[...]
Consider the picture of these children:
Young children bearing arms in a Hizbullah training camp. Hat tip: Epaminondas.
That’s awful (if you don’t agree, you’re on the other side). Those kids, like the ones who swept the mines in Iraq with their own bodies under a “martyrdom” initiative set up by none other than Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (probably one who is so beyond hope that there will be no choice but for him to meet Haman’s fate), are trained to be suicide fighters. They’re emblematic of the Muslims’ cynical exploitation of the non-Muslims’ weakness, namely its aversion to killing humans so young.
What do you think? If you think that, in a confrontation with them, we should just roll over and let them shoot away, then you’re heartless not only toward yourself and your non-Muslim peers, but also toward those children, who will grow up with the view that terrorism pays. If you think that those kids should be confronted just like any other combatants, and G-d hold the adults who perverted them accountable, then you’re contemplating a cruel and brutal necessity. It may come to this, I have no delusions that it can’t. But, I think the best scenario, the first resort if possible, would be the merciful solution of kidnapping those children and raising them as non-Muslims, for example Christians (Judaism doesn’t seek converts). It would be the real best, sparing both them and their targets from death or injury, bringing them upon love of life and freedom of thought, as well as historical payback for Islamic systems, such as the Ottoman Turks’ devshirme, in which non-Muslim children were kidnapped to be brought up as Muslims.
[...]
In full on Our Children Are The Guarantors »
10 comments:
I appreciate why your saying but I’m not in complete agreement. I understand the desire to repudiate the inflammatory rhetoric of those who want to rush to use the ultimate weapon. However, I don’t accept the false alternative that we have to change them or kill them.
Their hatred of us (and all non-Muslims) is not the problem; it is their contempt for us, their view that we are weak, and the lack of any fear for the consequences to their families and tribe.
Step one: The most important step is to stop helping them. We, i.e. the West, have a fifty year record of appeasement. The West (through the UN or directly) is the main financial supporter of the Palestinian terror society during the last 50 years. We’ve help to install Arafat and even today Condi Rice is looking for a loophole (humanitarian aid) to continue to give aid to terrorist supporters in PA areas. Prior to 9/11 Bush gave the Taliban government $43 in aid and the first act after 9/11 was to drop food behind enemy lines (and other locations in Afghanistan.) I could write a book about our appeasement of the enemy. Even if we try to reform their children, as you suggest, it shows we want to “win their hearts and minds” and that’s always viewed as a sign of weakness in a warrior culture. Step one: stop helping them.
Step two: vociferously vilify these savages and explain that the benefits of civilization, including its laws, do not apply to barbarians. It doesn’t mean we have to nuke them; indeed, we’d rather avoid them as much as possible. But when they strike us we will not fight them as if they were civilized people. (George Washington fought the British very differently than the Iroquois that sided with the Brits.) If we act, even in the slightest manner, in a way that shows our contempt, they will clean their house. In an honor/shame society, that which endangers the tribe is condemned with the utmost force.
The longer we wait to end the appeasement and become tough (first in words then, if required, in deeds) the greater the amount of force will be required to undue the decades of appeasement. We will then wind up in a position where we have to respond with a degree of force that is loathsome to even contemplate. Toughness now saves lives – most importantly ours but also theirs.
Finally, our biggest problem is with our fellow citizens (America, Europe, and Israel) who don’t see the threat or worse, see the West as evil. We won’t lose to a savage enemy from without; we can only lose to ourselves. Many of those who use inflammatory rhetoric are just trying to shock our 5th column. It backfires, of course. We must remain reasonable and let them become absurd. Rather than argue the end-game, let’s describe the problem as it is and start taking incremental steps (as you realize) but let's tailor them to the specific enemy as they are.
But, I think the best scenario, the first resort if possible, would be the merciful solution of kidnapping those children and raising them as non-Muslims, for example Christians (Judaism doesn’t seek converts). It would be the real best, sparing both them and their targets from death or injury, bringing them upon love of life and freedom of thought, as well as historical payback for Islamic systems, such as the Ottoman Turks’ devsdevshirme which non-Muslim children were kidnapped to be brought up as Muslims.
Sure, if someone wants to do this, I say more power to them, but it's not a solution. The tented baby makers will just spawn more kids out--unless you sterilize them. I would approve of such sterilization, but then again I support China's one-child policy. I don't see how you are going to get a democratic majority given the political ideals popular at this point in time to approve. Popular approval may have been possible prior to 1973, but the political aftermath of the Roe v Wade has lead to the triumph of the idea that a woman's right to spawn trumps every other consideration. It will take Iran using a A-Bomb or an ecological disaster to get people out of this immoral moral rut.
Also, exactly how many of these kidnapped kids can we actually give homes to? Many people will prefer to raise their own biological kids. No one should be required to raise other people's children. The traditional Islamic alternative to raising their kidnapped kids in families is raise them as Janissaries. What does one do with a legion of Janissaries? I suppose you could use your Janissaries to control muslim populations, but I'd have to say wouldn't nuking those populations be a morally sounder course? A moral hestitancy to kill should not be allowed to create hells on Earth, like any controlled population will be. My fundamental moral belief is that is much better to murder than to create systems of oppression. For instance, if I had been a poor mother in the ancient world with a child I couldn't afford, I would kill it rather than abandon it to slavery.
While I agree with you that "just nuke em" is not the answer, I would like to emphasize that it is not completely out of the question either ?
Why should we lose thousands of soldier's lives, like in Iraq, in order to avoid casualties of people that want to kill us all ?
And you have to admit : Japan changed because of the bomb ... Japan changed for the better.
Being retired US navy, I can tell you that it doesn't matter who is shooting at you, you're taught to gun them down outright. I went through merchant intervention and boarding training. If a crewmember turned a weapon on us, we were instructed to gun him down immediately, no questions asked.
Kids, old ladies, it matters not.
As I see it, the non-Muslim world will end up using whatever force is necessary in response once our hand is forced. History shows that a free people in a democracy is very hard to move towards war. We interpret this period of one of appeasement or apathy. But when the decision is made, the response is vicious. Dresden and Hiroshima and the firebombing of Japanese cities.
Our enemies better learn that lesson and fast. There is a line and they will cross it someday - then all appeasers and apologists better run for cover. Where that line is for the composite opinion of a society, I don’t know. Maybe a WMD attack that kills hundreds of thousands? Most probably. Anything less? Perhaps a final realization that we are losing your freedoms to and culture to dhimmitude? Perhaps. But a line will be crossed some day. And we will have to wait for that for the majority of the population to demand a violent response.
Right now, the vast majority of non-Muslims have little or no idea the kind of war we're fighting being placated by the PC crowd and multiculturalism.
WC, I agree that there is a line, and that it would be good for our enemies to understand that. But, I hold no hope of them understanding or even caring if they did understand.
And, that is why I hope they cross our line soon. In my mind, it would be better that we get on with the show as soon as possible, because the longer we wait, the more millions we wind up dead.
God, I hope they do something to wake us up very soon.
Pastorius - I'm afraid that line will only be crossed when 100 thousand Americans are killed in their homes and the general public says enough! even then, the appeasers will say we brought it upon ourselves. But atthat point, their arguement will be buried with the dead.
Amen, Pastorius! I have had a couple of conversations in which people have suggested that we wait until Iran has nukes before we do anything. It is fair to say that at that point people have the left the realm of political debate and passed into the vale of utter stupidity. I just tell them, "well, if you think like that, I hope your mother suffers from horrible radiation burns from the inevitable consequences of a nuclear Iran."
If only we could assure that only those who chose appeasement would suffer the consequences.
Hi, I'm back from Yom Kippur.
Someone left a comment on the post on my blog, and I gave it a fitting (in length) answer, so please click the link ("In full..."), my answer there covers most of the points. But to give a condensed version here:
1. I'm saying nuclear warfare and killing those children are possibilities but not inevitabilities. That message is especially for those who think it's Biblical to believe in the inevitability of global destruction during the End Times.
2. Nor can a nuclear strike achieve our goal of removing the threat of terrorism; for that, the only solution is to neutralize the ideology that drives it.
3. Finally, the fact that we non-Muslims contemplate the mere thought of killing those children with a heavy heart, even though we recognize we may have no other option, while the Muslims use those children as cannon fodder and propaganda money, proves, contra Leftist moral equivalence, that we're good and they're evil.
Post a Comment