A friend sent this to me.
I do not necessarily agree with this. there are some good points. But given the fact that the US consider itself a civilised country vs the uncivilised behaviour of Al Qaeda et al, it is folly for an attorney to agree with the diminishing of the protection availed to the citizens by the Constitution. Given that the US Supreme Court have ruled in favour of the 'enemy combatants' being held incommunicado in Guantanamo Bay... I'd say the attorney who wrote this letter is judged wrong by the US Supreme Court.
I also direct you to Robert Bolt's "A Man for All Seasons" where Thomas More gave it to his son-in-law, Roper the "God's law versus man's law" speech.
It's a long piece, I know. Read it to know your enemy.
PK
A LETTER TO MY SONS ON THE WORLD SITUATION
Written by a retired attorney, to his sons, on 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 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 (five Republicans & four Democrats) 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. [2]
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 US 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. (during the period from 1981 to 2001 there were 7,581attacks 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 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 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.. . 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?
7. 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:
a. Can we lose this war?
b. 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 Muslimists 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 Muslimists 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. [4]
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 ists have been pushing us for many years. Remember, the Muslimists 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 support President Bush 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] See below:
The French-Muslim Connection
By Thomas D. Segel, May 4, 2004
There are more than one billion Muslims in the world. The largest Muslim population, totaling 180 million, is in Indonesia. It is followed by 125 million in Pakistan, Bangladesh with 109 million and India with 84 million. The remainder is spread through 100 countries, including an estimated 5 million Muslims in France.
Though the figure 5 million may not seem large when viewed next to the populations of countries such as Indonesia, it still represents almost twenty percent of the people in France. What it has done to this western nation is negatively impact it so severely that it may soon lose its European identity. In fact, if the birth rate continues as projected, France will have a Muslim majority in less than 25 years.
According to the international Limits To Growth Organization writer Brenda Walker, "France should be seen as a cautionary tale of immigration run amok, and how quickly things can get out of control. Muslim immigration to France is a post-war phenomenon for the most part. Just a few decades of high immigration of a group with high fertility has put France in the unenviable position of being the European nation thought most likely to be the first to introduce sharia (Islamic) law.
The constant appeasement attitude of officials has also been seen to embolden the Muslim population into making strong demands on the country. As they grow in numbers most French Muslims feel they can impose the will of Islam on the entire country. There is also the threat of violence, which is always a concern by French leaders. They have already seen an increase in crime and violence against women among the Arab immigrants.
Starting in the year 2000, following the Intifada uprising, France started to experience an escalation of crimes against its Jewish citizens. Six synagogues were burned down in less than three weeks. The perpetrators were Muslims. By 2002 France was experiencing 12 anti-Semitic incidents daily. The Muslim population had grown 10 times larger than the country's Jewish community and by sheer numbers had placed themselves in a position where anti-Semitism seemed to no longer be a concern of those in government. Today French Muslims outnumber all non-Catholic ethnic and religious factions in the country combined, including Protestants and Jews.
Also frightening to the French government is the lack of assimilation into national identity by these immigrants. Decades of immigration have produced a large class of young men who claim Islam, not France, as their identity and consider crime as an acceptable life style.
As France became more and more concerned about the attitudes of its Muslims, more forms of appeasement were offered. The Muslim Brotherhood, which is an outlaw organization in Egypt was given official status and allowed to preach its message of hate. One of the Botherhood's basic themes is "It is a duty to kill in the name of Allah." France also decided to make Muslims more mainstream by giving them a national council. What was thought would be a voice of Muslim moderation became instead the voice of radical Islam.
By the time the United States was seeking United Nations resolutions on Iraq the French-Muslim connection was so strong that as a country they preferred an Iraqi victory and strongly rejected the United States position. There are many who feel that France lives in such fear of a violent uprising by its Muslim population that it can never take a strong western position on anything. There are writers such as Guy Milierre who have remarked, "France behaves more and more as if she does not belong to the West any more and as though she is the leader of the Third World."
If this fear of its own population does not seem possible to the reader, consider this:
Ten Arab men were convicted of raping a teenage girl. The Arab families left the court shouting revenge. Eight days later the court was burned to the ground and the girl along with her family had to flee for their lives.
More than 23,000 French prison inmates are Muslim, this is more than six times the proportion of Muslims to the overall French population.
From Marseille to Paris synagogues have been destroyed, Jewish men, women and children have been attacked, and schools and school buses of Jews have been stoned. Even with the strong anti-Semitic violence so openly displayed, few officials speak out and fewer members of the media report the incidents.
With all of this as a background Al Qaeda is rapidly recruiting new members. In France the terrorist organization, according to best estimates, has created military style units of between 35 and 45 thousand men.
