An Open letter to the Terrorist of the world...

You can not win...

Published on June 7, 2004 By ShadowWar In International

To the Terrorist that think of attacking the U.S.A.

Mr. Criminal,

You see I refuse to call you terrorist. In doing so I would be admitting that you cause fear in me and therefore dictate my thoughts and actions.
I am an American! You do not scare me, you do not cause me to worry, you do not rule my thoughts. You do not stop me from going about my daily business, you will not make me change my plans to go where I want when I want. I will not be ruled by your threats or fear. I will not let my child grow up fearing you, he will learn that criminals like you never win, in the end you either die, or are punished. There is no retirement plan and a happy old age for a criminal like you.

Here in America you fail to realize that you have no power.
Oh you may make us stop and take notice of your criminal act. You may kill me or my fellow Americans, but there will always be other Americans to hunt you down and show you we are not afraid of you. You will not change us, you will not cause us to become what you are, scared. You see I realize what you do you do out of fear, fear of the United States of America. Fear of the awesome people and influence that the U.S.A. has. You are envious of what we have and you do not, peace to live as we choose, a high standard of living, and a love of country. My next door neighbor may not be the same religion, the same race, the same anything, but he is allowed to be just that. I may not like it, I may voice my opinion, but that also is what the U.S.A. is about, being able to say what you want when you want to.

The poorest people in the U.S.A. have a better life than most of the world. And criminlas like you are envious of that. Sorry you have no future, if you had put your efforts towards becoming a productive instead of destructive human, you might have had a decent life, a future. Another thing I have that you do not is freedom to raise my family as I see fit, and my children may choose to be whatever they want. See my children have a future, you and yours do not.

The most important thing I have you do not is a future. You see no matter what you do to me the U.S.A. will live on. You can kill 3000 or 30,000 of us, but we will not give in to your demands or will. What you do just makes the average American more determined not to let you win, no matter what. When you kill one of us, you just make the rest of us more resolved in making sure you have no future. Blow yourself up, shoot us or do whatever you want but remember when you try to cause fear in Americans, it won’t work. We don’t frighten, we get even.

An American

Comments (Page 3)

Sir Peter Maxwell

on Jun 09, 2004

Knowing and practising are two different things --- doesn't religion preach humility?

Absolutely not, religion teaches us to eat fine food, drink fine wine, mount fine young fillies and have a jolly good time! I cannot understand why so many people think religion is boring!

MasonM

on Jun 09, 2004

Pete old boy you really crack me up sometimes

ShadowWar

on Jun 09, 2004

Reply #31 By: Coocoo_bean - 6/9/2004 6:25:03 PM
Knowing and practising are two different things --- doesn't religion preach humility?

Depends on which part of what religion you want to look at. All have violent past, and also wonderful periods of peace. Pick which one and what part you want to talk about..

Saint Ying

on Jun 09, 2004

I had several family members who died on 9/11/01. Do I feel the attack on Iraq was justified? Yes. Our president announced publicly that any country that aided terrorist organizations bent on attacking the US that they will either stop, or pay the consequences. Iraq was one of those countries. They openly and flagrantly aided the terrorists. They provided them safe haven. They provided them with a place to train their killers. They aided them in any way they could. Anyone who argues that they didn't is being purposely ignorant. I worked in military intelligence in the Middle East. I know they did.

The former governing body of Iraq was responsible for the deaths of more muslims than all of the other bodies, governments, wars, and groups combined. It was an evil regime that was given many chances to fall into line by the UN. They refused to go along with what the governments of the "American bashing" people represented in this thread demanded that they do. How many more innocent Iraqis needed to die before your countries decided it was enough to take action?

Yes, we acted out of self-interest. All countries do. Yours in no exception. By attacking and easily defeating the largest army in the Middle East (the one all other Middle Eastern countries feared) the US sent a very effective message to the other countries who were aiding the terrorists. "If you help the terrosrists against the US, this could happen to you."

Oh God, show me the links between Saddam and Al Quaida or shut up. Show me good intelligence. Tell me how Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden, who would have just as soon killed each other as to kill Americans, were good chums. And what the hell do you mean by 'provided them with a place to train'? Why would they need or want to train in Iraq under a secular dictator with a record of killing Muslims and wiping out armed opposition to his guard units, when they could just as easily train in Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, or an African country like Sudan? Do you think that Saddam would simply forget that Bin Laden had attempted to assemble a coallition to remove him from Kuwait, and allow large numbers of armed Wahabiist radicals to go about freely in his country and spread their rebelious message? Furthermore, how much control did Saddam actually have over the entire physical map of Iraq? Even if terrorists did have camps in the desert, away from Baghdad, would Saddam have been willing or able to take them out so long as they remained discrete and kept to themselves? Why should he have gone out of his way to launch an Ashcroft-esque campaign against terrorists who may or may not be in their country?

If you are more informed than the average American citizen, and you truly know that Saddam helped Al Quaida 'any way they could', please tell me how much money, weaponry, and ammunition he provided them with, and what he got in return. Without facts, Your conjecture is simply not good enough to justify war.

MasonM

on Jun 09, 2004

My "conjecture" is based on persoanlly aquired facts.

Even if terrorists did have camps in the desert, away from Baghdad, would Saddam have been willing or able....

Do you think that a leader such as Saddam would have allowed trespassers on his soil? Get real. He had the largest army in the Middle East. He was more than capable of driving out unwanted "campers" from his country.

Were you in the Middle East at any time? Have you ever been in pre-war Iraq? Unless you have, you have no first-hamd knowledge of anything that was going on there. You know only what your press has told you.

Fact is, after Kuwait the relationship between the terrorists and Saddam changed radically. But then, you wouldn't know that would you?

There are a lot of things you don't know and probably don't want to know. Much easier and safer to just blame the US for everything.

Saint Ying

on Jun 10, 2004

persoanlly aquired facts.

That's a good one. If you cannot elaborate on these sketchy 'facts' (more like vague and logically dubious notions of history designed to rile up American military personel, if you ask me), I have no reason to hold anything you say as credible. Perhaps you saw or visited these camps. Or perhaps you were involved in weapon or drug transactions with them. Whatever the case, whenever your 'intelligence' is inconsistent the common knowledge that links between Al Quaida (and only Al Quaida, forget the Palestinian groups) and Saddam Hussein are negligable at best, you need to provide more evidence than 'I know it from personally aquired facts'. Why, for instance, did Bush not come forward to show that the CIA had evidence that Hussein was providing Al Quaida terrorists with funds, weapons, and special camps near or around Baghdad and the Sunni Triangle. Why am I just hearing about this now from some nameless guy on thw web who claims to have 'inside knowledge'?

You know only what your press has told you.

What the hell is wrong with journalism? Are you saying I should trust you, when evidence is yet to even be put forth by the right wing, pro-war government? I don't think so. Every American in his right mind had best look at a variety of journalistic sources, and take the blind illusions of right wing war-freaks with a heavy grain of salt.

He had the largest army in the Middle East.

You mean that disorganized, disloyal, and heavily damaged and disfunctional thing we destroyed in the first weeks of Operation Iraqi Freedom, along with its massive stocks of weapons of mass destruction?

He was more than capable of driving out unwanted "campers" from his country

Even if they did exist, why should he have gone out of his way to root out terrorist camps, many of them potentially in areas where he was unpopular or forbidden to conduct military operations? Why risk it? What would be in it for him? It's not as if the U.S. wouldn't have invaded Iraq on false pretexts anyway. You act as if every president, dictator, or royal family in the region had ought to suddenly play nice and dispense with its terrorists altogether. Yeah, that would be beautiful, but Al Quaida with its growing popular support isn't exactly someone you want to piss off if you're an unpopular leader in a turbulent or ethnically fragmented country.

BTW, in terms of support for terrorists, Saudi Arabia is the worst. Their state financed educational system is practically designed to breed hateful little Bin-Ladenites. They do not crack down on terrorist activities, because the terrorists are extremely popular there. The Saudi family are cowardly, double talking, and backwards thinking, and of course they're in bed with Bush too. And we conveniently avoid talking about them, just as we conveniently avoid talking about the many places in the world where cruel dictators actually still sponser terrorists and pose nuclear threats to America, and the many places where the humanitarian conditions were far worse than in Iraq.

Erique Dela Crappe

on Jun 10, 2004

Mason, you manage to get these two quotes into one and the same post:

Personally, I don't care if other governments choose to murder their citizens. It's their country, they can do what they want.

The former governing body of Iraq was responsible for the deaths of more muslims than all of the other bodies, governments, wars, and groups combined. It was an evil regime that was given many chances to fall into line by the UN. They refused to go along with what the governments of the "American bashing" people represented in this thread demanded that they do. How many more innocent Iraqis needed to die before your countries decided it was enough to take action?

Now I don't know you, perhaps you are a deep-cover spook tracking things in Iraq since the early 80's, giving you many, many special and exclusive insights. However, the ol' "I know better than you because I say so" way of debating has never been particularly convincing to me. Until you show even a hint of your superior information, I suggest you put more effort into keeping your posts from contradicting themselves.

MasonM

on Jun 10, 2004

or shut up

This is the sort of statement that is in just plain bad form. Saint Ying, what right do you have in an open forum to tell anyone to "shut up"? Whether you disbelieve what I say, disagree with what I say, or whatever, telling me or anyone else to "shut up" is uncalled for and down-right rude behavior that has no place in an open discussion.

I have as much right to state my viewpoint on this or any other other topic that I choose to comment upon, just as you do. Please note that while I disagree with what many have said here, at no point did I tell anyone to "shut up". I state my particluar viewpoint. Whether you choose to believe what I state or not really doesn't matter one way or the other. Frankly I would be somewhat foolish to think that you would. That still doesn't negate my right to state my views.

Enrique. The first statement you chose to quote was a statement of my personal viewpoint. Kinda why it starts with the word "Personally". The second quoted statement is a statement regarding a political situation. There is no contradiction. It is the height of conceit to believe that the entire world's political system should revolve around one's own personal views. I have no trouble seperating my personal viewpoint from the realities of the world political situation. A little odd that you chose to point out some perceived contradiction instead of addressing the topics themselves.

I have no reason to hold anything you say as credible.

No, you don't. None at all. I wouldn't expect that you would. I am not trying to change anyone's mind about anything. I am just giving my viewpoint on a given thread just as you are. At the same time, I have reason at all to view anything you or anyone else states as anything other than another person's opinion. After all, everyone has one.

MasonM

on Jun 10, 2004

That next to last sentence should read "...no reason..." Sorry for the poor typing.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!