received in an e-mail


PDA






one-shot-one
July 15, 2004, 12:30 PM
Subject: Fwd: The world situation

THE WORLD SITUATION - A LETTER TO MY SONS

This was written by a retired attorney, to his sons, May 19, 2004.





Dear Tom, Kevin, Kirby and Ted,



As your father, I believe I owe it to you to share some thoughts on the present world situation. We have over the years discussed a lot of important things, like going to college, jobs and so forth. But this really takes precedence over any of those discussions. I hope this might give you a longer term perspective that fewer and fewer of my generation are left to speak to. To be sure you understand that this is not politically flavored, I will tell you that since Franklin D. Roosevelt, who led us through pre and WWII (1933 - 1945) up to and including our present President, I have without exception, supported our presidents on all matters of international conflict.

This would include just naming a few in addition to President Roosevelt - WWII:

President Truman - Korean War 1950;

President Kennedy - Bay of Pigs (1961);

President Kennedy - Vietnam (1961);

[1] eight presidents (5 Republican & 4 Democrat) during the cold war (1945 - 1991);

President Clinton's strikes on Bosnia (1995) and on Iraq (1998).

[2] So be sure you read this as completely non-political or otherwise you will miss the point.



Our country is now facing the most serious threat to its existence, as we know it, that we have faced in your lifetime and mine (which includes WWII). The deadly seriousness is greatly compounded by the fact that there are very few of us who think we can possibly lose this war and even fewer who realize what losing really means.



First, let's examine a few basics:

1. When did the threat to us start? Many will say September 11th, 2001.

The answer as far as the United States is concerned is 1979, 22 years prior to September 2001, with the following attacks on us:

Iran Embassy Hostages, 1979;

Beirut, Lebanon Embassy 1983;

Beirut, Lebanon Marine Barracks 1983;

Lockerbie, Scotland Pan-Am flight to New York 1988;

First New York World Trade Center attack 1993;

Dhahran, Saudi Arabia Khobar Towers Military complex 1996;

Nairobi, Kenya US Embassy 1998;

Dar es Salaam, Tanzania US Embassy 1998;

Aden, Yemen USS Cole 2000;

New York World Trade Center 2001;

Pentagon 2001. (Note that during the period from 1981 to 2001 there were 7,581 terrorist attacks worldwide). [3]



2. Why were we attacked?

Envy of our position, our success, and our freedoms. The attacks happened during the administrations of Presidents Carter, Reagan, Bush 1, Clinton and Bush 2. We cannot fault either the Republicans or Democrats as there were no provocations by any of the presidents or their immediate predecessors, Presidents Ford or Carter.



4. Who were the attackers?

In each case, the attacks on the US were carried out by Muslims.



5. What is the Muslim population of the World?

25%



6. Isn't the Muslim Religion peaceful?

Hopefully, but that is really not material. There is no doubt that the predominately Christian population of Germany was peaceful, but under the dictatorial leadership of Hitler (who was also Christian), that made no difference. You either went along with the administration or you were eliminated. There were 5 to 6 million Christians killed by the Nazis for political reasons (including 7,000 Polish priests). (http://www.nazis.testimony.co.uk/7-a.htm). Thus, almost the same number of Christians were killed by the Nazis, as the 6 million holocaust Jews who were killed by them, and we seldom heard of anything other than the Jewish atrocities. Although Hitler kept the world focused on the Jews, he had no hesitancy about killing anyone who got in his way of exterminating the Jews or of taking over the world - German, Christian or any others.

Same with the Muslim terrorists. They focus the world on the US, but kill all in the way - their own people or the Spanish, French or anyone else.. [5] The point here is that just like the peaceful Germans were of no protection to anyone from the Nazis, no matter how many peaceful Muslims there may be, they are no protection for us from the terrorist Muslim leaders and what they are fanatically bent on doing - by their own pronouncements - killing all of us infidels. I don't blame the peaceful Muslims. What would you do if the choice was shut up or die?



6. So who are we at war with?

There is no way we can honestly respond that it is anyone other than the Muslim terrorists. Trying to be politically correct and avoid verbalizing this conclusion can well be fatal. There is no way to win if you don't clearly recognize and articulate who you are fighting.



So with that background, now to the two major questions:

1. Can we lose this war?

2. What does losing really mean?

If we are to win, we must clearly answer these two pivotal questions.



We can definitely lose this war, and as anomalous as it may sound, the major reason we can lose is that so many of us simply do not fathom the answer to the second question - What does losing mean? It would appear that a great many of us think that losing the war means hanging our heads, bringing the troops home and going on about our business, like post Vietnam. This is as far from the truth as one can get. What losing really means is:

We would no longer be the premier country in the world. The attacks will not subside, but rather will steadily increase. Remember, they want us dead, not just quiet. If they had just wanted us quiet, they would not have produced an increasing series of attacks against us over the past 18 years. The plan was clearly to terrorist attack us until we were neutered and submissive to them.

We would of course have no future support from other nations for fear of reprisals and for the reason that they would see we are impotent and cannot help them.



They will pick off the other non-Muslim nations, one at a time. It will be increasingly easier for them. They already hold Spain hostage. It doesn't matter whether it was right or wrong for Spain to withdraw its troops from Iraq. Spain did it because the Muslim terrorists bombed their train and told them to withdraw the troops. Anything else they want Spain to do, will be done. Spain is finished.



The next will probably be France. Our one hope on France is that they might see the light and realize that if we don't win, they are finished too, in that they can't resist the Muslim terrorists without us.

However, it may already be too late for France. France is already 20% Muslim and fading fast. See the attached article on the French condition by Tom Segel. [6]



If we lose the war, our production, income, exports and way of life will all vanish as we know it. After losing, who would trade or deal with us if they were threatened by the Muslims. If we can't stop the Muslims, how could anyone else? The Muslims fully know what is riding on this war and therefore are completely committed to winning at any cost. We better know it too and be likewise committed to winning at any cost.



Why do I go on at such lengths about the results of losing? Simple.

Until we recognize the costs of losing, we cannot unite and really put 100% of our thoughts and efforts into winning. And it is going to take that 100% effort to win.



So, how can we lose the war? Again, the answer is simple.

We can lose the war by imploding. That is, defeating ourselves by refusing to recognize the enemy and their purpose and really digging in and lending full support to the war effort. If we are united, there is no way that we can lose. If we continue to be divided, there is no way that we can win.



Let me give you a few examples of how we simply don't comprehend the life and death seriousness of this situation.

- President Bush selects Norman Mineta as Secretary of Transportation.

Although all of the terrorist attacks were committed by Muslim men between 17 and 40 years of age, Secretary Mineta refuses to allow profiling. Does that sound like we are taking this thing seriously?

This is war. For the duration we are going to have to give up some of the civil rights we have become accustomed to. We had better be prepared to lose some of our civil rights temporarily or we will most certainly lose all of them permanently. And don't worry that it is a slippery slope. We gave up plenty of civil rights during WWII and immediately restored them after the victory and in fact added many more since then. Do I blame President Bush or President Clinton before him? No, I blame us for blithely assuming we can maintain all of our Political Correctness and all of our civil rights during this conflict and have a clean, lawful, honorable war. None of those words apply to war. Get them out of your head.



- Some have gone so far in their criticism of the war and/or the Administration that it almost seems they would literally like to see us lose. I hasten to add that this isn't because they are disloyal. It is because they just don't recognize what losing means. Nevertheless, that conduct gives the impression to the enemy that we are divided and weakening, it concerns our friends, and it does great damage to our cause.



- Of more recent vintage, the uproar fueled by the politicians and media regarding the treatment of some prisoners of war perhaps exemplifies best what I am saying. We have recently had an issue involving the treatment of a few Muslim prisoners of war by a small group of our military police. These are the type prisoners who just a few months ago were throwing their own people off buildings, cutting off their hands, cutting out their tongues and otherwise murdering their own people just for disagreeing with Saddam Hussein. And just a few years ago these same type prisoners chemically killed 400,000 of their own people for the same reason. They are also the same type enemy fighters who recently were burning Americans and dragging their charred corpses through the streets of Iraq. And still more recently the same type enemy that was and is providing videos to all news sources internationally, of the beheading of an American prisoner they held. Compare this with some of our press and politicians who for several days have thought and talked about nothing else but the "humiliating" of some Muslim prisoners - not burning them, not dragging their charred corpses through the streets, not beheading them, but "humiliating" them. Can this be for real? The politicians and pundits have even talked of impeachment of the Secretary of Defense. If this doesn't show the complete lack of comprehension and understanding of the seriousness of the enemy we are fighting, the life and death struggle we are in and the disastrous results of losing this war, nothing can. To bring our country to a virtual political standstill over this prisoner issue makes us look like Nero playing his fiddle as Rome burned - totally oblivious to what is going on in the real world.



Neither we, nor any other country, can survive this internal strife.

Again I say, this does not mean that some of our politicians or media people are disloyal. It simply means that they absolutely oblivious to the magnitude of the situation we are in and into which the Muslim terrorists have been pushing us for many years. Remember, the Muslim terrorists stated goal is to kill all infidels. That translates into all non-Muslims - not just in the United States, but throughout the world.



We are the last bastion of defense.



- We have been criticized for many years as being 'arrogant'. That charge is valid in at least one respect. We are arrogant in that we believe that we are so good, powerful and smart, that we can win the hearts and minds of all those who attack us, and that with both hands tied behind our back, we can defeat anything bad in the world. We can't. If we don't recognize this, our nation as we know it will not survive, and no other free country in the World will survive if we are defeated. And finally, name any Muslim countries throughout the world that allow freedom of speech, freedom of thought, freedom of religion, freedom of the Press, equal rights for anyone - let alone everyone, equal status or any status for women, or that have been productive in one single way that contributes to the good of the World.



This has been a long way of saying that we must be united on this war or we will be equated in the history books to the self-inflicted fall of the Roman Empire. If, that is, the Muslim leaders will allow history books to be written or read.



If we don't win this war right now, keep a close eye on how the Muslims take over France in the next 5 years or less. They will continue to increase the Muslim population of France and continue to encroach little by little on the established French traditions. The French will be fighting among themselves over what should or should not be done, which will continue to weaken them and keep them from any united resolve.



Doesn't that sound eerily familiar?



Democracies don't have their freedoms taken away from them by some external military force. Instead, they give their freedoms away, politically correct piece by politically correct piece. And they are giving those freedoms away to those who have shown, worldwide, that they abhor freedom and will not apply it to you or even to themselves, once they are in power. They have universally shown that when they have taken over, they then start brutally killing each other over who will be the few who control the masses. Will we ever stop hearing from the politically correct, about the "peaceful Muslims"?



I close on a hopeful note, by repeating what I said above. If we are united, there is no way that we can lose. I believe that after the election, the factions in our country will begin to focus on the critical situation we are in and will unite to save our country. It is your future we are talking about. Do whatever you can to preserve it.



Love, Dad



[1] By the way on Vietnam, the emotions are still so high that it is really not possible to discuss it. However, I think President Kennedy was correct. He felt there was a communist threat from China, Russia and North Vietnam to take over that whole area. Also remember that we were in a 'cold war' with Russia. I frankly think Kennedy's plan worked and kept that total communist control out, but try telling that to anyone now. It just isn't politically correct to say so. Historians will answer this after cool headed research, when the people closest to it are all gone.



[2] As you know, I am a strong President Bush supporter and will vote for him. However, if Senator Kerry is elected, I will fully support him on all matters of international conflict, just as I have supported all presidents in the past.



[3] Source for statistics in Par.1 is http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001454.html



[4] The Institute of Islamic Information and Education. http://www.iiie.net/Intl/PopStats.html



[5] Note the attached article by Tom Segel referred to in footnote 6 infra, the terrorist Muslim have already begun the havoc in France. (The note was not attached to the E-mail I received. Gene)



[6] I checked this article with two sources - Hoax Busters and Urban Myths. It does not come up as a Hoax on either. I also then E-mailed Mr. Segel and he confirmed the article was his.



[7] "I don't think the Army or any branch of service runs any type of war any more. It's done by senators and congressmen. There are too many civilians involved." Returning Iraq veteran, Sgt. 1st Class Greg Klees as quoted in the Cedar Rapids, IA Gazette on May 13th, 2004.



[8] There are 64 Muslim countries. This does not count countries like Spain that are controlled by the Muslim terrorists.

If you enjoyed reading about "received in an e-mail" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Ransom
July 15, 2004, 12:37 PM
To me this letter smacks a little too much of anti-muslim sentiment.

ojibweindian
July 15, 2004, 12:54 PM
To me, this letter is right on. The French didn't bomb us on 9-11, or in the attacks previous to 9-11. Neither did the Canadians, Germans, Russians, Poles, Spanish, Portuguese, Italians, Greeks, Romanians, Czechs, Bulgarians, Brazilians, Japanese, Australians, etc, etc, etc.

It was the Wahabi Muslim extremists.

one-shot-one
July 15, 2004, 12:55 PM
may-be, Ransom, but:
what does everone else think?
he does seem to make a point of separating "terrorist" and "peaceful" muslims and peaceful and nazi germans for that matter, what about his points? what if we just walk away?

fix
July 15, 2004, 01:10 PM
I think Ransom and his opinion are addressed in the letter itself.

ReadyontheRight
July 15, 2004, 01:19 PM
To me this letter smacks a little too much of anti-muslim sentiment.

Yeah -- anti-Nazi too. :rolleyes:

AgaveHound
July 15, 2004, 01:35 PM
:uhoh:


Muslim does not equat to Nazi, or even come close.

Nor is the letter anti-Muslim. I think I read the word 'extremist' somewhere in there... :scrutiny:

neoncowboy
July 15, 2004, 01:52 PM
Too anti-muslim for what?

When our nation faces a very real threat from a religious group who (hell, even their *scriptures*) say they're goal is to kill us...can't we afford to be 'anti' whatever they are?

I'm all for people's freedom of religion, until their religion demands that they support violence against the innocent, at that point our freedom to defend ourselves trumps their freedom of worship.

Ransom
July 15, 2004, 02:50 PM
I'm all for people's freedom of religion, until their religion demands that they support violence against the innocent, at that point our freedom to defend ourselves trumps their freedom of worship.

But that is a very very small fraction of muslims that believe in killing. Same as its a very very small fraction of christians who bomb abortion clincs or set black churches on fire.

Stuff like:

Will we ever stop hearing from the politically correct, about the "peaceful Muslims"?

However, it may already be too late for France. France is already 20% Muslim and fading fast.

This is war. For the duration we are going to have to give up some of the civil rights we have become accustomed to. We had better be prepared to lose some of our civil rights temporarily or we will most certainly lose all of them permanently.

I just find a little....dumb I guess. Mainly because the "War on Terror" is impossible to win. There will always be terrorists. Unless we're ready to tell all of Isreal to pack their bags and to have every non muslim sodlier pull out of not only Saudi Arabia but Iraq and the whole Middle East we will always have muslim extremist terrorists. Its a war thats been going since the dawn of civilization practicly.

Plus the thing about profiling. I'm not into it. I dont like the idea of the government poking its nose into my life and sniffing around simply because I'm a "white guy". Therefore I wouldnt want it done to any US citizen.

JCOJR
July 15, 2004, 02:51 PM
The letter is as neutral as any I have seen in a long time. Well said.

fix
July 15, 2004, 02:53 PM
I just find a little....dumb I guess. Mainly because the "War on Terror" is impossible to win.

So exactly what would you propose we do? Surrender now? Go back and re-read that letter. I think it was addressed to you.

Ransom
July 15, 2004, 03:37 PM
So exactly what would you propose we do? Surrender now? Go back and re-read that letter. I think it was addressed to you.

Well no, I'm just saying there is no end to this campaign. Its not something we can "win" or "lose". Its going to be an ongoing thing with no end since its impossible to stamp out terrorism.

Thats why I get a little creeped out when people start talking about giving up rights during the war effort. The war will never end, therefore wont those rights be gone forever? Plus people always say terrorism is about inspiring terror. So when you live in fear they win. So isnt losing rights and living in a world where our only focus is on terrorism letting the terrorist win? If the terrorists hate freedom shouldnt we stand up and say we will not give up freedoms? Because if we do we're no better than the governments we claim to be fighting against. I mean, what kind of example for freedom do we set when we allow the government to take away the very thing that we are fighting for?


But then again I'm a moron.

DevilDog
July 15, 2004, 03:37 PM
It was a good read. I did not find it to be anti-muslim, although I can see if someone were to read through it too quickly, it may appear so.

I have always thought that it is unreasonable to blame one political party or one president for our current war. Our post WWII foreign policy has led us here.

Post 9/11, it is silly that 80 year old grandmothers get the same "look at" at the airport that someone carrying a visa/passport from a mid-east country. Absolutely silly.

First, any non-US citizen should get looked at harder. If the person is male, he should get looked at harder. If he is carrying a passport or visa from a designated country, he should get looked at real hard. Note that none of those conditions concern racial profiling!!!! The designated country would be any and every country we have evidence of terrorists camps, presence (approved or not by that governement) or funding.

I believe it is very possible to win the war on terror. We do have an identifiable enemy and we should not be distracted because that enemy is not a singular country. No, we cannot kill or capture all terrorists. But to kill or capture all of your enemy is not the best goal when going to war.

We never went to war to eliminate all Germans, Italians and Japanese in WWII. The reason to go to war is to remove their ability to wage war on us. Once we have done that and removed their willingness to fight us, we have won. In this case, we need to eliminate their primary sources of funding, especially when it comes from certain governments., and to eliminate every known terrorist camp.

Since we are now the big kid on the block, our enemies realize that they way to fight us is not in a traditional conflict, but by funding terrorist groups. This is done either directly by their governments, or in most cases, people within those governments do it and thier associates tolerate it.

Our enemies are counting on us quitting. We have been doing nothing but quitting since WWII. Korea, Vietnam, Beruit, Somalia, and even Gulf War I - yes, we followed the UN mandate, but Sadam touted that as a victory since we never went into Baghdad and since he remained in power aftwerward, and many of the not-so-well-informed in that region believed it.

This is why I still think it was important to go into Iraq. If Syria and Saudi Arabia don't take care of those within their government who are funding and aiding terrorists, we need to go there too. If we have to invade 20 countries, and ration gas, aluminum, rubber and stop buying cars, computers and applicances to get it done, then so be it. If congress needs to approve a budget to double the size of our ground forces, so be it.

We cannot even give the appearance of "quitting" in this war. We need to stop this concern over being perceived as a bully. We need to be unified in our stance to all countries that, if they are not for us and against the terrorists, then they are against us, and we will come.

We must have the courage to not fall victim to the "appearance" of cooperation from a government that has supported terrorists. We need to be sure that a government in power will not support terrorists. If we are not, we bring them down!

We did not stop after the Battle of the Bulge even though Germany had almost no ability to wage war. We did not stop when we had beaten the entire Japanese military back to mainland Japan. We cannot quit this war. We must let our leaders know, whoever is leading us after this next election, that we must finish this war right. No matter how many silly pictures of prisoners Ted Kennedy shows us.

9/11 proved that in this age of technology, a handful of fanatics can do more damage in an hour than a huge chunk of the Japanese navy could do on 12/7/41. This is why this war cannot be reactive - we must be aggressive. We cannot afford to wait until a country "proves" it is an immediate threat. If we do, it will know they are after we see the mushroom cloud on Fox news/cnn.

We should not be debating if muslims are our enemy, if they are peaceful or not, that is not the point of our war on terror. Again, our focus should be on the countries that provide the terrorists the means to fight us. We must keep fightin until our enemies say "no more!"

9/11 - never forget.

jnojr
July 15, 2004, 03:43 PM
"Muslims" didn't attack us. "Terrorists who claim to be Muslims" attacked us.

If we start to look at the "ragheads" and "camel jockeys" and say "Look! There's the enemy!", then that's another way in which the terrorists will win. Part of what makes the United States the greatest country in the world is the fact that anyone can come here and have a fair shot at the American Dream. When we exclude people because of their ethnicity, religion, etc., then we're destroying what makes us great.

Unfortunately, I think the only way we're going to win "the war against terrorism" is when the terrorists realize they will never break us. The only way to ensure there could never be another terrorist strike would be to become a xenophobic, totally closed police state like North Korea. If we do that, the terrorists win.

cuchulainn
July 15, 2004, 03:56 PM
Whatever the merits of this piece, why do I get the feeling that neither the "retired attorney" nor "Tom, Kevin, Kirby and Ted" actually exist?

This sounds like a job for Snopes.

one-shot-one
July 15, 2004, 04:03 PM
Ransom,
i certinly do not think your a moron, and i agree with you not the writer about giving up liberties and or freedoms to fight this war. seems counter productive to me to give up what they want to take from us in order to fight them. but then again i'm ready to live or die with the consequences of my beliefs, not everyone else is hence the changes in order to "protect" us.

fix
July 15, 2004, 04:24 PM
Nobody called you a moron and I never said I agreed 100% with the author. I'm just pointing out the fact that you might be the intended audience due to quotes like:

There is no way we can honestly respond that it is anyone other than the Muslim terrorists. Trying to be politically correct and avoid verbalizing this conclusion can well be fatal. There is no way to win if you don't clearly recognize and articulate who you are fighting.

...and your knee-jerk reaction to the cold hard truth, apparently because someone dared to use the words "Muslim" and "Enemy" together. The guy didn't say that all Muslims are our enemies. He pointed out that all our enemies (in this particular case) are Muslims. Arguing otherwise is splitting hairs. There might well be an non-Muslim or two who have infiltrated OBLs merry band of assnecks, but they have about as much influence over the direction of the organization as a cockroach climbing up the side of Osama's tent. Perhaps you'd feel better if he said "Terrorists who happen to be Muslim." That kind of hair splitting is nothing more than Clinton style political correctness.

My biggest fear is not that we can't win this fight. It's that most folks don't know they're in a fight yet, and blood in the streets of Anytown USA on a steady basis is the only thing that's apt to wake them up. Unfortunately, that awakening may be a little too late to do any good at all.

Ewok
July 15, 2004, 05:06 PM
2. Why were we attacked?

Envy of our position, our success, and our freedoms.


Nope. We're attacked because we won't let them destroy Israel, and we won't let them take over KSA, Kuwait, etc.

cuchulainn
July 15, 2004, 05:34 PM
By the way, the fake email speaks of the need for profiling along with a discourse on not being politically correct about focusing on (some) Muslims.

I have nothing against profiling per se, but how do you profile for religion?

Al Quada ranks include thousands of Eastern-Asian Muslims, thousands of Pacific Muslims, thousands of Caucasian Muslims and thousands of Black-African Muslims. The 9/11 hijackers made themselves blend in (short hair, clothes that could have been bought at The Gap, etc.).

My concern about profiling is that we'd focus too much on a sterotype and let through a cleancut Filipino Al Quada terrorist and his Eastern European Al Quada terrorist buddy.

Even profiling by name doesn't cut it. Put an Arab in some Dockers, cut his hair short and give him a fake Italian passport saying he is Giovonni Rossi from southern Italy, and he'd slip right past a profile that focused on our idea of what a "Muslim" is like.

We shouldn't be so naive as to think the next Al Quada act necessarily will be done by some swarthy guy with a beard identifying himself as Mustafa.

fix
July 15, 2004, 05:43 PM
Well ignoring the guy with a beard and a turban carrying a copy of the Koran while detaining an 88 year old Medal of Honor winner might...just might be a good start. But maybe in the alternate reality we find ourselves in this makes perfect sense. I don't know. I'm just a dumb bigot who refuses to bow at the altar of the PC gods. :rolleyes:

I do take your point, and Charlie Chechen from Grozny is on his way to a shopping mall near you looking white as white can be, but I hope you see my point as well.

cuchulainn
July 15, 2004, 05:56 PM
Fix, I understand your point. But since we cannot be sure whether the next Al Quada terrorist will be a swarthy guy with a beard or a cleancut white guy in Dockers, we need some sort of system that lets us check all sorts of people balanced with the fact that we cannot check everyone thoroughly.

A) Everyone and their luggage go through metal detectors and X-ray respectively. Often dogs sniff everyone and their luggage.

B) Random people get extra attention (Thus the 88 year old MoH winners)

C) Profiling singles out still more people for extra attention. But this profiling makes more sense than targeting "Muslim looks" (I doubt the next Al Quada terrorist will show up in full beard and clutching his Koran anyway). If your flight arrangements or activity have any red flags -- such as last minute changes -- you get extra attention. I recently had to make last minute changes to my flight arrangments. Surprise, surprise: my wife and I were patted down and our carry-on luggage searched by hand 8 times in two weeks. I didn't get upset even though I have no beard, don't own a Koran (much less carry one), have a western European name, look middle-class American, was born and raised in the USA and speak/act like any Joe you'd meet on the street.

one-shot-one
July 15, 2004, 08:10 PM
ok after going here and reading the artical link: http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=91935

does anyone want to change their thoughts?

Highland Ranger
July 15, 2004, 08:20 PM
Echoes of what the last of the WWII generation in my family is saying.

This threat is more serious than WWII . . . . . take heed or a few terrorists with razorblades and bombs will take over the whole country.

Highland Ranger
July 15, 2004, 08:26 PM
Same as its a very very small fraction of christians who bomb abortion clincs or set black churches on fire.

Nothing to do with being Christian, just as the IRA had nothing to do with it.

In neither case does the Bible condone the activity. My understanding is that the Koran does . . . . .

I fear our younger generation is so rabidly conformist and politically correct that we are doomed.

RevDisk
July 15, 2004, 08:45 PM
Why were we attacked?

Envy of our position, our success, and our freedoms.



Wrong. (Kinda)

Our main enemy is a sect of Islam called "Wahabi". They dislike being called Wahabists, hence I will call them that. While every America knows "al Quada", they are themselves a parallal/brother of a larger group called the "Muslim Brotherhood". The Wahabi sect is the origin of the majority of the ultrareligious Muslim groups.

The war they wage against the United States is only a part of the overall picture of the Muslim Brotherhood, and al Quada. The goal is a unified pan-Arab state under the leadership of a Calphite. (Think "Pope-King".)

There are many things standing in the way of achieving said goal. The Wahabists believe that the first step is kicking out all non-Muslims out of the Arabic nations. This is why they support the Palestinians with funds and equipment. Most Arabs dislike the Palestinians for cultural reasons, but they fight the Israelis so it's a partnership of mutual benefit.

Another barrier is American involvement in the Middle East. The American govt has a history of funding and supporting regimes in the Middle East that are rather ruthless against their population The Shah of Iran was put into power by the Americans, and his secret police probably rivaled the ruthlessness of Комите́т Госуда́рственной Безопа́сности. When the Shah of Iran fell, the US supported and armed Saddam Hussein. The US currently supports and arms Saudi Arabia as well as a dozen smaller countries.

All of these American supported governments tend to be against the Wahabi ideology. (Funny that, eh?) Saddam Hussein and the Shah of Iran both worked to extremes to crush internal religious zealots, as they were threats to the dictatorships. Saudi Arabia tries to play to both groups, and the Saudi royal family is caught between. Some Saudi royalists side with the Wahabists, some side with the Americans. Some are simply nationistic and dislike both groups.

The goal of the Wahabists is to remove the American government's influence over Arab nations. Plus kick out the Israelis. They wish to eventually take over all of the Arab Nations, and then join them all under one theocratic nation. Imagine an Iran that's more theocratic and less tolerant. The Wahabis assert that after their pan-Arab theocracy comes into power, they can then use economic war (oil) as a bargaining chip and slowly convert the world over to their way of thinking.

Obviously, few powerful or rich folks exactly like or trust the Wahabis as they'd be executed if the Wahabis gained complete control. Plenty of them pay off the Wahabis in order to have some level of protection. The Wahabis however are gaining popular support amoung the common (ie, poor) people. Why? Because they are repressed, have no voice in the direction of their government, few freedoms, are honked at the corrupt folks controlling them, etc.


"They envy of our position, our success, and our freedoms." A cute sound byte, but ultimately wrong. I'm guessing the powers that be don't exactly want to repeat that the US government has supported and aided repressive governments for a long time. (It was probably necessary at the time, but it still doesn't sound good.)

capt. Nemo
July 15, 2004, 08:49 PM
The fear of being called "racist" or "biggoted" sends chills down the spines (if present) of so many people in this country that the possibility of being accused of being one is akin to being labelled a child molester. The fact is that ALL of the 9/11 monsters were muslim. I did not say that all muslims are monsters. But some people think that any reference to muslims in other than a very positive, complimentary fashion is muslim-bashing.

"Muslims didn't attack us. Terrorists who claim to be muslims attacked us."

Japanese didn't attack Pearl Harbor. Warmongers who claim to be Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor.

Germans didn't try to rule the world at the beginning of WWII. Nazis who claim to be Germans tried to rule the world at the beginning of WWII.

Try again. If the "peaceful" muslims of the world don't want to be associated with the "terrorists who claim to be muslims", it's time to step up.

People, we are in a LOT of trouble.

Art Eatman
July 15, 2004, 10:42 PM
TSA? Profiling? Flight security?

http://www.womenswallstreet.com/WWS/article_landing.aspx?titleid=1&articleid=711

one-shot-one
July 16, 2004, 09:16 AM
thats the artical Art, it seems to put an extra spin on this discussion.
i personaly don't care if i'm "profiled", if a bunch of middle aged fat white guys were doing terrorist acts it would not bother me to be looked at more closely unless of course i was one of them!

cuchulainn
July 16, 2004, 09:49 AM
i personaly don't care if i'm "profiled", if a bunch of middle aged fat white guys were doing terrorist acts it would not bother me to be looked at more closely I have nothing against profiling. If we can figure out a profile to target Al Quada members, I'm all for it. However, how do we profile for beliefs? Islam is not a race. Al Quada has white, black, Asian and Pacific members.

one-shot-one
July 16, 2004, 01:51 PM
cuchulainn;
did you read the article listed in Art's post?
if i boarded a plane separately then begin to seemingly associate/work in unison with a group of other passengers, scaring those around us, then some one "profile" me as a possible problem. my reasons for acting in a strange and possibly dangerous manner should not matter. i think "we" are equating profiling with racist behavior. your right muslims come in all colors (and personalities) just like christians, jews, and atheist ect. but suspect BEHAVIOR should ALWAYS be suspect no matter who is portraying it. if it turned out that the guys in question were only foreigners who couldn’t figure out how to work the toilet and were trying to help each other then say we are sorry and show them how but to ignore a potentially deadly situation because some one might accuse "us" of non-politically correct "profiling" is just nuts.

If you enjoyed reading about "received in an e-mail" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!