Share This Page:

  

Gem from Wholley

Non Military Chat. A place for chats or dross and down right pointless posts, you decide.
Doc
Guest
Guest

Gem from Wholley

Post by Doc »

Dear Wholley

I have on several occassions cursed myself for giving you my email address. The main reason being that I log on to see I have 22 emails, hoping that one is either from an essence russian chick who wants marriage in exchange for board and keep for her and her twin sister both nymphos, or I have won the lottery. Imagine my distain when all I find are emails from your goodself and willy enlargement adverts (which I think are from you aswell).

But today I did read all of one of your emails and by giving you credit for this Gem, I am at the same time distancing myself from any comebacks. I have taken the liberty of posting the contents of forementioned email


Image


OOPS Wrong one........here it is...........

MG Vernon Chong, USAFR, forwarded:

This WAR is for REAL!

To get out of a difficulty, one usually must go through it. 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 11, 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 were no provocations 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). (see
http://www.nazis.testimony.co.uk/7-a.htm)

Thus, almost the same number of Christians were killed by the Nazis, as the six 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?

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, for terrorist 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 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!

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 American prisoners 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 hope now 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.

After reading the above, we all must do this not only for ourselves, but our children, our grandchildren, our country and the world.

Whether Democrat or Republican, conservative or liberal and that includes the Politicians and media of our country and the free world!

Please forward this to any you feel may want, or NEED to read it. Our "leaders" in Congress ought to read it, too.

There are those that find fault with our country, but it is obvious to anyone who truly thinks through this, that we must UNITE!
Pilgrim Norway
Member
Member
Posts: 1428
Joined: Wed 17 Apr, 2002 9:49 am
Location: Årnes, Norway

Post by Pilgrim Norway »

I have on text TV here just read that Al Queeda are congratulating all
Muslims with their glorious victory -
( newsflash originated on Al Jazeera around mid December ) -
subsequent to the news that the US is withdrawing troops
"within six months".....

Same flash quotes Jack Straw as informing that the UK will do the same -

During World War II all road signs were taken down in order to confuse
the enemy.....................

Now I notice that Street names in - at least London - are both in English
and Urdu ...... nice touch...........

The remarks on France in the piece from Wholley may well be compared to
the UK - I'm no longer sure of the percentages etc...........

AND - I'm not a racist..............

Sleep well.
Trog
45 Recce yomper

[url=http://www.militaryforums.co.uk/forums/groupcp.php?g=397][img]http://www.militaryforums.co.uk/forums/images/usergroups/listener.gif[/img][/url]
Wholley
Guest
Guest

Post by Wholley »

Very well Jack.
Carry on.
You will never get another E-Mail from me.
Or the two Russian twin Nympho's who I visit when they beg me for it.
The willie enlargment ad's are nothing to do with me.
Maybe a dissed ex is trying to tell you something? :D :D :D :P
Doc
Guest
Guest

Post by Doc »

you know I was only joking :lol: :-? :lol: :lol:

If you dont send me any then I never get any at all :cry:
Marina
Member
Member
Posts: 730
Joined: Wed 26 Mar, 2003 6:22 pm
Location: London

Post by Marina »

Does that mean people like me should be be put into internment camps (i.e like the American-Japanese) because we are a threat to society because of our ethnic or religious origin ? :-?
Wholley
Guest
Guest

Post by Wholley »

Are you a threat to the security of the Country you choose to live in?
If so,Then yes you should be interred.
Sorry Marina.
My patience is thinning.
No-one has mentioned this before but this is a Holy War.
Twenty First Century Crusade.
I'm just a lowly cop but I see the hatred in the eye's of Immigrants from the Mid-East.This is a Christian Country.
If you don't like it,
Then Fark off back to where you came from.
Pilgrim Norway
Member
Member
Posts: 1428
Joined: Wed 17 Apr, 2002 9:49 am
Location: Årnes, Norway

Post by Pilgrim Norway »

Marina -

In a bit late on this one - Here are my reflections on immigrants.....

Everything depends on whether you are a foreign immigrant or not –

If you are born in Britain then you are naturalised British.

If you are second, third or whatever generation of your ethnic
origin you are still classified as being British first –

If you emigrated from your country of origin in order to better
your economic interests and those of your family then you
are probably satisfied - hopefully you will have adopted the
rites and customs of the United Kingdom – because you chose
to leave your country of origin in order to gain more security.

If you fled your country of origin because of war or disruption
or ethnic violence and persecution you will have been overjoyed
at the succour provided you and your family in the United Kingdom.

Do you travel frequently to your country of origin ?
If the answer is ‘Yes’ then you or your forebears probably moved
to better their situation…..

If the answer be ‘No’ then you have sought asylum and been granted
that and are therefore free to take up employment, move around the
country in freedom and to practice either your own religion or
that of the United Kingdom – As has been the case for years and years.
You have been freed from the terror of your own country of origin…..

Integration is a priority. Ethnic isolation builds barriers between people.
Walls have been built by insular families wishing to impose strict rites
from their ‘Old Countries’ and disallow their offspring from fully
integrating with their new peers and cousins……
Do ghettos exist in your area ? Who built them ?

The incarceration of whole groups of people because of their original
nationalty is, of course, wrong. No-one is advocating that here.....

I too am an immigrant.

I came here forty years ago in June. I have had to accept the ways
and customs of my host country and have learned to love and respect
the culture and way of life. I have competed as an equal with regard
to jobs and done extremely well in competition with my Norwegian
colleagues. I am still ‘ Church of England’ – and this does not conflict
with my neighbours……I took citizenship only in August of this year.
(I am allowed to refuse fermented fish if I so choose - I love it though )...

Religion can be practised where you are – perhaps that same freedom
is not present in your country of origin ?

The case here is not about Muslims in general or Christians in general.
The case is for ‘Freedom of choice’.

If you wish to practise a religion of your choice – you may do so……
If you wish you may ‘Invent’ a new religion – and be chief Jeddi....

BUT – live within the bounds of common decency and accept
the ‘norms’ of the country of your choice……

Do not support a Jihad because you “feel” that the Muslim faith
is being attacked every time – try flexibility – you are perhaps
too easily ‘offended’………..You still lack the British “Irony” !

Enjoy your British life – not everyone has freedom.

'Aye
Trog
45 Recce yomper

[url=http://www.militaryforums.co.uk/forums/groupcp.php?g=397][img]http://www.militaryforums.co.uk/forums/images/usergroups/listener.gif[/img][/url]
Murphy
Member
Member
Posts: 75
Joined: Sat 23 Nov, 2002 4:10 pm
Location: Murcia Province, Spain

Post by Murphy »

Alan, you have stated the case eloquently and, in my humble opinion, accurately. Well done.
harry hackedoff
Member
Member
Posts: 14415
Joined: Tue 19 Feb, 2002 12:00 am

Post by harry hackedoff »

Trog, ahoy you Norge Jedii Bastard :o
Anyone who loves fish can`t be all there, :o never mind that he buries it in caustic soda for six months first :roll:
Here in the merry old land of OZ, for reasons of a PC nature, we strenuously avoid discriminating against any single ethnicity. :roll:
We hate them all equally :P Faggin Bastards :P
Marina, it could be worse love,
you could be a Welsh Moslem :P :roll:
Anyone fancy a tinnie :drinking:
[url=http://www.militaryforums.co.uk/forums/groupcp.php?g=397][img]http://www.militaryforums.co.uk/forums/images/usergroups/listener.gif[/img][/url]
Frank S.
Guest
Guest

Post by Frank S. »

It breaks my heart to do this, well maybe it's chipped a little, but...

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/soapbox/chong.asp

"Somewhere along the chain of multiple forwardings, someone rewrote the first few paragraphs and mistakenly attributed the entire piece to General Chong. We have not yet been able to ascertain the identity of the original author."

You may still agree with it, but it ain't exactly what it appears.

Cheers!
Pilgrim Norway
Member
Member
Posts: 1428
Joined: Wed 17 Apr, 2002 9:49 am
Location: Årnes, Norway

Post by Pilgrim Norway »

Enters, stage left and bows first ......deeply.

Contents remains the same Frank - as does the threat -

Check out :-

http://msgboard.snopes.com/cgi-bin/ulti ... 000738;p=1

The text is only a little changed by the forwarding process......

With lenient immigration rules several countries have experienced
challenges to their intigration policies - for example Denmark and Spain, France, Sweden, Germany plus a few more in Europe.....

Norway has a population of around four million - a large influx of any
'group' of immigrants would cause an imbalance. ( Also in the ballottbox ).

The Muslim population of the UK for example would represent 25% of the
population of Norway - London already has around 607 thousand.......

All law abiding citizens I expect - and hope. The main point being that
it is very easy to tip the apple cart. Intigration into local communities is
the objective - both for the immigrants and the local residents.
The threat of "representation at any or all costs" in government is another
subject which may be translated as a threat.....

You get what you vote for - therefore VOTE ! If you dont use your vote -
don't complain when you have to learn a new language........

http://www.salaam.co.uk/themeofthemonth ... ex.php?l=2

Another problem is that the birth rate is on the decline in the UK and
Europe in general, and on the increase within the suddenly richer
immigrant community - because most of the male population sits at home
punching a keyboard instead of pro-creating - So get your facesout of
your computers and back on the job - if you remember how to that is....

Re-reading this entry ( which is something I rarely do ) I see that it
could be seen as biased - I'm not - I'm a realist who wishes to see
eventual problems in advance....... large tree two o'clock- cover.....

'Aye
Trog
45 Recce yomper

[url=http://www.militaryforums.co.uk/forums/groupcp.php?g=397][img]http://www.militaryforums.co.uk/forums/images/usergroups/listener.gif[/img][/url]
Marina
Member
Member
Posts: 730
Joined: Wed 26 Mar, 2003 6:22 pm
Location: London

Post by Marina »

Hi there Pilgrim,

Sorry I am late, there was a tube strike today… !!
You have eloquently made a valid argument.
Yes I do travel to my parents country of origin occasionally. I always believe travel broadens the mind in terms of understanding cultures no matter what country.

I do agree with most of what you have said particularly about the importance of integration in an adopted country and flexibility. Believe it or not the PC brigade have gone too far and actually harmed relations amongst immigrant and the indigenous population. Yes.. there are a lot of problems amongst immigrants not wanting to assimilate but and I suppose it’s the lack of resolve and failure by community leaders to tackle issues and other social factors.

I have always been a flexible and tolerant person otherwise I wouldn’t be here.
Moreover… is it not easier assimilating from one European culture to another than from East to West??

Maybe I am a little too sensitive, you see attitudes, political and social climates have changed forever after 9/11. I feel there is always going to be this sense of fear and suspicions on both sides. Every time some terrorist bomb goes off somewhere, is like ‘please God don’t let it be one of our lot ! ‘.
What I mean is…. we don’t want to be associated with these acts of terror because of the religion it doesn’t preach violence. When I was growing up I used to go to Saturday school (sort of like your Sunday school). We were never taught to hate people of any country or religion. I don’t mean to sermonise. These terrorists have hijacked it and made us look bad.
Also. I can distinguish between a terrorist act and freedom for independence of one’s country when invaded i.e Argentina in the Falklands… Russians in Afghanistan.

When The IRA were bombing how come they weren’t called catholic terrorists ?

Maybe I misunderstand your points.. but I think you guys get confused with culture, politics of the country and the religion !

You may not believe it but I do have a good sense of british humour (God bless Ronnie Barker & Spike Milligan )., the irony has got lost somehow. Harry keeps me on my toes to remind me now and then !!


Harry
Nah mate.. Londoner through and through… we’re a bunch of miserable B****** !! Don’t use the F word (Mum would kill me).. only under severe provocation … when I am driving in London.

I suppose I better keep me trap shut on this thread for a while.. or I’ll get into more hot water !

Wholley
Am I bovvered ???…Yeah but no but yeah but… Whatever !!
(quote from the Catherine Tate Show & Little Britain)
Frank S.
Guest
Guest

Post by Frank S. »

Okidokie. The essay posted is actually pretty good, much better than the average.
But what is it?
It is one of those pieces usually written anonymously (which I find a tad ominous), sometimes attributable to some individual. No matter.
My take on this, and hopefully, you'll take it with as much salt as you took the essay, is that it is essentially based on conventional wisdom.
And what is conventional wisdom? A definition:
Conventional wisdom is a term coined by the economist John Kenneth Galbraith, used to describe certain ideas or explanations that are generally accepted as true by the public.

Conventional wisdom may be either true or false. Many urban legends, for example are accepted on the basis of being "conventional wisdom". Conventional wisdom is also often seen as an obstacle to introducing new theories, explanations, or revisionism.

The idea of Conventional Wisdom is also used in a political sense, often related closely with the phenomenon of Talking Points. It is used pejoratively to refer to the idea that statements which are repeated over and over become conventional wisdom regardless of whether or not they are true. There is always doubt.


Conventional wisdom often clashes with common sense. Another definition (I gotta do this so we understand what I'm talking about):
One meaning of the term common sense (or as an adjective, commonsense) on a strict construction of the term, is what people in common would agree; that which they "sense" in common as their common natural understanding. Some use the phrase to refer to beliefs or propositions that in their opinion they consider would in most people's experience be prudent and of sound judgment, without dependence upon esoteric knowledge or study or research, but based upon what is believed to be knowledge held by people "in common". The knowledge and experience most people have, or are believed to have by the person using the term.

I said the essay was better than most because it attempts to "draw in" rather than antagonize people who would disagree with its points. This is interesting because it is atypical of other such writings. It lacks the "kill 'em all" fire and brimstone fervor of previous efforts.
The other reason it is interesting is because it mirrors recent US administration efforts, such as president Bush meeting with former secretaries of State and defense about a week or so ago.

In both cases, though, the effort is less than half-hearted. It is only political necessity.

So let's look at the issues: immigration is necessary to developped countries with declining birth-rates, that's been clear for some since maybe the '60s. In the case of France, we could go back to the years between WWI and WWII. The male population was so decimated that foreigners from Italy, Spain and places East was encouraged. What were their names? Italians were "ritals", Spaniards were "rastaquoueres", Poles were "polaques", etc...
But eventually they integrated, just as those French born in Algeria "pieds-noirs". Not easily, but it happened.
And the street names remained in French.
Their recent piss-poor performance notwithstanding, the French government has made serious efforts at facilitating Muslim integration.
In the long run, no one knows what the country will look like. The same applies to other countries. Will they be able to recite Rabelais and quote Voltaire, I don't know.

But Terrorism is a separate issue. The recent troubles in France were criminal.

Now the essay starts with the notion that our country (the US) faces the most serious threat to its existence, as we know it. Really? No, I mean really?
So what were the Soviets, minced meat? Understand: I don't deny the threat. However, if language previously used during the Cold War gets ink again, I have questions.
The examples cited of terrorist attacks predating 9/11 are pointedly limited to attacks against the US. There is an implication there: other targets of terrorist attacks do not matter quite as much. But listen now, 'cause you're with us, right?
Anyway, why were we attacked? Jealousy? Hate for our freedoms?
This means absolutely nothing to me.
If we 're going to postulate the who and the why, I'd like something more probative.
Muslim extremists are the enemy. What of extremists of other extractions? They don't matter as much? Again?
It goes on: Spain is finished, France on its last legs (20% muslim already? don't make me laugh, where did he get these numbers?)...
In point of fact the essay uses the term muslim quite a bit but does not offer any particularly valuable insight. So let's look at what we do know more about, being in a democracy and all.
Afghanistan: unfinished business, and still no Osama. Oh but that's right, he's irrelevant by now.
Iraq had sponsored terrorism. Debatable. Maybe not entirely false, but certainly NOT an absolute truth.
WMDs. Right.
Iraqis would receive their liberators with flowers. Right.
Iraqi oil would pay for much if not all the reconstruction efforts. Right.
Stand behind the troops. With body armor known to be either defective or simply ineffective against IEDs.

And on, and on, and on, ad nauseam.
Then it goes on to say we should give up some civil rights. Well, that's sticky. With a system of government given to abuse, I recall what Ben Franklin said, to the effect that those who would give up their freedom for security deserve neither.
Question for Paul: during which president's tenure did you receive a visit from the men in black?
It actually bears remembering.
Everything that was for sale has either been sold or its price is being negotiated. Looking to the past as we seem to be doing collectively is no help. Internments? Have they even caught who was responsible for the anthrax attacks following 9/11? Have they actually successfully prosecuted any major terrorism case other than maybe Richard Reid and a couple others? The record is piss-poor considering the size and unprecedented power of the government and the absolute emergency presented by the threat.


Now I'm smoking a cig and swilling Jack, and I tell you: I'm cool with it.
I ask you, though, what is propaganda other than widely accepted conventional wisdom?
Pilgrim Norway
Member
Member
Posts: 1428
Joined: Wed 17 Apr, 2002 9:49 am
Location: Årnes, Norway

Post by Pilgrim Norway »

I'm only used to Geordie Extremists - have you ever seen a couple of
thousand of the Toon Army roving the streets of Newcastle ?
If Newcastle loses - all of the shop windows are broken......
If Newcastle wins - all of the shop windows are broken.......
cries of "Toon" fill the air.......... and make knees weak with fear -

Better a tube strike than a strike against the tube……

This is turning into quite a thread.

Marina –

I enjoyed your reply – mate -

I’m happy that you fit into the category of a family who enjoy
your roots and the freedom to hold alive customs and rites of
your ‘Old Country’………. As did the countless Norwegians
who emigrated to the US, fought in the Civil War and all of
the wars since then and still enjoy their lutefisk in Brooklyn.
Minnesota has it’s Sons of Norway, for example…….

The taking of traditions to the country of choice is not reserved
for any religious group. All immigrants attempt to preserve their
old way of life while adapting to the ways of their new country.
I still celebrate Christmas Day 25/12 even though the Norwegian
custom is to celebrate 24/12…… I celebrate both – easy.

If two Englishmen emigrate together they form a Club…..

Religion is a strange entity – here we have amongst us questions
of racial differences…….. Yet the practising of our religion is a
questionable ‘right’ that not all participate in……

That ALL people, in for example, England, should be able to practice
their religion freely means the building of mosques, synagogues,
temples etc……

I have seen in England the burning of synagogues - and Christian
Churches converted into carpet salesrooms and architects offices,
perhaps even pubs. The conversion of churches into other types
of ‘business’ is a result of a depleted congregation – a lack of interest.

Ever investigated what the percentages for the major religions are in
Your country of choice – for example, how many Christians, Jews,
Baptists…. Norway had a surprise not long ago – the State religion did
not come out top – practising member count that is…..

While immigrants take with them their faith the original residents of
a country often fail in their practice of upholding their religion…..

BUT – the major problem being pointed out in the ( possibly erroneous )
article is that terrorists are using their religion as a smoke screen and
whipping up enthusiasm in groups of disenchanted youngsters who
have perhaps been, or experience that they have been, slighted, misused,
insulted or generally not been given a ‘Fair Chance’ in their new country.

Examples are plenty of the ‘First Generation’ of immigrants. Because of
a bad command of the language ( key feature ) they are obliged to accept
a lower form of employment – but the next generation is not, of course,
content to have this job go as an inheritance. Each generation wishes to
better the role and life of their offspring. Rightly so……

Our Prime Minister pointed out in his New Years speech that two students
from an immigrant family had passed out of their Local school with top
honours and were now undertaking medical studies….. this only to show
that by bringing them to the attention of the rest of us he was bringing the
integration of ‘Our New Countrymen’ a step further.

In England this is the accepted pattern – integration has reached it’s goal.
In Norway we are still trying to adapt…..

One thing that riles me are the attempts to introduce and enforce the
Caste System – this does not promote integration – anywhere.
( It’s been tried here ).

I shall breathe out again now…Marina – sensible entry, don’t go away.
:wink:

Frank – I’ll try to come back with a suitable comment on your entry….
I just have to breathe a bit while I remember to do so ……
The text of the original article reminds me a bit of the rhetoric used
prior to and to drum up recruits for, The Holy Wars…..

I think that the word Crusade should be whispered, not shouted –
or we’ll all be knee deep in oggin on our respective beaches….

Anyway - there won't be room for other comments if I don't stop :D

'Aye
Trog
45 Recce yomper

[url=http://www.militaryforums.co.uk/forums/groupcp.php?g=397][img]http://www.militaryforums.co.uk/forums/images/usergroups/listener.gif[/img][/url]
Ruth
Member
Member
Posts: 195
Joined: Thu 02 Dec, 2004 8:47 pm
Location: London

Post by Ruth »

Marina wrote:
When The IRA were bombing how come they weren’t called catholic terrorists ?
No, but the first thing most people ask you when you open your mouth with a good Norn Iron accent is "Are you a Catholic or a Protestant?" and pigeonhole you with instant "appropriate" terrorist support, often following up with their own ill-informed support/rebuttal.
Post Reply