HapSmo19 wrote:Since killing four people in Benghazi, Hillary Clinton has decided that the best thing to do is send hundreds of Marines to beef-up security at embassies and diplomatic missions around the world.
Ernst Rahm, of chicago, called La Pierre's recommendation of putting an armed police officer in every school in the country "outrageous and unsettling" and "out of touch". This guy has armed security personnel around him at all times.
There are snipers on the roof of the white house. Obama is covered by a very large and heavily armed security detail. His children are protected by many, many people...with guns.
Anyway, the question:
Other than crocodile tears, what do you think these hypocrits will come up with to keep your children from being murdered(physically) at school?
The convention to treat civilians and military individuals differently than civilians goes back a couple hundred years at least. (the rise of the Red Cross, then the Geneva conventions, etc, etc). Those who harm children and civilians in war are termed "terrorists".. or were up until recently. Now changing war tactics and abilities are changing that demarcation of where civilian life ends and military life begins.
That said, those who target children, particularly in non-political manners such as we see here are plain criminals and true terrorists. The answer to protecting children is not to put them in armed camps, it is to return to the basic standard that children are not pawns of war or fighting.
Beyond that, you are talking about preventing criminality..and that is a very different animal from protection soldiers and defensive positions in a foreign country that even if supposed to be peaceful will still be targets in any war.
Or, to put it more simply -- Embassies in foreign countries and schools in our own country are not at all the same thing and the requirements of each are very different.
