Unofficialbmw.com

[patrick66]

For your ponderance. I got this off another post, but it sums up what I think about what's going on, for the most part:


This is a long one but i think it is worth reading.
Subject: Who doesn't think we are at War!


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 **** 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). ( [url=http://www.nazis.testimony.co.uk/7-a.htm).]http://www.nazis.testimony.co.uk/7-a.htm).[/url] 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.

[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.

So, Panzer, Henry, any intelligent response??

[panzerkeil302]

Oh, sorry pat, I just saw that you had addressed this to me.

...well, to be honest, I never understood why you hate and want to kill all muslims. To me, it makes us just as bad as hitler, and it is not what this country, or the bush administration is about.

[TnSlim]

quote:

---

Originally posted by panzerkeil302:
...well, to be honest, I never understood why you hate and want to kill all muslims. To me, it makes us just as bad as hitler, and it is not what this country, or the bush administration is about.

---

That's a false analogy (unless you also believe the Jews posed them a real threat).

[panzerkeil302]

No it's not, Hitler did, repeatedly.

[TnSlim]

quote:

---

Originally posted by panzerkeil302:
No it's not, Hitler did, repeatedly.

---

Did what?

[panzerkeil302]

Hitler repeatedly preached about the evil and danger of Jews....

Slim, you did know that, right?

[TnSlim]

quote:

---

Originally posted by panzerkeil302:
Hitler repeatedly preached about the evil and danger of Jews....

Slim, you did know that, right?

---

Yes.
So?

[patrick66]

Panzer, stay delusional, buddy, that's the way we love you!

Henry...?

[ 07-21-2004: Message edited by: patrick66 ]

[panzerkeil302]

well, that's the thing, boys...the Jews, collectively, weren't the cause of Germanys poverty...and the Muslims, colletively, don't hate America.

Remember, we are looking for two small factions that happen to be Muslim.

No matter how much you want to kill them all, nothing you can say or do will change the fact that killing them is wrong, evil, against Bush policy, and just not very smart.

But hey, I've been told that not wanting to wipe out an entire religion makes me the devil....so what the hell do I know?

[patrick66]

After yet another careful scan of my previous postings, panzer, I've yet to read the post where I advocate, quoting YOU, "killing all Muslims". But, like most on the Left, research is a burden, so whatever sounds good at the moment to you, works.

It's OK. I understand. There are probably drugs available that will let you find the happy place, and that's OK!

[panzerkeil302]

Everytime I post your quotes you just ignore it...but let me pull them out again,

stand by

[panzerkeil302]

Pat, these are your words:

"5% of one billion people is 50 million potential Muslim enemies"
"Do YOU want the US to become an Islamic republic, as is their stated goal???"

"you'll soon be orienting yourself towards Mecca five times a day"

"Kill them first. I have no problem with that"

This is the third time you've stated that you never said you want to "kill them all"...

So pat, are you saying you don't hate all muslims? and are you saying you don't want them all to "kill them all first"??? I'm asking you respectfully, because I feel very strongly that if a man wants to face mecca 25 times a day, he should not be harmed for his belief.

[TnSlim]

panzer, who or what pat might hate has little to do with the reality of the threat that radical Islam poses to the world today. It is the source of more widespread political strife and violence than any other purposeful act conducted by man. They even pervert their own faith to permit the practice religious cannibalism; Shi’ite will kill Sunni (and vice-versa) over whether Ali is the friend of God. And both will slaughter Kharijites if they think Allah isn’t looking.

Unless and until the moderate Muslims choose to make it clear that they’re not with the terrorists, it’s going to be awfully difficult to tell the goats from the sheep when time comes to mark your target.

[TnSlim]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Henry:
Just for the record...that's twice in one day that I agree with you, slim....

---

Ye gods! Hold the phone while I run & check to see who's put a bomb under my house!

[patrick66]

Keep it in context, panzer. I said, in reference to whether Iran was going to be a problem, how would I solve it. If they were going to attack us and we knew ahead of time, "Kill them first. I have no problem with that." was the response. I repeat, I have NOT said "kill all Muslims". Valiant effort on your part, panzer, but it didn't work this time, either!

The other statements stand on their own as fact as stated. Nothing there says "kill all Muslims", as well. Our enemies happen to be Muslims. If our enemies happened to be Slovakians, I'd say the same thing about Slovakians (no offense, Slovakians, just an example)...When does stating facts about an enemy imply "hate", anyway?

It's "we die or they die". We're at war. I want to win. Simple as that.

[ 07-21-2004: Message edited by: patrick66 ]