Hence, my heartfelt recommendation to simply "Kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out".
From the Halls of Montezuma
To the Shores of Tripoli;
We will fight our country's battles
In the air, on land and sea;
First to fight for right and freedom
And to keep our honor clean;
We are proud to claim the title
of United States Marine.
Our flag's unfurled to every breeze
From dawn to setting sun;
We have fought in ev'ry clime and place
Where we could take a gun;
In the snow of far-off Northern lands
And in sunny tropic scenes;
You will find us always on the job--
The United States Marines.
Here's health to you and to our Corps
Which we are proud to serve
In many a strife we've fought for life
And never lost our nerve;
If the Army and the Navy
Ever look on Heaven's scenes;
They will find the streets are guarded
By United States Marines.
The muslims used their sea power to raid Italy, Spain and France taking up to a million slaves.
We can have that in our new PC and sensitive wars...
I don't think they understand that.
Regardless, given the opportunity, we should continue to hand out taxpayer funded Ass-whoopins every time.
At the same time you have to remember that one of the very first nations to recognize the brand new USA at the time of the American Revolution was the Ottoman Empire.
The Middle East is not a monolith.
Just ask any Marine!!
email going around 7/16/04
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). 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;
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 was no provocation 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). (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 hear 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 their 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 recognie 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 terrorists 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 probably will 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 article on the French condition by Tom Segel.]
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 a few years ago they chemically killed 400,000 of their own people for the same reason.
They are also the 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 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 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
[of Tom, Kevin, Kirby and Ted]
There was a definite link.
A Federal Judge found a link between al-qaida and saddam.
He awarded many families damages because of the 911 link
between both of them.
http://www.theolympian.com/home/specialsections/War/20030508/763.shtml
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/05/08/uttm/main552868.shtml
Thanks,
Roland
Farmboy, check oout the History Channel's epic on The Battle for Tripoli. It ran tonight and will be re-shown. Seveal books on the subject are mentioned.
HOWEVER, BE ADVISED: BARF ALERT!!
In case you are not familiar with the storyline - a REAL American hero by the name of William Eaton travels to Egypt, with the approval of the Jefferson Administration.
His goal: to raise a force of mercenaries to unseat the ruler of Tripoli, one Yousouf Karamali who had dethroned his brother Hamid and seized the throne. He also had a handfull of U.S. Marines and some Christian European mercenaries with him.
Yusouf, like other Barbary rulers, made a living extorting protection money from Christian shipping in the Mediterranean. Like other Barbary States, he probably also augemented his illgotten gains by slave-raiding Christian countries in Southern and Western Europe, and petty acts of piracy.
The reason Eaton wanted to dethrone Yusouf, was to free several hundred American mariners who had been held for a very long time as prisoners in Tripoli where they were regularly beaten, abused, forced to work as slave labor, kept under inhuman conditions, and humiliated by the sons of Mohammed. Bargainning for their release by the Jefferson Administration had accomplished little.
After an epic journey with many personal hazards, Eaton was well on the road to accomplishing his goals.
But he was blind-sided by a viperous piece of offal named Tobias Lear, a creature of the State Department and a progenitor of many successors of a like mind. We can think of a current one immediately.
Lear had been manoevering behind the scenes all along to undermine Eaton, effectuate a ransome, and release the Americans that way.
After stunning victories, and just before Eaton and his group could make their move, Lear negotiatied a ransome of $60,000 for the release of the prisoners. Needed aid from the U.S. government never materialized and Commodore Baron, a man with a poor record as a commander, recalled Eaton and he and Hamid, a few of his followers and the remnant of the Americans were evacuated by ship.
Hamid was abandoned by the U.S. The balance of those who had supported him in Tripoli were left to the none too tender mercies of Yousuf. Eaton had the ground cut off around him and was totally embittered by the failure to support him, the abandonment of Hamid, and the use of money to buy back free Americans who should have been and most certainly WOULD have been freed by the sword.
Needless to say, Tripoli went onto commit new outrages, encouraged by Lear and Jefferson's cowardly behavior, and only another naval expedition to the area and committment of many more troops and ships under a more able commander than Baron was able to finally bring the Barbary Pirates to heal.
Parts of what I am telling you were omitted or glossed over in the History Channel acount.
But the REAL BARF alert involves two Professors of New England University and one Caucasian American profssor from where I can't recall. The two from the University of New England were one Dr. Ali Abdullatif Ahmid and one Dr. Anour Majid.
These pieces of human offal proceeded to present a politically correct account of things from the Barbery perspective. All three of them were critical of heroic Eaton as a "selfish adventurer", defended the actions of the Barbary States as necessary for their survival as a revenue source, defended them as legitimate nations, pointed out the Barbary Pirates were not "terrorists", criticized Eaton for raising an American Flag over a fort they seized, equated his efforts with "western colonization" and blamed this unfortunate incident as one cause for our "mistaken" concept of Islam.
Only one guy, a military man named Wheeler, seemed to actually speak out in support of Eaton.
I have read several of the books they mention in the presentation.
The Barbary States were predator sheikdoms who survived totally by slaving and raiding and extortion. Entire Christian villages from southern Italy to Ireland and England were totally wiped out by their slaving operations. They sent their corsairs out into the Atlantic and throughout the Mediterranean.
There was very little difference in their methods, given the times, between the lunatics threatening us now, and them.
I shudder to think of the impact these "professors" will have with their cultural equivalency concepts on the minds of young students at the University of New England.
I was in college during the Viet Nam era and I well know how vicious, biased, and unpatriotic leftist profesors can be.
I'm super steamed. I'm steamed at the History Channel, at the University of New England, and at these three pieces of human offal who are brainwashing American Students who will only hear one side of this story.