Friday, November 17, 2006
"Torture" and Surrender – options in "The Cycle of Violence"
Some clownish socialist legal clique in Germany has determined – not the first time – that Donald Rumsfeld is "guilty of crimes against humanity." Then again, so were Winston Churchill and Franklin Roosevelt I suppose (considering they were not being nice to a good guy like Adolph Hitler and the stupid willing drones who supported him).
The idiots who regularly come up with nonsense like this are the people who think that sleep deprivation, long periods of standing, cold temperatures, "humiliation," and scaring one into THINKING they're drowning ("waterboarding") are torture, but think Saddam having people's tongues cut off or eyes gauged out, or terrorist cutting people's heads off are "more preferable" and simply expressions of "frustration at having been oppressed" (no international socialist organizations calling for war crime trials against Bin-Laden or Al Zawahiri, etc -- why is that do you suppose?).
I recently read of a journalist who allowed the "waterboarding" "torture" to be applied to him to demonstrate the technique and response for the network's audience (I think it was the Fox News Network). Regardless of how much discomfort or fear this "torture" produced I think the nature of "torture" will be clearer when journalists allow themselves to be put into shredding machines, to be tossed off of four story buildings, or submit to beheading -- it appears that no journalists seem ready to demonstrate real torture yet.
I think a few people keep forgetting that "Secretary of Defense" – unlike other departments of government -- requires a military orientation. That's why the department of State and the Department of Wildlife Management don't direct armies in battle. I suppose choosing a florist to head the Department of Defense would be a nice flourish for the more squeamish and less historically conscious among us but a Secretary of Defense in a time of war actually directs…the military [!] One can debate the issue of "war crimes" and philosophically argue that all acts of violence against another are "crimes" but, let's get real here. We're in a war with a very brutal enemy who follows no rules of any kind – other than the Koran (which tells them that, in war -- Jihad -- one can do virtually anything to impose "the faith").
If the average leftist would put their glass of wine down long enough to become sober and see that there is an enemy who has breached the gate, they may realize that a certain serious and undiplomatic act of retaliation needs to be applied to those who harbor the Islamo-fascist ideology. If information on future attacks is gleaned as well then, definitely, start applying the pressure. The phrase "cycle of violence" means nothing. World War II was a "cycle of violence" that democratic civilization won. Ironically, if this "cycle of violence" results in our defeat, the wine sipping pampered elitists from leftland will be among the first to go – and it won't mean an air-conditioned room with a Koran and three meals a day.
(From Germany of all places…don't make me laugh).
