Chong then asks who the attackers were and answers that they were, for all the incidents he lists, Muslims, and that Muslims are 25 percent of the world population. Yes, but they were also men, who make up nearly 50 percent of the population. They were dark-skinned people, who make up a large majority of the population. In order to establish that Islam is trying to kill us all, Chong first needs to explain how Islam motivated the attacks and then show that the particular brand of Islam that did so is present in all of Islam. When Timothy McVeigh blew up a building in Oklahoma City, we didn't start making lists of all the Christian white guys who had shot up post offices and McDonald's and high schools. We didn't declare Christianity the enemy. We didn't bomb the whole state of Oklahoma, or pick another random state like Oregon and bomb that one too. We treated a horrendous crime as a horrendous crime. We put our fears aside. We moved on with our lives. We can still mourn for the people who died that day in Oklahoma City. We can even try to find ways to better prevent such a thing happening again. But we don't need to remain paralyzed in an eternal state of fear and condemn billions of people for the act of a few very troubled souls.
Chong almost seems to accept this point. He concedes that the enemy he is afraid of is not every Muslim, but rather the leaders of Muslim countries. But he does not specify who these leaders are. The United States, of course, supports and funds and arms Muslim dictators in many countries across the globe. Is Pakistan a concern? Is Saudi Arabia? Is Indonesia? Or is it the leader of whichever nation the United States wants to occupy next? And what about non-Muslim dictators? Are they a threat as well? The attacks of 9-11 were carried out by a gang of thugs, not a national leader. Any national leader who attacked the United States would be committing suicide. The United States spends more on its military than all other nations on the planet combined -- over half of every single one of your tax dollars. There is no nation contemplating world domination, other than our own.
In point #6 Chong changes his story and says that it is "Muslim terrorists" we should fear, not Muslim dictators. But, then, he can't actually believe that 25 percent of the world's population consists of terrorists, can he? I find it very doubtful that the other 3/4 of us would still be alive. I find it very hard to understand how all the seemingly non-terrorist Muslims I know could be fooling me.
If we reduce "Muslim terrorists" to some reasonable definition, then the question arises how a Muslim (or anyone else) becomes a terrorist. Are they born that way? Our own intelligence agencies don't think so. They have concluded that the US occupation of Iraq is breeding terrorists. The images of dead and maimed and homeless Iraqis that the Muslim world sees, but that we are sheltered from, are enraging people. When we arrest and torture the wrong people and let them go, they are enraged. When we kill someone's father or brother they are enraged. In other words, we are creating more terrorists. In fact, al Qaeda has made clear that it wants the US occupation of Iraq to continue, but even more passionately it wants the United States to attack Iran. Al Qaeda is a Sunni Muslim group, whereas Iraq is majority Shiite. (This is why people laughed at John McCain when he claimed that Iran was supporting al Qaeda. What he meant to say was that one evil force was supporting another. It just happened not to be true, which is often the case when things are oversimplified and people are rejected as "evil".)
But let's set aside the question of creating terrorists. There remains the question of exactly how much we should fear them. The Americans who have been killed by Muslim terrorists are numerous, and they died horrible senseless deaths and we can mourn them and honor their memories. But more Americans have died occupying Iraq or from any one of a number of diseases or from preventable workplace accidents or from routine gun accidents (routine in this country, sadly). How do we choose which things to fear and which to set out of our minds?
Chong asks whether we can win a "war" against Muslim terrorists. Or rather, he doesn't. He asks what losing it would be like. He has not one word on what winning it would be like. He clearly means to include the occupation of Iraq in this war, but no occupation like this one has ever ended well, and he offers no vision for how it could. If Iraq had a democracy, the first thing it would do would be to throw out the United States. Of course, this is not part of the US plan, which is laid out here:
But it's not clear to me that it would be acceptable to Chong either, even if it were possible. Most of the violence in Iraq right now is motivated by the occupation. A huge majority of Iraqis has always believed the violence would drop if the occupation ended. But the United States uses the violence as a reason to continue the occupation. You can see where this ends - or, rather, does not. But, if it ever did, would Chong accept leaving the Iraqis to handle their own affairs? After all, they would still be Muslims, and China would still be willing to loan us the money to keep occupying them, since China knows we'll have to pay it back someday with interest.
While Chong says nothing about victory, he has a lot to say about defeat. Basically we will all die, because we will lose face and everything will slide down from there. Yet the drastic decrease in support for America in global opinion polls has occurred during and because of the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. We are now seen as aggressors, kidnappers, torturers, murderers, and oil plunderers. We would benefit from changing that image, which does not reflect the interests of most Americans.
As Chong paints his portrait of disaster, it becomes clear that he really does believe that all Muslims are terrorists, and that they are terrorists even without a Muslim dictator forcing them to be such. Chong fears Muslim immigration and fantasizes about its horrors to the point of claiming that there are more mosques than churches in England. What if that were true? Is there really some way to calculate which of those two religions has been involved in more murder than the other? Or does this whole screed simply rest on the fact that Chong and his readers are Christians?
I use the term Christian loosely, since by one definition that term has at times meant those who see humanity in foreigners, strive to love their enemies, and behave as would the Good Samaritan.
Chong wants us to give up civil rights. Ben Franklin said that "Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither." Of course everyone deserves both, but giving up liberty tends to reduce security by empowering those who damage it. And, I don't know where Chong has been or how long ago this thing was written, but we have given up the better part of our bill of rights over the past seven years. If the evil people hate us for our freedoms, we should be feeling a lot safer :-)
Chong clearly believes it's OK for Muslims to have no rights. He approves of torturing Muslims detained in Iraq on the grounds that the cruel dictatorship of Saddam Hussein, under whom many of the same people suffered, was also Muslim. Imagine if, in the early 19th century, a foreign power invaded and occupied the United States, and kidnapped random people and tortured and murdered them, and some commentator said "Yeah, well that's OK, these dumb Christians were living under the cruelty of King George before we started torturing them."
Or imagine removing any mention of religion from this equation. Imagine justifying the senseless torture of women or redheads or lefthanders or baseball fans. Seriously, imagine that for a minute, and then return to the question of whether you can justify torturing human beings simply because they were born in families that believe in a particular religion. Can you?
Chong builds his case for hatred of all Muslims and for considering them less than human by claiming that no Muslim nation has contributed anything worthwhile to the world. Yet when he counts the invading hordes of immigrant Muslims he uses arabic numerals. There is little in European culture that has not benefitted from the Muslim world, and vice versa. If we knew our joint history, we would not think of each other as animals.
Best,
David
Subject: MUSLIM TERRORISTS AND THE USA...
>
>
>
> An Articulate Piece written on the War we are Fighting
>
> "For what it's worth ...
> This is the most cogent and powerful essay on the threat of Islamic terrorism I have ever read. Dr. Vernon Chong is, without a doubt, the most articulate and convincing writer I have read regarding the War in Iraq . & ; ;nbs p;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 o f the se 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 yo u would like to see who this fine man is, go to this Air Force web site and look him up:
> http://www.af.mil/bios/bio.asp?bioID=5000" Then read below.
>
>
> 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,< SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 13.5pt; BACKGROUND: white; COLOR: black; FONT-FAMILY: 'Lucida Handwriting'"> 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, Bush 1, Clinton and Bush 2. We cannot fault either the Republicans or Democrats, as there were no provoca tions by any of the presidents or their immediate predecessor, President Ford.
>
> 3 Who were the attackers?
>
> In each c ase, t he 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 (includin g
> 7,000 Po lish priests).
>
> (see
Chong almost seems to accept this point. He concedes that the enemy he is afraid of is not every Muslim, but rather the leaders of Muslim countries. But he does not specify who these leaders are. The United States, of course, supports and funds and arms Muslim dictators in many countries across the globe. Is Pakistan a concern? Is Saudi Arabia? Is Indonesia? Or is it the leader of whichever nation the United States wants to occupy next? And what about non-Muslim dictators? Are they a threat as well? The attacks of 9-11 were carried out by a gang of thugs, not a national leader. Any national leader who attacked the United States would be committing suicide. The United States spends more on its military than all other nations on the planet combined -- over half of every single one of your tax dollars. There is no nation contemplating world domination, other than our own.
In point #6 Chong changes his story and says that it is "Muslim terrorists" we should fear, not Muslim dictators. But, then, he can't actually believe that 25 percent of the world's population consists of terrorists, can he? I find it very doubtful that the other 3/4 of us would still be alive. I find it very hard to understand how all the seemingly non-terrorist Muslims I know could be fooling me.
If we reduce "Muslim terrorists" to some reasonable definition, then the question arises how a Muslim (or anyone else) becomes a terrorist. Are they born that way? Our own intelligence agencies don't think so. They have concluded that the US occupation of Iraq is breeding terrorists. The images of dead and maimed and homeless Iraqis that the Muslim world sees, but that we are sheltered from, are enraging people. When we arrest and torture the wrong people and let them go, they are enraged. When we kill someone's father or brother they are enraged. In other words, we are creating more terrorists. In fact, al Qaeda has made clear that it wants the US occupation of Iraq to continue, but even more passionately it wants the United States to attack Iran. Al Qaeda is a Sunni Muslim group, whereas Iraq is majority Shiite. (This is why people laughed at John McCain when he claimed that Iran was supporting al Qaeda. What he meant to say was that one evil force was supporting another. It just happened not to be true, which is often the case when things are oversimplified and people are rejected as "evil".)
Chong asks whether we can win a "war" against Muslim terrorists. Or rather, he doesn't. He asks what losing it would be like. He has not one word on what winning it would be like. He clearly means to include the occupation of Iraq in this war, but no occupation like this one has ever ended well, and he offers no vision for how it could. If Iraq had a democracy, the first thing it would do would be to throw out the United States. Of course, this is not part of the US plan, which is laid out here:
But it's not clear to me that it would be acceptable to Chong either, even if it were possible. Most of the violence in Iraq right now is motivated by the occupation. A huge majority of Iraqis has always believed the violence would drop if the occupation ended. But the United States uses the violence as a reason to continue the occupation. You can see where this ends - or, rather, does not. But, if it ever did, would Chong accept leaving the Iraqis to handle their own affairs? After all, they would still be Muslims, and China would still be willing to loan us the money to keep occupying them, since China knows we'll have to pay it back someday with interest.
While Chong says nothing about victory, he has a lot to say about defeat. Basically we will all die, because we will lose face and everything will slide down from there. Yet the drastic decrease in support for America in global opinion polls has occurred during and because of the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. We are now seen as aggressors, kidnappers, torturers, murderers, and oil plunderers. We would benefit from changing that image, which does not reflect the interests of most Americans.
As Chong paints his portrait of disaster, it becomes clear that he really does believe that all Muslims are terrorists, and that they are terrorists even without a Muslim dictator forcing them to be such. Chong fears Muslim immigration and fantasizes about its horrors to the point of claiming that there are more mosques than churches in England. What if that were true? Is there really some way to calculate which of those two religions has been involved in more murder than the other? Or does this whole screed simply rest on the fact that Chong and his readers are Christians?
I use the term Christian loosely, since by one definition that term has at times meant those who see humanity in foreigners, strive to love their enemies, and behave as would the Good Samaritan.
Chong wants us to give up civil rights. Ben Franklin said that "Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither." Of course everyone deserves both, but giving up liberty tends to reduce security by empowering those who damage it. And, I don't know where Chong has been or how long ago this thing was written, but we have given up the better part of our bill of rights over the past seven years. If the evil people hate us for our freedoms, we should be feeling a lot safer :-)
Chong clearly believes it's OK for Muslims to have no rights. He approves of torturing Muslims detained in Iraq on the grounds that the cruel dictatorship of Saddam Hussein, under whom many of the same people suffered, was also Muslim. Imagine if, in the early 19th century, a foreign power invaded and occupied the United States, and kidnapped random people and tortured and murdered them, and some commentator said "Yeah, well that's OK, these dumb Christians were living under the cruelty of King George before we started torturing them."
Or imagine removing any mention of religion from this equation. Imagine justifying the senseless torture of women or redheads or lefthanders or baseball fans. Seriously, imagine that for a minute, and then return to the question of whether you can justify torturing human beings simply because they were born in families that believe in a particular religion. Can you?
Chong builds his case for hatred of all Muslims and for considering them less than human by claiming that no Muslim nation has contributed anything worthwhile to the world. Yet when he counts the invading hordes of immigrant Muslims he uses arabic numerals. There is little in European culture that has not benefitted from the Muslim world, and vice versa. If we knew our joint history, we would not think of each other as animals.
Best,
David
Subject: MUSLIM TERRORISTS AND THE USA...
>
>
>
> An Articulate Piece written on the War we are Fighting
>
> "For what it's worth ...
> This is the most cogent and powerful essay on the threat of Islamic terrorism I have ever read. Dr. Vernon Chong is, without a doubt, the most articulate and convincing writer I have read regarding the War in Iraq . & ; ;nbs p;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 o f the se 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 yo u would like to see who this fine man is, go to this Air Force web site and look him up:
> http://www.af.mil/bios/bio.asp?bioID=5000" Then read below.
>
>
> 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,< SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 13.5pt; BACKGROUND: white; COLOR: black; FONT-FAMILY: 'Lucida Handwriting'"> 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, Bush 1, Clinton and Bush 2. We cannot fault either the Republicans or Democrats, as there were no provoca tions by any of the presidents or their immediate predecessor, President Ford.
>
> 3 Who were the attackers?
>
> In each c ase, t he 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 (includin g
> 7,000 Po lish priests).
>
> (see
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
