War....a letter from Dad

[JVig 0]

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.

[3] Source for statistics in Par. 1 is http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001454.html

[4] The Institute of Islamic Information and Education. http://www.iiie.net/Intl/PopStats.html


[5] Note the attached article by Tom Segel referred to in footnote 6 infra, the terrorist Muslim have already begun the havoc in France. (The note was not attached to the E-mail I received. Gene)


[6] I checked this article with two sources - Hoax Busters and Urban Myths. It does not come up as a Hoax on either. I also then E-mailed Mr. Segel and he confirmed the article was his.


[7] "I don't think the Army or any branch of service runs any type of war any more. It's done by senators and congressmen. There are too many civilians involved." Returning Iraq veteran, Sgt. 1st Class Greg Klees as quoted in the Cedar Rapids, IA Gazette on May 13th, 2004.

[8] There are 64 Muslim countries. This does not count countries like Spain that are controlled by the Muslim terrorists.

--------------------------------------------------
Just remember.....if the world didn't suck, we'd all fall off.

[quade 4]

Yeah, I know that I always add footnotes to personal letters.

Just for shits and giggles, I Goolged "Dear Tom, Kevin, Kirby and Ted," and it's kind of interesting to see the life this repost of a repost of a repost has lead so far.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[SpeedRacer 1]

Quote

. 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.

Quote

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.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Nothing to say regarding the points made in the "letter," even if it never was an actual letter to someone's sons? Who gives a shit what format it took? Will you dismiss everything it says just because it might not be a real "letter"? That's very smart.

-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[diablopilot 2]

Quade. PJ's got you on this one. Know what sniping is?

Weather you agree with it or not, there is alot of truth in the letter....

----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

[quade 4]

I wasn't so much commenting on the letter as the life they take on.

This particular piece was first put on the web, from what I can find, about a month ago without any notations whatsoever. Over time, there have been a few little changes and a lot of footnotes added.

My -guess- is that if that has happened in the last month, then the several months before that (from when the letter is dated) are also in question as to their original authorship.

I find this a facinating phenomenon. Kind of like how -I- imagine the a lot of myths were written -- only this time being written to support a political agenda.

People spew off about Michael Moore because of his bias. Well, this "letter" was written by several people all with bias, but it's passed off as something genuinely written by a father to his sons. To me, that's a heck of a lot worse because it shows a certain amount of cowardice on the part of the contributing authors. At least when Michael Moore says something, you know where it came from.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[jimbarry 0]

Quote

certain amount of cowardice on the part of the contributing authors.

cowardice? or salesmanship.

I can't think of any "ideas" that aren't packaged, especially since the cable news and internet explosions of the '90s. Books, editorials, commercials. How that actor 'mom' tells her actor 'son' that this sugary cereal is good for him due to the vitamins pumped in during production?

You almost have to package ideas these days to try to get them heard. To get them to rise above the din; the flood of ideas. Even on dz.com speakers forum.

Quote

At least when Michael Moore says something, you know where it came from.

Yeah, it came from Michael Moore. And that's all I need to know how much value to put on that message.

[quade 4]

Quote

cowardice? or salesmanship.

Cowardice. Racism is -always- cowardice. Brave men do not hide behind pointed hoods -- or in this case an anonymous "letter".

The "letter" actually contains some fairly powerful "fighting words" as it attempts to blame the entire Muslim population for the actions of a few extremists.

It would -not- suprise me at all to find out the original was written by another extremist -- maybe someone with an agenda that went beyond the obvious stated in the "letter". I can see this "letter" coming from extremists in this, as well as other countries.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[jimbarry 0]

Quote

Racism is -always- cowardice.

Racism is always ignorant and it's always destructive. It's not always cowardice.

Quote

It would -not- suprise me at all to find out the original was written by another extremist

Not surprise you? It was crystal clear to me. Starts by saying that we have enemies. (We do.) Some muslim extremist groups declare us to be their enemy and want to destroy us. (They do.) Then slides into muslim this and muslim that. My point was that the message was cleverly packaged; not that I agreed with it. A classic sales technique is to get your mark saying yes to obvious things, then leading them to saying 'yes' to your thing. I'm not in sales, but I bought a bad car that way when i was 22, and learned the hard way.

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

I wasn't so much commenting on the letter as the life they take on.

I noticed! I took your decision to comment on the pedigree of the letter as an indication that you didn't have anything to say to refute the points made in the letter, or you would have done so. I think it would be very odd if you had great things to say and huge points to score on the writer's thesis, that you shut right up about them and instead went off on the origins of the letter. In other words, your silence on the letter's actual points was very suspect.

Quote

This particular piece was first put on the web, from what I can find, about a month ago without any notations whatsoever. Over time, there have been a few little changes and a lot of footnotes added.

My -guess- is that if that has happened in the last month, then the several months before that (from when the letter is dated) are also in question as to their original authorship.

I find this a facinating phenomenon. Kind of like how -I- imagine the a lot of myths were written -- only this time being written to support a political agenda.

People spew off about Michael Moore because of his bias. Well, this "letter" was written by several people all with bias, but it's passed off as something genuinely written by a father to his sons.

Whoa whoa whoa, HOW is it, again, that you're claiming to KNOW this letter is not authentic? And HOW is it that you're claiming to know it was written by several people? What proof do you have to back your assertion that it is not what it claims to be? How, for example, do you know that the first incarnations you read were not the result of someone having seen an annotated original and deciding, for expediency's sake, to forward it on minus the annotations?! The answer is: YOU DON'T know this. But that doesn't stop you from making unfounded assertions.

Quote

To me, that's a heck of a lot worse because it shows a certain amount of cowardice on the part of the contributing authors. At least when Michael Moore says something, you know where it came from.

Amazing how the most ardent defenders of Michael Moore still feel the need, lately, to admit that you have to consider the source (meant in cynical, we-know-he's-generally-full-of-shit fashion). It seems that no one these days is prepared to claim that Michael Moore is honest -- not even those who still believe his "message"!

-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

The "letter" actually contains some fairly powerful "fighting words" as it attempts to blame the entire Muslim population for the actions of a few extremists.

That is a horribly inaccurate reading of the letter. I found that the writer specifically did NOT blame the entire muslim population -- he blamed the EXTREMISTS, and simply said that it does not help that the majority of muslims are peaceful since we still have to deal with the extremist terrorist ones.

Please show us where you think he is blaming the entire muslim population. I believe you made an irresponsible accusation that is not backed up by the text.

Quote

It would -not- suprise me at all to find out the original was written by another extremist -- maybe someone with an agenda that went beyond the obvious stated in the "letter."

...Soooo... since "it would not surprise" you, ahh, you'll just go ahead and believe that that's the case until some proof to the contrary comes along. I see. That's logical of you. Believe in the non-disprovables. "I don't know that this is NOT the case, so I'll believe it IS the case."

Most regard this as a logical fallacy.

-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[Botellines 0]

Jeffrey, for your profile, it seems like you are a proofreader, right? Do you honestly (forget for a moment that you support the general message of the "letter") think that this is the letter of a father to their sons? Based on the format, the length, and other details like how unaffectionate it is, i think it is just right wing propaganda. It is not the first time we see it (not just this one) and probably will not be the last.
I am speaking only about the source, i will not say anything about the validity of the content. But considering the lack of honesty in the presentation of the message, you should give him the same credibility that you would give me if i write some sort of document against war or bush (as you know i am antiwar and antibush)
If you need to disguise your message so it will reach more people, i reckon your points are not very strong

[mr2mk1g 10]

I don’t think the footnotes aren’t original. The body of the text goes to great lengths to distance itself from a domestic political standpoint. The original author knew that if it took a side on the domestic agenda, it would lose half its audience. It therefore simply said it would support whichever president was in office on an international matter. That’s a popular position, one which wont lose many readers. Then the footnote blows all that away by saying “PS, vote Bush”. Doesn’t add up.

Plus there are a couple of clues that the footnotes are added as the letter is passed around, eg: “(The note was not attached to the E-mail I received. Gene)” That sounds like a note added by a previous reader to me.

It looks like a very well crafted letter that someone has gone to great efforts to make look like a genuine letter. They have kept it just toned down enough for it to be [I]just[/I] plausible. Later additions to it though have undermined the original authors work.

I think it’s very racist. I do not see our current terrorist predicament to be a racist thing. Sure, the terrorists are Muslim, but they do not want to destroy the west [I]because[/I] they are Muslim. Likewise we do not need to combat them [I]because[/I] they are Muslim. We need to combat them because they are terrorists. They attack the west because they are terrorists.

Saying we should wage war on Muslims is like saying we should wage war on people with 10 toes. And it’s racist.

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

Saying we should wage war on Muslims is like saying we should wage war on people with 10 toes. And it’s racist.

Aaaagain,
the letter does not say we should wage war on muslims, you are just setting up and knocking down a strawman.

The writer identifies that there are the majority (peaceful muslims) and the TERRORIST MUSLIM LEADERS who are PERVERTING islam for their own ends of obtaining power. His point is that it's MOOT that we observe that most of them are peaceful. We still must deal with the extremists in a realistic sense. And one does note that being muslim IS a consistent thing among the majority of the terrorist problem facing America.

Blue skies,
-Jeffrey

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[crozby 0]

The really worrying thing about this kind of nonsense is that some people belive they are reading a real letter from a real man to his real sons, when in reality they are just letting themselves be manipulated.

[mr2mk1g 10]

It says:

Quote

If we can't stop the Muslims, how could anyone else?

I take that as a strongly racist comment and there are many others dotted throughout the text.

It is true that in the beginning the author draws a distinction between terrorists and Muslims, but later the author either purposely or accidentally blurs that distinction.

I accept that there is a possibility that the author is simply racist and does not seek to promote that opinion but does so accidentally. There is also the possibility that the author is attempting to discreetly sell that concept to the reader. Either way, my [I]subjective[/I] take on it is that there is racist hatred of Muslims (not just terrorist Muslims, but [I]all[/I] Muslims) bound up in that text.

[Zenister 0]

Quote

[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.

this source i trust, and agree with the qoute. But where does it belong in the text? Certainly the footnotes were added later as they are not correctly notated...

wouldnt the attorney actually talk to his sons? this letter is rather forced. Even if i agree with pieces of it, there are better ways to fight wars than the one we are engaged in.

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

It says:

Quote

If we can't stop the Muslims, how could anyone else?

I take that as a strongly racist comment and there are many others dotted throughout the text.

It is true that in the beginning the author draws a distinction between terrorists and Muslims, but later the author either purposely or accidentally blurs that distinction.

I accept that there is a possibility that the author is simply racist and does not seek to promote that opinion but does so accidentally. There is also the possibility that the author is attempting to discreetly sell that concept to the reader. Either way, my [I]subjective[/I] take on it is that there is racist hatred of Muslims (not just terrorist Muslims, but [I]all[/I] Muslims) bound up in that text.

Now that is a stretch! I agree with an earlier post Since one can not easily dispute the content go after the author or origin. Don't get me wrong, I understand the "where did this truly come from" argument. but to call the author rasist? I would bet you think Arnold is a homophobe to?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[MarkM 0]

Quote

For the duration we are going to have to give up some of the civil rights we have become accustomed to.

For what duration? According to this letter we've been at war since 1972. Are we supposed to give up our civil rights for the next 30 years?

Fuck that.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

Quote

For the duration we are going to have to give up some of the civil rights we have become accustomed to.

For what duration? According to this letter we've been at war since 1972. Are we supposed to give up our civil rights for the next 30 years?

Fuck that.

Bush himself has said that this war on terror will last decades. But at least our children's children will be safe to live in a world of tyranny.

[wmw999 2,452]

I got this (sans footnotes) in the mail about a month ago. It disturbed me then, and it disturbs me now.

I'm sure a case could be made that a Martian reading it would not see the gradual movement of the "enemies" from Muslim extremists to Muslims (without the qualification of their being extremists), with some of the statements making it clear that it's not the extremists who are the problem. E.g. "Muslims taking over France." Well, it's pretty clear there just aren't enough Muslim extremists to take over France, really, but the Muslim population is increasing (but in no danger of becoming a majority -- they're just now having an influence on the society at large -- is that taking over?).

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[kallend 2,027]

So what? What gives this particular letter any special status that a letter I write to my son doesn't have? Does the writer have direct input from God or something?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

Does the writer have direct input from God or something?

Bush wrote it?

[CornishChris 5]

Quote

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.

Here's another quote for you. This is from a statement by Hitler made on March 20, 1943. Spot the similarities:

Quote

The pitiless and merciless war that has been forced upon us by external Jewry will lay the entire Continent in ruins unless the forces of [eastern] destruction can be stopped before reaching Europe’s borders. [Should they break through], the worst consequences would be not burned cities and wrecked cultural monuments but the bestial massacres of masses of human beings comparable to those that followed the invasions of the Huns and Mongols out of inner Asia.

I place both these in the same boat and firmly believe that this letter is an incitement of racial hatred and no creedance should be given to it.

CJP

Gods don't kill people. People with Gods kill people

[PhillyKev 0]

Godwin has struck.

Thread's over.