[Rhodes22-list] Political - The war on Terrorism

[brad haslett]

Slim,

You have a valid point - "They're not nearly that well
organized."  Have you been to the airport lately?  You
could just as easily be talking about the TSA.

You don't trust W?  I feel your pain.  I felt the same
way about Willy but was mostly worried about my
sister.  Come to think of it though, she's about the
his age and not Slick's type.

Lets hope you're right and I'm wrong.  My gut tells me
we haven't seen the last of the bad guys on our soil.

Brad 



--- Slim <salm at mn.rr.com> wrote:

> Hank and Brad,
> 
> Although the article makes a few good points,
> wishing that all Americans
> unite is nothing but that--a wish.  It'll never
> happen.  We're too diverse
> in our cultures, religions, languages, races,
> incomes, ideologies, etc. to
> ever speak as one.  But isn't that one of the best
> things about the US?
> Dissent is healthy.
> 
> I'll never jump on W's bandwagon no matter how much
> fear-mongering rhetoric
> is thrown at me.  Simply put, I just don't trust
> him.  Nor do I think that
> unless we all join together, the country will
> implode and the terrorists
> win.  That's giving them too much credit.  They're
> not nearly that well
> organized.  W would like us to believe that our
> nation, and even Freedom
> itself is in grave danger.  I don't buy it. 
> Consider the stability,
> economy, resources, and might of this country
> compared to that of the
> terrorists.  They don't even have a country, much
> less a mighty one.
> 
> Slim
> 
> 
> On 6/9/05 10:40 AM, "Hank" <hnw555 at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > The below essay is, unfortunately,  not
> attributed.  I believe it
> > presents a very succinct argument for the war on
> terrorism and
> > accurately portrays the predicament the US is in. 
> It does not assign
> > blame to liberals or conservatives and, I do not
> believe it is biased
> > in either direction.  I think it is very good food
> for thought.  Let
> > the discussion begin!
> > 
> > Hank
> > 
> >
>
********************************************************************
> > 
> > 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 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;
> > Dhahran, Saudi Arabia Kh! obar Towers Military
> complex 1996;
> > Nairobi, Kenya US Embassy 19 98;
> > Dares Salaam, Tanzania US Embassy 1998;
> > 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 provocation's 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 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. 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 
=== message truncated ===


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com