Think About It

Air Force Major General Speaks on Terrorism

Once in awhile something comes in my e-mail that is profound.   I will warn you; this piece is long, but take a few minutes and read it carefully.  It’s important.

This is a powerful essay on the threat of Islamic terrorism.  Dr.Vernon Chong is, without a doubt,the most articulate and convincing writer I have read regarding the War in Iraq . If you have any doubts, please open your mind to his essay and give it a fair evaluation. It's also eerily applicable to other current issues, such as Iran 's nuclear program, immigration, NAFTA's impact on American jobs, trade deficits, etc. I had no idea who Dr.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 Doctor and found him to be a retired Air Force surgeon and past commander of Wilford Hall Medical Center in San Antonio ."

If you would like to see who this fine man is, go to this Air Force website and look him up: http://www.af.mil/bios/bio.asp?bioID=5000"

Muslim terrorists and the U.S.A.   A different spin on the war in Iraq: This WAR is REAL

Dr.. Vernon Chong, Major General, USAF, Retired

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: 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, Bush1, 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 predecessor, President Ford.

3 Who were the attackers?
In each case, the attacks on the US were carried out by Muslims.

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

5 Isn't the Muslim Religion peaceful?
Hopefully, but that is really not material. There is no doubt that the
predominately Christian population of Germany was peaceful, but under the dictatorial leadership of Hitler (who was also Christian), that made no difference. You either went along with the administration or you were eliminated. There were 5 to 6 million Christians killed by the Nazis for political reasons (including 7,000 Polish priests). (see http://www.Nazis.testimony.co.uk/7-a.htm
Thus, almost the same number of Christians were killed by the Nazis as the six million holocaust Jews who were killed by them, and we seldom hear of anything other than the Jewish atrocities. Although Hitler kept the world focused on the Jews, he had no hesitancy in killing anyone who got in the way of his extermination of 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, British, 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 to remain silent or be killed?

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:

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

1 Can we lose this war?
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; 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 with France is that they might see the light and realize that if we don't win, they are finished, too, in that they can't resist the Muslim terrorists without us.  However, it may already be too late for France . France is already 20% Muslim and fading fast.

Without our support, Great Britain will go, also. Recently, I read that
there are more mosques in England than churches.

2 What does losing really mean?

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
Muslim terrorists, how could anyone else?

The radical Muslims fully know what is riding on this war, and therefore are completely committed to winning, at any cost. We'd 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 failing to dig in and lend 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 to which we have become accustomed. 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 that time.

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 think some actually do. 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 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 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 they 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.

These people are a serious and dangerous liability to the war effort. We must take note of who they are and get them out of office. 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. We are arrogant in that we believe that we are so good, powerful, and smart that we can win the hearts and minds of all those who attack us, and that, with both hands tied behind our back, we can defeat anything bad in the world. We can't! If we don't recognize this, our nation, as we know it, will not survive, and no other free country in the world will survive if we are defeated.

And, finally, name any Muslim countries throughout the world that allow freedom of speech, freedom of thought, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, equal rights for anyone -- let alone everyone, equal status or any status for women, or that have been productive in one single way that contributes to the good of the world.

This has been a long way of saying that we must be united on this war or we will be equated in the history books to the self- inflicted fall of the Roman Empire. If, that is, the Muslim leaders will allow history books to be written or read.

If we don't win this war right now, keep a close eye on how the Muslims take over France in the next 5 years or less. They will continue to increase the Muslim population of France and continue to encroach little by little, on the established French traditions. The French will be fighting among themselves over what should or should not be done, which will continue to weaken them and keep them from any united resolve. Doesn't that sound eerily familiar?

Democracies don't have their freedoms taken away from them by some external military force. Instead, they give their freedoms away, politically correct piece by politically correct piece. And they are giving those freedoms away to those who have shown, worldwide, that they abhor freedom and will not apply it to you or even to themselves, once they are in power.

Muslims have universally shown that when they have taken over, they then start brutally killing each other over who the few will be controlling the masses. What is happening in Iraq is a good example. Will we ever stop hearing from the politically correct about the "peaceful Muslims?"

I close on a hopeful note by repeating what I said before: 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. I reiterate: our national election is under way.

After reading the above, we all must do this, not only for ourselves,
but for our children, our grandchildren, our country, and our 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 through this, that we must UNITE!

Lastly, I wish to add: at the risk of offending, I sincerely think that
anyone who rejects this as just another political rant, or doubts the
seriousness of this issue,is part of the problem. Let's quit laughing at and forwarding the jokes and cartoons which denigrate and ridicule our leaders in this war against terror. They are trying to protect the interests and well being of the US and it's citizens.
Best we support them.

GOD BLESS AMERICA

U.S. Supreme Court Sides with Terrorists

Chalk one up for the bad guys.  The U.S. Supreme Court in their infinite wisdom decided in a 5-4 decision that the terrorists being held in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba have the legal right to challenge their detention in the U.S. federal court.  This means the sixteen lawsuits which were filed on behalf of the non-citizen detainees will now be heard in the federal courts.

The majority of the court, including Anthony Kennedy, John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer held essentially that these foreign combatants imprisoned at Guantanamo have the full protection of our constitution. 

From the comfort of his overstuffed chair in his lofty tower, Justice Kennedy, set his quill pen to parchment and wrote the majority opinion:  “the laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times.  Liberty and security can be reconciled; and in our system reconciled within the framework of the law.”

Writing for the minority, Justice Scalia may well have written America’s obituary.  He wrote, “The nation will live to regret what the court has done today.”  Every elected representative needs to have this stamped on his or her forehead.   Scalia was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.

Predictably, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-California, was ecstatic over the ruling, saying the Supreme Court upheld the Constitution.
"I have long been an advocate of closing Guantanamo, so I would hope this is in furtherance of taking that action," said Pelosi.

Strange and coincidently, in a separate decision, the court refused to intervene in the case of two American citizens convicted in Iraqi courts but held by the U.S. military.

The ruling will bring up more questions that this Blog could deal with in a year, but some questions:

Questions:

Will the defense have access to all the underlying reports made about a particular defendant?

If so, will they have access to the names of people who may have turned them in?

If so, won’t this place these informants on the terrorists’ hit list?

Won’t this also give the defense full access to the investigation procedures used to capture this person?

Is the genie completely out of the bottle?

Terrorist Trials at Guantanamo

The mainstream media has started to spin the upcoming trials of the 9/11 terrorists in Guantanamo.  If one reads Adam Zagorin’s piece titled “A Rush to Judgment in Guantanamo?” in Time magazine, one might conclude he is equating the upcoming trials of the terrorists to the Communist show trials during the Stalinist era. 

Some tidbits from Zagorin’s article: “But their arraignment at Guantanamo on Thursday suggested that the political overtones of the case could call that effort into question and overshadow strictly legal aspects of the trial.”

Zargon continues: “For the Bush Administration, which has held some of the defendants for five years of interrogation and torture at secret locations, the trial offers a timely opportunity to remind Americans of the terrorist threat. Showcasing sensational evidence of the 9/11 conspiracy will not only assist the trial and possible execution of its alleged perpetrators, it will bolster the administration's approach to its continuing "global war on terror."

This is clearly biased journalism.  Let’s back up a minute Mr. Zagorin.  Khalid Sheikh Mohammed came forth at his arraignment and was clearly proud of his accomplishment.  He said he wished to be martyred.

Zagorin goes on to note the trials are scheduled to start at “the point at which U.S. voters start turning their attention to election issues such as national security.”

Meanwhile, attorneys representing the five accused would like to bring the trials into the U.S. Courts.  The whole thing is a combustible mix of lawyers, politics, and a liberal press that is determined to place the U.S. government and military on trial rather than focusing on the terrorists.

There are indications that the defendants want speedy trials – and the Bush administration wants speedy trials.  Guess who doesn’t want speedy trials.

Questions:

Are there any advantages to delaying the trials until after the elections?

Just how big of a media circus is this trial going to be?

If Obama is elected and the trials haven’t begun, will it change anything?

If McCain is elected, will he change anything at Guantanamo?

Iceland Alleges Torture at Guantanamo

Apparently tiny Iceland’s legislature has bought into the argument that “human rights abuses” are occurring at the U.S. detention camp at Guantanamo Bay.   The Icelandic legislature decided, just before adjourning for the summer, to issue a resolution that "condemns the inhumane treatment of prisoners at the US detention camp" and "urges that the camp be closed," according to an English translation of the text provided to AFP by Iceland's foreign ministry.

We currently have about 275 detainees, all of whom are suspected terrorists, at Guantanamo, Cuba.  Iceland’s objections to Guantanamo were not well received by U.S. Secretary of State  Condoleezza Rice.   In a joint press conference with her counterpart Ingibjoerg Solrun Gisladottir, Rice said, "I strongly object to the notion that there are human rights violations at Guantanamo, as is suggested in the resolution.  Guantanamo is a place that the president himself has said that he would like to close," but the problem is what should be done with the ‘dangerous prisoners,’ Rice went on to say,  "We also have an obligation, that the people who are in Guantanamo because they committed terrorist acts should not be released on unsuspecting populations.”

Rice further stated, "I would strongly recommend that before people make judgments about what is going on at Guantanamo they should perhaps avail themselves of a report that was done by the (European security body) OSCE parliament committee.  It would be an interesting report for your parliament to read, and I will make it available,” said Rice. 

There have seen numerous allegations of abuse and mistreatment of the prisoners at Guantanamo.  Probably the most controversial is that of water boarding.

We will be seeing and hearing a lot more about Guantanamo in the coming months.  The prosecution has asked that the trial of some of the 9/11 terrorists be commenced in mid-September.  The defense is crying foul because it is so near the 9/ll date – and it is before the November elections.

This brings up these questions:

Should water boarding be allowed?

What types of interrogation should be allowed at Guantanamo?

Should they be given the benefit of trials?

If so, what type of trial?

What about the trial scheduled for mid-September, a coincidence?

How might a highly publicized trial affect the elections?

Should We Close our Military Prison at Guantanamo?

A friend and I got into a discussion the other night about our military prison in Guantanamo Bay.  He was outraged at the idea that the detainees were on American soil without having the rights and benefits of a detained suspect in our criminal courts.  Ah, where does one start.  Perhaps with this week’s news from the BBC in Iraq:  “Guantanamo Man' in Iraq bombing.”  It seems one Mr. Abdullah al-Ajmi, a former guest at our facilities in Guantanamo Bay took part in a suicide bomb attack in Mosul that killed several members of the Iraqi security forces on April 29.  Abdullah al-Ajmi had been in U.S. custody in Gitmo and because he was a Kuwaiti, the U.S. transferred him to Kuwait in 2005 where he was acquitted of terrorist charges.  More than 80 prisoners have been transferred to other countries, and over 200 have been released.

According to reports, Abdullah al-Ajmi and two alleged accomplices obtained new passports before going to Mosul through Syria.  Once in Iraq, the trio detonated two car bombs that killed the several members of the Iraqi security forces.

The ACLU  and an battalion of defense lawyers tried to make the case that these military combatants should be tried as criminals in the U.S. courts.  Apparently the Supreme Court cringed at the idea of seeing 400 O.J. style trials, so in a 6-3 decision they gave the U.S. Military Tribunals sole jurisdiction at this time.   

What exactly would the three presidential candidates do about our military prison in Guantanamo is unclear, but if Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton get into office, they are pledging to bring the troops home, so presumedly the prison at Gitmo would no longer be necessary.

Questions:

If the war in Iraq and Afghanistan continues, what should be done with the 400+ prisoners in Guantanamo?

If we withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan, will the prisoners simply be released?

Do Military Tribunals provide adequate justice for detainees?
Should we close the prison at Gitmo and move it to Iraq or the Middle-East?

What will John McCain do with Gitmo if he is elected President?

What would Hillary or Obama do if elected?