The Iraq / war on terror thread

[Surfrider]

It really is nothing new.? Bush has said from the start, in my view wrongly, that contracts for rebuilding Iraq will only go to those that actually sacrificed something in freeing Iraq.? I don't think it goes very far in proving any sort of war for oil argument.

It is really nothing new that you would discount it in such a fashion either.

Nice spin.  How is this anything new?  This was the debate that took place two weeks after the war.  It is not some big revelation that all of the contracts are going to those that participated in the war. 

[shades]

Long Read but... Any arguments with the man Id love to hear them?

This war is for real

By Major General Vernon Chong, USAF, ret.

October 1, 2005

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 Towe! rs Milit ary complex, 1996;

 ? ? ?Nairobi, Kenya, U.S. Embassy, 1998;

 ? ? ?Dares Salaam, Tanzania, U.S. Embassy, 1998;

 ? ? ?Aden, Yemen, USS Cole, 2000;

 ? ? ?New York, World Trade Center, 2001;

 ? ? ?Pentagon, 2001;

 ? ? ?Shanksville, Pennsylvania, Plane Crash, 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.

1.. The attacks happened during the administrations of Presidents Carter, Reagan, Bush, 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 U.S. were carried out by Muslims.

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

5.. Isn't the Muslim Religion peaceful? ?Hopefully, but that is really not material. There is no doubt that the predominantly 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).

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 attention of the world on the U.S., 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 terrorists 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 that 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 percent 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 percent of our thoughts and efforts into winning. And, it is going to take that 100 percent effort to win.

[shades]

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 do n'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 of 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 types of prisoners chemically killed 400,000 of their own people for the same reason. They are also the same type of enemy fighters who recently were burning Americans, and dragging their charred corpses through the streets of Iraq.

And still more recently, the same type of 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 allows 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 continues 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 whom 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 begins 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 our children, 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 who find fault with our country, but it is obvious to anyone who truly thinks



MAJOR GENERAL (DR.) VERNON CHONG

Retired Nov. 1, 1994.

[pilferk]

Wow.

You want arguments against the guy?

First off, he's equating the war on terror to Iraq.  That's not exactly a fair equivalent to create.

Second, his whole article is rampant speculation.  He's predicting the future, and taking the absolute worse case of all future scenarios, and insisting it will be the end result.

[shades]

 Rampant speculation? thats funny shit.
I thought only horses wore blinders

Thats all you got from that huh?
ooooook

next

[pilferk]

Rampant speculation? thats funny shit.
I thought only horses wore blinders

Thats all you got from that huh?
ooooook

next

OK then..prove his predictions are true.  We'll be sitting right here waiting for ya...

See...rampant speculation.  Whether you agree with him or not, that's all it is.  And insisting HIS version of speculation is the "Truth" is, FYI, a heck of a lot more akin to wearing blinders than pointing out what he said was speculation.

[shades]

I dont know what part you feel is speculation.
Most is fact, as in history.

And if you dont think its Muslims that are attacking us, we cant carry an intelligent debate any further than I could throw Hillary Clinton.

[Jamie]

I think after reading that article that it's author, basically is a good persuasive writer, and a good persuasive writer only. Hell he nearly had me convinced there for a minute! But as Pilferk has already stated it is speculation. You are right however in one respect, he does make reference to historical fact and events but only to spin it into his little web of trying to scare his reader into believing his apocolytic vision of the world being taken over by Muslims, and he uses France's population of Muslims as 'evidence' to claim that this process is already under way; Typical scare tactics. of the 20% of France's Muslim population what ratio are convicted or even suspected terrorists? Of course a question left un answered. Of all these how many were proven to be members of terrorist cells currently at war with/under surveilance of American military? Again a question that is un answered.

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 Towe! rs Milit ary complex, 1996;

      Nairobi, Kenya, U.S. Embassy, 1998;

      Dares Salaam, Tanzania, U.S. Embassy, 1998;

      Aden, Yemen, USS Cole, 2000;

      New York, World Trade Center, 2001;

      Pentagon, 2001;

      Shanksville, Pennsylvania, Plane Crash, 2001

(Note that during the period from 1981 to 2001 there were 7,581

terrorist attacks worldwide).

I also noticed that the author on numerous occasions tried to play on the notion set forward by the left wing and other "politically correct" groups of the general public of the ratio of terrorists to "peaceful Muslims" again without any kind of official figures to back his claim. Another classic example of persuasion, here the author takes a theory/idea set forth by the exact group of people he is speaking against and tries to explain it in his own little way to justify both the main points he is setting forward to the reader and ideas/theories by people with a common belief system as his own, and he does so mainly here:

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.

And he also uses historical reference at the end of the text I quoted above to hark back to a period in history, and pride of the American nation. Wonderful piece of language really, but doesn't make it correct, any reader with any sort of notion of persuasive techiques will recognise something like this straight away.

But this is not the only example at a wonderful effort, yet failure to persuade the writer to subscribe to his thoughts. He compares the "greatness" and "freedom" of America and other democratic nations to that of Muslim nations. Here he paints a picture of the Muslim countries being primitive and inferior in comparison to the democratic nations which throughout this piece he claims are in danger of this terrible threat. The one problem is though, he takes it too far and resorts to what I would call racism but I'll leave that one up to the right on the board to interpret themselves as they'll probably call it patriotism or some crap. Together with this he compares the crimes committd by these people to those committed by his own  in an attempt to minimize the anger the reader may have felt to such atrocities:

And finally, name any Muslim countries throughout the world that allows 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.

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 of 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 types of prisoners chemically killed 400,000 of their own people for the same reason. They are also the same type of enemy fighters who recently were burning Americans, and dragging their charred corpses through the streets of Iraq.

And still more recently, the same type of 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?

And I could continue if I really wanted to but I think by now I've made my point. This article is all persuasion, speculation and scare tactics, and not a piece that on close examination should be taken seriously as a piece of political argument.

[RichardNixon]

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,17383054%255E601,00.html

Willis film to show diehard GIs 'fighting for freedom'
Sarah Baxter, Washington
November 28, 2005

ANGERED by negative portrayals of the Iraq conflict, actor Bruce Willis is to make a pro-war film in which US soldiers will be depicted as brave fighters for freedom and democracy.

It will be based on the exploits of the heavily decorated members of Deuce Four, the 1st Battalion, 24th Infantry, which has spent the past year battling insurgents in the northern Iraqi town of Mosul.

Willis attended Deuce Four's homecoming ball this month in Seattle, Washington, where the soldiers are on leave, along with Stephen Eads, the producer of Willis's films Armageddon and The Sixth Sense.

The 50-year-old actor said he was in talks about a film of "these guys who do what they are asked to for very little money to defend and fight for what they consider to be freedom". Unlike many Hollywood stars, Willis supports the war and recently offered a $US1million ($1.35million) bounty for the capture of any of al-Qa'ida's most-wanted leaders such as Osama bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri or Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, its commander in Iraq. Willis visited the war zone with his rock and blues band, the Accelerators, in 2003.

"I am baffled to understand why the things I saw happening in Iraq are not being reported," he told MSNBC, the US news channel.

He is expected to base the film on the writings of the independent blogger Michael Yon, a former special forces green beret who was embedded with Deuce Four and sent regular dispatches about their heroics.

Yon was at the soldiers' ball with Willis, who got to know him through his internet war reports on a blog site. "What he is doing is something the American media and maybe the world media isn't doing," the actor said, "and that's telling the truth about what's happening in the war in Iraq."

Willis is likely to take on the role of the unit's commander, Lieutenant-Colonel Erik Kurilla, 39, a Bruce Willis lookalike except with more hair, a chest full of medals and a glamorous blonde wife.

He was injured in August after being shot three times by insurgents "in front of my eyes", Yon recorded in his blog: "He continued to direct his men until a medic gave him morphine and the men took him away."

Kurilla now has a titanium plate in his leg. He met Willis at the ball and said his men were "very excited and appreciative that he was there". "

Deuce Four has a chequered history. For decades it was a segregated black unit commanded by a white officer. It was disbanded in 1951 but veterans felt hurt that its past was considered to be a stain on the army and it was revived in the mid-1990s.

When the battalion arrived in Mosul in November last year the city was under threat from insurgents. "We faced very heavy fighting for about three months," Kurilla recalled.

"Every patrol was making contact with enemy forces. We would hit them where they slept, where they worked and where they ate."

Today the picture was very different, he said. "I have watched a city that was in absolute chaos turn into one that has a viable Iraqi security force, which is taking the lead in fighting the terrorists."

Yon, 41, went to Iraq after a friend from high school, Scott Helveston, a former navy Seal, was hanged from a bridge in Fallujah in an incident that shocked the world. Yon had never blogged before but was the author of Danger Close, a book about his experience as a green beret when he killed a man in a bar-room brawl. He was charged with murder and acquitted on the grounds of self-defence.

"When I landed in Baghdad I was immediately struck by how much of a war zone it was," Yon said. "Explosions were going off constantly. It was full-on."

His first experience of Mosul was worse: "I got attacked on my first mission. One of our vehicles got hit with a car bomb and three guys were killed."

In May, Yon took a photograph of a soldier from the Deuce Four cradling a little Iraqi girl who had been fatally wounded by a suicide bomber. He sensed that the inhabitants of Mosul were turning against the insurgents.

"People began to realise that all the insurgents ever did was break things and kill people," he said.

"It started to switch from a firefight to an intelligence war. People started to talk more to us. They would pull us over and give us tips."

The Iraqi security forces began to take pride in their work, Yon added: "These guys were getting slaughtered but they continued to volunteer and fight. It's very dangerous now to be a terrorist in Mosul. They're still out there but it's not like it was."

Willis said it would be wrong for Americans to give up on Iraq just as progress was being made.

"The Iraqi people want to live in a world where they can move from their homes to the market and not have to fear being killed," he said. "I mean, doesn't everybody want that?"

The Sunday Times

[pilferk]

I dont know what part you feel is speculation.
Most is fact, as in history.

And if you dont think its Muslims that are attacking us, we cant carry an intelligent debate any further than I could throw Hillary Clinton.

Again, I've no desire to further your "education" by explaining to you, in graphic detail, what is speculation and spin and what isn't.

He cites historical fact...and then speculates on it's meaning.

He cites historical fact...and then draws corellations that have no basis in reality.

He cites historical fact....and then "spins" it to support his very narrow viewpoint.

He cites historical fact...but cites it so narrowly, leaving out very important pieces that would contradict his assertions, that it's meaningless.

You asked for an argument against the article.? You got one: Rampant Speculation.

As for your assertion (and his) that it's Muslim's attacking us..that's oversimplification.  It's Islamic extremists who are attacking us, not ALL Muslims. 

[SLCPUNK]

Again, I've no desire to further your "education" by explaining to you, in graphic detail, what is speculation and spin and what isn't.

I believe you owe Shades an apology ASAP.

You see, a few month back he fell and hit his head on the sink in the bathroom and drew this:



Thus giving him the power to time travel and see what would happen in the future. It is not speculation, I repeat NOT speculation.

Don't you feel stupid now?

Lucky for him he also got his parents to hook up at the "enchantment under the sea dance", or he wouldn't be here to school your sorry ass.

[shades]

you may need to look up the word speculation.

You can read what the good general wrote and not be convinced truly puts you in the hopeless category,
beyond reality, and frankly, pathetic.
Its 'all' fact.

And if you call what he wrote speculation, what on Gods green earth do you call what you write.
Or what any cause should be ventured into.
The entire reason for starting your day is speculation on your definition.

[Jamie]

you may need to look up the word speculation.

You can read what the good general wrote and not be convinced truly puts you in the hopeless category,
beyond reality, and frankly, pathetic.
Its 'all' fact.

And if you call what he wrote speculation, what on Gods green earth do you call what you write.
Or what any cause should be ventured into.
The entire reason for starting your day is speculation on your definition.

No one is disputing that he is using fact, it's how he's using it that's the problem, I've already explained this in my last post, the facts he's using just don't validate what he is saying; anyone can quote history and say it backs up their statement. It's just ridiculous.

[shades]

As ridiculous as say, letting what the media tells you be the wind that guides your sail.

[Jamie]

As ridiculous as say, letting what the media tells you be the wind that guides your sail.

Show me one instance where I have displayed such a characteristic. What gives you that impression?

[pilferk]

you may need to look up the word speculation.

You can read what the good general wrote and not be convinced truly puts you in the hopeless category,
beyond reality, and frankly, pathetic.
Its 'all' fact.

And if you call what he wrote speculation, what on Gods green earth do you call what you write.
Or what any cause should be ventured into.
The entire reason for starting your day is speculation on your definition.

On the contrary,I've quite familiar with the definition of speculation.? Perhaps you need to refamiliarize yourself with it, however.? But, as I've said again and again, I'm not going to be your "educator" anymore.? Use a good dictionary and look it up....or just read the article above for some textbook examples.

As for it ALL being fact, that claim is so ridiculous it doesn't even merit discussion.? It's an opinion, a narrow one, not a particularly well reasoned one, and the facts he "uses" don't, remotely, have the definitive meaning he lends them to prop up his opinion.? Thus: speculation or reasoning based on inconclusive evidence, conjecture or supposition.? And if you think his article is really any more than that...well, that certainly adds even more "color" to each and every one of your posts. Not that, after all the times you've been proven incorrect, we really need much more.

Oh, and insulting posters (ie: calling people who disagree with you pathetic) is against the rules.? But, given your inability, to date, to demonstrate a good grasp of reading comprehension, I'm not surprised that was lost on you.

[pilferk]

As ridiculous as say, letting what the media tells you be the wind that guides your sail.

LOL!

Says the guy who posted the article (from the media, right?) in the first place....

Oh, and how about providing a source on the original article, eh?

[gilld1]

What about the OK City bombing?  Islam strikes again.....oh wait, thoses were Christian Extremists.  Are all Christians terrorists too?  Shooting abortion doctors, blowing up les/gay night clubs, etc. 

[pilferk]

What about the OK City bombing?? Islam strikes again.....oh wait, thoses were Christian Extremists.? Are all Christians terrorists too?? Shooting abortion doctors, blowing up les/gay night clubs, etc.?

Or, perhaps, we should engage in gun control...since people who own guns are more likely to be involved in a violent crime than non-gun owners.  I mean, wouldn't gun control/stricter gun laws/waiting periods just be a form of profiling?

For the record...I'm a staunch supporter of the 2nd ammendment.

[pilferk]

OK, this is just too funny for words:

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

So, any comments shades?

 

Oh, and FYI... Gen. (Dr) Chong is a medical surgeon...not a combat soldier.  Here's a link to his biography, for those interested.....even though he had NOTHING to do with this article:

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0RBE/is_2004_Annual/ai_n8569550