Google
WWW CFIR Dallas

Friday, July 02, 2004

Yahoo! Groups : pannews Messages : Message 748 of 748

Yahoo! Groups : pannews Messages : Message 748 of 748
> > 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). 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 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 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
> >
> > [4] The Institute of Islamic Information and
> > Education. 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)
> >
> > [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.
> >
> >
> > Carl Hutchinson
> > carlhutch@earthlink.net
> >
> >
> >
>

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home