RichP
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- Effort, Pa
Could try them under US law and punish them under islamic law, few beheadings and loss of extremities seems to keep them in line over there pretty much.
Tired of Terrorists
- Thread starter Hawaiian Style
- Start date
- Location
- Terra Firma
Islamic law is basicly "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" or "Let the punishment suit the crime."RichP said:
So for people who try to blow up scores of innocent people, I don't think a civilized beheading is appropriate. Makes it more suitable to the crime to stake them out with a bunch of dynamite or C4 strapped around them and a LOOOONG fuse -- and no blindfold.
Note: That's what would be appropriate under their system. I admit that I struggle daily with what I think is appropriate under our legal and moral structures.
- Location
- Wasatch Range
Eagle said:
How about a little bit of dynamite strapped to them..........much better effect.....
Hawaiian Style
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- JAX
G.Q. Jeeper said:
Can you read? Where did I say that we needed to keep everyone out of the United States?
It's not a matter of living in isolation, it's a matter of controlling OUR country. I don't want to keep people out, I just want to make sure that everyone who comes accross the border is supposed to be here and if the become a problem then he/she can be booted out at our discretion.
Many other countries treat visitors in this manner, why shouldn't we? Wouldn't ask someone out of your house if they were disruptive? I don't see a problem. In fact, I think aliens should be called guests because they really have no right to be here at all. They are ALLOWED entry. That may seem harsh but it's 100% fact.
And, why are you Canadians always so concerned about what we're doing? Don't you have your own problems to fix?
Last edited:
- Location
- Terra Firma
I would ask those participating in this thread to KEEP IT CIVIL or one of us moderator types will lock this thread.
I think it is clear that we have no problem with Canadian citizens, but we do have a problem with porous borders and broken immigration policies. Civilized discussion of this is welcome, but if this thread degenerates into name calling (from either side of the border), it's going to be closed, and possibly deleted.
I think it is clear that we have no problem with Canadian citizens, but we do have a problem with porous borders and broken immigration policies. Civilized discussion of this is welcome, but if this thread degenerates into name calling (from either side of the border), it's going to be closed, and possibly deleted.
- Location
- Terra Firma
Echo time? 
Eagle said:
XJEEPER said:
G.Q. Jeeper
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- Yellowknife, NWT
Hawaiian Style said:
Everyone is a guest, and can only stay for a certain amount of time when they are in the US, or Canada for that matter, if you need to stay longer, than you have to apply for extension in time, its been like that for a while.
We live in North America, and share the largest un patroled boarder with each other, we are YOUR largest trading partner, and our economic ties with the US, we should be concerned with polices and controls that the US puts in place.
What I do not like is the American Embassator for Canada, coming up here and cutting up our military, and telling us we need to invest alot more in our military, in order to become a more important roll in the world.
We do have our own problems in Canada, no country is without thier issues, however, I live in a Cosmopolitan Country, and we are a major player in the world.
In the future, on a global scale, I would like to see a "World Government", that has the best interests of the whole world in mind, not one nation, that has its own interests at stake.
GQ
Lawn Cher'
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- Westampton, NJ
Eagle, I think XJeeper was suggesting a small amount of dynamite, rather than a bunch. Probably to cause extreme injury and prolonged agony before death instead of instant obliteration. :explosion
bgcntry72
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- Queen Creek, Alcatraz
G.Q. Jeeper said:
I thought you said you live in Canada?
:twak:
Roxtar
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- NW Indiana-Chicago area
Oh, we need to build bridges. That's so sweet. I just hope the car bombs that cross those bridges don't end up under your place of work.G.Q. Jeeper said:
But then I'm sure when we build those little bridges of trust by talking to those poor little terrorist and just explaining that we mean them no harm and we promise to stop oppressing the world. I'm sure they will stop sending those car bombs, right?
Then we can all live happily ever after.
ChuckD
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- Kerman, CA
In the future said:Now that's scarry!
Hawaiian Style
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- JAX
bgcntry72 said:
:roflmao: Nice one.
Seriously though, some of the political beliefs of our northern neighbors are quite scarey. What's with this world government stuff? Count me out of that plan. The UN is bad enough.
Also, I can't resist:
"I live in a Cosmopolitan Country, and we are a major player in the world."
Yeah, right behind France.
I can poke fun at you because my Mom was a Canadian and I've got family up there.
Darky
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- 29 Palms, CA
World government is a scary thing...for those that have evr read thru Revelation in the Bible (I know I know, but hey its still kinda interesting), that is one of the final steps before Armageddon. If you're not Christian and don't belive in the Bible, that's ok, I'm not bringing this up to convert anyone or start a new debate...just an interesting piece of info.
8Mud
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- Central Germany
Having had a dozen near misses (Red Army Faction/Bader Meinhof) and observing the Muslim Fundimentlaist movement since the mid 80´s. Got a few things to toss out there. The leaders of many of the movements, might or seem to be operating from the position that the existing order has to be changed. They often use psycho´s and sociopaths as there foot soldiers.
Psycho´s and sociopaths (about 3% of the population) have a ecological nitch. In bad times the people with the temperment and/or predispostion to bump off ther nieghbors, survive.
In an orderly (mostly) society, psycho´s and sociopaths are a plauge. About as welcome as a rabid coyote.
I´d debrief any terrioist I could lay my hands on, with any methode at my disposale (chemicaly, hypnoises whatever). Dissapear them as a blight on the gene pool and incarserate the leadership (unless they also turned out to be aberante).
Rule of law, medical ethics and other higher ideals, should be secondary to purging the gene pool. The hangers on and the near but not full blown psycho´s and sociopaths, would catch on right quick, when there type A leaders and handlers, started disappearing, without a word or a trace.
Bader Meihoff, was partially tolerated for years, until it matured into the Red Army faction. Germans really didn´t get serious about purgeing them, until they started killing major politicians. Even then it took years to weed them out. Germans kept trying to accomodate them, like the French. Politically this may have been the right answer, genetically/sociologicaly, it was kind of like shooting yourself in the foot.
Psycho´s and sociopaths (about 3% of the population) have a ecological nitch. In bad times the people with the temperment and/or predispostion to bump off ther nieghbors, survive.
In an orderly (mostly) society, psycho´s and sociopaths are a plauge. About as welcome as a rabid coyote.
I´d debrief any terrioist I could lay my hands on, with any methode at my disposale (chemicaly, hypnoises whatever). Dissapear them as a blight on the gene pool and incarserate the leadership (unless they also turned out to be aberante).
Rule of law, medical ethics and other higher ideals, should be secondary to purging the gene pool. The hangers on and the near but not full blown psycho´s and sociopaths, would catch on right quick, when there type A leaders and handlers, started disappearing, without a word or a trace.
Bader Meihoff, was partially tolerated for years, until it matured into the Red Army faction. Germans really didn´t get serious about purgeing them, until they started killing major politicians. Even then it took years to weed them out. Germans kept trying to accomodate them, like the French. Politically this may have been the right answer, genetically/sociologicaly, it was kind of like shooting yourself in the foot.
Sarge
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- St Louis, MO
G.Q. Jeeper said:
No thank you. Each country should decide its own fate.
Sarge
Yucca-Man
NAXJA Member # 683
- Location
- Castle Rock, CO
...World Government. Screw that; Kerry goes for that kind of thing. "World Government" works only in science fiction writings. On a good note, recent congressional votes to get the US out of the UN (and the UN out of the US) were defeated recently, but had more support than ever before. Good - get them the f*** out of my country and stop subsidizing the worthless, toothless bastiges.
Speaking of trans-national governments though, why do European Union signatories continue to have individual seats in the United mess of Nations? They are devolving from sovereign nations into a mass of states. If France can continue to have a seat in the UN, maybe we need to push for all 50 US states to have a vote as well...
Speaking of trans-national governments though, why do European Union signatories continue to have individual seats in the United mess of Nations? They are devolving from sovereign nations into a mass of states. If France can continue to have a seat in the UN, maybe we need to push for all 50 US states to have a vote as well...
Yucca-Man said:
Because the EU, like the UN, is a joke.
I basically support the idea of a United States of Europe - but only from the standpoint of a common passport, set of border controls (meaning immigration policies), and currency - in fact, quite similar to how I feel the federal government should work in the US.
However, in creating the EU, there's one thing that the Brussels politicians consistently failed to take into account: you've got nearly two dozen different nations, cultures, and languages in mainland Europe. Unlike America, where there has traditionally been a strong notion of being an American, there is no strong notion of what constitutes a European. Most people supporting the EU do so for the potential for increased economic power: Brussels trying to tell a Glaswegian what's best for him doesn't really work, though.
America works because there's a baseline for what constitutes America, and people coming or already here by and large adhere or adapt to that standard. In Europe, there's several thousand years of cultural precedent to have to change to get to that point. It'll never happen, much like removing the EU member states from their seats in the UN.
This thread has drifted while I've been looking for this old email. I think it says a lot about the world today.
----------
Good read
[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 c! old 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:
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 7,581terrorist 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 can not 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 of attacks on US they were 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).
<<http://www.nazis.testimony.co.uk/7-a.htm>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 ot! hers. 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 circular 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 after 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 attack us with
terror 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 can not 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 for 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.
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 neat, well-contained war with minimum interruption to our daily lives.
Some of us have gone so far out in our criticism of the war and/or our 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, such conduct gives the impression to the enemy that we are divided and
weakening; it greatly 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 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 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 aren't and 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 of the 55 Muslim countries 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
-----------
Sorry about the long post, but this email has been on my mind a lot.
----------
Good read
[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 c! old 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:
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 7,581terrorist 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 can not 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 of attacks on US they were 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).
<<http://www.nazis.testimony.co.uk/7-a.htm>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 ot! hers. 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 circular 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 after 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 attack us with
terror 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 can not 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 for 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.
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 neat, well-contained war with minimum interruption to our daily lives.
Some of us have gone so far out in our criticism of the war and/or our 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, such conduct gives the impression to the enemy that we are divided and
weakening; it greatly 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 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 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 aren't and 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 of the 55 Muslim countries 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
-----------
Sorry about the long post, but this email has been on my mind a lot.
- Location
- Terra Firma
That is a truly EXCELLENT summary of the situation. "Dad" should send that to the New York Times. Of course, they won't print it, but maybe he'd get lucky.
"Dad" is correct. There are few people in this country who understand that the U.S. is not invincible, and that we can lose the "war on terror." IMHO it is important to recognize this first, and second to stop focusing on countries and start focusing on terrorists. I believe the invasion of Afghanistan was necessary and justified. I believe the invasion of Iraq was unecessary, unjustified, and deflected our focus from catching terrorists to "changing regimes." Changing regimes of other sovereign nations ain't none of our business. We're there now so we have to finish the job, but my fear is that Iraq is sapping too may resources that should be focused on chasing down terrorists rather than training Iraqi cops and just trying to keep our troops in one piece long enough to come home.
My compliments to "Dad."
"Dad" is correct. There are few people in this country who understand that the U.S. is not invincible, and that we can lose the "war on terror." IMHO it is important to recognize this first, and second to stop focusing on countries and start focusing on terrorists. I believe the invasion of Afghanistan was necessary and justified. I believe the invasion of Iraq was unecessary, unjustified, and deflected our focus from catching terrorists to "changing regimes." Changing regimes of other sovereign nations ain't none of our business. We're there now so we have to finish the job, but my fear is that Iraq is sapping too may resources that should be focused on chasing down terrorists rather than training Iraqi cops and just trying to keep our troops in one piece long enough to come home.
My compliments to "Dad."
Darky
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- 29 Palms, CA
really long but good reading, brought up a lot of points I hadn't thought of. Until reading it, I hadn't really thought about us losing...or what that would mean. I figured there's no way we'll lose, we already got Saddam, we're setting up a democratic gov't in Iraq, what else is there to do? I thought even if the new gov't failed, we'd still be ok, it'll just be more difficult to keep the peace and bargain over there. I'd say we still got a chance in that event, but its not quite as bright as I thought.
Eagle, I'd say it wasn't quite encessary to invade Iraq, but I'd say its justified because if we can set up a somewhat functional democracy in Iraq, that could be a huge bonus when it comes to talking to other Islamic nations. They can look at us and be envious or hate us or whatever, but if they see a country that very recently had the same problems as them turning itself around, it may help us out in dealing with them. I know it'll take a while before we can expect to see any prosperity there but IMHO I think its worth the try...
Eagle, I'd say it wasn't quite encessary to invade Iraq, but I'd say its justified because if we can set up a somewhat functional democracy in Iraq, that could be a huge bonus when it comes to talking to other Islamic nations. They can look at us and be envious or hate us or whatever, but if they see a country that very recently had the same problems as them turning itself around, it may help us out in dealing with them. I know it'll take a while before we can expect to see any prosperity there but IMHO I think its worth the try...
Last edited:
