War (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message


RiotGirl -> War (11/22/2005 10:17:12 AM)

Okay my note on this : This was passed down to me from my affliations with the government. Its as good as my source, which is pretty good (as we're related) All and all its good food for thought.

Senders note



This is for everyone to read regardless of your political affiliation. I had no idea who General 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 General 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, 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.) Its kinda long but a must read.

If you would like information on General Chong, go to Google and type in his name. All of the following is something that everyone should read.


This WAR is for REAL!

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 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;
* 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 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 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 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 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 ourchildren, our grandchildren, our country and the world.


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




ModeratorOne -> RE: War (11/22/2005 10:24:07 AM)

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/soapbox/chong.asp

quote:

The above-quoted essay about the war on terrorism is yet one more example of misattribution through e-mail forwarding. Although USAF Major General 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 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. We have not yet been able to ascertain the identity of the original author.




Mercnbeth -> RE: War (11/22/2005 10:31:06 AM)

quote:

From the link sited: This essay 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.


Damn, it was written by an Attorney! That makes it impossible to believe anything sighted. More than likely everything was just made up to generate law suits.




JohnWarren -> RE: War (11/22/2005 11:20:43 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: RiotGirl

[Clipping most of the racist garbage)

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 assumes there will be an end to this "war." In WWII we were fighting an alliance of three countries with assorted hangers on. They could surrender.

As the poster has made clear, this war is against a religion. No only that, a nonheirachial religion. Imagine fighting the Baptists. There isn't any single leader who could surrender. Defeat one and a dozen others pop up.

Sadly, before the Religious Right started it's screaming about "weapons of mass destruction" and "get them before they come for us." We WERE winning. All over the world, Islam was catching up the Jews and Christians in getting the idea that religion is a nice idea in its space but an intelligent person can enjoy a pretty nice secular life too.

We have to remember that Islam is a lot younger than Christianity (in fact, Mohammad listed Christ as one of the prophets who proceeded him. They're dealing with stuff we in the Christian world got over when House of Lancaster and the House of York were burning Christian churches and priests and preachers.

The fundamentalists were getting squeezed tighter and tighter. Frankly, they were losing hand over fist, being overwhelmed by battalions of Hollywood movies, armies of rock videos, uncensored news was parachuting in constantly from the squadrons of satellites overhead. We didn't need the Marines; we had MTV.

Then Bush goes on his rampage. He does excuse the countries that supplies the bulk of the 911 hijackers because attacking them might be expensive but he does have a valid beef with Afghanistan and we win that one (if you count crushing the government winning; a bunch of guys whose boots are on the ground there might argue.) Then he attacks Iraq based on transparent lies (the yellow cake documents were so badly forged that Italian intelligence laughed at them) (Weapon inspectors are told they can't have access to American intelligence ... the one set of guys who could go anywhere and look aren't told to go where we claim we KNOW the weapons are) (Phrases like "we think" or "we believe" are missing and replaced with "we know" and "they have them.")

If all the Islamic radicals had actually been able to pull off a call to Allah and get him off his ass, the results could not have been better. We charge in, blow up villages, kill people and pretty much set ourselves as the defacto government. Then we start attresting people almost at whim and torture them. Torture works; it works in one interesting way. I have never, never heard of anyone who has been tortured in these kinds of circumstances that has done anything except grow to HATE the people who did it to him or her. It's not good for getting information, but it sure builds up a population and a secondary population of wives, sisters, brothers, fathers, sons, etc who hate with the same white heat.

Now let's look at the risk to this country. A few years ago, we were also facing an ideological enemy. The difference was that enemy had a developed country, vast economic reserves, an air force of hundreds of thousands of aircraft, many of them nuclear capable. more than 10,000 MIRV headed missiles, aircraft carriers, submarines, assorted surface ships and the never to be disregarded The Romp'n Stomp'n Red Army with more tanks than there are cockroaches in NYC.

Where are the Islamic radicals' missiles, superbombers, nuke subs? Oh, they can hurt us. They can hurt us like the gang down the street the shakes down she shopkeepers can hurt us. They can kill us. In the past decade, Islamic terrorist attacks have killed about as many Americans as swimming pool accidents (excluding combat casualties in Iraq)

Each death is a tragedy, but it's not a cause for panic. It is not a threat to our country. That threat comes from inside. There are people who have no use for civil rights and see this is a wonderful opportunity to get rid of laws that inconvenience them.

To put this in real perspective, let's say "we surrender." First imagine the incredible internal battle between the various branches of Islam and, after that, within the winning branch. That, in itself, might well take them out of the power projection business. Then they have to get over here. They don't have an air force so they end up renting a plane. I recommend Air France, nice amenities. They arrive at Andrews AFB. Now what in the hell do they do. They in the position of a dog chasing a car and findly catching it.




Guilty1974 -> RE: War (11/22/2005 11:26:11 AM)

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.


Unfortunately, although politically correct in this paragraph, the author in the remainder of the article speaks continously of "the muslims" and "muslims" instead of "muslim terrorists". Clearly, the author is trying to put fear into you, me and everybody for the average muslim in the street. Why? Probably to support his argument that we should temporarilty give up civil liberties.

I wholeheartedly disagree with this position. We should not give up civil liberties. We should not torture suspects. We should not all of a sudden fear the people we have lived with for decades. We should be more alert, certainly, but if the US and the European Union lose their wits and turn themselves into police state dictatorships, we have already lost exactly what is worth defending: democracy, liberty and justice.

Roel




Mercnbeth -> RE: War (11/22/2005 11:38:53 AM)

quote:

Clearly, the author is trying to put fear into you, me and everybody for the average muslim in the street. Why? Probably to support his argument that we should temporarilty give up civil liberties.


Guilty,
This has nothing at all to do with the compromising civil liberties.
Until and unless the general Muslim community enjoins those opposed to the activities that are associated with the terrorists coming from their community they are doomed to be identified with them. When they admonish loudly and publicly, those dancing in the streets hearing of; 9/11, the train bombing in Spain, or the London subway bombing, then those effected will need to be clearer in their focus of contempt. Until then, they suffer the same stereotyping that the Germans, Italians, and Japanese had to deal with during WWII. Then as now, innocent individuals suffered prejudice, resentment, and hatred, for the activities perpetrated by their elected or appointed leaders.

Reversing the question; do you think that the Muslims who perpetrated the attacks on the US, Britain, or Spain had any differentiation or concern in their minds for the people who died in their attacks who supported their position?




pantera -> RE: War (11/22/2005 11:59:49 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JohnWarren


Sadly, before the Religious Right started it's screaming about "weapons of mass destruction" and "get them before they come for us."


I don't think the need for this war is an issue of the "religious right"- it is something that affects everybody in this country and abroad-

I, myself, have no religion and I see a clear need to be fighting the war was are fighting. We can not afford not to fight it, we need to finish they job, and we ARE winning- so I guess I'm part of the Atheist Right that supports the troops






Guilty1974 -> RE: War (11/22/2005 12:07:07 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

This has nothing at all to do with the compromising civil liberties.



Actually it has. If only because the author of the article posted says that we should be prepared to give up civil liberties. I'm responding to that article.

quote:


Until then, they suffer the same stereotyping that the Germans, Italians, and Japanese had to deal with during WWII. Then as now, innocent individuals suffered prejudice, resentment, and hatred, for the activities perpetrated by their elected or appointed leaders.


Prejudice is hardly ever a good thing. I grew up with german-jokes (living in a formerly nazi-occupied country) and I learnes most Germans are very friendly people. But my point is not that Muslims are suffering from prejudice. It has nothing to do with "them", but with "us". My point is that the moment we get so scared we give up our ideas of liberty, democracy and justice, the terrorists have won already.

quote:


Reversing the question; do you think that the Muslims who perpetrated the attacks on the US, Britain, or Spain had any differentiation or concern in their minds for the people who died in their attacks who supported their position?


No. But I'm not like those terrorists, and I refuse become like them.

Roel




Mercnbeth -> RE: War (11/22/2005 12:44:28 PM)

quote:

My point is that the moment we get so scared we give up our ideas of liberty, democracy and justice, the terrorists have won already.


Guilty,
You just listed the current major justifications for the US occupation and continuing war in Iraq. The US it there to promote our ideas of liberty, democracy, and justice. I'm curious and could see no previous reference; does this mean you support the war?

quote:

No. But I'm not like those terrorists, and I refuse become like them.

I don't see how consideration of the question makes us "like them". Appreciating that our adversary will justify any means to achieve a goal is reality. Our position and our tactics should consider this fact. It doesn't mean that we have to be "like them". It just means we have to know their capabilities.

I am with you regarding civil liberties. But pragmatic to understand that those associated with civil security are now needed. Has the government expanded and abused that necessity to expand their ability to monitor their own citizens? Yes. But unless you subscribe to the conspiracy theory that the US sent a plane into it's own buildings, their implementation was the result of a direct attack on the US.

Prior to 9/11 a child could visit the bridge of a jet during travel. You could get a real knife & fork with your meal. You could meet a guess at the airport gate. You didn't see uniformed soldiers armed with machine guns guarding the security checkpoints. Those "civil liberties" ended. There is a trade off, to date only Muslim men between specific ages perpetrated the deeds. Would you support a program of "profiling" all people falling into the targeted group if some of those old liberties could be reinstated? It's actually the continuing politically correct non-profiling, that checks 83 year old grandmothers in wheelchairs if they should be so "lucky" to win the airport check in lottery.




JohnWarren -> RE: War (11/22/2005 12:51:09 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Guilty1974
No. But I'm not like those terrorists, and I refuse become like them.

Roel


This, to me, is a bottom line. I keep hearing "the rules have changed. We need to be more like them."

They are not nice people and they are worse rulers. We don't need to be like them; we need to be the kinds of people our ancestors imagined we would become when they founded this nation.

That will be the ultimate defeat of the bad guys.




sub4hire -> RE: War (11/22/2005 12:58:19 PM)

quote:

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/soapbox/chong.asp


If anyone had bothered to read what One had written you would all know it was just spam. Apparently Riot Girl didn't know that when she posted it.





darkinshadows -> RE: War (11/22/2005 1:10:48 PM)

Yes Gloria - it is spam and really bad, well documented spam at that. (As Mod One pointed out)

I am surprised that people still read such trashy hate mongering and decide to discuss it.
It's obvious anti - islamic properganda, plain and simple.
It is just plain nasty.

Peace and Love




BlkTallFullfig -> RE: War (11/22/2005 1:29:38 PM)

quote:

Yes Gloria - it is spam and really bad, well documented spam at that. (As Mod One pointed out)
Yes Angel, it is unfortunate, and not only do they read it, they believe it. It is in my opinion, the reason the world is so volatile and more divided than ever, with base animal instincts of us against them coming into play in every discussion. M
http://www.collarchat.com/m_207357/mpage_2/key_/tm.htm




Guilty1974 -> RE: War (11/22/2005 1:59:54 PM)

quote:

Guilty,
You just listed the current major justifications for the US occupation and continuing war in Iraq. The US it there to promote our ideas of liberty, democracy, and justice. I'm curious and could see no previous reference; does this mean you support the war?


First of all, that I believe in these values does not necessarily mean that I want them imposed by military means on the rest of the world.... It is a very difficult question for me though. I supported the war on former Yugoslavia, to which the US contributed. I oppose(d) the military intervention in Iraq, and still have my doubts about the US motives and the lack of a UN mandate. I do not doubt, however, that Iraq is probably better off without Saddam, and I hope that in the end Iraq can now become a democracy - although professionally speaking, I have my doubts about the success-rate. To me it is not a binary question. I find taking a stand in these issues by far the most difficult of all political issues. On the whole, I'm not principally against all military intervention.

quote:


I am with you regarding civil liberties. But pragmatic to understand that those associated with civil security are now needed. Has the government expanded and abused that necessity to expand their ability to monitor their own citizens? Yes. But unless you subscribe to the conspiracy theory that the US sent a plane into it's own buildings, their implementation was the result of a direct attack on the US.


Sure, it was a response to 9/11. It was, in my humble - and foreign - opinion, a wrong response. I agree fully with John Warren. I too keep hearing "the rules have changed. We need to be more like them." Even in my own country. And I very much regret that.

Roel




Mercnbeth -> RE: War (11/22/2005 2:35:00 PM)

quote:

Yes Angel, it is unfortunate, and not only do they read it, they believe it. It is in my opinion, the reason the world is so volatile and more divided than ever, with base animal instincts of us against them coming into play in every discussion. M


M,
I never realized that the source of or method of delivery determined the validity of information under discussion. I don't know if that criteria was part of the posting requirement. The topic is out there, and being discussed civilly.

Most of the OP's article sights facts and source references. Other than the opinion of not finding "fairness" in the position what facts can you point to that support an opposing position?

I respect and admire Dark Angle's unilateral pacifism. But I disagree that reporting verifiable facts or consequences of actions represents "hate mongering". I'll represent that until 2001, I never had any negative or positive global opinion on the Muslim religion or the Muslim people. Although there were Muslim led attacks throughout the world as identified, I didn't take the time to learn enough to perceive it as a personal threat. In regard to what you point out to regarding a more volatile world, I'd agree 100%. But the cause of that effect is based upon observable behavior. You can dissuade me with contrary observable behavior, but not with the idea that if we just are "nice" they will be "nice" back. Nothing in recent history would support that position that I know. I'm open to learn.

quote:

Guilty: I hope that in the end Iraq can now become a democracy - although professionally speaking, I have my doubts about the success-rate. To me it is not a binary question. I find taking a stand in these issues by far the most difficult of all political issues.


I think at this point is where we both nod our heads, look for a waiter/waitress and order another round of our respective beverages of choice. I'd love to hear your take on the killing of Theo van Gogh and how it changed the attitude of citizens in your country toward the Muslim population in general, and immigration.




pollux -> RE: War (11/22/2005 2:36:22 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Guilty1974

I too keep hearing "the rules have changed. We need to be more like them." Even in my own country. And I very much regret that.

Roel


I'm curious why you think this is, or what you think the Dutch people are reacting to when they say that. Because of Theo Van Gogh's murder? Muslim immigration in general? Reactionary Islamic preachers? Spillover or contamination from US policies? All of the above?




BlkTallFullfig -> RE: War (11/22/2005 2:46:50 PM)

quote:

M,
I never realized that the source of or method of delivery determined the validity of information under discussion. I don't know if that criteria was part of the posting requirement. The topic is out there, and being discussed civilly.
You should have realized that the source is very much significant when it comes to determining the validity of some information... That is simply common sense to me.
For example, if someone proved to me over and over again that someone fabricates facts at his whim, that is hardly the source I will seek out when I need factual information from which to make decisions. If someone is a convicted rapist, that isn't the person I will ask for opinions on women's rights. You see what I mean?
I didn't say the discussion wasn't civil, I simply gave my opinion on an article that is one false (confirmed untrue as it is attributed), and secondly just propagandist hate mongering garbage, IMO. [;)] M




BlkTallFullfig -> RE: War (11/22/2005 2:53:50 PM)

quote:

I'll represent that until 2001, I never had any negative or positive global opinion on the Muslim religion or the Muslim people. Although there were Muslim led attacks throughout the world as identified, I didn't take the time to learn enough to perceive it as a personal threat. In regard to what you point out to regarding a more volatile world, I'd agree 100%. But the cause of that effect is based upon observable behavior. You can dissuade me with contrary observable behavior, but not with the idea that if we just are "nice" they will be "nice" back.
I would suggest you look beyond the "they hate us because of our liberties" for answers, and I would hope you know that is far too simplistic an answer.
I never said be nice to anyone who isn't nice to us. I've always said that once we were reasonably certain Bil Laden was behind the 9/11 attacks, I would have supported flattening Afghanistan looking for him, if the Afghan people didn't give him up first. M




Guilty1974 -> RE: War (11/22/2005 3:05:39 PM)

quote:


I'm curious why you think this is, or what you think the Dutch people are reacting to when they say that. Because of Theo Van Gogh's murder? Muslim immigration in general? Reactionary Islamic preachers? Spillover or contamination from US policies? All of the above?


You're well-informed :-)

What I think:

I think with regard specifically to the Dutch situations, one should separate the political reaction and the peoples reaction. The peoples reaction is I think a reaction to changes in the world, that include 9/11 and Madrid. The murder of Van Gogh by a Muslim Idiot (terrorist would be too big an honour) indeed has had its effect, though personally I think the murder of Pim Fortuyn (an anti-islam politician) by a left wing non-muslim activist (and idiot) was a bigger trigger for changing political views. The shooting of a high school teacher in my home town by a muslim didn't help either (ehm, such things don't happen here very often, so they're quite shocking).

As a result, support for the multicultural society has decreased rather dramatically, though economic decline is probably a factor too. I don't think immigration in general or reactionary preachers are much of a factor actually. They've been with us for decades. As long as we have a political party that refuses women as members because of the bible, well, we can deal with a few fanatics... we just let them rant, give em some media attention, say they're silly and move on. Most of the muslims here are pretty much okay. I live in a 180+ nationality neighbourhood, but my (muslim) fastfood caterars were as shocked over 9/11 as I was.

The political reaction is one of a dramatical decrease in tolerance and a decrease in support of of civil liberities. Issues that were unthinkable before (like a general identification obligation) have become law. I now have duty to carry my ID at all times. The last time we had such a rule was under the nazi-occupation. There's talk of holding people in custody without charging for a longer time. There's a constant pressure in the media that we might be next for a terrorist attack. I think that's a spill over from US policies, it's not really helping the local situation in any way whatsoever.

That's why I explicitly said US and European Union. There's a lot of criticism of the US here, but the EU is sometimes just as silly. We Europeans tend to forget :-)

Roel




Mercnbeth -> RE: War (11/22/2005 3:23:08 PM)

quote:

If someone is a convicted rapist, that isn't the person I will ask for opinions on women's rights. You see what I mean?


M,
I absolutely do see what you mean, but I won't back off from the challenge. Are you saying that you make your determination regarding the validity of information solely on it's source? In that case, should I just shut up? Wait - I think I already know the answer to that!

Who said this and when; "There is tremendous outrage by the public that these people have targeted just innocent people, and I can tell you that we get mad and we get even, and these people will be brought to justice."

No it wasn't me after 9/11. It wasn't a right wing, civil liberty ending Republican. It wasn't even John Kerry at a campaign rally seeking the strong military vote. The answer can be found on this source article:http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/11/11/jordan.blasts/

This was a wake up call to a people who didn't identify themselves as an enemy of Allah. This was the same place that on 9/11/01 there was dancing in the streets. Again, I agree that the Muslim terrorist movement is NOT representative of all Muslims. However, until it's Muslim leaders who say those words and condemn the actions, the "spam" of the OP will find receptive ears. I don't understand why a great and civilized people and their leaders would fail to appreciate that or see it any other way.

The article sighted was the first I saw where a globally recognized leader of a Muslim country condemned a Muslim terrorist act. It was said in the past that Muslim's don't demonstrate and mobilize as do US citizens to protest their own peoples actions, but this instance proved that wrong. I hope with all I hold dear that the Muslims will follow one of the teachings of Muhammad recognized preceding Prophets who said; "what you do to the least of my children you do unto me".




Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.0625