[extropy-chat] Re: Death Toll

[Samantha Atkins]

On Jul 14, 2005, at 1:55 AM, Evan Hamlin wrote:

> 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.
>

Sigh.  You really have no idea at all of how long we have run major  
dirty tricks in the Middle East, do you?  You also ignore our major  
support of Israel which is nuclear powered strongly religion run and  
quite aggressive state to do this day.

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

Considering (4) and our provocations in Muslim countries this is  
hardly surprising.

> 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://>/).
>
> Thus, almost the same number of Christians were killed
> by the Nazis, as the 6 million holocaust Jews who were
> killed by them, and we seldom heard of anything other
> than the Jewish atrocities.


Proof please.

>
> 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.
>

A war on terrorism as such makes no sense.

> So with that background, now to the two major
> questions:
> 1. Can we lose this war?
> 2. What does losing really mean?

Since there is no rational criteria for what winning it is it is  
difficult to say.

>
> 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.
>

If we stopped some of our major provocations I have no reason to  
believe the attacks would increase.  Neutered and submissive?  Sigh.
>

> They will pick off the other non-Muslim nations, one
> at a time.  It will be increasingly easier for them.

Ah, the great Muslim expansion theory.  Do you really believe this or  
is the above notion that they attack us because we are so good in  
contradiction?


> 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.
>

Ah, so we can't stop doing any of our nasties because terrorist  
oppose us.  I see.

- samantha