During the Iran-Iraq War, the Ayatollah Khomeini imported 500,000 small plastic keys from Taiwan. The trinkets were meant to be inspirational. After Iraq invaded in September 1980, it had quickly become clear that Iran’s forces were no match for Saddam Hussein’s professional, well-armed military. To compensate for their disadvantage, Khomeini sent Iranian children, some as young as twelve years old, to the front lines. There, they marched in formation across minefields toward the enemy, clearing a path with their bodies. Before every mission, one of the Taiwanese keys would be hung around each child’s neck. It was supposed to open the gates to paradise for them.
Give me ignorance…….give me death.
Do you suppose a leftist moonbat pacifist would march across a minefield singing “all we are saying…is give peace a chance…” wearing a Che T-shirt, a rainbow flag and rose colored glasses?
I think they should consider doing a lot more of that sort of thing. Those kids only grow up to do much worse … to us.
Think of all the ammo we could save. It adds up over time.
This could also help with Stephen Lewis’s or was it Lloyd Axworthy’s desire to get rid of all the land mines strewn everywhere.
Please don’t think this too hard hearted, after all, these kids want to go to heaven. Why would you want to go home to a family that considers you canon fodder.
Look at it this way … that culture aspires to die and go to their version of heaven. So, why not advocate for them to have their wish.
All they are doing on the planet is making trouble for everyone else anyway.
You’re really trying to max out on provocation this morning, aren’t you, Duke? But, you know, one really sharp aphorism will beat half-a-dozen dull-witted ones.
duke…
you are a ass. no kid anywhere wants to die.
But, you know, one really sharp aphorism will beat half-a-dozen dull-witted ones.
What aphorism would that be?
=====================================
Tha Ass replies … I didn’t say the kids wanted to die, I said they want to go to heaven. It’s their parents that want them to die … because they are insane, global trouble makers. You see them differently?
One more thing you soft hearts might consider.
In War, compassion is deadly.
Whose are you on?
That would be whose side are you on.
Actually, you might read the link. Many of these kids did indeed, “want” to die.
I guess that’s what these lines from the link mean … thanks Kate.
================================
“we had child-volunteers: 14-, 15-, and 16-year-olds. They went into the minefields.
[…]
They went enthusiastically, and by the thousands, to their own destruction.
[…]
“It was sometimes like a race. Even without the commander’s orders, everyone wanted to be first.”
==============================
Children are sacred innocents no matter what culture they come from.
We in the West weather from the left or the right ultimaltely driven by Christian principles that is the basis of our society.
Christ was known as the Prince of Peace. That ideal shows up in everything we undertake. The Western world withstands much mocking threats violence and for the most part we stand by our principles.
To be driven to war takes a great deal in the West
because we believe in turning the other cheek and enduring a great deal before we will draw our sword.
The one issue that will drive the West to war is wholesale murder of children. It is a binding principle in our society that no matter what your political bent is it is intollerable for the west to endure the slaughter of innocents.
I seem to recall Bart on the Simpsons quipping that manipulating teenagers to commit suicide is like shooting fish in a barrel. How typical is it for teenagers to fantasize dying and imagining everyone feeling so sorry about it? One might say the Iranian kids “wanted” to die, but a little investigation would likely show the kids were psychologically manipulated and exploited. This is chilling news.
This is chilling news.
It’s actually chilling history … the Iraq – Iran war has been over for a couple of decades.
Although this sort of thing will continue in those country where the sub-humans dwell …
What’s that you say?
Well, do humans send their children to die for some lunatic cause? Even in the animal world the mother will give her life to save her young. Can’t say that about the Islamis whacks.
Let me say this … we are at war with the most rabid foe this world has ever produced. Give yourself a great shake and try to get rid of whatever leftist guilt compassion still clinging to your soft western world psyche and realize that it’s simply them or us!
They are very determined.
Are you?
The morality of sacrifice, is the morality of death. These kids make that crystal clear.
I get a little tired of the westernern elites constantly calling on us to sacrifice.
No thanks, I choose life.
This, more than anything else emphasizes that the enemy does not want peace. WE DO.
As before, in both WWl and WWll, we have to face that. It was almost too late when we realized what sacrifice we must face to preserve what we have for ourselves and children. It was an awful price. Had we wakened to the threat before it became so strong as nearly impossible to defeat we might have cut short the monumental effort and saved many millions of lives.
THIS time the stakes are much higher. To allow Iran to continue their threats ( and they are real threats) to test our mettle is a luxury we can ill afford. For they DO intend victory over us by any means at their disposal. They learned from the likes of Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton that we can and do cut and run. They are banking on that happening again and they are encouraged in that by the outrageous opposition to the Bush administration and the Harper administration as signs they are on the right track.
Would it were that every “journalism” student were to be taught history, they might actually understand the events they cover.
Unfortunately , they have a habit of reporting events in the light of a liberal idealogical view that if we ‘give peace a chance’ we can placate this evil.
It cannot and will not be placated. It MUST be defeated and the longer we pussyfoot around the slimmer our chances of survival.
“All that I’m sayin’ … is give war a chance”
Nearly all long-lasting peace followed a big freakin’ war. This one will be the same ……. if we win!
” Mama, Don’t let your kids grow up to be mine detectors..” (with appologies to Willie & Walyon)
Gee Duke, you sure know how to rile the great unwashed. Sadly, children have been (ab)used since the dawn of time by scum of the earth masquarading as parents. Whether it is pimping them out, making them drug mules or sacrificial bombs, it comes down to the fact that there are a lot out there that should never reproduce, let along be in a position of authority.
One more thing.
If we lose … there will be no peace … there will be ethnic cleansing on a grand scale and those ethnics will be us.
If we lose, we will watch our children die before our eyes and just before we die too.
If we lose, we can blame it squarely on Leftist resistiance to winning this war.
My war is as much with our own Left as it is with the Muslim terrorists. The Left thinks we have done them wrong and they are mad at us… that’s all. It’s all our fault. When I say ‘our’ I mean the villified Capitalist hoards whose bastards indulge in greed while creating jobs, wealth and security for the rest of us. And who taught the Middle East how to get and sell their oil. What their elite despots do with that wealth is up to them. We know their poplulations aren’t seeing any of it.
Islam, Communism, Socialism (communism in slo-mo) doesn’t create anything but poverty, illusion, misery, corruption and mass death. It’s proven time an again. So, yes, history would be a good thing to learn about.
Capitalism/democracy invites the rest of the world to participate freely. when they join up, they prosper and their society is raised up. Once there is some wealth spread around, good things start to happen, like health care, education, mobility, creative thought. You simply cannot fund those things with dogma.
All other systems indulge in the equal distribution of poverty. Russia, Cuba, China. I would include Africa but there’s not even enough poverty to go around there.
Duke, you are an ass.
Obviously the children want to die because they are young and are manipulated by their parents and a death-culture.
Talk to German children now. By and large they don’t want to die, although they were eager to fight and die for the Fatherland when enrolled in the Hitler Youth generations earlier.
It’s the evil fascist philosophy (research the origins of the name “Iran” as opposed to the name Persia, which it had for centuries – hint if you’re too damn lazy and would rather spout vitriole – it was chosen in allegience to fascist Nazi Germany and the “Aryan race”) that is the enemy. Destroy its military force and do what needs to be done to change the philosophy and the death/suicide culture withers and dies…
like in Japan.
“Destroy its military force and do what needs to be done to change the philosophy and the death/suicide culture withers and dies…”
And what military would that be?
We are at war with golbal non-military suicidal terrorists. what battle field shall we meet them on … or should I say … what flight, what school, what street corner.
Japan was never an insane religious theocracy bent on destroying the entire western world. They were mistaken and then made it right. An example of taking us up on the invitation to join our world.
You need more coffee pal.
Chris,
Despite your venom, you are simply making Duke’s point, or what I interpret his point to be, albeit more explicitly. We are in a long war to the knife, and have been for more than 27 years (start date is most clearly the embassy occupation, though the airplane highjackings could also serve). We need to prosecute it fully.
To do so with Iran and others will be to bring back the same kind of firepower and determination that WWII needed. If you don’t like Duke’s tone, I doubt that you have the stomach for what would come in a full out battle with Islamism, where our aims are to seize all capitals and remake the societies as fully as we did in Japan and Germany.
Its “military force” isn’t just formal military force such as naval ships and mechanized regiments (although it has those to destroy). It obviously includes its command and control facilities, nuclear, chemical, and biological production and research facilities, terrorist leadership and networks, etc. You’ll never be able to kill everyone who disagrees with you nor does that goal make a lot of sense.
You can, however, destroy a nation’s ability to function as a cohesive whole and, one way or another, influence its culture and philosophy.
This was the original Bush doctrine of bringing power to bear against nation states that supported terrorists. There is no nation states that supports more terrorists than Iran.
Duke, I agree we have a serious enemy, yada yada. I do not believe, however, that preferentially targeting their children is the way to go.
The second we start doing that, we may as well lose because we are as evil as our enemy. Which is why I am glad that your views haven’t caught on, because they are extreme and they are reprehensible.
And annextraitor, how can you see me use the exact example of our WW2 struggle against Germany and Japan and then conclude that I wouldn’t support a similar struggle against Iran?
Do you think before you post?
Who said we should target their children?
You don’t get it Chris … fighting the Islamists is like trying to get rid of ants in your yard by smacking them one at a time. They are everywhere and that’s why it’s going to take a long time
We will eventually need to pull out the big poison remedy. OR WE WILL LOSE!
You are still employing your liberal sensibilities in this debate. There is nothing liberal about what we are facing. Thank heavens for Bush, Harper, O’Reilly, Coulter, McMillan. At least there are some who are fighting back and putting out the message.
In order to win any war the first thing that soldier training involves is dehumanizing the enemy. That is a long standing fact. You cannot hesitate and allow your compassion to enter the equation.
Know this …. in a serious war .. it’s kill or be killed. Which do you prefer?
Chris, your last comment makes no sense. Is English your first language?
Warning: Scruton is a conservative. +
IN MEMORY OF IRAN
By Roger Scruton (10/12/88)
From UNTIMELY TRACTS (NY: St. Martin’s Press, 1987), pp. 190-1
(This originally appeared in the TIMES (London), 6 November 1984)
[Kindly uploaded and provided with notes by Freeman 10602PANC]
Who remembers Iran? Who remembers, that is, the shameful
stampede of Western journalists and intellectuals to the cause of
the Iranian revolution? Who remembers the hysterical propaganda
campaign waged against the Shah, the lurid press reports of
corruption, police oppression, palace decadence, constitutional
crisis? Who remembers the thousands of Iranian students in
Western universities enthusiastically absorbing the fashionable
Marxist nonsense purveyed to them by armchair radicals, so as one
day to lead the campaign of riot and mendacity which preceded the
Shah’s downfall?
Who remembers the behaviour of those students who held as
hostage the envoys of the very same power which had provided
their ‘education’? Who remembers Edward Kennedy’s accusation
that the Shah had presided over ‘one of the most oppressive
regimes in history’ and had stolen ‘umpteen billions of dollars
from Iran’?
And who remembers the occasional truth that our journalists
enabled us to glimpse, concerning the Shah’s real achievements:
his successes in combating the illiteracy, backwardness and
powerlessness of his country, his enlightened economic policy,
the reforms which might have saved his people from the tyranny of
evil mullahs, had he been given the chance to accomplish them?
Who remembers the freedom and security in which journalists could
roam Iran, gathering the gossip that would fuel their fanciful
stories of a reign of terror?
True, the Shah was an autocrat. But autocracy and tyranny are
not the same. An autocrat may preside, as the Shah sought to
preside, over a representative parliament, over an independent
judiciary, even over a free press and an autonomous university.
The Shah, like Kemal Ataturk [umlaut over the ‘u’], whose vision
he shared, regarded his autocracy as the means to the creation
and protection of such institutions. Why did no one among the
Western political scientists trouble to point this out, or to
rehearse the theory which tells us to esteem not just the
democratic process, but also the representative and limiting
institutions which may still flourish in its absence? Why did no
one enjoin us to compare the political system of Iran with that
of Iraq or Syria?
Why did our political scientists rush to embrace the Iranian
revolution, despite the evidence that revolution under these
circumstances must be the prelude to massive social disorder and
a regime of terror? Why did the Western intelligentsia go on
repeating the myth that the Shah was to blame for this
revolution, when both Khomeini and the Marxists had been planning
it for 30 years and had found, despite their many attempts to put
it into operation, only spasmodic popular support?
The answer to all those questions is simple. The Shah was an
ally of the West,… +
http://www.fortfreedom.org/l14.htm
Why I became a conservative by Roger Scruton. … Inspired by my new studies I began to search for a conservative philosophy. In America this search could …
http://www.newcriterion.com/archive/21/feb03/burke.htm – 40k –
You personally are an idiot, Duke. A Conservative idiot, to be sure, but an idiot just the same.
My Liberal sensibilities?
I support victory over Islamic fascism and I understand that this means a massive and undoubtedly dreadful war.
Referencing Iran ordering their children to death in the Iran-Iraq war, you said this:
“I think they should consider doing a lot more of that sort of thing. Those kids only grow up to do much worse … to us.”
Disgusting.
Have I made you angry there Chrisy? …
Thats a trait of the Left … anger … name calling.
Very childish and voids any point you might try to make.
In any event, I am glad you are disgusted and angry .. it must be unpleasant for you.
I can’t see where you get Chris is a liberal Duke.
The man simply believes that we need to live and fight a war by a moral code.
If war with Iran starts formally then children will die. It will be a air war for the most part I think.
Nevertheless targeting children is reprehensible. I don’t care what they may grow up to be they aren’t that yet.
If we lose what we stand for in order to win then we are no better.
If war begins 1000’s maybe millions in Iran and elsewhere will die. The very least we can do is maintain a code of honor as best we are able.
To deliberately target children must not be even considered.
As much as Christians are to follow Christ. Muhammadans are to follow Muhammad. Therefore to follow correctly in the footsteps of the historical Muhammad – a muslim would have to be a mass murderer, rapist, pedophile, theif, warmonger, bigamist, mysogenist, liar, terrorist, sadist, slaver and narcissist – amongst a whole bevy of other evil traits.
This is what I’ve typically found to end arguements with Muslim appologists. Muslim or Infidel – you’ll also get the death penalty, fatwa, or death threats for saying any such truths about their demonic ‘prophet.’
Islam hasn’t recently declared war on the rest of the world, it’s been prosecuting war for 1500 years and won’t stop until it has control of all of Allahs world. In the true Muslim mind, Canada is Allahs already and is therefore theirs. We’re just poaching, for now.
The true muslims are the ones who follow in Moes footsteps. But as with any faith, the majority of Muslims are backsliders.
So I guess what I’m trying to say is, that the west better get to know the enemy, and fast. The enemy is Islam, not terrrorists or Islamists, Islamofascists, or whatever.
In this war, we won’t win by appeasement. We won’t win by adopting moral relativism, appologizing for some revisionist transgression we commited in the past, or any other ‘progressive’ socialist bs.
And we certainly won’t win by allowing anybody to falsely paint it a ‘religion of peace’ or any other absurd definition.
As with any mortal enemy, it must be defined correctly and in battle, given no quarter.
If we lose what we stand for in order to win then we are no better.
If war begins 1000’s maybe millions in Iran and elsewhere will die. The very least we can do is maintain a code of honor as best we are able.
To deliberately target children must not be even considered.
I am unsure of exactly what it is we stand for Jeff. Let me mention a few huge social issues that ‘we stand for’ …
The umbrella one is that horrid moral reletivism… It completely distorts reality.
But let me add a couple .. gay marriage, group sex in government sanctioned S&M joints, uncontrolled immigration, poor law enforcement and poorer sentencing of criminals, multiculturalism, socialism, abortion, tolerance of the intolerant with zero tolerance for those who don’t buy into the above items.
We have no deity to provide the will and spirit and common values for which to fight an enemy. What shall we rally around to defend here? … pot smoking? injection sites, Indian reserves, bilingualism? the f**cking metric system, the CBC? … corruption in Quebec … Day care centers … hatred for George Bush and America?
We have little meaningful purpose in our society. What we have are a few left over, very messy freedoms … some more available than others. We are not a strong cohesive unit anymore because of Trudeau and those Leftist that followed his teachings.
We are continually trying to define ourselves and we continually draw a blank. What we come to is that we are kinda dozy Americans and most don’t want that shit.
And for the last time … I have never said we should target children … Islam does that for us and I don’t happen to consider that reprehensible in their specific case … a baby crocodile is still a crocodile. I see them all as the enemy and the more of them that blow up at any age is irrelevant in the big picture.
What we do with our children here in Canada is let the state raise them as much as possible. They don’t get their bodies blown up … but they do get their minds ruined with continued socialist crap and moral relativism.
Most young people I know of are intersted in getting blown not blown up. And that is an actual value nowadays. Imagine, young boys judging school girls by how good they can give head.
We have no strong identity, we stand for very little. That is why my main rant on what it is we are fighing for is to be FREE TO BE THE WASTED F**Ks that we have become.
Nevertheless, there is still a lot of good in our society, but there is also a lot of bad and a lot of that can be blamed on complacency. I like my society with all it’s failings and I will not let anyone just take it away from me without a big fight.
Chris, I think you are off base in suggesting that Duke was implying targeting children. He did not.
“You can, however, destroy a nation’s ability to function as a cohesive whole and, one way or another, influence its culture and philosophy.”….means what?, short of invasion and complete occupation which negates that first part of your illogical premise.
The WOT, as Bush has pointed out, is a long arduous process. We aren’t fighting defined militaries. And, in the culture of Islam, as the use of children by the Iranians(Hamas too) demonstrated, we probably are going to kill some children combatants. We aren’t dealing with Judeo-Christian, Western Enlightenment adversaries like European wars past. Your German analogy was absurd. Those “children” of Nazis are in the 70’s now.
What’s your solution to this hypothetical, but possible situation: let’s say the mullah’s positions thousands of children at their nuclear sites. Pretend your an Israeli with kids. What are their choices? There is no reason to think the mullahs are joking with their daily annihilation of Israel rants. Got a solution for that one?
Also, the suicide bomber in Tel Aviv today was 16. The Islamofasicsts have made this a children’s war.
nice read!
The fundamantal difference that we stand for, Duke, is the freedom to “live as you please”:
“A man should live as he pleases. This, they say, is
the mark of liberty, since, on the other hand, not
to live as a man wishes is the mark of a slave.”
— Aristotle, “Politics”
When people are such free, they will make some disastrous and ruinous choices. Yet the stark difference is that it is them doing it.
Freedom is the source of many weaknesses in our culture, but it is also the source of its greatest strengths — including military strength.
If you think you can handle reading several pages of history and analysis all at once, the renowned and suitably conservative and hawkish military historian Victor Davis Hanson has written a book, “Why the West Was Won”.
You can find a longish and free review of it by clicking on the title above.
Yes, it involves some actual reading and it may be taxing for you. And no, I’m not a fag, although thank you for leaving that comment on my blog 1-minute after leaving one here saying:
Have I made you angry there Chrisy? …
Thats a trait of the Left … anger … name
calling.
— Duke
[proof-positive of your intelligence is growing by the moment]
This is something that everyone should read (Kate, you would find it intriguing) to gain a deeper insight into western military history, our present strengths and weaknesses, and more info about the differences in development between western civilization and the rest of the world.
Indeed, this explains largely why western culture is dominant despite our low population. It really comes down to freedom.
Thanks for the support Penny.
When I hear someone say that we must fight a war with moral standards, all I hear is that we need to treat the enemy the way we wish to be treated.
And why shouldn’t we? After all he is equal to us in everyway … my moral relavancy classes told me so.
That might work to a point if you are fighting a Western nation enemy such as Germany in WW2.
I have always had a problem with that concept anyway. It seem that you can kill me if you get the chance, but you shouldn’t be mean to me if you capture me. That is what we now do to our criminals if we jail them at all. We know that doesn’t work. Harsh deterents work. Anyone who is stupid enough to ignore the deterents should truly be locked away.
And that my darlings, is why we may not win this one. With so many graduates (and drop-outs who couldnt even hack the watered down work load) from our government schools running loose, we have a couple of generations of soft-hearted soft-headed ‘consumers’ voting and voicing their western, liberal ideals and trying to apply them to what amounts to aliens from another planet.
The upside of this is that there about half of
Americans and perhaps 40% of Canadians who are twigged to the threat for Islam. As long as we keep the right side at the helm we may have a chance.
If per chance, the next round of leaders are appeasing lefies … we can all go buy our prayer rugs and bite the dust … five times a day.
On the lighter side, I think it would be endlessly entertaing to see all the Lefty Atheists and new-agers given the choice to embrace Allah or have their heads hacked off. what do you think they would do? I think they would fake the orgasm. Remember these the folks who do want to live forever.
Chris, I left nothing on your blog that I am aware of. Perhaps you have confused me with someone else.
I didn’t know you had a blog. I will try to find it.
And you don’t need to lecture me about FREEDOM .. it’s my personal credo and always has been.
Without freedom, nothing else matters .. even health.
And Penny, the plain reading of Duke’s comment was that he was encouraging Iran to sacrifice more of their children in war, in combat. That is abhorrent. And yes, I have a solution to the problems you have posed — war.
In war, children die, yet decent nations do not intentionally magnify childrens’ deaths nor call for their enemies to kill their children. If our enemy commits war crimes by intentionally using children (or western hostages) as shields — as they have done in the past — then we are entirely within our rights, in accordance with western military tradition including the Geneva Convention, of striking valid military targets regardless of collataral damage.
Obviously you engage any armed combatant regardless of age. I’m not saying the Iranians didn’t use their children in combat; clearly they did.
I’m saying that encouraging them to do so again is immoral.
As for your calling the Nazi example “absurd”… read it again, Penny. I’m not talking about asking Hitler Youth survivors in their 70s about their feelings, I’m pointing out that the fanatical Nazi fascists encouraged a death-culture and used their children in one in the end… and I’m pointing out that, yes, through invasion and occupation, that death-culture is changed and it is a fair bet to say that the current German youth are, thankfully, organized neither in large government sanctioned homicidal nor suicidal fighting forces.
Duke, if it wasn’t yourself that left that comment, I apologize and retract that statement.
For the record, I believe you. Someone else observing this conversation probably left it.
Incidentally, I wasn’t terribly offended, just surprised and amused that a person would do that a minute after insulting name callers. At least you haven’t committed that logical faux pas!
😉
It appears someone named ‘wise 1’ did it.
I don’t do that kind of thing and no offense taken on this accusation.
You have nice family blog there.
And Duke, I say that we should fight any war (indeed, if you don’t believe this part, then you mcan’t truly say you support the Canadian Forces, as it exists today or as it has ever existed because I assure you this is a big part of both the training, culture, and leadership atmosphere) with moral standards.
That doesn’t mean we coddle our enemies (the C6 medium machine gun, for example, is designed for many things, yet coddling is not among them!): We kill them, ruthlessly and relentlessly. And far more efficiently than they kill us.
Seriously, read the Victor Davis Hanson piece — you’ll enjoy it. It’s about freedom and the resulting improvement of a country’s military.
Thank you for the compliment about the blog. I’m relieved that you’re not the sort of person that would do that because, otherwise, I believe you are expressing sincere outrage against the enemies of our country, and of free decent people everywhere, which I share.
I maintain that we can defeat them without becoming them. Indeed, that it is our differences (i.e. freedom — read the Hanson book summary here) that bring us military strength.
Chris, I read a lot of VICTOR DAVIS HANSON … I haven’t read this one, but will do so.
Here is some very entertaining reading for you.
It’s different topic, but very entertaining.
http://tinyurl.com/mzkx6
And before I start cooking supper … a quote from the victor Davis Hanon book on why the west had won.
“A man should live as he pleases. This, they say, is the mark of liberty, since, on the other hand, not to live as a man wishes is the mark of a slave.”
– Aristotle, “Politics”
This makes my point about freedom being my credo. Coincidentally I happen to be Greek and that is part of my attraction to Hanson. He is a Greek scholar.
I might add one of my own thoughts, although it may not be original.
“What do all slaves have in common? they don’t own guns.”
Now, Think gun registery and worry.
Kate, sorry for bogarting this forum today. I have this day off and felt a bit argumentative. I argue for fun as my tolerant friends know too well.
Jeff Cosford writes, “The one issue that will drive the West to war is wholesale murder of children. It is a binding principle in our society that no matter what your political bent is it is intollerable for the west to endure the slaughter of innocents.”
With all due respect, where have you been for the past half–at least–century? Both Duke and penny have spotted the Mack truck one could drive through this utopian conceit. (If it were true, I’d love to agree.)
Jeff, how about the “slaughter of the innocents”, which is abortion, in the West? (Readers who are “pro choice”–that’s your right, at least for now: what I’m about to write is factual. Here. In Canada. [And other places.] I’m not making this up.) Well over 100 000 pre-born children in Canada alone are aborted–killed–each year. In the US, it’s over 1.5 million; I don’t know the substantial numbers in Europe. (I am totally with the Muslims re abortion: generally, they don’t do it. This fact will come back to slap the West in the face.)
Where do you get the idea that, no matter what one’s “political bent”, the slaughter of innocent children, e.g., humans, is intolerable? Please tell me which political party in Canada is against abortion? Would it be the Conservatives? No. Would it be the Liberals and NDP? No: they actively suppot the right to abortion, e.g., the right to kill our pre-born children.
What about the fact that the Muslim terrorists deliberately embed themselves in the civilian population–and use them in all kinds of ways to fight their war? (That’s part of the reason why the Geneva Convention most definitely doesn’t applt to our enemy.) If the “soldiers of Islam” choose to use their women and children as human shields, don’t blame the West if inordinate numbers of them get killed. As a mother and a person who loves children, this saddens me, but please put the blame for the premeditated killing of innocents where it belongs.
Please take off your rose coloured glasses, Jeff. Psst . . . Think of our children here in the West and the horror of their lives if the enemy wins. That, I think, would be intolerable.
We aren’t, when push comes to shove, going to win this war playing the sentimental game of the Geneva Conventions. That’s a luxury of history past.
The Iranians threatened today to unleash 40,000 alleged willing, ready and able suicide bombers upon us if their Islamic bomb – in the name of Allah and whatever other devil that cult can conjure – is destroyed. How many of the theoretical 40,000 would be children? I bet plenty if they want to be real shrewd knowing full well our(and Israelis) repulsion at killing kiddies.
Let’s put it this way, if I knew that 5 Iranian 7 year olds were going to infiltrate the Smithsonian with suicide belts and blow innocent families to bits I’d have no second thoughts in gunning the tykes down if I couldn’t intercept them beforehand. There is no immorality in that action, folks.
And, Chris, the current German youth, like their French conterpart, are a spinelss bunch of pacifistic idiots whose dhimmitude is just around the corner. Too socialized to even take economic risks, instead of repelling the barbarians on their own soil, they’ve fecklessly surrender in the name of anti-Americanism. There is nothing virtuous in that. Tolerance of Islamic intolerance isn’t a virtue. It’s suicide.
And this is different than Canadian youth or, for that matter, European youth in the 1930s, Penny? How?
As I understand it, Hitler youth was not too different than our government schools here in Canada.
These youths taken at age seven were indocrintated into Hitlers Nazi philosophy to replace their leaders, mentors and guarantee that there would be another generation of believers in Hitler’s cause.
Our Canadian students are brain washed to make sure that Trudeau’s ideals are foisted upon us for yet another generation.
I don’t believe Hitler youth were used as suicide bombers. If so, it was rare. I never heard of it myself.
Plus Hitler youth were being given an education along with their training. We all know that there is not education in the Muslim world outside the Mosques. Their women recieve NO education and their elites are sent to western countries to get theirs.
Penny, I just read your post even more thoroughly.
You’re right: There is nothing wrong with gunning down 5, 7-year old’s with suicide belts who are about to take innocent lives (let’s pray that situation never occurs).
But Duke’s emotional point of encouraging the Iranian government to send more of their children to their deaths so that they don’t grow up is immoral.
Your willingness to kill dangerous enemies is fine, but let’s not translate this into an eagerness to kill children.
You can’t rally the Canadian people or any decent nation with that message. It’s immoral and impractical simultaneously.