quote: This was passed on to me by a good friend in the CAF. It's worth reading in total. Too bad this sort of information isn't available to our younger generation(s) that haven't had the opportunity to be very close to those that fought in WWII and Korea to recognize what bringing this nation together really means. If only more US citizens would realize there is a true threat to this country and our society. Maybe this letter (even though I can hear some calling it Muslim bashing) will open an eye or two.
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.
[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
Not that I don't agree with parts of it, but.....
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
So lets just kill the Muslim Pope and be done with it.
The whole Idea behind this letter is that Muslim Leaders around the world act as one, are one army with one goal.
That is far from the truth.
And while showing us how we could loose this war, it does not talk about how we can win this war.
How?
Do we kill all Muslims? Should we have a nice world-wide ethnic cleansing?
The war, my friends, is to be won in the hearts and minds of those who would join our enemies.
To do that we need to sell the idea of our work in Iraq not to American Voters, but to Muslims around the world.
And you don't sell our ideas of freedom and openness by brutalizing people based on their religion or the color of their skin.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: 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.
Tell that to the Japnanese Americans from the detention camps who lost their families....not to mention their whole lives...
I do worry about the slippery slope......what good are civil rights if the goverment can take them away easily?
I do agree that we often overlook the religious angle when worrying about terrorism. It isn't a conicident that most of the attacks have been carried out by men of middle eastern descent, all whom were muslims.
So I might be a little wary if I am on a plane full of them, to be honest.
But we can't ignore that not all radical muslims are middle eastern, and muslims aren't the only people capable of terrrorism. The Irish did it to each other for years and years, and you don't get a whole lot more white than they do....I know, I am of Irish descent myself, and I make Casper the Ghost look like he has a tan...a real good tan, at that...
Kwea
P.S. Jim-Me: But I don't like most of the conclusions the letter came to, despite some things that make sense...and I really don't like it's tone at all.
I was suprised to find that someone had sent it to me, honestly.
posted
Its not the nicest thing to say, but if the Muslim men 17-40 don't like a little distrust and mistreatment, they need to work on keeping their breathren in line some. The onus isn't just on us. People need to be self policing.
Posts: 1621 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
So, because I read in the paper that a white kid robbed a convenience store at gunpoint last night I'm to blame because I didn't teach him to be responsible?
Please tell me you know how ridiculous you sound.
Posts: 3243 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Let me guess, you are neither Muslim, nor look Muslim.
What about the Indian Hindu that gets mistaken for the Arab all too often. Should he be responsible for his brothers too, even if they are not his brothers?
Should I, as a white male over 40, expect people to be suspicious of my investments because so many white men over 40 caused havoc with illegal accounting and management schemes over the past few years? Should I expect more audits because other crimminals cheated on their taxes, and they were mostly caucasian males over 40? Would that give me the right to barge into any CEO's office and demand he change his behavior? Would it be effective?
What we are doing is blaming Muslims for this problem. All that blame does is relieve us from having to deal with the problem.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: 2. Why were we attacked? Envy of our position, our success, and our freedoms.
While I can't answer the question perfectly myself, I think this answer is simplistic and naive. I think some of our historic meddling in the region might have something to do with making us a target of Muslim extremists. I'm not saying anything justifies terrorism. But I don't think Osama Bin Laden just woke up one day and said, "Gee, those Americans have nice lives. Let's blow them up!"
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: - 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.
This passage sickens me. It is insidious to the point of being downright evil. The author discloses his own irrational prejudice by repeatedly using the phrase "type of prisoner". The only "type" these prisoners had in common with all the terrorists he named is that they were Muslim. Many of the prisoners in Abu Ghirab prison were only there because they were being held under suspicion. Some because they were falsely accused. What other "type" do they have in common with the bombers of 911 or Sadaam's thugs other than that they were Muslim? The point is that the author can't know because these people have had no trial. He knows nothing of the prisoners other than that they were Muslim yet he equates them with all Muslim terrorists. THIS IS THE VERY DEFINITION OF RACISM.
But of course, if you can throw around accusations of "Political Correctness" and yell "I'm not a Racist" loudly enough then you can make some people afraid to call you for what you ARE.
posted
I just don't see why it's important... <shrug>
it's an unattributed letter by some "lawyer" in favor of profiling in airport security.
We argue this as if we aren't or shouldn't be. I have personally been pulled aside in every airport line I have been in since 9/11/01. Every last one. I have missed a flight because of it and was not reimbursed. I am not Arabic, but could easily be mistaken for it.
And I don't have a serious problem with this except that they don't do it enough. Not that they should limit their searches (I mean, as is obvious, ANYONE could be a terrorist) but you *do* have a particular demographic that fits the mold... if advertisers are not wrong for targeting certain demographics, why not screeners?
But my real problem with it is that the barn door is closed long after the horse left. Terrorists aren't stupid. They are aware of the threat and searching for the next sneaky way to inflict harm. Personally, I think it's going to be by a rash of DC-Sniper types, but less arrogant and harder to catch, in the 15- or 20 biggest cities in the US (which means here in Dallas, too). But I'm not a professional by any means so my opinion means just that-- like this guy, I'm just a goofball spouting wind.
quote: What we are doing is blaming Muslims for this problem
Of course we are blaming Muslims. Muslims are the ones who hijacked planes and ran them into buildings. Who else should we blame?
Posts: 473 | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The thing that gets me here is that the author is trying to use information about the 9/11 terrorist attacks and all the other terrorist attacks in the last 22 years to justify the war with Iraq. I don't know about the other attacks, but have we forgotten that none of the 9/11 attackers were Iraqi? And while it has not been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that there were no ties between Saddam's regiem and Al Queda, it certainly hasn't been proven that there were, either. So he starts with an at least somewhat valid arguement about winning the war on terrorism, and magically morphs it into the war on Iraq. At least that's the way it seems to me. I know he talks about terrorism throughout the letter, but he strongly implies Iraq.
Kinda the tarring all Muslims with the same brush thing....
And I really agree with Dan's point about him not providing solutions, just race-baiting
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, I fiound myself thinking that he might have had a point while reading it, but when I got to the paragraph on the Muslim POW's i felt sick to my stomache.
I do think that there is some basis for concern; the terroists were all Muslims, and the major characteristics of the hijackers and those who support them are Arabic. Refusing to acknowledge that is ignoring a very important fact.
But when you try to extrapolate that to condem a whole race or religion it is just flat out wrong IMO. Not every Irish Catholic was responsible for bombings in Ireland. However, most of the bombings were carried out by Catholics.
Does that mean that we should detain all Catholics flying in from Ireland?
As to why we should be concerned about this letter, it isn't just the letter. I wouldn't be suprised to find out that the letter was a fake.... but the views expressed aren't a fluke. That is what I wanted to point out by posting it here.
I respect the opinion of a lot of people here, and I wanted to see what they had to say about it.
quote:Muslims are the ones who hijacked planes and ran them into buildings. Who else should we blame?
They were also all men. Perhaps we should round up all the men, just to be sure we get every last terrorist? Yes, the fact that the were Muslim is relevent, probably more relevent than their gender. But that doesn't mean that all Muslims are to blame. 100% of the hijackers may have been Muslim, but I bet that <1% of Muslims are terrorists.
Posts: 3546 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Careful, KarlEd. You're going to be tsked and told that you're being extreme and not trying to understand by calling that essay racist. Nevermind that the whole of it really is racist propaganda. We're not supposed to use heavy words like that, even when they're true.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Because it all counts on how well-structured your sentences are when you say it, yes? I won't bother responding to the personal insults.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, Bob its not ridiculous. Perhaps I was less than clear. If the terrorist problem is ever to be solved it will not be America fighting wars or invading or anything of the sort. It will be solved because havens for people that wish to carry out this behavior cease being havens, because the behavior stops being acceptable to those that live there. America cannot police the world as much as we might think we can or should.
We hold ourselves to a higher standard and are sickened by the tourture of the prisoners, and rightfully so. Self protection doesn't require that we stoop to the same level, but at the same time we are also not required to fight with our hands tied behind our backs.
Dan, are you saying then, that these incidents occured because of our actions? Possibly so. That still doesn't make acceptance of this behavior right, no matter the party.
If we want to take the meddling in the region to its logically conclusion, its not America that has the problem. America wasn't the one that drew the borders there from a distance. (Britain, France). Look at the bulk of Africa as well. No where that this willy-nilly border creation occured is doing well today.
On a second note, why don't we hear the same fuss about the store clerk that won't leave people alone? Specifically teenagers? Is that not as bad or are they all theives?
Posts: 1621 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Because it all counts on how well-structured your sentences are when you say it, yes? I won't bother responding to the personal insults.
No, because Karl's post contains analysis and information to support his conclusion. Even if the reader disagrees with his conclusion, it's possible to extract meaningful information from his post and to believe he's arrived at his conclusion in other than a knee-jerk fashion.
As opposed to say, calling something "racist drivel" with absolutely no support.
posted
Hollow-- No I am not saying that our actions resulted in the creation of terrorists. The only people who died on 9/11 that had any blame for 9/11 were the ones with the box cutters--the Terrorists. The only people who survived 9/11 that had any blame for the attack were members of Al Queda and their supporters.
What I am saying is that to win the "War on Terror", and lets be honest about this, nobody ever mentions IRA Bombers or Basque Separtists or the weirdo's in Montana with Crosses and Uzi's, or any other terror organization in the world other than the Islamic Terrorists, we need to win the propaganda war, and it should be easy for us because we are telling the truth.
Terrorists and Guerilla groups are like ants. You don't kill ants by stomping on their nests. You do it by poisoning their food supply, or in this case their money supply and their recruitment supply. The poison is the truth, that the US is neither Evil nor out to subjegate or destroy them.
Unfortunately, letters like this make it seem we are out to destoy or subjagate them, for our own defence.
Justa--Were all the terrorists Muslim? Yes. Are all Muslim's terrorists? No.
Subsets were a subject I learned in 1st grade math.
Some cows are brown. If you see a cow, that does not mean it is brown. If you see something that is brown, that does not mean its a cow.
Islam is a world-wide religion, not just a middle-eastern one. If you manage to lock up all middle eastern looking people so they could never harm us, the asian looking one, or the darker skinned African, or maybe even that blonde-haired, blue-eyed Muslim in the seat next to you, who was bypassed in the security screening because he was not Arabic looking, will cut your throat and fly the plane into Ceasar's in Vegas.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The problem with the letter is that like any good piece of propaganda, it lays out a series of facts and then works through some very logical conclusions. Couched within those logical conclusions are a few steps that go just a bit too far, but within the context they don't seem that out of place.
And that's how you begin making a sea change in the thoughts of a people. Look at the Nazi movement. In hindsight, the insanity within is obvious, blatantly so. But if you put yourself in the shoes of a citizen of 1925 Germany and progress day by day with the information you were given then, you'd most likely become either a supporter of the Nazis or at least apathetic enough to not struggle against it. And as the propaganda becomes digested as "fact" by your neighbors, you'll be outted by them if you don't follow along.
Statewide facism is slow, very slow to take root, but fast to blossom. It takes years, perhaps a generation even, to not just set up the us and them scenario, but to have the population begin associating as the us part of the equation.
Now think about how recent actions (say the last 25 years or so) and pieces such as that letter can grow and change the thoughts of the reader. Now couple it with the sweeping ability of communication in this day and age. How fast that letter moves from person to person. How many of us read it on this forum alone.
I found myself nodding my head time and again in the reading of it. There are passages that I can see and sympathize with, it does speak to feelings in my heart as well as the fears that lurk there to. It doesn't shout for an answer, it just offers kindly, fatherly advice.
I walked away from reading it, warmed a bit more to our efforts and the need for stronger ones. And as the hours past and the words of the letter faded back a bit, the unease arose. Not just in what was hinted at in the letter, but also in the feelings it evoked in me.
I also walked away seeing the other side of this conflict and understanding that they had already had their generation's worth of "fatherly advice" on what was what with the world. And some of them already believe that advice enough to take box cutters onto airplanes and crash them into the "enemy's" buildings.
We cannot defeat fanatics by becoming fanatics in our own right. While it does work in some special circumstances, it is not always the right choice to fight fire with fire. Sometimes common water is the right choice.
posted
Because every piece of trash deserves a complex critical analysis? That's like saying flat-earther's deserve equal time in scientific discussion. No thanks.
quote:The problem with the letter is that like any good piece of propaganda, it lays out a series of facts and then works through some very logical conclusions. Couched within those logical conclusions are a few steps that go just a bit too far, but within the context they don't seem that out of place.
Yes, that is what makes it more insidious than the stupid "towel-heads" and "camel-jockeys" trash that gets tossed about. It first appeals to a sense of "fact" about things before going way out into left field. Michael Moore does the same in his most recent film, where he uses certain instances of "fact," laid out in an edited and predefined manner, to give a biased and extreme story that someone who doesn't keep up with the story would look at and say, "that makes sense. It's all factual information."
Nevermind the man behind the curtain, though.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Because every piece of trash deserves a complex critical analysis? That's like saying flat-earther's deserve equal time in scientific discussion. No thanks.
I never said complex; I said some analysis. And given that I've seen you casually dismiss with an insult arguments that have merit to them, it's not just flat-earthers that are getting your treatment.
Then again, if your desire is to simply spout off and insult people, you're doing just fine. But don't think I'll ignore your coy little references to me, especially when they totally misrepresent what I've said.
posted
I believe the term for that is called systematic desensitization. They start out with a very normal claim, one that can be substantiated. Then they build on it, and step by step they build a hose of cards...adn it is easier to keep nodding your head and agreeing. It is a very old sales trick...get the people saying yes over and over to little things first, and then slowly ease into the more difficult things.
You end up with a conclusion that would have seemed absurd had you just came out and stated it at the beginning. You are led there by small logical steps, none of which are took radical in and of itself...but taken all together, they end up in some very dangerous places.
It is a perversion of a legitimate psychological technique used to treat phobias, but hate groups have been using the methodology for years to gain followers.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Also, isn't the link for the numbers of terrorist attacks the one that the State Department said was wrong, and that attacks had, in fact, actually been increasing when the correct numbers were given?
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: 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.
This makes absolutely no sense to me. Is he telling his sons that you must always stand behind your president on international issues regardless of whether you agree with him or not?
Posts: 4116 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is a tough sell to many in the US Armed Forces, but yes, you are sworn to follow legal orders from superior officers, and the President is at the top of the Chain of Command. It is perfectly acceptable to dissent in private, but in public it is not acceptable to dispute those orders. We've seen many senior soldiers lose their jobs over statements that they've made contrary to the policy of the President. It is called falling on your sword. Each of those soldiers knew what the consequences would be.
Posts: 270 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
