This message was forwarded to me by a "friend of a
friend", and the author is a retired Marine Corps
Colonel and attorney. It makes MORE SENSE THAN
ANYTHING ELSE I'VE READ about the current WORLD
conflict in which we find ourself. As you'll see,
it's not cheap political propaganda of the type so
commonly seen.
>
> THE WORLD SITUATION -
> This was written by a retired attorney
> May 19, 2004.
>
>
> I believe I owe it to you to share
> some thoughts on the present world situation.
> 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 Kenne! dy - 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 th! e 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 wa! s 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 i
>
>
the terrorist Muslim have
> already begun the havoc in France.
>
> As I have said before, I think this is the war of
> the century. It is not a war against terrorism.
> Terrorism is merely a tactic. It is a religous war.
> Muslims vs Christians and Jews. As in all of our
> successsful wars we should hold no quarter.
> Political correctness could destroy western
> civilization. The time to stand up for our
> institutions is NOW. Dave Swinford
>
> [8] There are 64 Muslim countries. This does not
> count countries like Spain that are controlled by
> the Muslim terrorists.
>
"Life ain't about how fast you run, or how high you climb, but how well you bounce."
friend", and the author is a retired Marine Corps
Colonel and attorney. It makes MORE SENSE THAN
ANYTHING ELSE I'VE READ about the current WORLD
conflict in which we find ourself. As you'll see,
it's not cheap political propaganda of the type so
commonly seen.
>
> THE WORLD SITUATION -
> This was written by a retired attorney
> May 19, 2004.
>
>
> I believe I owe it to you to share
> some thoughts on the present world situation.
> 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 Kenne! dy - 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 th! e 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 wa! s 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 i
>
>
the terrorist Muslim have
> already begun the havoc in France.
>
> As I have said before, I think this is the war of
> the century. It is not a war against terrorism.
> Terrorism is merely a tactic. It is a religous war.
> Muslims vs Christians and Jews. As in all of our
> successsful wars we should hold no quarter.
> Political correctness could destroy western
> civilization. The time to stand up for our
> institutions is NOW. Dave Swinford
>
> [8] There are 64 Muslim countries. This does not
> count countries like Spain that are controlled by
> the Muslim terrorists.
>
"Life ain't about how fast you run, or how high you climb, but how well you bounce."
