Tuesday, October 05, 2004

From the RoP: To Kill or Not to Kill

While we were all focused on the Presidential debate last week, there was another debate taking place. The Muslim world debated outloud about who could be taken hostage and if beheadings were ok. Details, details, details....always something getting in the way of a good ol' beheading. Oh yea, to add a little more nuance to the discussion, the pesky little detail about whether or not it's ok to murder children. The poor muslims, so many details to deal with & it is all getting in the way of chopping their way through the day. But thank God for France. The French, through their long history of appeasement, perfectly understands the game. Read this article and learn more about this debate and who is supporting not only these murders, but exactly how the game is played. Yes, it is a game of rules and technicalities. And if you plan on voting on November 2nd, you must check the 4th to the last paragraph to find out why it is perfectly OK for muslims to kill you too. Enjoy!!

And if you are excited about how JF'n K proposes to sit down with these folks to be 'realistic'. Check this out. Here is an excerpt:

 The first, and most advertised, part of Mr. Kerry's four-part plan to win the war in Iraq is to hold a summit among Arab and European leaders — which would lead to a true internationalization of our effort. I think it is fair to assume that Mr. Kerry would not exclude the French or the Arab League from that summit.
    And at that summit, according to the French prime minister and foreign minister (as quoted above), formal representation would be granted to the terrorists currently beheading Americans and murdering even Iraqi children by the dozens at a time: What the French prime minister heroically calls "la resistance." Let it be recalled that the French "resistance" (to which the French prime minister makes unambiguous equivalence of our enemies in Iraq ) opposed Nazi occupation of France during World War II.
    So, French policy is to morally equate America's presence in Iraq to Hitler's Nazi occupation of France. This is the foundation of Mr. Kerry's plan to win the war in Iraq. A notional President Kerry would find himself seated at the summit table negotiating peace terms with the literal cutthroats of our fellow citizens. This, Mr. Kerry calls realism, while he characterizes President Bush's determination to defeat the cutthroats of the world as "fantasy."
    But it would be unrealistic to think that such a summit, with the terrorist enemy formally seated as a negotiating partner, would call for the military defeat of the terrorists — certainly not with their friends the French and the Arab League nations vociferously supporting the enemy.
     Whenever one is told to be realistic, it inevitably means one is not going to get what one wants. Mr. Bush wants defeat of the terrorists and their fellow insurgents and a peaceful, pluralistic Iraq.
     In France, in 1940, the men and women who dreamed of liberation and eventually formed "la resistance" were not being realistic. The realist was the austere, aristocrat Marshall Petain, who negotiated a collaborator's peace with Hitler and called it Vichy. Five years later, his followers were shot in the village squares by patriotic Frenchmen. There is a lot of Petain in Mr. Kerry.
    John Kerry may have won the debate, but he would lose the war.

The stakes are much too high my friends. Educate everyone you know. Forward this link to your friends. Be active in this fight, so that if the actual fighting ever comes to your city or neighborhood, you know that you had already been fighting. Many people do not understand the dynamics of what Kerry has proposed. That it means sitting down with beheaders and child-killers to negotiate.

Go forth and spread the TRUTH.