69 million page views

Interesting comments circulating through e-mail

Reader comment on item: Weak Brits, Tough French

Submitted by Ron Klett (United States), Jul 12, 2005 at 16:56


The following was written by someone unknown to me. It was forwarded by people that inadvertently cut out the writer's name. Too bad, indeed. The writer should be this country's leading contributor to our Foreign Policy thinking, if not our actual leader. Please read it, and, if you think it is correct, share it with others with the ability to think.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 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).

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 6 million holocaust Jews who were killed by them, and we seldom heard of anything other than the Jewish atrocities. Although Hitler kept the world focused on the Jews, he had no hesitancy about killing anyone who got in his way of exterminating the Jews or of taking over the world - German, Christian or any others. Same with the Muslim terrorists. They focus the world on the US, but kill all in the way - their own people or the Spanish, French or anyone else. The point here is that just like the peaceful Germans were of no protection to anyone from the Nazis, no matter how many peaceful Muslims there may be, they are no protection for us from the terrorist Muslim leaders and what they are fanatically bent on doing - by their own pronouncements - killing all of us "infidels". I don't blame the peaceful Muslims. What would you do if the choice was shut up or die?

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.

--------------------------------------------------
Dislike
Submitting....

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".

Submit a comment on this item

<< Previous Comment      Next Comment >>

Reader comments (120) on this item

Title Commenter Date Thread
"Did anti-Israel bias keep France from getting terror tech before Paris attacks?" [93 words]PezDispenserApr 26, 2016 03:57229158
France Français [20 words]zacooperleMar 2, 2012 05:01193806
Wrong target [508 words]Frank AdamJan 2, 2010 12:03166723
Thank you Dr Pipes for your work [299 words]GabbyJun 30, 2008 08:53133912
chosing to defy islamic people [41 words]Phil GreendMay 29, 2007 22:1195185
Resistance [195 words]DONVANMay 30, 2007 09:4795185
Weak Brits, Tough French [229 words]MarkAug 31, 2006 08:2654457
Lets see how many french are in the UN peace keeping force (not many they are weak [14 words]speedfreeAug 15, 2006 07:4952889
Comments on the article [507 words]Matthieu NoguesJun 26, 2006 06:4448168
Britain! [126 words]Cpt B.SpiveyJan 18, 2006 20:0831956
Paris Riots [117 words]
w/response from Daniel Pipes
KoNov 13, 2005 04:0828305
Paris Riots [12 words]
w/response from Daniel Pipes
Robert B. ArbetmanNov 7, 2005 10:2627882
useless new labour & the politically correct facist left collaborators [100 words]alan englandOct 6, 2005 12:0026638
Deep Frustrations With Lack of Movement For Protection [128 words]Judith L. WigginsAug 1, 2005 09:3324178
Britain vs France Revisited [427 words]koJul 31, 2005 04:1924144
Arab Power [257 words]John MJul 26, 2005 18:2323869
all wrong! [140 words]Tony MontanaNov 7, 2010 12:1523869
Response to Abdullah [508 words]GWKJul 26, 2005 17:0623860
Terrorists [42 words]GabrielleJul 25, 2005 14:5623793
No Extradition for French Justice- Rachid RAMZA [89 words]joseph CONSTANTINJul 25, 2005 12:5823787
Weak Brits [75 words]Dan LittJul 25, 2005 12:1623784
Proud of Multiculturalism [70 words]Carrie SuppleJul 24, 2005 13:2523749
The Western World and the Islamic World [242 words]GusJan 8, 2006 03:3023749
About Abdullah's posting [10 words]LeonJul 24, 2005 07:2423747
YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT [185 words]Luis BekesJul 23, 2005 22:2523740
British = French [587 words]AbdullahJul 23, 2005 17:1323737
Way to go Frogs! [3 words]Harvey SimonsJul 23, 2005 11:3023729
Britain's Strength/Weakness [196 words]koJul 23, 2005 10:0423728
Britain Mugged by Reality [32 words]steve chambersJul 22, 2005 14:2823700
Could French, British domestic politics account for the difference? [145 words]Joshua TruaxJul 22, 2005 13:4123697
Weak? no no no. [91 words]JDJul 20, 2005 12:4123646
British Cultural Insecurity [195 words]JoeJul 19, 2005 04:4923569
Response to Jan Vink - You are 100% Correct. [139 words]JaladhiJul 18, 2005 18:3023560
Male suicide Bombers get 70 virgins with swelling breasts [104 words]
w/response from Daniel Pipes
AyeshaJul 18, 2005 18:2223559
reply [93 words]ritaOct 10, 2008 15:4023559
Pipes misses big picture of French consistency [370 words]JohnJul 18, 2005 16:5423558
Comment on Frenchy: Causes of Terrorism. [98 words]Jan VinkJul 18, 2005 10:4123554
80 OUSSAMAS WERE BORNT IN FRANCE IN 2002 [383 words]Heol Ar BleiziJul 18, 2005 06:4323551
Not all terrorists are Moslems and vice versa [167 words]Al SteinerJul 18, 2005 05:0823550
Precisions [447 words]Edouard Kapps, Lyon, FranceJul 17, 2005 19:5623543
news of Britain's death greatly exaggerated [157 words]Luigi Funesti-SordidoJul 16, 2005 07:0223523
Totally wrong [129 words]Gabriel DieuJul 16, 2005 05:2023522
"taking innocent lives" [96 words]Hari IyerJul 16, 2005 01:1123521
Dominators versus dominated [382 words]FrenchyJul 15, 2005 20:5423518
Muslim suicide bombers can take 70 more to the paradise [144 words].A.AhmedJul 15, 2005 10:2623509
wrong [73 words]john raymondAug 26, 2006 22:0423509
70 women ? [17 words]peterOct 19, 2007 12:2823509
Dominion [145 words]H DaviesJul 15, 2005 08:5423507
First positive note on French [36 words]EssEmJul 15, 2005 01:4023502
France/Britain Divide [16 words]BStoomJul 14, 2005 23:0723499
Wall Street Journal series [79 words]dpJul 14, 2005 21:2823498
French v. English responses [170 words]Mike ShapiroJul 14, 2005 19:5423496
Suicide bombers are brainwashed by mullahs [416 words]A.A.Jul 14, 2005 15:3423495
Terrorist Tactics [750 words]jeannieFeb 2, 2007 14:3823495
This is an answer to "Pluto's Dad" [64 words]rachelleJul 14, 2005 12:5823493
France's atheism explains the difference???? [94 words]rachelleJul 14, 2005 12:5123492
Deliberate British Perfidy [44 words]raquelJul 14, 2005 11:5523486
Response to commenter P Sin [199 words]Robert WilliamsJul 13, 2005 23:1023476
France and England differences on terrorism [22 words]RobJul 13, 2005 21:5523475
Response to Ron Klett [196 words]
w/response from Daniel Pipes
P SinJul 13, 2005 17:5823470
Hey P Sin, [123 words]donvanMay 31, 2007 13:5123470
France's atheism explains the difference [290 words]Sean H.Jul 13, 2005 16:5923467
Interesting article BUT.... [202 words]LexxJul 13, 2005 16:2723466
Begging to differ [49 words]scaramoucheJul 13, 2005 15:3423464
response to Ron Scheinberg [82 words]Pavel ZJul 13, 2005 15:3123463
Strong French Weak Brits [31 words]ThomJul 13, 2005 14:0223460
Weak Brits, Tough French [155 words]Ron ScheinbergJul 13, 2005 13:3823459
Suicide bombers do it to please Allah and gain paradise [203 words]N.K.Jul 13, 2005 13:1423457
dont do that [34 words]deondrayMar 31, 2009 15:0223457
British pragmatism backfired [56 words]maksmanJul 13, 2005 12:2223456
La France fait preuve d'une intransigeance de facade [536 words]Bensimon jean-PierreJul 13, 2005 12:0823455
Confusing symbolism and reality [418 words]Ben ShniperJul 13, 2005 12:0623454
Response to Ron Klett [175 words]DanJul 13, 2005 11:5723453
Not multicultural? [169 words]Pluto's DadJul 13, 2005 11:3023449
Ending the Muslim occupation [96 words]Octavio JohansonJul 13, 2005 08:0623439
Free Societies are at Risk. [193 words]Claudia WilsonJul 13, 2005 07:5723438
Sacre Bleu! [320 words]Arlinda DeAngelisJul 13, 2005 07:3523436
All our weakness due to our egregious Prime Minister. [145 words]Geoffrey LewisJul 13, 2005 06:1823434
Islamist will speak in London 2 weeks after bombings! [7 words]SJul 13, 2005 05:2823432
French defence of western culture not so tough... [204 words]Paul RhoadsJul 13, 2005 05:2823431
France vs England [45 words]Marietta RedmanJul 13, 2005 05:0123430
Britain and St. Paul in the 1930s [94 words]John PeppleJul 13, 2005 04:3723429
The power of popular myth [56 words]Howard E. CookJul 13, 2005 04:2323428
The British [138 words]Shahin S.Jul 13, 2005 00:5223427
The moslems' occupation [146 words]f.shawkiJul 13, 2005 00:1923426
Racist Arab-Islamic targeting Haredi town that avoids draft and from ascending Temple Mount / Abu Mazen's equating visiting holy site to massacring, rewriting current history too / AP provides Palestinianism propaganda [235 words]MartinApr 10, 2022 12:3123426
On the money [43 words]Al RameyJul 12, 2005 23:3423425
Bravo for Reporting France's Admirable Stand Against Terrorism [42 words]Cynthia GrenierJul 12, 2005 23:0623424
What of LIberty? [119 words]Peter J. HerzJul 12, 2005 22:1423421
French and British Handling of Terrorists [86 words]Marvin DiamondJul 12, 2005 21:4623420
Surprising [14 words]Paul W. MaillouxJul 12, 2005 21:2523419
welcome [23 words]RaduJul 12, 2005 20:0223418
Interesting [90 words]MichaelJul 12, 2005 18:3723414
Open question about negotiating with terrorists. [103 words]AdamJul 12, 2005 18:2423413
Interesting comments circulating through e-mail [2303 words]Ron KlettJul 12, 2005 16:5623411
Excellent [2 words]Billie H. VincentJul 12, 2005 16:3423409
Weak Brits Tough French [57 words]Virginia WeicheldJul 12, 2005 16:1323408
senility vs vanity [48 words]psJul 12, 2005 15:4423407
Article forwarded to me by friend-- [114 words]Paul MasonJul 12, 2005 14:0223403
Eyeopener [21 words]Joseph GreenbergJul 12, 2005 13:3223401
Great article [40 words]Sheila O'DraneJul 12, 2005 13:0823399
France and GB [22 words]Rhoda SeidlerJul 12, 2005 12:0623397
London, Paris and the Olympics [343 words]Octavio JohansonJul 12, 2005 11:3623395
you ... [30 words]richardJan 25, 2007 18:3823395
Banning head covering is good [44 words]Lorne LJul 12, 2005 11:0423394
It's not right to ban modesty [77 words]amyJul 8, 2010 16:5023394
Emigration.Opinion. [106 words]Monty PogodaJul 12, 2005 11:0223393
wouldn't work... [90 words]Dinesh PatelMar 16, 2006 06:0223393
An interesting contrast but Jews are endangered in both nations [118 words]Stephen AsbelJul 12, 2005 10:5923392
congrat. [69 words]yigal carmonJul 12, 2005 10:5323391
Franco-British differences in terrorism and hijab [121 words]Natalie CohnJul 12, 2005 10:5323390
Iraq war not a war on terror? [58 words]
w/response from Daniel Pipes
Mark E. RobertsJul 12, 2005 10:4623389
France Tough ,England Weak. [6 words]Monty PogodaJul 12, 2005 10:4023388
Gone are those days of British domination [42 words]anon1977Apr 14, 2006 12:5223388
France vs England [15 words]LanceJul 12, 2005 10:1623387
2British multi-culturalism vs French pragmatism [172 words]Octavio JohansonJul 12, 2005 09:3523385
Weak Brits [74 words]SteveAug 30, 2006 13:2523385
weak Brits, tough French [90 words]ghwSep 4, 2006 13:0023385
Solution. [5 words]JonesNov 20, 2008 14:1823385
Codswallop [10 words]MRMMay 28, 2010 11:5523385

Follow Daniel Pipes

Facebook   Twitter   RSS   Join Mailing List

All materials by Daniel Pipes on this site: © 1968-2024 Daniel Pipes. daniel.pipes@gmail.com and @DanielPipes

Support Daniel Pipes' work with a tax-deductible donation to the Middle East Forum.Daniel J. Pipes

(The MEF is a publicly supported, nonprofit organization under section 501(c)3 of the Internal Revenue Code.

Contributions are tax deductible to the full extent allowed by law. Tax-ID 23-774-9796, approved Apr. 27, 1998.

For more information, view our IRS letter of determination.)