The Children of War

by Jack

There is a new wave of terrorists coming our way and they are unlike any soldiers you’ve ever seen before. These are children caught up in war and they are being programmed to kill by ISIS and Al Qaeda in Syrian, Iraq and to go wherever they may be needed. They may even be coming in the next group of refugees to America; how would we know? We wouldn’t.

Child_SoldiersThe longer Obama drags this fight out and refuses to do anything meaningful to stop ISIS, the more dangerous this new threat becomes.

These Muslim kids are sometimes taken from their families (conscripted) or they volunteer because they have no place else to go. They are typically around the age of 13 or 14 and they haven’t even developed their conscience yet. Equally as bad, they’re eager to please their adult handlers and they don’t appreciate the dangers of the battlefield. In their minds, they’re caught somewhere between a game-like world and the reality of modern war. This makes them extremely vulnerable to manipulation by their handlers and extremely lethal against our soldiers.

“The potent blend of military training with ideology is especially dangerous for impressionable minds, which is exactly why ISIS is targeting the young. There’s no term better suited to it than brainwashing,” Winter said. “These children won’t have any point of reference other than jihadism so the ideology will be a lot more firm in their heads and a lot more difficult to dislodge.” From an article by Cassandra Vinograd, Ghazi Balkiz and Ammar Cheikh Omar

“While the use of child soldiers in Syria is not an abuse unique to ISIS, it is most prominent with the group, according to Charlie Winter, and billed as a necessary education.” Charlie Winter Quilliam Foundation, UK

Some of these Jihadi kids are as young as seven, they could be war orphans or volunteers, but they are all being trained to hate and kill for ISIS. We’ve known about this threat for several years and we’ve also witnessed the brutal results in African nations that were among the first to employ child soldiers. The depravity exhibited in Africa equals that of ISIS in Syria and Iraq and it spreads like cancer.

Why Obama has NOT acted to head off this coming nightmare, I can’t even begin to understand? These kids are showing up in the battlefield right now and soon there will be thousands of them. Time is not on our side – nor theirs. Obama needs to act now, but the odds are he won’t. He’s more focused on the catastrophe of our oceans rising about an inch over the next 100 years.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

13 Responses to The Children of War

  1. J. Soden says:

    Just a matter of time before the “widows and orphans” that Obumble has claimed are not a threat show up on page one.
    The San Berdoo killer wasn’t a widow, but ISIS doesn’t care whom it uses as cannon – or bomb – fodder.

  2. Pie Guevara says:

    Related : Obama Releases Dangerous Jihadists – Then Misleads Country About It
    ***************** Excerpts
    President Barack Obama says his administration will continue releasing terrorists from the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, so long as those released are less dangerous than the jihadists currently fighting against the U.S. and its interests.

    The bizarre argument comes in a new interview with Olivier Knox of Yahoo! News and is one of several comments in their discussion that reinforces the president’s stubborn nonchalance on issues related to jihad. Obama also shrugs off concerns about recidivism of former Guantanamo detainees, suggesting that only a “handful” of former detainees have returned to the fight and claiming that only “low-level” terrorists have been released from the detention facility. Both claims are demonstrably false.

    “I am absolutely persuaded, as are my top intelligence and military advisers, that Guantanamo is used as a recruitment tool for organizations like ISIS,” Obama began. “And if we want to fight ’em, then we can’t give ’em these kinds of excuses.”

    There is no reason that Obama would need to be “persuaded” of something that can be easily demonstrated. Either Guantanamo is a major recruitment tool or it’s not.

    Administration officials have been making this claim for years and it’s not true.

    Guantanamo rarely appears in jihadist propaganda, whether ISIS or al Qaeda, and reviews of recent propaganda materials from ISIS and al Qaeda – online videos and audio recordings, glossy magazines, etc. – found very few mentions of the facility.
    ***************** End Excerpts

    Given the miserable record of recidivism of released detainees under Bush you would think that Obama might get a clue. He was advised not to release committed terrorist Ibrahim al-Qosi. The policy of releasing jihadists so long as those released are less dangerous than the jihadists currently fighting against the U.S. and its interests is completely insane.

    Obama is insane. Obama is a threat to US security.

    • Soaps says:

      *Obama is insane. Obama is a threat to US security.

      No, he’s not insane. Neither is he stupid, naive, inexperienced, or prone to errors. He is an evil genius, and things are going exactly as planned. It will get much worse for us in the remaining months of his reign.

  3. Tina says:

    I have a feeling we’ve only begun to see the outrageous things that will go on until someone with a spine is elected and gets serious about protecting the American people. It’s absurd to watch this President, who has seemed bored and uninterested, suddenly acting like he’s a wannabe war president. It’s just a phony show in an election year. If he wasn’t interested yesterday he’s not sincerely interested today.

  4. Chris says:

    “Why Obama has NOT acted to head off this coming nightmare, I can’t even begin to understand?”

    Well, he has acted, just not to your satisfaction.

    What do you think he should do?

    • Pie Guevara says:

      Well, he could start by taking down his insane policies of preventing the monitoring of potential jihadist social media and stop pulling the funding of investigations of jihadists.

      That might help you snotty and demanding ignoramus.

  5. Steve says:

    Please email me offline. Just wanted to say Merry Christmas to you and Tina and get your postal address when you get time, thanks.

  6. Harold says:

    We have a system checks and balances for our nation’s laws, and the use of executive power to relocate refugees here by decree from the White House would seriously undermine the rule of law.

    Obama has frequently cited his intent regarding his use of “Executive order” provided him in the executive branch when anyone opposes his decrees.

    Always undeterred by the constitution, President Obama appears to be going forward on his plans for Syrian refugees.

    He is defiant and angry at the American people. And when he acts by executive diktat, Obama is not acting as a president who uses compromises to guide America, he will be acting as a monarch. As such, it is lawless, much like the release of 5 of the more dangerous Gitmo detainees for someone like Bergdahl

    To be clear, the dispute over relocation of refugees is not between President Obama and Republicans in Congress; it is a dispute between President Obama and the American people, and the democrats should take note of historic losses in the midterm elections largely over the prospect of the president’s use of executive powers toward immigration, which can be likened to the able bodied Syrians wanting admittance into America, instead of wanting to defend their own country. And now we can add the unknown use of Children into the equation.

    Congress will have the power to prevent what the American people are vary of, unfortunately for the American people it is just going to have to play out it appears as this Presidents hubris seems to override his purpose of office.

    • Tina says:

      Harold I wish it were true that the President had to at least consult with Congress on the refugee situation, however, Judge Napolitano points out a statute passed in 2005 that gives the president a free hand:

      The law is a 2005 statute when the Republicans controlled the Congress and the White House that authorizes the president to admit for humanitarian or political asylum purposes whatever and whenever he wants. There is literally no cap on it. It would be subject only to the resource, the cost of bringing them in. It is actually that law that the Congress is attempting to change and the House at least appears to have enough votes to override a threatened presidential veto on this.

      The terror threat has changed significantly since 2005. So has the approach and intent of the current president. Democrats and republicans alike are concerned about who exactly will be brought into our midst.

      You are right about the American people. This president only has about 32% approval on his approach to “containing” or “eliminating” ISIS. Most of us don’t trust or believe him. His speech to the nation recently bombed. Today they announced a revised terror threat system. Remember how the left made fun of the Bush administration for this type of threat system?

      We are experiencing fatigue. Time for fresh blood and a new approach; a lefty, any lefty, won’t do.

  7. Harold says:

    I was not aware that any President had the absolute power or authority for refugee relocation, and bypassing other Congressional branches, especially when it comes to Americas safety, that was a very disturbing wake up for me. once more readers here at PS learn, at least I did.

    However I will continue to think that even if Obama (or any President) brings anyone into the country with a stroke of a pen, there needs to be (lots of) well thought out parameters in place that protect the American public, and not just let the act be one of grandstanding or the desire to appear to be a humanitarian of sorts.

    Later on in your link on this , I found Tucker Carlsons comments very relevant to my concerns: Carlson said” But this is a real question. And any western European will raise it to you in private. How do you assimilate people who don’t buy into to your liberal values? And it’s a massive problem when they don’t. Again, ask anybody who lives in Sweden or Denmark or France. Why given the lack of obvious advantages to America is the administration pressing forward?

    There are three reasons. One, so people in power can feel virtuous. Number two, because the president clearly has a commitment to change the demographics dramatically of this country. And three, Muslim voters are one of most reliable blocs in the Democratic coalition. It is the election, stupid. That is a part of this. And no one wants to say it out loud, but that is true.”

  8. Tina says:

    Harold you’re right about the motives of not only this president but the party for at least a couple of decades.

    There was a push to add language to block funds for the refugee program in the omnibus bill but it failed to gain enough support and wasn’t included.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.