What if...
What if a rabbi in Brooklyn in 1942 had announced that he was going to stage a book-burning of MEIN KAMPF on December 7th.
- Would FDR have held fireside chat condemning it?
- Would SecDef Stimson have called him to tell him it would endanger our troops and not to do it?
- Would Sec State Cordell Hull have condemned it at a dinner party with The German-American Bund?
AS IOWAHAWK recently tweeted (paraphrased): this is the only war in history in which one side is afraid of insulting the other.
Burning the koran is every bit as OKAY as the mohamed cartoons were and burning Mein Kampf would've been.
We shouldn't EVER appease the enemy.
It only encourages their worst behavior.
Appeasement always makes us less safe.
Threatening to burn the koran doesn't make us less safe; it increases the moral clarity.
Appeasement makes us less safe.
It would've been right for a rabbi to burn Mein Kampf in 1942.
It would've been wrong to stop him.
Times change, but good and true and universal and eternal values do not.
Fighting evil is always right and true and just.
Appeasing evil is always wrong and always strengthens the enemy.
UPDATE:
The "endangers our troops" meme is sick. Our troops are there so we can be free and safe here.
They volunteer to fight for us; we shouldn't have to relinquish or basic rights and freedoms for their safety. The best way to reduce the threats they face is to let them fight with both hands and use every weapon in our arsenal and fight total war. If we let them win, then they will. Appeasing the enemy doesn't make our troops safer.
(More on total war versus half-assery here.)
1 comment:
oskar;
u r nuts.
and/or brainwashed.
the wikileaks aids and abets the enemy.
the taliban: which kills girls for learning to read and throws acid in the faces of women who refuse to wear the burqa.
do you reallly want them aided!?
the deserve a nuke on their bacha baz heads, not a doc-drop.
Post a Comment