Aussie E
07-15-2004, 09:59 AM
> Subject: Muslims
> THE WORLD SITUATION - A LETTER TO MY SONS
> This was written by a retired attorney, to his sons, May 19, 2004.
> Dear Tom, Kevin, Kirby and Ted,
>
> As your father, I believe I owe it to you to share some thoughts on
> the present world situation. We have over the years discussed a lot
> of important things, like going to college, jobs and so forth. But
> this really takes precedence over any of those discussions. I hope
> this might give you a longer term perspective that fewer and fewer of
> my generation are left to speak to. To be sure you understand that
> this is not politically flavored, I will tell you that since Franklin
> D. Roosevelt, who led us through pre and WWII (1933 - 1945) up to and
> including our present President, I have without exception, supported
> our presidents on all matters of international conflict. This would
> include just naming a few in addition to President Roosevelt - WWII:
> President Truman - Korean War 1950; President Kennedy - Bay of Pigs
> (1961); President Kennedy - Vietnam (1961); [1] eight presidents (5
> Republican & 4 Democrat) during the cold war (1945 - 1991); President
> Clinton's strikes on Bosnia (1995) and on Iraq (1998). [2] So be
> sure you read this as completely non-political or otherwise you will
> miss the point.
>
> Our country is now facing the most serious threat to its existence, as
> we know it, that we have faced in your lifetime and mine (which
> includes WWII). The deadly seriousness is greatly compounded by the
> fact that there are very few of us who think we can possibly lose this
> war and even fewer who realize what losing really means.
>
> First, let's examine a few basics:
>
> 1. When did the threat to us start?
> Many will say September 11th, 2001. The answer as far as the United
> States is concerned is 1979, 22 years prior to September 2001, with
> the following attacks on us: Iran Embassy Hostages, 1979; Beirut,
> Lebanon Embassy 1983; Beirut, Lebanon Marine Barracks 1983;
> Lockerbie, Scotland Pan-Am flight to New York 1988; First New York
> World Trade Center attack 1993; Dhahran, Saudi Arabia Khobar Towers
> Military complex 1996; Nairobi, Kenya US Embassy 1998; Dar es Salaam,
> Tanzania US Embassy 1998; Aden, Yemen USS Cole 2000; New York World
> Trade Center 2001; Pentagon 2001. (Note that during the period from
> 1981 to 2001 there were 7,581 terrorist attacks worldwide). [3]
>
> 2. Why were we attacked?
> Envy of our position, our success, and our freedoms. The attacks
> happened during the administrations of Presidents Carter, Reagan, Bush
> 1, Clinton and Bush 2. We cannot fault either the Republicans or
> Democrats as there were no provocations by any of the presidents or
> their immediate predecessors, Presidents Ford or Carter.
>
> 4. Who were the attackers?
> In each case, the attacks on the US were carried out by Muslims.
>
> 5. What is the Muslim population of the World?
> 25%
>
> 6. Isn't the Muslim Religion peaceful?
> Hopefully, but that is really not material. There is no doubt that
> the predominately Christian population of Germany was peaceful, but
> under the dictatorial leadership of Hitler (who was also Christian),
> that made no difference. You either went along with the
> administration or you were eliminated. There were 5 to 6 million
> Christians killed by the Nazis for political reasons (including 7,000
> Polish priests). ( http://www.nazis.testimony.co.uk/7-a.htm
> <http://www.nazis.testimony.co.uk/7-a.htm> ). Thus, almost the same
> number of Christians were killed by the Nazis, as the 6 million
> holocaust Jews who were killed by them, and we seldom heard of
> anything other than the Jewish atrocities. Although Hitler kept the
> world focused on the Jews, he had no hesitancy about killing anyone
> who got in his way of exterminating the Jews or of taking over the
> world - German, Christian or any others. Same with the Muslim
> terrorists. They focus the world on the US, but kill all in the way -
> their own people or the Spanish, French or anyone else.. [5] The
> point here is that just like the peaceful Germans were of no
> protection to anyone from the Nazis, no matter how many peaceful
> Muslims there may be, they are no protection for us from the terrorist
> Muslim leaders and what they are fanatically bent on doing - by their
> own ****ouncements - killing all of us infidels. I don't blame the
> peaceful Muslims. What would you do if the choice was shut up or die?
>
> 6. So who are we at war with?
> There is no way we can honestly respond that it is anyone other than
> the Muslim terrorists. Trying to be politically correct and avoid
> verbalizing this conclusion can well be fatal. There is no way to win
> if you don't clearly recognize and articulate who you are fighting.
>
> So with that background, now to the two major questions:
> 1. Can we lose this war?
> 2. What does losing really mean?
>
> If we are to win, we must clearly answer these two pivotal questions.
>
> We can definitely lose this war, and as anomalous as it may sound, the
> major reason we can lose is that so many of us simply do not fathom
> the answer to the second question - What does losing mean? It would
> appear that a great many of us think that losing the war means hanging
> our heads, bringing the troops home and going on about our business,
> like post Vietnam. This is as far from the truth as one can get. What
> losing really means is:
>
> We would no longer be the premier country in the world. The attacks
> will not subside, but rather will steadily increase. Remember, they
> want us dead, not just quiet. If they had just wanted us quiet, they
> would not have produced an increasing series of attacks against us
> over the past 18 years. The plan was clearly to terrorist attack us
> until we were neutered and submissive to them.
>
> We would of course have no future support from other nations for fear
> of reprisals and for the reason that they would see we are impotent
> and cannot help them.
>
> They will pick off the other non-Muslim nations, one at a time. It
> will be increasingly easier for them. They already hold Spain
> hostage. It doesn't matter whether it was right or wrong for Spain to
> withdraw its troops from Iraq. Spain did it because the Muslim
> terrorists bombed their train and told them to withdraw the troops.
> Anything else they want Spain to do, will be done. Spain is finished.
>
> The next will probably be France. Our one hope on France is that they
> might see the light and realize that if we don't win, they are
> finished too, in that they can't resist the Muslim terrorists without
> us. However, it may already be too late for France. France is already
> 20% Muslim and fading fast. See the attached article on the French
> condition by Tom Segel. [6]
>
> If we lose the war, our production, income, exports and way of life
> will all vanish as we know it. After losing, who would trade or deal
> with us if they were threatened by the Muslims. If we can't stop the
> Muslims, how could anyone else? The Muslims fully know what is riding
> on this war and therefore are completely committed to winning at any
> cost. We better know it too and be likewise committed to winning at
> any cost.
>
> Why do I go on at such lengths about the results of losing? Simple.
> Until we recognize the costs of losing, we cannot unite and really put
> 100% of our thoughts and efforts into winning. And it is going to
> take that 100% effort to win.
>
> So, how can we lose the war? Again, the answer is simple. We can lose
> the war by imploding. That is, defeating ourselves by refusing to
> recognize the enemy and their purpose and really digging in and
> lending full support to the war effort. If we are united, there is no
> way that we can lose. If we continue to be divided, there is no way
> that we can win.
>
> Let me give you a few examples of how we simply don't comprehend the
> life and death seriousness of this situation.
>
> - President Bush selects Norman Mineta as Secretary of Transportation.
> Although all of the terrorist attacks were committed by Muslim men
> between 17 and 40 years of age, Secretary Mineta refuses to allow
> profiling. Does that sound like we are taking this thing seriously?
> This is war. For the duration we are going to have to give up some of
> the civil rights we have become accustomed to. We had better be
> prepared to lose some of our civil rights temporarily or we will most
> certainly lose all of them permanently. And don't worry that it is a
> slippery slope. We gave up plenty of civil rights during WWII and
> immediately restored them after the victory and in fact added many
> more since then. Do I blame President Bush or President Clinton before
> him? No, I blame us for blithely assuming we can maintain all of our
> Political Correctness and all of our civil rights during this conflict
> and have a clean, lawful, honorable war. None of those words apply to
> war. Get them out of your head.
>
> - Some have gone so far in their criticism of the war and/or the
> Administration that it almost seems they would literally like to see
> us lose. I hasten to add that this isn't because they are disloyal. It
> is because they just don't recognize what losing means. Nevertheless,
> that conduct gives the impression to the enemy that we are divided and
> weakening, it concerns our friends, and it does great damage to our
> cause.
>
> - Of more recent vintage, the uproar fueled by the politicians and
> media regarding the treatment of some prisoners of war perhaps
> exemplifies best what I am saying. We have recently had an issue
> involving the treatment of a few Muslim prisoners of war by a small
> group of our military police. These are the type prisoners who just a
> few months ago were throwing their own people off buildings, cutting
> off their hands, cutting out their tongues and otherwise murdering
> their own people just for disagreeing with Saddam Hussein. And just a
> few years ago these same type prisoners chemically killed 400,000 of
> their own people for the same reason. They are also the same type
> enemy fighters who recently were burning Americans and dragging their
> charred corpses through the streets of Iraq. And still more recently
> the same type enemy that was and is providing videos to all news
> sources internationally, of the beheading of an American prisoner they
> held. Compare this with some of our press and politicians who for
> several days have thought and talked about nothing else but the
> "humiliating" of some Muslim prisoners - not burning them, not
> dragging their charred corpses through the streets, not beheading
> them, but "humiliating" them. Can this be for real? The politicians
> and pundits have even talked of impeachment of the Secretary of
> Defense. If this doesn't show the complete lack of comprehension and
> understanding of the seriousness of the enemy we are fighting, the
> life and death struggle we are in and the disastrous results of losing
> this war, nothing can. To bring our country to a virtual political
> standstill over this prisoner issue makes us look like Nero playing
> his fiddle as Rome burned - totally oblivious to what is going on in
> the real world. Neither we, nor any other country, can survive this
> internal strife. Again I say, this does not mean that some of our
> politicians or media people are disloyal. It simply means that they
> absolutely oblivious to the magnitude of the situation we are in and
> into which the Muslim terrorists have been pushing us for many years.
> Remember, the Muslim terrorists stated goal is to kill all infidels.
> That translates into all non-Muslims - not just in the United States,
> but throughout the world. We are the last bastion of defense.
>
> - We have been criticized for many years as being 'arrogant'. That
> charge is valid in at least one respect. We are arrogant in that we
> believe that we are so good, powerful and smart, that we can win the
> hearts and minds of all those who attack us, and that with both hands
> tied behind our back, we can defeat anything bad in the world. We
> can't. If we don't recognize this, our nation as we know it will not
> survive, and no other free country in the World will survive if we are
> defeated. And finally, name any Muslim countries throughout the world
> that allow freedom of speech, freedom of thought, freedom of religion,
> freedom of the Press, equal rights for anyone - let alone everyone,
> equal status or any status for women, or that have been productive in
> one single way that contributes to the good of the World.
>
> This has been a long way of saying that we must be united on this war
> or we will be equated in the history books to the self-inflicted fall
> of the Roman Empire. If, that is, the Muslim leaders will allow
> history books to be written or read.
>
> If we don't win this war right now, keep a close eye on how the
> Muslims take over France in the next 5 years or less. They will
> continue to increase the Muslim population of France and continue to
> encroach little by little on the established French traditions. The
> French will be fighting among themselves over what should or should
> not be done, which will continue to weaken them and keep them from any
> united resolve. Doesn't that sound eerily familiar?
>
> Democracies don't have their freedoms taken away from them by some
> external military force. Instead, they give their freedoms away,
> politically correct piece by politically correct piece. And they are
> giving those freedoms away to those who have shown, worldwide, that
> they abhor freedom and will not apply it to you or even to themselves,
> once they are in power. They have universally shown that when they
> have taken over, they then start brutally killing each other over who
> will be the few who control the masses. Will we ever stop hearing from
> the politically correct, about the "peaceful Muslims"?
>
> I close on a hopeful note, by repeating what I said above. If we are
> united, there is no way that we can lose. I believe that after the
> election, the factions in our country will begin to focus on the
> critical situation we are in and will unite to save our country. It is
> your future we are talking about. Do whatever you can to preserve it.
>
> Love,
>
> Dad
>
> [1] By the way on Vietnam, the emotions are still so high that it is
> really not possible to discuss it. However, I think President Kennedy
> was correct. He felt there was a communist threat from China, Russia
> and North Vietnam to take over that whole area. Also remember that we
> were in a 'cold war' with Russia. I frankly think Kennedy's plan
> worked and kept that total communist control out, but try telling that
> to anyone now. It just isn't politically correct to say so. Historians
> will answer this after cool headed research, when the people closest
> to it are all gone.
>
> [2] As you know, I am a strong President Bush supporter and will vote
> for him. However, if Senator Kerry is elected, I will fully support
> him on all matters of international conflict, just as I have supported
> all presidents in the past.
>
> [3] Source for statistics in Par. 1 is
> http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001454.html
> <http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001454.html>
>
> [4] The Institute of Islamic Information and Education.
> http://www.iiie.net/Intl/PopStats.html
> <http://www.iiie.net/Intl/PopStats.html>
>
> [5] Note the attached article by Tom Segel referred to in footnote 6
> infra, the terrorist Muslim have already begun the havoc in France.
> (The note was not attached to the E-mail I received. Gene)
>
> As I have said before, I think this is the war of the century. It is
> not a war against terrorism. Terrorism is merely a tactic. It is a
> religous war. Muslims vs Christians and Jews. As in all of our
> successsful wars we should hold no quarter. Political correctness
> could destroy western civilization. The time to stand up for our
> institutions is NOW. Dave Swinford
>
> [6] I checked this article with two sources - Hoax Busters and Urban
> Myths. It does not come up as a Hoax on either. I also then E-mailed
> Mr. Segel and he confirmed the article was his.
>
> [7] "I don't think the Army or any branch of service runs any type of
> war any more. It's done by senators and congressmen. There are too
> many civilians involved." Returning Iraq veteran, Sgt. 1st Class Greg
> Klees as quoted in the Cedar Rapids, IA Gazette on May 13th, 2004.
>
> [8] There are 64 Muslim countries. This does not count countries like
> Spain that are controlled by the Muslim terrorists.
Take it for what you will (advice or propaganda). The guys makes a good and strong argument why we need to win this war on terrorism at all costs.
> THE WORLD SITUATION - A LETTER TO MY SONS
> This was written by a retired attorney, to his sons, May 19, 2004.
> Dear Tom, Kevin, Kirby and Ted,
>
> As your father, I believe I owe it to you to share some thoughts on
> the present world situation. We have over the years discussed a lot
> of important things, like going to college, jobs and so forth. But
> this really takes precedence over any of those discussions. I hope
> this might give you a longer term perspective that fewer and fewer of
> my generation are left to speak to. To be sure you understand that
> this is not politically flavored, I will tell you that since Franklin
> D. Roosevelt, who led us through pre and WWII (1933 - 1945) up to and
> including our present President, I have without exception, supported
> our presidents on all matters of international conflict. This would
> include just naming a few in addition to President Roosevelt - WWII:
> President Truman - Korean War 1950; President Kennedy - Bay of Pigs
> (1961); President Kennedy - Vietnam (1961); [1] eight presidents (5
> Republican & 4 Democrat) during the cold war (1945 - 1991); President
> Clinton's strikes on Bosnia (1995) and on Iraq (1998). [2] So be
> sure you read this as completely non-political or otherwise you will
> miss the point.
>
> Our country is now facing the most serious threat to its existence, as
> we know it, that we have faced in your lifetime and mine (which
> includes WWII). The deadly seriousness is greatly compounded by the
> fact that there are very few of us who think we can possibly lose this
> war and even fewer who realize what losing really means.
>
> First, let's examine a few basics:
>
> 1. When did the threat to us start?
> Many will say September 11th, 2001. The answer as far as the United
> States is concerned is 1979, 22 years prior to September 2001, with
> the following attacks on us: Iran Embassy Hostages, 1979; Beirut,
> Lebanon Embassy 1983; Beirut, Lebanon Marine Barracks 1983;
> Lockerbie, Scotland Pan-Am flight to New York 1988; First New York
> World Trade Center attack 1993; Dhahran, Saudi Arabia Khobar Towers
> Military complex 1996; Nairobi, Kenya US Embassy 1998; Dar es Salaam,
> Tanzania US Embassy 1998; Aden, Yemen USS Cole 2000; New York World
> Trade Center 2001; Pentagon 2001. (Note that during the period from
> 1981 to 2001 there were 7,581 terrorist attacks worldwide). [3]
>
> 2. Why were we attacked?
> Envy of our position, our success, and our freedoms. The attacks
> happened during the administrations of Presidents Carter, Reagan, Bush
> 1, Clinton and Bush 2. We cannot fault either the Republicans or
> Democrats as there were no provocations by any of the presidents or
> their immediate predecessors, Presidents Ford or Carter.
>
> 4. Who were the attackers?
> In each case, the attacks on the US were carried out by Muslims.
>
> 5. What is the Muslim population of the World?
> 25%
>
> 6. Isn't the Muslim Religion peaceful?
> Hopefully, but that is really not material. There is no doubt that
> the predominately Christian population of Germany was peaceful, but
> under the dictatorial leadership of Hitler (who was also Christian),
> that made no difference. You either went along with the
> administration or you were eliminated. There were 5 to 6 million
> Christians killed by the Nazis for political reasons (including 7,000
> Polish priests). ( http://www.nazis.testimony.co.uk/7-a.htm
> <http://www.nazis.testimony.co.uk/7-a.htm> ). Thus, almost the same
> number of Christians were killed by the Nazis, as the 6 million
> holocaust Jews who were killed by them, and we seldom heard of
> anything other than the Jewish atrocities. Although Hitler kept the
> world focused on the Jews, he had no hesitancy about killing anyone
> who got in his way of exterminating the Jews or of taking over the
> world - German, Christian or any others. Same with the Muslim
> terrorists. They focus the world on the US, but kill all in the way -
> their own people or the Spanish, French or anyone else.. [5] The
> point here is that just like the peaceful Germans were of no
> protection to anyone from the Nazis, no matter how many peaceful
> Muslims there may be, they are no protection for us from the terrorist
> Muslim leaders and what they are fanatically bent on doing - by their
> own ****ouncements - killing all of us infidels. I don't blame the
> peaceful Muslims. What would you do if the choice was shut up or die?
>
> 6. So who are we at war with?
> There is no way we can honestly respond that it is anyone other than
> the Muslim terrorists. Trying to be politically correct and avoid
> verbalizing this conclusion can well be fatal. There is no way to win
> if you don't clearly recognize and articulate who you are fighting.
>
> So with that background, now to the two major questions:
> 1. Can we lose this war?
> 2. What does losing really mean?
>
> If we are to win, we must clearly answer these two pivotal questions.
>
> We can definitely lose this war, and as anomalous as it may sound, the
> major reason we can lose is that so many of us simply do not fathom
> the answer to the second question - What does losing mean? It would
> appear that a great many of us think that losing the war means hanging
> our heads, bringing the troops home and going on about our business,
> like post Vietnam. This is as far from the truth as one can get. What
> losing really means is:
>
> We would no longer be the premier country in the world. The attacks
> will not subside, but rather will steadily increase. Remember, they
> want us dead, not just quiet. If they had just wanted us quiet, they
> would not have produced an increasing series of attacks against us
> over the past 18 years. The plan was clearly to terrorist attack us
> until we were neutered and submissive to them.
>
> We would of course have no future support from other nations for fear
> of reprisals and for the reason that they would see we are impotent
> and cannot help them.
>
> They will pick off the other non-Muslim nations, one at a time. It
> will be increasingly easier for them. They already hold Spain
> hostage. It doesn't matter whether it was right or wrong for Spain to
> withdraw its troops from Iraq. Spain did it because the Muslim
> terrorists bombed their train and told them to withdraw the troops.
> Anything else they want Spain to do, will be done. Spain is finished.
>
> The next will probably be France. Our one hope on France is that they
> might see the light and realize that if we don't win, they are
> finished too, in that they can't resist the Muslim terrorists without
> us. However, it may already be too late for France. France is already
> 20% Muslim and fading fast. See the attached article on the French
> condition by Tom Segel. [6]
>
> If we lose the war, our production, income, exports and way of life
> will all vanish as we know it. After losing, who would trade or deal
> with us if they were threatened by the Muslims. If we can't stop the
> Muslims, how could anyone else? The Muslims fully know what is riding
> on this war and therefore are completely committed to winning at any
> cost. We better know it too and be likewise committed to winning at
> any cost.
>
> Why do I go on at such lengths about the results of losing? Simple.
> Until we recognize the costs of losing, we cannot unite and really put
> 100% of our thoughts and efforts into winning. And it is going to
> take that 100% effort to win.
>
> So, how can we lose the war? Again, the answer is simple. We can lose
> the war by imploding. That is, defeating ourselves by refusing to
> recognize the enemy and their purpose and really digging in and
> lending full support to the war effort. If we are united, there is no
> way that we can lose. If we continue to be divided, there is no way
> that we can win.
>
> Let me give you a few examples of how we simply don't comprehend the
> life and death seriousness of this situation.
>
> - President Bush selects Norman Mineta as Secretary of Transportation.
> Although all of the terrorist attacks were committed by Muslim men
> between 17 and 40 years of age, Secretary Mineta refuses to allow
> profiling. Does that sound like we are taking this thing seriously?
> This is war. For the duration we are going to have to give up some of
> the civil rights we have become accustomed to. We had better be
> prepared to lose some of our civil rights temporarily or we will most
> certainly lose all of them permanently. And don't worry that it is a
> slippery slope. We gave up plenty of civil rights during WWII and
> immediately restored them after the victory and in fact added many
> more since then. Do I blame President Bush or President Clinton before
> him? No, I blame us for blithely assuming we can maintain all of our
> Political Correctness and all of our civil rights during this conflict
> and have a clean, lawful, honorable war. None of those words apply to
> war. Get them out of your head.
>
> - Some have gone so far in their criticism of the war and/or the
> Administration that it almost seems they would literally like to see
> us lose. I hasten to add that this isn't because they are disloyal. It
> is because they just don't recognize what losing means. Nevertheless,
> that conduct gives the impression to the enemy that we are divided and
> weakening, it concerns our friends, and it does great damage to our
> cause.
>
> - Of more recent vintage, the uproar fueled by the politicians and
> media regarding the treatment of some prisoners of war perhaps
> exemplifies best what I am saying. We have recently had an issue
> involving the treatment of a few Muslim prisoners of war by a small
> group of our military police. These are the type prisoners who just a
> few months ago were throwing their own people off buildings, cutting
> off their hands, cutting out their tongues and otherwise murdering
> their own people just for disagreeing with Saddam Hussein. And just a
> few years ago these same type prisoners chemically killed 400,000 of
> their own people for the same reason. They are also the same type
> enemy fighters who recently were burning Americans and dragging their
> charred corpses through the streets of Iraq. And still more recently
> the same type enemy that was and is providing videos to all news
> sources internationally, of the beheading of an American prisoner they
> held. Compare this with some of our press and politicians who for
> several days have thought and talked about nothing else but the
> "humiliating" of some Muslim prisoners - not burning them, not
> dragging their charred corpses through the streets, not beheading
> them, but "humiliating" them. Can this be for real? The politicians
> and pundits have even talked of impeachment of the Secretary of
> Defense. If this doesn't show the complete lack of comprehension and
> understanding of the seriousness of the enemy we are fighting, the
> life and death struggle we are in and the disastrous results of losing
> this war, nothing can. To bring our country to a virtual political
> standstill over this prisoner issue makes us look like Nero playing
> his fiddle as Rome burned - totally oblivious to what is going on in
> the real world. Neither we, nor any other country, can survive this
> internal strife. Again I say, this does not mean that some of our
> politicians or media people are disloyal. It simply means that they
> absolutely oblivious to the magnitude of the situation we are in and
> into which the Muslim terrorists have been pushing us for many years.
> Remember, the Muslim terrorists stated goal is to kill all infidels.
> That translates into all non-Muslims - not just in the United States,
> but throughout the world. We are the last bastion of defense.
>
> - We have been criticized for many years as being 'arrogant'. That
> charge is valid in at least one respect. We are arrogant in that we
> believe that we are so good, powerful and smart, that we can win the
> hearts and minds of all those who attack us, and that with both hands
> tied behind our back, we can defeat anything bad in the world. We
> can't. If we don't recognize this, our nation as we know it will not
> survive, and no other free country in the World will survive if we are
> defeated. And finally, name any Muslim countries throughout the world
> that allow freedom of speech, freedom of thought, freedom of religion,
> freedom of the Press, equal rights for anyone - let alone everyone,
> equal status or any status for women, or that have been productive in
> one single way that contributes to the good of the World.
>
> This has been a long way of saying that we must be united on this war
> or we will be equated in the history books to the self-inflicted fall
> of the Roman Empire. If, that is, the Muslim leaders will allow
> history books to be written or read.
>
> If we don't win this war right now, keep a close eye on how the
> Muslims take over France in the next 5 years or less. They will
> continue to increase the Muslim population of France and continue to
> encroach little by little on the established French traditions. The
> French will be fighting among themselves over what should or should
> not be done, which will continue to weaken them and keep them from any
> united resolve. Doesn't that sound eerily familiar?
>
> Democracies don't have their freedoms taken away from them by some
> external military force. Instead, they give their freedoms away,
> politically correct piece by politically correct piece. And they are
> giving those freedoms away to those who have shown, worldwide, that
> they abhor freedom and will not apply it to you or even to themselves,
> once they are in power. They have universally shown that when they
> have taken over, they then start brutally killing each other over who
> will be the few who control the masses. Will we ever stop hearing from
> the politically correct, about the "peaceful Muslims"?
>
> I close on a hopeful note, by repeating what I said above. If we are
> united, there is no way that we can lose. I believe that after the
> election, the factions in our country will begin to focus on the
> critical situation we are in and will unite to save our country. It is
> your future we are talking about. Do whatever you can to preserve it.
>
> Love,
>
> Dad
>
> [1] By the way on Vietnam, the emotions are still so high that it is
> really not possible to discuss it. However, I think President Kennedy
> was correct. He felt there was a communist threat from China, Russia
> and North Vietnam to take over that whole area. Also remember that we
> were in a 'cold war' with Russia. I frankly think Kennedy's plan
> worked and kept that total communist control out, but try telling that
> to anyone now. It just isn't politically correct to say so. Historians
> will answer this after cool headed research, when the people closest
> to it are all gone.
>
> [2] As you know, I am a strong President Bush supporter and will vote
> for him. However, if Senator Kerry is elected, I will fully support
> him on all matters of international conflict, just as I have supported
> all presidents in the past.
>
> [3] Source for statistics in Par. 1 is
> http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001454.html
> <http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001454.html>
>
> [4] The Institute of Islamic Information and Education.
> http://www.iiie.net/Intl/PopStats.html
> <http://www.iiie.net/Intl/PopStats.html>
>
> [5] Note the attached article by Tom Segel referred to in footnote 6
> infra, the terrorist Muslim have already begun the havoc in France.
> (The note was not attached to the E-mail I received. Gene)
>
> As I have said before, I think this is the war of the century. It is
> not a war against terrorism. Terrorism is merely a tactic. It is a
> religous war. Muslims vs Christians and Jews. As in all of our
> successsful wars we should hold no quarter. Political correctness
> could destroy western civilization. The time to stand up for our
> institutions is NOW. Dave Swinford
>
> [6] I checked this article with two sources - Hoax Busters and Urban
> Myths. It does not come up as a Hoax on either. I also then E-mailed
> Mr. Segel and he confirmed the article was his.
>
> [7] "I don't think the Army or any branch of service runs any type of
> war any more. It's done by senators and congressmen. There are too
> many civilians involved." Returning Iraq veteran, Sgt. 1st Class Greg
> Klees as quoted in the Cedar Rapids, IA Gazette on May 13th, 2004.
>
> [8] There are 64 Muslim countries. This does not count countries like
> Spain that are controlled by the Muslim terrorists.
Take it for what you will (advice or propaganda). The guys makes a good and strong argument why we need to win this war on terrorism at all costs.