Thoughts on the War on Terrorism

Status
Not open for further replies.

Harve Curry

Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2004
Messages
1,756
Location
Black Range of New Mexico
Thoughts on the War on Terrorism,by Dr. Vernon Chong, Major General, USAF, Retired

by Dr. Vernon Chong, Major General, USAF, Retired

Take the time to read this....VERY POWERFUL! A MUST READ!!!!

No matter what your stance is on the war in Iraq, this is a very powerful, and
extremely well-written piece that kept running through my mind long after I
finished reading it, and it will no doubt stay in my mind for a very long time!

Please take the time to read the attached essay by Dr. Chong. It is without a
doubt the most articulate and convincing writing I have read regarding the War
in Iraq. If you have any doubts please open your mind to his essay and give it
a fair evaluation.

I had no idea who Dr. Chong is or the source of these thoughts... so when I
received them, I almost deleted them - as well-written as they are. But then I
did a "Google search" on the Doctor and found him to be a retired Air Force
Surgeon of all things and past Commander of Wilford Hall Medical Center in San
Antonio. So he is real, is connected to Veterans affairs in California, and
these are his thoughts. They are worth reading and thinking about! (the same
Google search will direct you to some of his other thought-provoking writings.)

Subject: Muslims, terrorists and the USA....A different spin on Iraq war.

This WAR is for REAL!

Dr. Vernon Chong, Major General, USAF, Retired

Tuesday, July 12, 2005 To get out of a difficulty, one usually must go through
it. 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 11, 2001. The
answer as far as the United State 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;
* Dares 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).

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.

3. Who were the attackers? In each case, the attacks on the US were carried out
by Muslims.

4. What is the Muslim population of the World? 25%.

5. 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).
(see http://www.nazis.testimony.co.uk/7-a.htm )

Thus, almost the same number of Christians were killed by the Nazis, as the six
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. 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, for terrorist to 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!

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 of
enemy fighters, who recently were burning Americans, and dragging their charred
corpses through the streets of Iraq.

And still more recently, the same type of enemy that was and is providing
videos to all news sources internationally, of the beheading of American
prisoners 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 are
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 State, 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 hope now 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.

After reading the above, we all must do this not only for ourselves, but our
children, our grandchildren, our country and the world

Whether Democrat or Republican, conservative or liberal and that include the
Politicians and media of our country and the free world!

Please forward this to any you feel may want, or NEED to read it. Our "leaders"
in Congress ought to read it, too. There are those that find fault with our
country, but it is obvious to anyone who truly thinks through this, that we
must UNITE!

If you would like to see who this fellow is go to this Air Force web sight and
look him up. http://www.af.mil/bios/alpha.asp?alpha=C
 
Last edited:
sorry, I'm more concerned about the actual reconquista of the American Southwest by illegal Mexicans than by potential Muslim terrorist attacks.
 
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.

This is different than WWII, and this general knows that. In WWII we were fighting nation states. We could tell when they were defeated.

How will we ever know the WOT is over? Stamping out "terrorism" will be about as successful as stamping out bad manners.

The War on Terror has more in common with the War on Drugs than with World War II.

Does anyone out there really think the Patriot Act will be repealed at some point? Even if some future President declares victory in the WOT, do you think they will repeal Patriot?
 
I agree with a lot of the above...

Here's one thing that troubles me though. You cannot wage successful war on an idea.

We didn't wage successful war on communism.

We didn't beat naziism. We beat germany. There are still nazis, and there's still anti-semitism. We beat the german military.

Anytime you try to wage war on an idea, you end up broadening your war too much, which is what is happening now.
 
Actually, General Chong did not write this. However, that does not dismiss the truth it contains. Here is what Snopes has to say:

Origins: The above-quoted essay about the war on terrorism is yet one more example of misattribution through e-mail forwarding. Although USAF Major General (Dr.) Vernon Chong is indeed a real person, the essay was not written by him; it was something he came across and forwarded to an acquaintance via e-mail, thereby attaching his name to it and inadvertently causing other recipients to erroneously assume he was its author.

This essay was actually written by an attorney and began circulating back in mid-2004 under the title "THE WORLD SITUATION — A LETTER TO MY SONS," with the following opening:
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); eight presidents (5 Republican & 4 Democrat) during the cold war (1945 - 1991); President Clinton's strikes on Bosnia (1995) and on Iraq (1998). 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:

Somewhere along the chain of multiple forwardings, someone rewrote the first few paragraphs and mistakenly attributed the entire piece to General Chong.

The truth will out, regrdless of the attribution and augmented text. Pay attention, or watch our country die.

Pops
 
The only way to win this war is to start killing people and breaking things, and only stop when there is no more terrorism. However, as long as we ham string ourselves by worrying about "innocents" we are doomed to fail.

At one time we had a "neutron bomb" but Carter banned it. Set off at altitude it was radiate large areas and kill everything in it, and not damage buildings. I say lets bring it back and start using it on whole countries starting with northwestern Pakistan and all of Iran. It is only a matter of time before Pakistan falls to radical Muslims fascists, and to their nuke weapons.

This this is harsh? Wrong? Terrible way to think? Think again.

Do you think our fathers worried about the Japs civilians when we bombed them? I'm not even talking about Hiroshima. I'm talking about months before when we had the guts to drop incendiary bombs on Tokyo and killed 300,000 in one night. Twice as many as Hiroshima. Do you think we worried about civilians when we bombed Berlin? Frankfurt? Anywhere in Germany? Our objective was to win, not avoid civilians casualties.

We do NOT have the leadership in the Whitehouse or Washington to win any war. This I'm wrong? Anti Bush? Wrong again.

Think of Falujia, Iraq. We had 1,000 insurgents cornered there. Instead of leveling the town of worthless mud huts with a few B52 strikes we sent in the Marines and lost 125 good men for what? A bunch of **** heads and mud huts. Well I'm here to tell you I would not give you 1 American serviceman life for ALL of Iraq, and until we start to think this way we will loose.

Think I'm wrong? Think again.

How can we win a war when we don't have the political GUTS and LEADERSHIP in Washington to secure our borders when over 200,000,000 Americans (85%) think we should.

You think we can win this war?

Think again.

:cuss:
 
I've also been saying it's almost impossible to beat ideas with guns, but no one seems to be listening.

And that's exactly why I think we will lose this conflict.
 
Armedandsafe,Thanks for checking on Snopes. Either way Gen. Chong thought well enough of it. Regardless of who the author(s) is, I agree with them.

thefitzvh,Panthera Tigris, CTD99 You are right we're fighting an idea. More specifically we're fighting the Islamic/Moslem religious ideology of it's militant leaders and brain washed followers.
I notice no where in the letter is this called the War on Terror.
quote:
"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. "

The War on Terror is the politically correct term, but dangerously misleading.Sure they use terror. During WWII it was also called atrocities and war crimes.

spartacus2002 quote:"sorry, I'm more concerned about the actual reconquista of the American Southwest by illegal Mexicans than by potential Muslim terrorist attacks. "
You could start a whole new topic on that one. I live near the border and the problem is complicated with PC schools, politicians, bureaucrats, bilingual requirements, health care, drugs, the list goes on.
But lets keep this topic on the Moslem threat.

We also cannot win this war by being limited to geographical borders. When the enemy is based across a border then they need to be hit hard , and the host country needs to do it or help/let us do it. If the enemy gets safe haven behind a border we cannot cross then that's another reason we'll loose.
 
To be accurate, the war on terrorism is a misnomer. Terrorism is merely a tactic that is employed by radical muslims, which is an ideology. What we are fighting is a war on radical islam. That doesn't just include Al Qaida. That includes any ideology that would promote the idea that if someone does not believe the same way you do that you have the right to kill them. Therefore it includes Al Qaida, Hezbollah, the Taliban and yes, even the regime of Sadam Hussein...because they all believe in exactly the same thing. And that is that you have the right to kill all of those that don't believe what you believe, or are not of your same culture.

We didn't wage successful war on communism.

We didn't beat naziism. We beat germany. There are still nazis, and there's still anti-semitism. We beat the german military.

Anytime you try to wage war on an idea, you end up broadening your war too much, which is what is happening now.

The idea here is not to eliminate a thought process or belief, but to take away all the resources needed that allow that ideology to grow, prosper, and gain influence to the point that it is a threat to others. We didn't eliminate radical white supremecy in the US, but we made it much harder to promote and grow the idea through enforcing the belief of the masses and the rule of law as determined by the majority.

That is exactly the same strategy we have in Iraq and the middle east. If you allow the silent majority the freedom to choose to live in peace and have the opportunities afforded to them that all other free societies have, they will choose that over radicalism. Of course we hear about the terrorist operations in Iraq every day. That's what sells newspapers. But for every radical muslim there are tens of thousands of muslims that don't want to die, or have their sons die for the sake of promoting an ideology. They would much rather join the community of rational nations that understand that the rule of law and legal process is what provides opportunity by opening your country up to the world at large. They want to believe their children can have some hope of achieving something other than being a suicide bomber. They are the silent majority. But they live in many cases under a government too weak to enforce their desires.

This won't come easy, but it is doable. The northern countries in the middle east (other than Iran) clearly understand they are falling behind the southern countries such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and the Arab Emirates in terms of opportunites for their people. When the middle eastern governments become strong enough to enforce their own laws against radicalism, radicalism may continue to exist, but will not have any place to grow effectively.

Yes, we could attack that problem in several areas, but the middle east is the most prevelant area of radicalism. This is a territorial war, but not in the sense of WWII. It's a territorial war in the sense of promoting a voice for the people at large that do NOT believe in radicalism, and want a better life for themselves and their families.

That's what defeated Communism in the Soviet Union..the promise of prosperity through freedom of choice.
 
CTD99:I'm talking about months before when we had the guts to drop incendiary bombs on Tokyo and killed 300,000 in one night. Twice as many as Hiroshima. Do you think we worried about civilians when we bombed Berlin? Frankfurt? Anywhere in Germany? Our objective was to win, not avoid civilians casualties.
For the most part, we were attacking the German/Japanese infrastructure -- factories, airfields, goverment/military facilities, etc.. We were not directly targeting the civilian population. (The only exeception might be Dresden ... but that was the Brits doing the bombing in retaliation for Coventry.)

The terrorists have little if any such infrastructure to attack by air.
CTD99:We had 1,000 insurgents cornered there. Instead of leveling the town of worthless mud huts with a few B52 strikes we sent in the Marines and lost 125 good men for what?
Yeah, because in WWII we rooted out German and Japanese troops with nothing but airstrikes. :rolleyes:
 
I agree with the good doctor/general. I also agree that we can't win by being hamstrung by political correctness. One hopeful sign is the success of the NRA appealing to Americans' common sense and patriotism to swing elections towards freedom.

God bless America!
 
The War on Terror has more in common with the War on Drugs than with World War II.

Yeah. How is that War on Drugs coming? :barf:

This (Iraq, specifically) was a cluster from the get-go, and no amount of alarmist or Nationalist pandering is going to change such.

For example:

2. Why were we attacked?

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

This is wrong on so many levels.

Hubris, man. :banghead:

I've got a feeling the real reason is much simpler.

[Insert "America, World Police" theme here...]

Iraq is like invading my neighbor's home after I cause you trouble...

The "War on Terror" is sensationalist garbage that adversely changes MY freedoms.
 
Thanks Lone_Gunman for being one of the few in here that make any sense.

Comparing the WoT to WWII is laughable. There will be no end to the WoT, there never can be.
 
Comparing the WoT to WWII is laughable.

I don't agree, because the actual context was having reason to temporarily curtail some civil liberties. There was no other direct comparison, so it is only "laughable" out of context.
 
Laws like the patriot act will probably never get withdrawn, that's a given. We were lucky the so called '93 crime bill sun-setted. That is also why we should NEVER get duped into thinking we need anything like it.
This war in order to win it will go on for years, maybe over 10+ years, and countries will have to allow armies to cross borders as needed to kill the common enemy of all rational governments. If an army cannot cross borders then that country should be counted on to kill the enemy themselves. It has to be WWIII or it won't be won.
My grandson is now in th JROTC ad I don't see this ending for him either. It sucks, but it won't end to withdraw because the radical Moslem won't let it.
 
I don't agree, because the actual context was having reason to temporarily curtail some civil liberties.

Almost all dictatorships have begun with the label of a temporary security situation.

When do you envision these "temporary" curtails being lifted?
 
to prevail in the war on terrorism you must out terrorise the terrorist. By that I mean, cross border raids(non uniformed) with as much intel as can be had. Concentrate on gathering intel of all sorts (human and electronic ) We are very good at that. Small team operations that have a high deniability quotient. Root these people out wherever they are, Pakistan, Iran, Detroit. Make sure of the target and take them out. Don't keep leaving our boys in the open, walking the streets in Bagdad, and other locales. Our focus should be the thugs that are perpetrating these horrendous attacks. the U.S. had, in Vietnam, a highly effective counter-terrorist spec ops. group that struck deep fear in the VC., but the war started going bad politically, and those ops. were curtailed for fear the public would be made aware. Once the political hacks get involved(like now) the purity of the operation is compromised. We could win this thing. WW2, this ain't.
 
First step on this war would be to expose the "mainstream" media in our country as what they are: supporters of the enemy.

Since 9/11 I NEVER heard ANYTHING about success of our troops (aside from the talk radio, despised by the liberal Lemmings). The Islamo-Fascists are ALREADY IN the country, taking over.

This "Journalists" think they are very smart, but they are played like a kid's piano by the Islamo-Fascists. THEY are smart, not our "news".

How come no community can set up a (Ohh, ohh, ohh, bad word) Christmas Tree on a public place, and Dearborne, Detroit has NO PROBLEMS with a Muezzin yelling from a Minarett 5 times a day starting at 6:00 am?

Where is the ACLU? Oh, I see. They just do ANYTHING to destroy this country.
 
I agree on some points with DunedinDragon.

The Islamic factions have followers in every nation on earth, even the nations such as China and Japan. They are not a localized national following. They have followers in the U.S. that are born and raised in the U.S. And they all have one goal: To destroy the United States. Even more so than destroying Israel.

The face of war for the future has forever changed. The days of massive armies wearing their colors so they can be distinguished, and facing each other across the fields is over forever. Warfare from now on will be urban, house to house fighting, and there will be no way to tell which ones on their side are combatants and which ones are civilians. I recently saw one of the programs on Iraq where a lieutenant is telling a soldier he has to be friendly to the Iraqi children for publicity's sake. When the officer left, the soldier said to the camera, "The problem with that is, one of these kids may walk up to us with a bomb strapped to his back and blow us up. I'm sorry, but my mindset is just stay away from them or kill them all."

That's a horrible thought. But the sad truth is, that is what warfare has become and that's the way it's going to stay. Look at most wars going on around the globe and they are all urban fighting with the combatants indistinguishable from the innocents.

That being said, and to keep on topic, how can we convince the anti gun folks (and government to an extent) that we all need to arm ourselves to combat this threat?
 
The question was raised, "Why were we attacked?"

The answer is, because we are not Muslim.

The idea that it was because we try to police the world is incorrect. Remember, they attacked the World Trade Center first during Clinton's presidency. Clinton saved some Muslims in the Yugoslavian civil war, but that's irrelevant to Islam. What is relevant is that we're kafir, infidels, and as the most powerful kafir nation, we're the prime obstacle to the global domination they seek.
 
The question was raised, "Why were we attacked?"

The answer is, because we are not Muslim.

The idea that it was because we try to police the world is incorrect. Remember, they attacked the World Trade Center first during Clinton's presidency. Clinton saved some Muslims in the Yugoslavian civil war, but that's irrelevant to Islam. What is relevant is that we're kafir, infidels, and as the most powerful kafir nation, we're the prime obstacle to the global domination they seek.

And any show of weakness on our part will embolden them to further believe Allah is on their side and will promote more frequent and bold attacks. History has shown that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top