RonRyan85

November 12, 2005
Subject: War with the Militant Islamic Forces

Subject: An Article by Gen. Chong - ALL SHOULD READ IT!


This is for everyone to read regardless of your political affiliation. I had no idea who General Chong is or the source of these thoughts... so when I received them, I almost deleted them - as well-written as they are. But then I did a "Google search" on the General and found him to be a retired Air Force Surgeon of all things and past Commander of Wilford Hall Medical Center in San Antonio. So he is real, is connected to Veterans affairs, and these are his thoughts. They are worth reading and thinking about!(the same Google search will direct you to some of his other thought-provoking writings.) Its kinda long but a must read - Terry

If you would like information on General Chong, go to Google and type in his name. All of the following is something that everyone should read.


This WAR is for REAL!

To get out of a difficulty, one usually must go through it. Our country is now facing the most serious threat to its existence, as we know it, that we have faced in your lifetime and mine (which includes WWII).

The deadly seriousness is greatly compounded by the fact that there are very few of us who think we can possibly lose this war and even fewer who realize what losing really means.

First, let's examine a few basics:

1. When did the threat to us start?

Many will say September 11, 2001. The answer as far as the United States is concerned is 1979, 22 years prior to September 2001 with the following attacks on us:

* Iran Embassy Hostages, 1979;
* Beirut, Lebanon Embassy 1983;
* Beirut, Lebanon Marine Barracks 1983;
* Lockerbie, Scotland Pan-Am flight to New York 1988;
* First New York World Trade Center attack 1993;
* Dhahran, Saudi Arabia Khobar Towers Military complex 1996;
* Nairobi, Kenya US Embassy 1998;
* Dares Salaam, Tanzania US Embassy 1998;
* Aden, Yemen USS Cole 2000;
* New York World Trade Center 2001;
* Pentagon 2001.

(Note that during the period from 1981 to 2001 there were 7,581 terrorist attacks worldwide).

2. Why were we attacked?

Envy of our position, our success, and our freedoms. The attacks happened during the administrations of Presidents Carter, Reagan, Bush 1, Clinton and Bush 2. We cannot fault either the Republicans or Democrats as there were no provocations by any of the presidents or their immediate predecessors, Presidents Ford or Carter.

3. Who were the attackers?

In each case, the attacks on the US were carried out by Muslims.

4. What is the Muslim population of the World? 25%.

5. Isn't the Muslim Religion peaceful?

Hopefully, but that is really not material. Ther e is no doubt that the predominately Christian population of Germany was peaceful, but under the dictatorial leadership of Hitler (who was also Christian), that made no difference. You either went along with the administration or you were eliminated. There were 5 to 6 million Christians killed by the Nazis for political reasons (including 7,000 Polish priests). (see >http://www.nazis.testimony.co.uk/7-a.htm )

Thus, almost the same number of Christians were killed by the Nazis, as the six million holocaust Jews who were killed by them, and we seldom heard of anything other than the Jewish atrocities. Although Hitler kept the world focused on the Jews, he had no hesitancy about killing anyone who got in his way of exterminating the Jews or of taking over the world - German, Christian or any others.

Same with the Muslim terrorists. They focus the world on the US, but kill all in the way -- their own people or the Spanish, French or anyone else. The point here is that just like the peaceful Germans were of no protection to anyone from the Nazis, no matter how many peaceful Muslims there may be, they are no protection for us from the terrorist Muslim leaders and what they are fanatically bent on doing -- by their own pronouncements -- killing all of us "infidels." I don't blame the peaceful Muslims. What would you do if the choice was shut up or die?

6. So who are we at war with?

There is no way we can honestly respond that it is anyone other than the Muslim terrorists. Trying to be politically correct and avoid verbalizing this conclusion can well be fatal. There is no way to win if you don't clearly recognize and articulate who you are fighting.

So with that background, now to the two major questions:

1. Can we lose this war?

2. What does losing really mean?

If we are to win, we must clearly answer these two pivotal questions.

We can definitely lose this war, and as anomalous as it may sound, the major reason we can lose is that so many of us simply do not fathom the answer to the second question - What does losing mean?

It would appear that a great many of us think that losing the war means hanging our heads, bringing the troops home and going on about our business, like post Vietnam. This is as far from the truth as one can get.




What losing really means is:

We would no longer be the premier country in the world. The attacks will not subside, but rather will steadily increase. Remember, they want us dead, not just quiet. If they had just wanted us quiet, they would not have produced an increasing series of attacks against us, over the past 18 years. The plan was clearly, for terrorist to attack us, until we were neutered and submissive to them.

We would of course have no future support from other nations, for fear of reprisals and for the reason tha t 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 ca n'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 th reatened 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.< BR style="FONT-SIZE: 18px; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">
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, ov er what should or should not be done, which will continue to weaken them and keep them from any united resolve. Doesn't that sound eerily familiar?

Democracies don't have their freedoms taken away from them by some external military force. Instead, they give their freedoms away, politically correct piece by politically correct piece.

And they are giving those freedoms away to those who have shown, worldwide, that they abhor freedom and will not apply it to you or even to themselves, once they are in power.

They have universally shown that when they have taken over, they then start brutally killing each other over who will be the few who control the masses. Will we ever stop hearing from the politically correct, about the "peaceful Muslims"?

I close on a hopeful note, by repeating what I said above. If we are united, there is no way that we can lose. I hope now after the election, the factions in our country will begin to focus on the critical situation we are in, and will unite to save our country. It is your future we are talking about! Do whatever you can to preserve it.

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




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

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

There are those that find fault with our country, but it is obvious to anyone who truly thinks through this, that we must UNITE!

martinguerre

google is my friend too.

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

__________________
For God so loved creation, that God sent God's only Son that whosoever believed should not perish, but have everlasting life.

-John 3:16

Rekna

I'm not so sure we need to be at war with them. Honestly if we put the money for the war on terror into something like medical research or educating people more we would wind up saving more lives than we loose. You said that there were 7500+ terrorist attacks since 1981. Now how many people have died as a result of those attacks? Better yet how many of those attacks were on the US? How many americans died in them? Now how many americans have died since 1981 from smoking? from car accidents? from organized crime? from drug usage?

I am in no way convinced that the terrorists are a major threat nor am I convinced that responding to them by invading countries is curbing their support. In fact I think that the US making mistakes in these wars makes more terrorists than it destroys. For example the Jordainian bombings last week were performed by Iraqi's who were probably normal people before the US invasion but due to family getting killed by American actions they turned into terrorists.

samcol

After researching 9/11 extensively, I am not under the impression that Islam is responsible for it. I'm not afraid of islamic terrorists, I'm afraid of a government that will do ANYTHING in the name of stopping it

Willravel

Yes, there have been many terrorist attacks, including those mentioned above. Unfortunatally for this article, those 7,581 terrorits were not all islamic. In fact less than 15% of those 7,581 were linked to Islamic groups. That changes the meaning of your statistic.
Unfortunatally, the person who wrote this (not a general, btw), clearly has no idea of what goes on in the mind of radical arab terrorists. In actuality, most if not all Islamic terror attacks in the last 50 years had to do with three things: one was religion, two was the former Soviet Union, and three was the empire of the west, the US. Because they sit on a vast amount of oil, the lifeblood of most technological econemies of the world, they are targets for political and military influence and control. How many US bombs total have been dropped on the Middle East in the past 50 years? I think I remember the number being in the hun dreds of thousands, correct me if I'm wrong. They are not jelous. They despise us because our bombs murder indescriminatly. They hate that they have sons and daughter that had nothing to do with any militant group who were blown to pieces by a carrier a hundred miles away. You think they want to be like us? That is totally and completly untrue, and whoever wrote this needs to seriously consider the perspectives of those who he claims to understand before writing such blatent and offensive fiction.
Durring WW2, each German attack was carried out by a protestant. What does that mean? Well, by your logic, that means that protestents are Nazis.
Actually, only 20.1% of the earth's population are Muslim. Get your facts straight. 33% of the worlds population is Christian.
That didn't answe the question. Your question was "Isn't the Muslim Religion peaceful?" The answer, of course, is yes. Islam teaches peace, not war.
I can take a shot. The question is flawed, as we are not actually at war with any organization in particular (we have never engaged in a true 'war' with the al Qaeda), but at war with a label. That label is 'terrorism'.
What an unpleasant fiction. The current terrorist organizations of the world, muslim or not, do not have the power to hold a government hostage. In reality (something we might have to discuss several times in this response), Spain withdrew their troops because the civilians of Spain demanded it. The rest is quite absurd. You speak as if the terrorist army will march on nations. Do you know what terrorism is?
Racist. You are a racist. NOT ALL MUSLIMS ARE TERRORIST. Your question assumes that all muslims are terrorists.
Truely incorrect. Would racial profiling have prevented the Oklahoma City bombing? Would racial profiling been able to stop the unibomber? Again, I must accuse you of being a racist.
Terrorists do not divide us. Liars divide us. When we were attacked on September 11, 2001, we all stood united and said, "Let's get the b******s who did this." We were unified and realy to go get them. And at first, we supposedly did. We attacked al Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan. Then we invaded Iraq for some reason. That divided us.
Do you want to address why people are thinking of impeaching political officials? Or are you simply going to assume the accusations are wrong and assume that impeaching them would leave us worse off. Do you think Muslims will invade America if the Secretary of Defence is impeached? Honestly?
Our Nero set the fire.
Incorrect again. They want to kill westerners, not infadels. Do you know waht infadel means?
Actually, there are thousands of lines of defence right now.
That's not what they meant. We are called arrogant because we think we can create an empire without people noticing.

China would survive, but that doesn't matter as your theory is unlikely to pass.
The US allows freedom of speeck, freedom of thought, freedom of religion, freedom of press, equal rights for most, and plenty of muslims live in America. Almost 6 million.
This has been a long way of saying 'don't question the currrent administration, or the terrrorists will come to your house'.
Racist. Again. The muslims are a religious group. Radical Islamic terrorists are a tiny, tiny fraction of that whole. Do you really think that over 20% of the earths population are terrorists? Wow. And people call me crazy.
*clears throat* patriot act *clears throat*
Nope. I've given up not one freedom to anyone outiside of the US, and neither have you.
Racist.
We need to remove the current administration from power and make sure that their indoctrination, made evident above, can be undone.

Welcome to TFP politics.

Elphaba

Terry, it's an interesting read but debunked long ago, at least in the terminology used in the article. There is truly a large distinction between "muslim", "Islam", and religious fanaticism of any stripe.

Kisses to Martin

Edit: I only think I am as smart as Google.

Elphaba

Double kisses to Will.

Elphaba

For Dialup folks and other impatient peoples, the Snope response:

RonRyan85

Racist. You are a racist. NOT ALL MUSLIMS ARE TERRORIST. Your question assumes that all muslims are terrorists.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RonRyan85
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sure I posted the long article. Maybe it was not written by Maj.
Chong but it still speaks the truth. AND we don't claim "ALL OF
THE MUSLIMS ARE TERRORISTS". We are at war with those dudes that
are trying to kill us just because we don't believe in their
religion. Read some books on this subject if you are mixed up.
I've alwaays wondered how the United States allows other people
to live in the USA,build their own churches,practice their own
religion and we allow it with no problem BUT we Christians cannot
do the same in other countries! A Holy Bible cannot be passed
out in Red CHINA or in most ISLAMIC countries. What are they
afraid of? IS it the truth they don't want to hear? Answer me
this!

jorgelito

"Muslims" are not a race.

Marvelous Marv

If that is your opinion of the US, may I inquire where you live?

It sounds like you would be most comfortable in Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Syria, or another of the middle eastern countries.

They certainly make little or no effort to rein in terrorism.

__________________
"The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money."
Margaret Thatcher

Marvelous Marv

I'm certain you have a source for that. Would you mind posting it? I was under the impression that the percentage of Christians was far lower.

Racial profiling works quite well in many regards; one example is that of serial killers. A white, 20-40ish male loner has been the perpetrator of almost every serial killing in this country in my lifetime (Wayne Williams was the only exception I can think of). I wonder why there is no outcry over this racial profiling, and why people who oppose any semblance of logic in regard to potential terrorists continue to delude themselves.

Well, I know what "infidel" means. But if they want to kill westerners, why are there terrorist attacks in Saudi, and in Israel? Those aren't aimed at westerners.

__________________
"The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money."
Margaret Thatcher

host

Wow my BS detector went off louder than my smoke alarm ever has, and the batteries
will now have to be replaced. What a loud of BS propaganda. Sounds like Bush's answer,
as to WHY????

I know that what happened at the US Embassy in Iran in 1979 could never be connected
with the following:
It's probably gonna take "regime change" here, before I can sell my BS detector on Ebay, batteries not included..........

Elphaba

Marv, he claims that he is from the Lone Star State, which is Texas. I find it difficult to take this fellow seriously. Does anyone else agree that something smells here?

Edit: Other than Host, who is always waaaayyy ahead of me.

__________________
"You can't ignore politics, no matter how much you'd like to." Molly Ivins - 1944-2007

alansmithee

Nothing to argue with here, it's just that some people seem to think you are hiding something if you don't quote a whole post, even if you only have dispute with certain things.

I think this is only partially true. Sure, some are obviously angered by US bombings. But many are also opposed to certain excesses they see in the west. And many are jealous of the cultural influence and wealth of the west. And many are angered at the west for years of exploitation. There are many reasons for terrorist actions, and not all can be as easily justified as you seem to think.

That's not entirely correct. Many Nazi's weren't Christian. I seem to remember Hitler and many of his high officials being more athiest or pseudo-pagan, but this could be wrong. And also, the Nazi's weren't attacking in the name of religion, whereas many terrorists are attacking based soley on their religion (or so they claim).

Again, nothing to dispute here. Although, I would hazard to guess that most Muslims practice much more devoutly than the Christian population. I know that in America, most people will still self-identify as Christian despite never giving a thought to religion.

Not all Islamic leaders would agree with this. As with Christianity, you can't label the entirety of the religion as either peaceful or violent. There are certainly portions who are decidedly not peaceful, and think that they are following Islamic tenets. Just as there were (and still are) certain segments of Christianity who think that violence is justified. I will say that from most historic accounts, Mohammed wasn't a peaceful individual (IIRC, he was a general).

I really see nothing wrong with this assessment. And the lack of clear focus is one of the major problems with the Bush administration's response to terrorism.

This is only partially correct. Terrorists can influence any gov't that has the trappings of democracy. Because they can attack the will of the people. Now, if we were talking about a dictatorship, you would be correct-so far terrorists lack the pure military force or economic clout to influence a totalitarian state.

I don't think that racist is the right term. Muslim usually refers to a certain religion (and you have used it yourself earlier in this context). But you are quite correct in the belief that not all muslims are terrorists. I would even hazard to guess that not even a majority are terrorists or terrorist sympathisers.

Not the same thing at all. Racial profiling doesn't work when the majority of those committing the acts you are seeking to deter are of the majority. But arabs are a minority in the west, which I think would make using profiling more effective. Now if you're talking Iraq or somewhere in the middle east, racial profilling would indeed be foolish.

This is only half-true again. Terrorists are dividing us-look only as far as the outcry against how detainees are being treated. Also, you get people who seek to bargain with them opposed to those who take a more hardline stance.

There's no need for discussion of impeachment if there is no basis. And I have yet to see any real basis. You can't address things that are illogical.

What fire? I agreed with the OP here. It is silly the outcry that is made over the supposed abuse of terrorists.

I think you are wrong here. If this were true, there wouldn't be so many Iraqi's targetted by terrorists.

I don't think that we are the sole line of defense, but I do see us as mainly isolated. Many countries prefer to negotiate, which doesn't usually work with fanatics.

This is false. There is no proof to what you say here. If America wanted an empire, we wouldn't go about getting one in this way. I think your personal views are clouding your logic.


When did China become a free country? I bet around 1 billion people would be suprised to hear that they were free now.

This is silly, and you must know it. Why did you bother replying if you are just going to blatantly misinterpret what he says. Nobody thinks that the US is a muslim country. If it's anything, it would be a Christian country. And there must be something telling about the general status of muslim countries if you had to try to make the claim of US being muslim and couldn't find a muslim country that had those freedoms.

I think the only thing stopping what the OP predicted is the relative weakness of the terrorists. I have no doubt in my mind that it would happen as he said if they had more power.

How is that racist? Many mostly muslim parts of France had people already demanding autonomy from the central government. And I wouldn't call the mass rioting the work of fringe radicals.

Nothing to argue with here. Even though I agree with what the patriot act does, you can't argue that the patriot act doesn't limit freedoms somewhat.

This is wrong, if you assume the patriot act to be an outgrowth of terrorist attacks on the US. But as for the OP's point, I really don't see it, because if anything we are giving them freedoms that they do not deserve (in the case of terrorist prisoners).

Here, I kind of agree with you. I think that kind of broad brush painting doesn't really do any good.

Wrong. The current administration might have some problems (especially in their economic policy) but they are far better than any of the alternates we've been given.

Don't understand this at all. What's with the patronizing, "pseudo-initiations" people have recently been trying to throw around. I personally believe that if the politics board had people half as knowledgeable, logical, and reasonable as they seem to think, comments like this wouldn't be necessary.

alansmithee

Would John Muhammed and John Malvo be considered serial killers? Also, I had never heard of Williams before, I had thought that all serial killers (before the two Johns) had been white.

Pacifier

yep, its wrong

It will be the Government's care to maintain honest co-operation between Church and State; the struggle against materialistic views and for a real national community is just as much in the interest of the German nation as in that of the welfare of our Christian faith. The Government of the Reich, who regard Christianity as the unshakable foundation of the morals and moral code of the nation, attach the greatest value to friendly relations with the Holy See and are endeavouring to develop them.
-Adolf Hitler, in his speech to the Reichstag on 23 March 1933

The National Socialist Movement has wrought this miracle. If Almighty God granted success to this work, then the Party was His instrument.
-Adolf Hitler, in his proclamation to the German People on 1 Jan. 1939

Oh, and The Catholic Church never excommunicated Hitler. He died a Catholic

__________________
"It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere. Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death
— Albert Einstein

alansmithee

Interesting. But is there any other confirmation? I don't necessarily disbelieve you, it's just I had always read that Hitler was fairly anti-religious himself. I always assumed that early on Hitler was primarily worried about gaining support, and alienating religious people wouldn't be the way to go about that. And weren't catholics targetted by the Nazi's later in Hitler's reign?

Locobot

Excellent example Alan of an instance where racial profiling hampered an investigation and resulted in the deaths of several more people (they didn't think they were black). As a whole this is a concept we've previously killed here: http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=78687 killed it dead.

It turns out MarvMarv that the ACLU, Amnesty International, and Andrew Sullivan have all protested exactly the type of racial profiling you mention above. I'm guessing though these aren't groups you keep close tabs on.

In any case a falsified and discredited article, like the one that begins this thread, doesn't seem like a very solid jumping off point for any meaningful discussion or debate.

Pacifier

Hitler on atheism:

We were convinced that the people needs and requires this faith.
We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement,
and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out.
-Adolf Hitler, in a speech in Berlin on 24 Oct. 1933

Well, read "mein kampf" if you like.
Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.

Hilere mixed christianty with other aspects, he saw himself as a saviour, that was what the "Führerkult" was based on. Hitler targetted christian people if the stood in his way and spoke against the nazi ideology, but not just because they were christian.

The claim that Hitler was so evil because he was an atheist as many christians want to believe is baseless.

__________________
"It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere. Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death
— Albert Einstein

alansmithee

I guess I should've realized that at least on the surface Hitler wouldn't have been atheist-atheism was usually identified with communism. And as to reading Mein Kampf, I have a copy but after trying twice to get though it I had to give up. For some reason, I have a great difficulty reading any works translated from German.

maximusveritas

I've also heard lots of people try to claim Hitler was an atheist, usually with no evidence of course. I think this comes mostly from right-wing Christians who are uncomfortable with the fact that Hitler was one of their own. So they try to spread the lie that he was one of those evil atheists instead. Then, of course, there's the other ugly lie that Hitler was a liberal/socialist just because his party had the word socialist in it.

Willravel

*Blushes* Thanks!
as of 2000: http://www.religioustolerance.org/worldrel.htm
can't find the page I used before (I was on my home computer). I'll post the site when I get home.
Most Nazis were protestant, and Hitler, in the beginning, used religion in his campign for control. Eventually, he went more mad and the uccult things surfaced, but that was late in the game.
The teachings are peaceful. There will always be those wanting to make a religion into a militant organization. On the whole, Islam is very much peaceful. I still think Christianity is peaceful, despite crusades, bombings (pro life), etc.
You're probably right. Racist doesn't quite fit here. I was kinda perterbed when I wrote the response (sense he just copied and pasted his message, posibly without really thinking about it). What is the term for those who are bigotus towards those of a given religion?
I'm not sure they are to blame. Those who decided how to treat our prisoners are not terrorists. We were the ones to decide to torture and humiliate them. Besides, most people know that torture is not a reliable source of intel.
OBL has refered to us multiple times as an empire in his infamous tapes. If America wanted an Empire, this seems a way to get it, only it's failing.
Honestly? It's us starting to lose our patience. This post is 'entry level Bushite'. It was cut and pasted from an e-mail circulating around that really doesn't make sense and is only intended to confuse and misdirect. I was being condescending because the person who posted this thought he/she could just get away with it, like no one would shoot it down. Tilted Politics has heald my attention for so long not beacuse people post whatever they read. I come here because I know that most people here will really examine what's being said and are able to call bs for what it is. Despite partisan leanings, Tilted politics is an excelent source of information and discussion. Posts like this do not further that, but rather hinder it. Post what you think, let others think about it and let your understanding enlighten others, and let others understandings enlighten you. Alansmithee, you and I do not always agree, but I know that I can count on you to really think about what you're saying before you post it.

Sho Nuff

Islam is a peaceful religion for the most part, but the fact remains that jihad is the unofficial sixth pillar of islam. In the case of the terror campaign of Al-Qaeda it is a defensive jihad against nations perceived to pose a threat to the religion of Islam and the lands of Muslim nations. If the US did not have military bases in Muslim countries and did not influence the governance of Muslim lands by supporting regimes that are considered oppressive and corrupt by the masses of thier citizens, then we would not be under as sustained and popular an attack by Muslim jihadists.

__________________
I know Nietzsche doesnt rhyme with peachy, but you sound like a pretentious prick when you correct me.