The Peaceful Majority (well said)

DTop

Active member
I thought I'd forward this one along for discussion. I think it was well written and makes some valid points. What do you think?

The Peaceful Majority-unknown author:
I used to know a man whose family was German aristocracy prior to World War Two.

They owned a number of large industries and estates. I asked him how many German people were true Nazis, and the answer he gave has stuck with me and guided my attitude toward fanaticism ever since.

"Very few people were true Nazis "he said," but many enjoyed the return of German pride, and many more were too busy to care. I was one of those who just thought the Nazis were a bunch of fools. So, the majority just sat back and let it all happen. Then, before we knew it, they owned us, and we had lost control, and the end of the world had come. My family lost everything I ended up in a concentration camp and the Allies destroyed my factories."

We are told again and again by "experts" and "talking heads" that Islam is the religion of peace, and that the vast majority of Muslims just want to live in peace.

Although this unqualified assertion may be true, it is entirely irrelevant. It is meaningless fluff, meant to make us feel better, and meant to somehow diminish the specter of fanatics rampaging across the globe in the name of Islam. The fact is that the fanatics rule Islam at this moment in history.
Reality: It is the fanatics who march. It is the fanatics who wage any one of 50 shooting wars worldwide. It is the fanatics who systematically slaughter Christian or tribal groups throughout Africa and are gradually taking over the entire continent in an Islamic wave. It is the fanatics who bomb, behead, murder, or honor kill.

It is the fanatics who take over mosque after mosque. It is the fanatics who zealously spread the stoning and hanging of rape victims and homosexuals. The hard quantifiable fact is that the "peaceful majority" is the "silent majority" and it is cowed and extraneous.

Communist Russia comprised Russians who just wanted to live in peace, yet the Russian Communists were responsible for the murder of about 20 million people. The peaceful majority were irrelevant.

China's huge population was peaceful as well, but Chinese Communists managed to kill a staggering 70 million people.

The average Japanese individual prior to World War 2 was not a warmongering sadist. Yet, Japan murdered and slaughtered its way across South East Asia in an orgy of killing that included the systematic murder of 12 million Chinese civilians; most killed by sword, shovel, and bayonet.
And, who can forget Rwanda , which collapsed into butchery.

Could it not be said that the majority of Rwandans were "peace loving"?
History lessons are often incredibly simple and blunt, yet for all our powers of reason we often miss the most basic and uncomplicated of points:

Peace-loving Muslims have been made irrelevant by their silence.

Peace-loving Muslims will become our enemy if they don't speak up, because like my friend from Germany, they will awake one day and find that the fanatics own them, and the end of their world will have begun.

Peace-loving Germans, Japanese, Chinese, Russians, Rwandans, Serbs, Afghans, Iraqis, Palestinians, Somalis, Nigerians, Algerians, and many others have died because the peaceful majority did not speak up until it was too late.

As for us who watch it all unfold; we must pay attention to the only group that counts; the fanatics who threaten our way of life.

Lastly, I wish to add: At the risk of offending anyone who works at the New York Times, CNN, or any of the liberal news media. I sincerely think that anyone who rejects this as just another political rant, or doubts the seriousness of this issue or just deletes it without sending it on, is part of the problem. Lets 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 its citizens. Best we support them.
 
And when those peaceful majority speak out they will need US to support and protect them. If we ask them to speak out and leave them in the lurch as we did with the Kurds in 1991 we are lower than whale :cen: and deserve the almighty's worst. This peaceful majority is being cowed because they are peaceful. These are the people without the guns and the bombs and for them to stand up takes more courage than I think many people realise. Its a self-imposed death sentence unless we provide them with an umbrella to shield their moral actions from the hellstorm of hate it will unleash.
 
You are either a wolf, dog, or sheep. I don't pray on the innocent but I'm sure as hell not prayed upon either.
 
I thought I'd forward this one along for discussion. I think it was well written and makes some valid points. What do you think?

Well, at the risk of offending anyone who works at the FOX News, EIB, or any of the Neo-Con news media. I'd like to point out that the Majority of American Voters spoke loud and clear in the last Federal Election, and Republicans lost both the US House and US Senate, even with the power of the White House backing the Republican Party.
 
So with the democrats in power there will be withdrawal from Iraq and that peaceful majority will never have the chance to stand up. Brilliant.
 
So with the democrats in power there will be withdrawal from Iraq and that peaceful majority will never have the chance to stand up. Brilliant.


Well said BD.

ALCON If the shoe fits:

No matter who leads our country (RepublicansDemocratsLeftwingrightwingneoconsconservative. . . . whatever it all runs together in my head) , if YOU don't have pride in it, if YOU don't speak up for it, if YOU don't even attempt to defend it then what gives you the right to ridicule it?

I think it should be one of the requirements that anyone who is in a leadership position in our country (Politically speaking) should have to serve at least 10 years in the military and another 10 years in a government position (to reach no higher than GS06) then spend at least another 10 years working in the public sector. At no time should any of them make more than 50kUSD a year. This will let them get a REAL feel for who counts. The American People!

Sorry for the OT post. Carry on.
 
So with the democrats in power there will be withdrawal from Iraq and that peaceful majority will never have the chance to stand up. Brilliant.

Just one question how is this the Democrats fault when the American people elected them knowing they were going to do this?
 
very well written! And I realize that there is always a big silent majority in every nation. I wish they could come out and speak against the evil-doers
 
An observations and a question re elections\Democrates etc.

I'm inclinded to think this is the root of forigen policy problems. One party comes in, makes policy and is then tipped out before the task is complete. Then the other party does a complete 180 and leaves the effected persons hanging in the lurch. End result lots of very disaffected and cranky pers.

How then does one stop the rot?
 
Rot must be excised and the source of the rot eliminated to prevent future recurrences.


I vote hanging by toenails and pulling of the fingernails to excise the rot.

Like I alluded to in a previous post. There needs to be more stringnent requirements before someone can take office. It is sad that someone can run for office and not have any military background and not have at least personal understanding of the impact of our country's affairs for the moderate to low income ($0 - $45,000 USD) families.

Take away all the pay and perks of holding a position in the House, Senate, Cabinet etc etc and I bet you would lose a majority of the people. Afterall, they are supposed to be there to serve America's interests. Not their own. It seems all they do is posture and hum and hah around various issues and nothing ever gets done that needs to get done.

This applies (as far as I am concerned) to all politicians regardless of political affiliation. Nowadays it seems a person rarely, or not at all, gets involved in politics for any idealistic reasons.

Sorry for the rant and OT comments. But it drives me nuts.
 
I vote hanging by toenails and pulling of the fingernails to excise the rot.

Like I alluded to in a previous post. There needs to be more stringnent requirements before someone can take office. It is sad that someone can run for office and not have any military background and not have at least personal understanding of the impact of our country's affairs for the moderate to low income ($0 - $45,000 USD) families.

Take away all the pay and perks of holding a position in the House, Senate, Cabinet etc etc and I bet you would lose a majority of the people. Afterall, they are supposed to be there to serve America's interests. Not their own. It seems all they do is posture and hum and hah around various issues and nothing ever gets done that needs to get done.

This applies (as far as I am concerned) to all politicians regardless of political affiliation. Nowadays it seems a person rarely, or not at all, gets involved in politics for any idealistic reasons.

Sorry for the rant and OT comments. But it drives me nuts.

I'd say that there are few qualified people in the current government at the White House, as the current Vice President is a Draft Dodger from the Vietnam War, and the current President refused to go to Vietnam, even though in the Military (Air National Guard) during the Vietnam War, but then President Franklin Roosevelt was not in the Military at all, and proved to be a capable Commander in Chief during World War II.
And while there have been fewer Veterans, and even less Combat Veterans serving in the United States Congress, there is however a fresh batch to pick from, seeing how there are returning Combat Veterans from both Iraq and the Afghan Military Operation.

One such Combat Veteran, Major Tammy Duckworth, was severely wounded in Iraq, losing both legs permanently and having to have her arm reattached to her body.
Major Duckworth ran for an open seat in the United States Congress from the State of Illinois, in 2006. The Veterans of Foreign Wars strangely, and shockingly supported her opponent. Major Duckworth's opponent, who was at the time State Senator Peter Roskam, got the VFW National nod, even though State Senator Peter Roskam was never even in the United States Military at all..... but Peter Roskam is a Republican, which I believe had everything to do with the Official Backing of the Veterans of Foreign Wars going to Peter Roskam instead of Major Duckworth, because Major Duckworth ran as a Democrat.
Major Duckworth lost her bid for the United States Congress, sadly, If not for the VFW pulling for a Non-Veteran I believe she would have won, and after talking to Major Duckworth since the Election of 2006, as I know her personally, my view of this entire matter has not changed.
 
So the VFW didn't agree with her politics, big deal. A wounded combat veteran makes an infallible politician not.
 
So the VFW didn't agree with her politics, big deal. A wounded combat veteran makes an infallible politician not.

Exactly.

Gator:

Note that I said one of the requirements. This does not mean that once they meet the minimum requirements that they are able to do the job.

On another note, President Franklin Roosevelt did not have the media to deal with like the recent Presidents. If all the past Presidents had to deal with the media as it is today, I doubt very seriously they would be looked on with a favorable light.
 
On a good note, the Republicans lost the Congress anyway, and the VFW is in my own opinion severely damaged.
 
Just one question how is this the Democrats fault when the American people elected them knowing they were going to do this?

I welcome correction or clarification on the point I am going to make, but in a number of 2006 races, the Democrats fielded a candidate more conservative or just as conservative than the Republican incumbent/candidate and this strategy paid off. And with some victorious Democratic candidates, their position on Iraq - whilst not supporting the Bush strategy, nonetheless was not close to the current Pelosi or Obama policy.

I think when it comes to Congressional election results you have to look at each race in each state. It is more difficult to claim a national mandate as so many victorious candidates - even from the same party - differ or differed on Iraq, or health insurance, or environmental issues, or taxes, or gay marriages, etc, etc, etc.

For example, the new Democratic senator for Pennsylvania is closer to the Republican he defeated - and President Bush - on more issues than Obama, Hilliary and Pelosi.
 
I'd tend to agree with you Padre. It seems to me that the most recent election was more of a move toward a centrist form of government, or at least toward politicians with centrist views, rather than the neo-liberal coup that some would like to claim. Of course, that's just my perception.
 
Back
Top