Commenting on this kind of stuff always gets me in trouble. Yet this is just another piece of a puzzle that makes one wonder if our leaders are really a bunch of surrender monkeys. Here are a few disjointed thoughts for those who made this decision: You know how close you have to put your nose to the sights in question in order to “proselytize” someone with said sight? Do you really care what message you send to people who are trying to kill you? Do you care that they might know you have some connection to a religion that is not Islam? If you do care then why? Is it really diplomacy to bow down to every whim and whimsey of the opposition? Do you really think that when you give up these “easy” talking points that you’ve not indicated weakness? Did it ever occur to you that doing this in the same week that news of the disgusting Ft.Hood report might reflect badly on you? That it might demoralize the troops? That is might allow the enemy to shape the battle space rather than you? Don’t you know this sort of thing is a slippery slope and that by the same logic you used to make this decision and write the Ft.Hood report you should also reduce the number of “Christian” Chaplains in all branches of service if not remove them all together? And that you should forbid soldiers from carrying Bibles? By corollary you should also greatly increase the number of Muslim Chaplains from all sects of Islam in order to provide the correct “balance”? Most of this kind of crap comes from our feckless civilian leaders but our military really should push back harder. After all … The only real message we need to send the enemy comes in a full metal jacket. Yours truly, Damon (Soon to be censored from all .mil and maybe all internets as well … I’m sure.)
Embed this comic on your site:
Board Master