against Iraq. In Egypt, in Syria, in Pakistan, in Algeria, in Morocco, in all of the world of Islam, the masses now regard the United States as their arrogant adversary; while the Soviet Union, by virtue of its endeavors to mediate the quarrel in its later stages, may pose again as the friend of Moslem lands. Nor is this all: for now, in every continent, the United States is resented increasingly as the last and most formidable of imperial systems."

It is the imperalist, war-mongering candidates (having ignored Kirk's prescient warnings) who are the untenable candidates.