A place for me to pour out my rants without clogging the inboxes of my friends and family. Also a place to give info on myself and Mary, our family news and events.
....for what it's worth
Published on June 6, 2007 By Rightwinger In War on Terror
This article, in a little shorterform, of course, appeared in my local paper a couple months ago as a guest column, under my name. I've re-written it here and there and updated it a little, and so I've made it longer, but the main gist is still there. Sad thing is, I actually had a few people come up to me and thank me for writing it, because they said they'd never seen or read anything like it in their papers or on TV, or had even heard a lot of the information I included. The MSM and its template is dangerously negligent, and it will be to our terrible detriment.----RW


Radical, militant fundamentalism is a rapidly growing movement in the Islamic world; as we know, these people want nothing more than to kill the hated Christians and Jews, and the complete destruction of the US and Israel.
Indeed, they want to destroy all of Western Civilization, which they see as evil, a thing to be erased and placed under Islamic rule and law. In the end, they will settle for nothing less than a worldwide Islamic empire.
Can they do it? Do they have the means? At the moment, no; but as I say, they’re growing in strength, numerically, tactically and strategically. Estimates have placed their number at 10%-20% of the Islamic faithful. Other estimates are much higher.
With over a billion Islamists in the world, this could mean 100 million or more adherents; more than the military forces of all three main Axis Powers in WWII, combined.
It doesn’t really matter if they CAN actually do it, it matters that they WANT to do it; that they think their god says they HAVE to do it, and they are perfectly willing to kill untold millions in the effort. That’s what matters.

There is a greater, broader conflict coming, one that will affect us all. Some might call it World War Three.
I don’t know how or when it will fully manifest itself, but I think we all, especially those who are watchful enough, sense its approach, whether or not we actually want to acknowledge it. Many do not.
Not enough people in America seem to want to understand what is at stake in Iraq, let alone the Mideast as a whole. They don’t want to admit that Iraq is, in fact, another front in the war against Fundamentalist barbarism, just as much as Afghanistan. Iraq is a base from which we can strike at the Fundamentalists when the war comes.
Too many in America, including far too many in government, refuse---for whatever reason, political, personal, etc.----to see the danger posed to US security by these religious zealots. Some, wary and ashamed that America has actually taken steps to defend itself, in fact prefer to see us as the aggressor, imposing ourselves on harmless, weaker nations.
We’ve spent decades, watching mobs of angry Arabs burning our flag and shouting "Death to America". On 9/11, there was dancing in the streets across the Middle East. Is it really safe to assume that these people mean us no harm?
Many still think we should approach the Fundamentalist dictatorships in Iran and Syria; that we should "engage" them; even to invite them to assist in the recovery of Iraq. That would be putting dictatorships in charge of a fledgling democracy. What say we hire a couple weasels to watch the henhouse? The results would be similar.
Many say we should simply talk to these Radical Fundie savages…negotiate with them. This is futile. Islamic values traditionally see the deception of foreigners and non-Muslims as a virtue. By definition, you don’t get any more traditional than a Fundamentalist. In other words, they cheerfully lie to outsiders, and can’t be trusted, so it is useless, and dangerous, to try. Forget the olive branch, unless you intend to beat them with it; they respect strength and force, viewing our diplomatic "engagement", and our politically correct attempts at cultural understanding and compassion, as weakness. They are dangerous to us.
For some, it is not politically advantageous---or for that matter, politically correct---to admit that danger, or even to mention it, much less seriously support action to oppose it.

Make no mistake; the "progressive" concept of Political Correctness, along with its fraternal twin progeny, Multiculturalism and Ethnic Diversity, will be the death of our way of life, especially in the face of this particular enemy.
These concepts teach universal understanding and tolerance of all views, (often to the point of jettisoning common sense). Kind of sounds okay by Westernized, Judeo-Christian cultural standards, but Islamic radicals, unfortunately, do not adhere to these ideals. They want to kill you; they don’t care if you’re offended.
The PC, Multiculti ideal assumes that all cultures and their corresponding views are equal and valid with all others.
This view insidiously saps our ability to maintain---and even to feel---outrage, and thus our will to fight, when wronged. This is because, if all opinions, motives, and their subsequent actions are correct, who is incorrect? It makes us question our own motives and actions, even in the face of deadly opposition.
Europe, for example, is lost in a fog of Multiculturalism, happily, if desperately, trying to accommodate a hardheaded, and growing, Muslim minority that refuses to be assimilated into Western culture. Europe is in trouble.
Some with the Multiculturalist mindset think the U.S. deserved 9/11 and everything it gets thereafter, simply because of our "arrogance" in success as a nation and people. A lot of these like-minded people were voted into power last November.

Earlier this year, the Democrat-controlled House of (Closet Socialist, anti-American) Representatives passed the symbolic, Non-binding Resolution to oppose the troop surge. This was so wrong, on so many levels.
It did nothing but aid and give incentive to the enemy, while the morale of our own troops took a hit. That’s typical, though; the Democrats usually come down on the side of treason and/or inaction in the face of foreign threat, unless there’s something in it for them. Even then, their questionable actions are usually of negligible worth.
Keeping troops in the region and fighting the enemy in his own backyard keeps him off-balance and preoccupied, and thusly less able to strike here. The proof is in the pudding, as the saying goes. Even 6 years after the breathlessly predicted post-9/11 wave of terror attacks, I can still take my wife out to dinner and the movies, or go to Wal-Mart, without having to worry about suicide bombers. I kinda like that; and, I simply can’t ignore the fact that it’s American boots on the ground over yonder that seem to have had this positive effect here at home. For this reason, I support them, and the war as a whole.
Iran, a longtime, avid supporter of terrorism, has emerged as the true threat in modern times; their president is a militant nut with apocalyptic visions for himself and his nation. He has repeatedly called for a "world without America". Soon, they’ll even have nuclear capability. With forces in Afghanistan and Iraq, we at least have them bracketed.
All we need to do now is remove the handcuffs and let our military do as they were always intended: to break things and kill people. Many, many people; about 100 million. Let them fight….and let them fight to win, with and by whatever means. But too many in America don’t want that.
I’m just so sick of it all; for at least two years, the Democrats called for a troop increase, and now that President Bush has given it to them, they do everything they can, including a useless, revenue-wasting vote, to oppose it. In fact, they oppose, and have opposed, virtually every measure taken to ensure US security and victory, even when they asked for it. Any minor, perfectly sensible tightening of the belt is hysterically decried as an "assault on the Constitution" and our freedoms. God forbid things should be a little different now, when people are actively trying to kill us. I’m wondering how the liberals will defend the Ft. Dix Six or the JFK guys; after all, their rights were clearly infringed. Seems they’re just laughing them off, though; they were just buffoons, right? Yeah.....buffoons with plans to kill lot and lots of Americans. We should just ignore them, I guess.

Now, I don’t always agree with the President; in fact, I sometimes wonder how he can call himself a "conservative" without grinning slyly. But, as ham-handed as things have gone, I think he’s dead-on with the war. He at least gets it; he understands the greater implications of 9/11 and the previous attacks on our interests, as well as the likely result of our voluntary indifference as a people. He senses what’s coming. Sometimes I think he’s the only one in Washington who does.

The Democrats and their liberal allies have bet all their chips on our losing in Iraq. They have to be able to point to Bush’s failure, so they’re doing all they can to spin it into another Vietnam, whether or not it merits it, which it does not.
If the troop surge succeeds, as some indicators say it may, they could be left out in the cold come November 2008. This is not an option for them. For them to win the White House, America must lose in Iraq. So, they veil their eyes to an emerging, greater danger, and press onward anyway, essentially whistling in a dark alley.
To willingly put the people and nation you supposedly represent in danger, merely for political gain, is unconscionable.
Purposely ignoring, diverting attention from, or downplaying
a serious threat to national security---and interfering with the procedures and duties of the President and military in facing that threat, for reasons of political power or leverage---is traitorous.
Doing so for reasons of simple political payback (as in petty revenge for a "stolen" election) is despicable. The Democrats, allied with certain so-called "Republicans", have done all these things.

In order to face the coming conflict, or perhaps head it off, Americans must be willing to unite in purpose and action. There are people out there who blindly hate us, and want very much to hurt us and destroy our way of life, forcing their own on those who remain. They don’t hate us because of anything we have, do or did, but because of what we represent; freedom. Freedom of mind, will, and especially deity. That why they hate us. Ignore them, feel compassion for them, apologize for them, at your own peril.
We used to know how to handle people like that; resist them….kill them, when necessary. Have we forgotten how to do so, in the wake of Vietnam and 1960s radicalism? Of Watergate? Worse, have we forgotten what America stands for? We used to remember, but nowadays? I wonder sometimes. All that was back in The Day, when things and people still made, and had, sense. Principle hadn’t yet been completely replaced by politics, nor passion by apathy.
We are not the America we used to be. In the years since 1945, we’ve somehow allowed our ideals to be undermined; our vision has been diluted and confused, our spirit reined in.

Many people will not listen to this; they’ll read it, sneer dismissively, roll their eyes and think me a paranoid fearmonger, then go on about their business. That’s okay; it’s human nature….prophets of Doom are normally ignored until too late. I fear, however, that it will soon be too late.
We need a return to that old American Spirit, the one we glimpsed briefly on 9/11 and 9/12, just before the ACLU started spreading the word that they’d be taking hate crime cases from Muslims.

May the Lord God guide us, and save America……from itself.

Comments
on Jun 06, 2007
VERY insightful and fully deserves the one I gave it.
on Jun 06, 2007
the ACLU started spreading the word that they’d be taking hate crime cases from Muslims.


This is a good thing. Just because some radical Muslim terrorists committed a horrible crime does not mean that we should tolerate other Muslims being the target of hate crimes. Of course, I'm sure you would think I'm a radical. I think political correctness is a good thing except when they take it to ridiculous extremes. I don't want to return the good ol' days of segregation, lynchings, racial epithets being thrown around like they don't hurt anyone, who cares if your beliefs are different, we're the majority so our beliefs are all that matter so pray to my God. I could go on but I think I will write an article in response. This would be too long. I'll link back to you though.
on Jun 06, 2007
That got published in a newspaper? Wow, the world really is in decline.

I don't even where to start with it. I'm not sure that's even possible. I do want to say though that I like the way you approach estimates.

Estimates have placed their number at 10%-20% of the Islamic faithful. Other estimates are much higher.
With over a billion Islamists in the world, this could mean 100 million or more adherents; more than the military forces of all three main Axis Powers in WWII, combined.


For those who aren't sure why I like it so much, note the way he starts with unsubstantiated figures and then intimates 'other estimates are much higher' without mentioning who those estimates belong to.

To give another example of why this kind of rhetoric is so useful in persuading people consider this:

It is estimated 10-20% of the population is gay. Other estimates are much higher.
With between one and four in five people on this planet gays that would mean more than the military forces of all three main axis powers in WWII combined.

Scary, isn't it?

So just remember when drafting your own tirade against undesirable ethnic types, statistics are your friend because if it's statistics it's science, and science doesn't lie!
on Jun 07, 2007
VERY insightful and fully deserves the one I gave it.
---drmiler

Thanks, dr...nice to see some of us do understand the world as it really is.


For those who aren't sure why I like it so much, note the way he starts with unsubstantiated figures and then intimates 'other estimates are much higher' without mentioning who those estimates belong to.
---cacto

I knew you'd disregard this, cacto....you're so blinded by your own biases, derived from your contact with Muslims, that you'll never see the truth until or unless it kills you. And even then, you'll likely refuse delivery. Good luck with that.
Those "unsubstantiated figures" are taken from statistics developed by Muslim organizations themselves. Are they accurate? Well, as accurate as any statistics, I suppose, so who really knows? But, you have to start somewhere. If I quoted stats that said 10-20% of Muslims have the power to cure cancer, and could create rainbows that dance the Can-Can, generate chocolate rivers, and laughing lollipops with gumdrop smiles, you'd probably nod you head with that one.

So just remember when drafting your own tirade against undesirable ethnic types, statistics are your friend because if it's statistics it's science, and science doesn't lie!
---cacto

Wow, I must have really hit a nail on the head, here....I'm being called a racist. It's not about race, cacto.... as you, yourself, have reminded me time and again, Islam is a religion, not an ethnic group. My problem is that there is a VERY sizable minority of that religion calling loudly for the destruction of every other way of life but their own. People like you, for some odd reason, want to ignore them, pat them on the head, and just lump them all together; "oh geez....those goofy Fundamentalist Muslims are at it again". To hell with that. Something has to be done about them....something serious, before they do something that's truly catastrophic.
It's not like I've never met a Muslim, you know. I've had contact with Muslims, over the years; in school, at work, etc. As a bigoted, closed-minded Christian, I believe they're going to hell (just as they think of me, I might add), but otherwise, they're not bad people.....just the 10-20% of them----the 100 million or so---that actively want to kill us. Them I don't like. And you know....science lies all the time. Wait five years, what they say today will be replaced by some other theory that'll be replaced in another five years, and on it goes. Happens all the time. It's why I'm basically a Creationist.

It is estimated 10-20% of the population is gay. Other estimates are much higher.
With between one and four in five people on this planet gays that would mean more than the military forces of all three main axis powers in WWII combined.

Scary, isn't it?
---cacto

Actually, estimates are much, much lower. Be that as it may, gays may be undermining the morality of my culture, but at least they aren't calling for my violent death and the destruction and subjugation of my entire civilization. Better example, perhaps?


This is a good thing. Just because some radical Muslim terrorists committed a horrible crime does not mean that we should tolerate other Muslims being the target of hate crimes.
---locamama

Well, you kind of missed my point with the ACLU quote, but that's okay; it's not really that important, overall. The point was that a traditionally anti-American organization immediately came down on the side of protecting those who injured us. You might not see it that way, but well.....and you know, there were, and are, very, very few examples of violence against Muslims. Now, Muslim violence against others...happens all the time, but nobody says anything.

I think political correctness is a good thing except when they take it to ridiculous extremes.
---locamama

But that's the problem.....it IS taken to ridiculous extremes, and very regularly. Simple consideration and politeness---note the root word of that particular term---are examples of political correctness. But it's being taken to such extremes and used unfairly, as a weapon, to guilt, and subsequently hinder, the "majority" while lifting up the "minority". That's what's going to destroy us. All these calls for "equality" and "fair relations between peoples" have gone out the window....thanks mainly to PC.

I don't want to return the good ol' days of segregation, lynchings, racial epithets being thrown around like they don't hurt anyone, who cares if your beliefs are different, we're the majority so our beliefs are all that matter so pray to my God.
locamama

Well, no one wants a return to those days....except radical Muslims, especially the "pray to my god" thing. Be as PC as you want; as I said, they don't adhere to those beliefs. They want to kill you, and they don't care if you're offended.

I could go on but I think I will write an article in response. This would be too long. I'll link back to you though.
---locamama

I'll look forward to it.


on Jun 08, 2007
Gawd, you're a fucktard.

I can't believe some shitty paper would publish this trash. It wouldn't be worth the paper to wipe my ass with.
on Jun 08, 2007
the ACLU started spreading the word that they’d be taking hate crime cases from Muslims.


This is a good thing


No, Hate crimes are bad period (I dont care if it is Muslims, Jews, or Christians). "Hate crimes" are just newspeak for thought control. Prosecute the crime. Is a person that is killed dispassionately by a hit man any less dead than one killed by a KKK or Black Separatist?
on Jun 08, 2007
No, Hate crimes are bad period (I dont care if it is Muslims, Jews, or Christians). "Hate crimes" are just newspeak for thought control. Prosecute the crime. Is a person that is killed dispassionately by a hit man any less dead than one killed by a KKK or Black Separatist?


We already give greater weight to premeditated crimes than crimes of passion etc. I do think the motivation does matter. It's not only the actual crime itself but a deliberate act of trying to intimidate and terrorize the whole targeted group. If you were targeted because you were a white, male, hetero Christian, the hate crimes legislation would also apply to you. The bill provides federal resources to local law enforcement when they deal with hate crimes. It doesn't make hating people illegal, it just gives law enforcement some added resources for these crimes.
on Jun 08, 2007
It doesn't make hating people illegal, it just gives law enforcement some added resources for these crimes.


No, it goes to thought control. And a hit man is prosecuted just as severly as an impassioned lover. But the differences are not in the intent (both intend to kill the victim), but in the actions (e.g if they did not intend to kill the victim). Going to confront a lover, and winding up killing them is not premeditated. Going to kill a lover is.

And when it comes right down to it, they are prosecuting people for thoughts - and that is a bad precedent and bad law since no one can acurately determine what someone is thinking. Hate crimes are bad law. Period.
on Jun 08, 2007
Gawd, you're a fucktard.

I can't believe some shitty paper would publish this trash. It wouldn't be worth the paper to wipe my ass with.


I know...shocking, isn't it? A paper that doesn't simply follow the liberal MSM template. My local paper is one of the few in this nation willing to tell both sides and present opposing views. Sorry if that offends you. And here, I thought liberals were all about "free speech". Amazing.
You are a liberal, aren't you? Yeah, you are....I can tell just by the colorfully inappropriate vocabulary; often seems vulgarity and obscenity is the only way so many of you seem to know how to communicate your displeasure.

Locamama, DrGuy---
My problem with "hate crimes" is the inherent unfairness with which they are usually applied; if a white man kills a black man, he can be prosecuted under hate crime laws. Often, it doesn't go the other way. A great example is a double murder that was recently committed here, I believe, in PA. A young white couple was carjacked and kidnapped by a group of blacks.
They were held for several days, during which time the couple was severely beaten; the black men anally raped the white man several times, then cut off his penis and took turns stomping on it. They then killed him and severely mutilated---and urinated on---his corpse, all while forcing the girl to watch. They later dumped his body by some RR tracks. They raped the girl, as well, of course, also forcing her to give them all oral sex, even the female in the group.
Unsuccessfully attempting to destroy any DNA evidence, they poured Drano down her throat, while she was still alive. They then, of course, murdered her, too, dismembered her corpse, stuffed it into a trash bag and threw it into a dumpster.
There is a Pittsburgh talk radio show on which the host keeps this in play, simply because it never made it past the local paper, and the prosecutors are not employing hate crime laws in their case.
You know damn well that, if the races had been reversed in such an horrific crime, it would have been splashed across headlines and TV everywhere, and "hate crime" would have been the first words off the lips of the prosecutor. When you're black, it's different. That's one reason why I don't like "hate crime laws.
on Jun 08, 2007
rightwinger, that is horrible. I believe most of the states already have hate crimes legislation. I wonder if they do in PA and why the prosecutor or law enforcement chose not to use it. So they caught the criminals?
on Jun 09, 2007
wouldn't the going to kill someone be considered a hate crime to start with

And here, I thought liberals were all about "free speech". Amazing.


they do believe in free speech as long as you say what they want you to say
on Jun 09, 2007
Good read rightwinger, and of course anyone that can use the term fucktard must be a liberal because as WE ALL KNOW LIBERALS ARE ONLY LIBERAL WHEN YOU TOTALLY AGREE WITH THEM, if you do not agree even once you are considered a FUCKTARD , much like what they did to Joe Lieberman, stab him in the back, then wipe the blood off on his suit, then when he wins they say "hey joe welcome back " "we was just kiddin"
on Jun 11, 2007
I wonder if they do in PA and why the prosecutor or law enforcement chose not to use it. So they caught the criminals?
---locamama

They, do, yes....as to why the prosecutor chose not to employ them in this case, well, y'know. They did catch them, but as I said, when you're black, it's different. Minorities don't count....they can't commit "hate crimes" because, well....they're supposed to be the ones the laws protect. How can they commit hate crimes?
The radio show host also sometimes recounts a similar case in which two gay men kidnapped, repeatedly molested, then killed a 13-year-old boy. According to testimonies by the "men", at one point, one guy stood there watching, as the other anally raped the kid.....jacking off...and calmly eating a sandwich. Again, no hate crimes; gays are considered an oppressed minority. But the guys who killed Matthew Shepard (who was a meth freak, and got killed in what was really a drug buy gone bad---but you don't hear that part from the liberal media, they only focus on the "evil rednecks kill poor young gay kid" thing)? They're evil bigots and haters. See how it works?


they do believe in free speech as long as you say what they want you to say
---danielost

You betcha.


Good read rightwinger,
---Modman

Thanks, MM....glad you liked it, and to have you here.


of course anyone that can use the term fucktard must be a liberal because as WE ALL KNOW LIBERALS ARE ONLY LIBERAL WHEN YOU TOTALLY AGREE WITH THEM, if you do not agree even once you are considered a FUCKTARD , much like what they did to Joe Lieberman, stab him in the back, then wipe the blood off on his suit, then when he wins they say "hey joe welcome back " "we was just kiddin"
---Modman

That's the libs for you...loyal to the end....unless there's nothing in it for them