Posted on 03/20/2006 4:23:36 PM PST by anotherview
Three weeks ago, while discussing Iran's nuclear ambitions, I wrote:
If one Middle Eastern country is not allowed to have nuclear arms, then the same must be true for another, unless we decide to resort to discrimination and profiling. And since we have denounced any form of discrimination against all enemies, foreign and domestic, it's not that difficult to predict where IAEA will pitch its tents next.
In Israel, of course.
A few days later, as if on cue, Jack Straw, the British foreign minister said:
If you want to see a nuclear-free Middle East, you've got to remove that threat from Iran, including the rhetorical threat to wipe Israel off the face of the map... and once you've done that, then we can get on to work at, in respect of Israel.
It's hard to see how Great Britain, or anyone else for that matter, is threatened by the Israeli nukes, but that's beside the point. The point is that Her Majesty's government desires to see the Middle East free of nuclear arms; that, and the well known fact that one simply cannot trust the Jews. Of course, a nuclear-free Middle East will inevitably become Jew-free as well, but that's exactly the goal Her Majesty's government has been pursuing ever since it was entrusted with the League of Nation's Palestinian Mandate. Some of the finest achievements of the British armed forces came immediately after World War II, when they went out of their way to prevent the remnants of European Jewry from returning home. And that was long before England was overrun by Muslims. What can we possibly expect from the UK now?
It's easy to see that the disarmament of Israel will enjoy much more enthusiastic international support than the disarmament of Iran. Nevertheless, the Iranians, I am afraid, have very few reasons to be overly optimistic right now. Condoleezza Rice, for example, has already announced that the United States has absolutely nothing against the people of Iran; it's the Iranian government we don't like.
As every child raised in our Orwellian age can see, her statement promises the Iranian people little hope for a bright future. It sounds like a warning of impending military action, and I sincerely resent that for two reasons.
One is that I would much rather see Congress declare our wars, just as the Constitution demands. I would expect Congress to openly and clearly state the goals of the war. I would hope that the inevitable lengthy, open discussion of those goals would make it obvious to our enemies that we mean business, and since our enemies are evil, but not stupid, chances are that their reaction to such a discussion would make war unnecessary.
The second reason is that if Dr. Rice really meant to warn Iran of a possibility of war, then our war against Iran was lost the moment she declared that the Iranian people were not the enemy. It was lost for the same reason our “war on terror” was lost the moment President Bush declared that Islam was not the enemy. I'm sure Bush knew he was lying, but lies have the ability to acquire a life of their own. Take, for example, the “Palestinian people”.
The politically-correct crowd, of course, will tell you that every nation on the face of the earth is good. The Germans who started two world wars and organized the Holocaust are good. The Jews killed in the Holocaust are very good, because they weren't Zionists and, generally, dead Jews are good Jews. The Iranians, Pakistanis, and Arabs, who hate us more than they love their own children and openly promise to take over the world, are also good. The Arabs, who are openly threatening to take over the world, are good. The “Palestinians” are especially good, even though (or, quite possible, precisely because) they are not a nation but a terrorist organization.
The essence of that universal goodness remains as obscure as the “benevolence” that, according to our Secretary of State, the American people have found at the heart of Islam. Nevertheless, contrary to Dr. Rice's inane assertions, the American people do have quite a few issues with the people of Iran.
The Islamic Revolution in Iran was a revolution, not a coup d'état. It was the people of Iran who deposed the shah and brought the ayatollahs to power. The legend goes that the shah's regime was too cruel and inhumane. It most certainly was, but, considering how the Iranian people today put up with the far superior cruelty of the ayatollahs, that was not why they got rid of the shah. They resented the fact that the shah was not hostile towards the West. They resented the fact that shah's rule was too secular. Today's regime in Iran is enormously more cruel and inhumane than the worst days of shah's reign. The shah, you see, had to look good in the eyes of the Westerners. The ayatollahs couldn't care less.
It was the people of Iran who stormed the American embassy, took our diplomats hostage, and mutilated the bodies of American servicemen who died during an unsuccessful rescue attempt.
It is the people of Iran who endorse the stoning of adulteresses and the hanging of homosexuals. Stoning, by its very nature, requires active participation of the people, because it done by a mob rather than a firing squad. And the hangings… They don't hang them the way they used to do it in civilized countries: the trap door opens, the condemned man falls through, his neck snaps, and he dies instantly. In Iran they bring a construction crane to a city square. The person is slowly hoisted up and slowly suffocated to death. The good people of Iran stand around watching Islamic justice in action.
By the way, in Iran, unlike the United States, homosexuality has not become a political movement. Iranian homosexuals put forth no demands. They simply enjoy each other in a manner different from whatever the mullahs have deemed appropriate. For that, they are publicly executed in a country whose supreme leader Ayatollah Khomeini set up special rules for conducting sexual intercourse between Muslim males and cattle and between adult Muslim males and female infants.
A naïve person might think that Iran is a country of superb morality. Believe it or not, prostitution there is a booming, and perfectly legal, business. The business of prostitution in Iran is conducted by the mullahs. You see, Islam forbids adultery, but it endorses both temporary marriages and polygamy. For an appropriate fee, a mullah will marry you to a qualified professional — for an hour, till morning, or whatever arrangement you can afford. When you are done, he will be on hand to perform the ceremony of divorce. Pimping clerics — only in Islam.
And what about the good people of Iraq? I still remember the time when the most throbbing question regarding Iraq was, “Will they or will they not greet us as liberators?“ I believe we now know the answer. In a recent poll conducted in the United States, most of the respondents expressed concern that a civil war might break out in Iraq. I have two questions.
One: What do you think is going on there right now?
Two: How exactly does a civil war in Iraq (or Iran, Syria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Pakistan, or any other enemy country) hurt the United States?
Every nation has the government it deserves. Every nation is responsible for the actions of its leaders. Based on that rule, we bombed Yugoslavia out of existence, even though it never presented any threat to us. Why don't we bomb our real enemies out of existence? What the hell is wrong with us?
And whether you believe that the “Palestinians” constitute a nation or not, they are no exception from that rule either. I challenge you to give me a single example of something good that has ever come from Arabs occupying the land of Israel. I can make it even easier for you: name something good that has ever come from Muslim Arabs, no matter where they come from. And if this is still too difficult, think of any positive contribution to the humankind made by Muslims in general throughout the entire history of their murderous “religion of peace”. Take your time; the world has been waiting for an answer to the last question for 14 centuries.
I was amused by the common reaction to the recent Hamas victory in the “Palestinian” elections. The public shock in the West manifested itself in two forms.
Idiots, who believe in the inherent goodness of all people, were at a loss for an explanation. Thanks to the political correctness that works both ways, they did not immediately blame the Jews for Hamas' ascension to power. Don't worry, soon enough they will, and their crooked logic is very easy to predict.
Officials, who don't believe in anything except staying in power, were at a loss for ways to continue financing terrorism without violating the laws that forbid financing terrorism. Don't worry, they have already uncovered enough loopholes in their laws.
But, most of all, I was amused by their reaction of surprise. Folks, here's what I wrote on November 16, 2004:
Is Arafat's death good for the Jews? I don't see how. Salaried optimists, the same ones who sold us Oslo as a reversible experiment, today mumble something about a new era. Let's see. Lenin's death, after a few years of shuffling at the Kremlin, brought Stalin to power. Kim Il Sung was succeeded by Kim Jong Il. Hafez Assad passed the throne to Bashar Assad. Arafat did not leave behind an heir apparent, but the only cohesive force capable to fill the power vacuum left by his departure is Hamas. Where do you see a reason to be optimistic?
If an amateur like me had no difficulty foreseeing Hamas' rise to power, why were all the pros caught by it by surprise?
And since financing the “Palestinians” has become the focus of the world's attention in the wake of Hamas victory, I would like to ask all the proponents of the “two state solution” what exactly they mean by “Palestinian” independence. How can a country — assuming for a moment that “Palestine” ever was or ever will be a country — that literally cannot survive for a month without a constant flow of handouts from all over the world, be considered independent in any meaningful sense of the word?
I would like to ask all the supporters of the “Palestinian people” why the land where Jews prosper refuses to sustain the Arabs? If you decide to blame the mythical Israeli occupation, I will remind you of what happened in Gaza after the Jews were expelled from there, leaving behind most of the material foundation of their economic success. At the very first opportunity, the Arabs did what they always do: they destroyed everything they could lay their murderous hands on.
I would like to ask what exactly the world buys for the billions of dollars it annually pumps into the terrorist organization they call “the Palestinian people”. Actually, this is a rhetorical question; we all know that this money is a part of the jiziyah the defeated West is already paying to the victorious Muslim conquerors.
I wonder how many people in Europe, in Israel, and in the United have begun to ponder the prospect of a civil war in their countries.
To the superficial eye of a tourist from another continent, Europe is still there. The museums are still open. The changing of the guard at Buckingham palace is still being performed with the same clockwork precision. The waiters at overpriced eateries along the Champs-Élysées are still as obnoxious as ever. But, with every passing year, the Europe of an overseas vacationer acquires more and more of the unreal quality of an amusement park. Its attractions are still running, but the place is now under new management.
The new management asserts its rights by simple, effective means that have nothing to do with meticulous legal mechanisms perfected throughout the centuries by the original owners. Now and then they would blow up a few trains, or burn a few hundred cars, or kill a person who oversteps the limits of an infraction that a dhimmi can hope to get away with, or murder a Jew simply because murdering Jews is the surest way to Paradise for the followers of this most peaceful religion in the whole Galaxy.
They never clearly state their demands, leaving it to their victims to figure out a way to avoid further punishment in the not too brave, new world, and the Europeans do their best to guess the desires of their new masters.
Can they possibly reclaim the Continent without a civil war? I don't see how. Besides, the Europeans hate war to the extent that makes my question rather moot. But if you need proof that the absence of war is not peace, just look at the Old Continent.
Israel is in a different situation than Europe. The Israelis know there will be no subtle signals for them to follow. When Arabs win, Israel will suffer the fate of Gaza, and its citizens, the fate of the two reservists who lost their way and ended up in Ramallah on October 12, 2000. The government of Israel has all the means necessary to defeat the enemy, but, along with a large percentage of the population, lacks the will to do so. Trying to avoid displeasing the world at all costs, they prefer to surrender their land and sacrifice their lives to a weak, inhumane enemy.
Can Israel possibly be reclaimed by the Jews without a civil war? I don't see how. But where will you find a Jew willing to hurt another Jew with his own hands? Only in specially trained detachments of the IDF and the Israeli police, I guess.
The United States is following the European, rather than the Israeli, model of capitulation in the sense that this country is undergoing transformation rather than facing destruction. Here, like in Europe, the Muslims settlers are boldly taking advantage of the very democratic institutions they are seeking to replace with Shariah. They are buying our finest schools and media outlets. Our homegrown enemies, the liberals, are doing everything in their considerable power to help this takeover.
Their combined efforts bear poisonous fruit in abundance. Before 9/11, who knew that Islam was a religion of not of anything, but specifically of peace? Who had ever heard that there was benevolence at the heart of it? The recently coined term Islamist turned out to be a brilliant invention. It creates an impression that Islamists and observant Muslims are two different categories of people. The truth is, they are one and the same.
Nobody will tell you how much the Muslim population of the United States has grown since 9/11. Nobody will tell you how many mosques have been built since that day. (In 1998, the number of mosques in the US was at least 1267. This does not include the mosques belonging to Farrakhan's Nation of Islam.) But I assure you that the congregation of every mosque in this country is being urged by its leaders to work towards the establishment of Islamic rule over this land.
It's not difficult to prove me wrong. Judging by the mail I have received, there are Muslims among my readers. Let them bring this article to the attention of their imams. I challenge those imams to inform me in unequivocal terms that if there is ever a danger of the Constitution of the United States of America being replaced with Shariah, they will lead their congregations in defense of the Constitution against Shariah.
If I ever receive such a letter, I promise to post it on my website as proof of the wrongness of everything I stand for. I promise to post it along with the name of the patriotic imam and the address of his mosque. I also promise to attend his funeral, because the preference of the US Constitution over Shariah constitutes apostasy in Islam, and apostasy in that most peaceful of all mono- and polytheistic religions is punishable by death.
And while I am anxiously waiting for such a letter to arrive, let me ask you a very important question. How can we hope to ever reclaim this country in the total absence of any leader willing to declare Islam the enemy? Our choice is not between war and peace, because the war, whose name is jihad, is upon us, whether we are willing to admit it or prefer suicidal denial. Our choice is between fighting it and surrendering.
Will we fight?
Proof that my insomnia is good for something -- exhausted ping, excellent article
Warning! This is a high-volume ping list.
---------------------------
Well, I guess so.
And how many times have we been brought back from the brink of nuclear holocaust by Israel?
How can Israeli nukes be considered a threat when they have not used them in 40 years despite having been at war with its survival at stake.
They need a one way trip all the way back to the Azoic..
Ping!
Long article but well worth the read. Unfortunately the author is right. We are at the cusp of a new Crusade and the question is will we, as the original Crusaders were, be ready to fight IN DEFENSE of our religions and beliefs?
I love your tagline!
It might shock you to know that I don't fully agree with the author. Islam is no more monolithic than Judaism or Christianity. There are different sects and different views. Every so often we see some really good articles by moderate Muslims who are clearly on our side. I could post links to a dozen or so if you want. The media doesn't run with them. The old saw: "If it bleeds it leads" applies to our sensationalism driven media, at least in the west. To put it bluntly, I think Ms. Sagamori's article is racist. (Broad definition, as I know Islam is a religion, not a race.)
Having said that there is no doubt that fundamentalist and radical streams of Islam are ascendant right now and they do need to be fought. I think Ms. Sagamori's description of the situation vis a vis the British is sadly correct, her description of Europe being overrun by Muslim immigrants and their many children is correct, and her views on Iran are correct. I'm not at all sure her conclusion is correct.
In the U.S. Muslims, as a group, are not yet a threat. They may never be as Americans, unlike Europeans, don't tend to discriminate against Muslims or keep them poor or unemployed. Within a generation or two I think most Muslim immigrants to the U.S. will be Americans, first and foremost.
Having said that it does make sense during wartime to tighten and enforce immigration laws so that you know who is coming into your country. The Bush administration doesn't seem to want to do that and, IMHO, that's stupid and dangerous. You also need to put political correctness about profiling aside and look very closely at people coming from countries with real hostility to the U.S., and right now that means pretty much the whole Arab world and some other Muslim nations as well.
The Crusades were a defeat for Christianity. I somehow don't think you want to repeat that bit of history.
The Crusades as a whole were a series of "defeats" due to the in-fighting among the Crusaders leaders, the straying of groups into Eastern Europe to persecute the Jewish people there, etc. However, the First Crusade (I believe) was the one that actually captured back some of the territory overrun by the scourge of Islam. They re-captured Antioch and Jerusalem and stemmed the growing tide of Islamic persecutions, rape, and pillaging. They also kept the Ishmaelites from conquering all of mainland Europe. Robert Spencer lays out what he believes the Crusades accomplished in his book on the subject and I tend to agree with him. Granted, the Khans and even another Muslim ruler helped stem this tide by attacking from the East. The unfortunate portion of your argument is that the small minority that are "moderate" Musllims are viewed by the majority as being heretics, blasphemers, etc. They are out there but they are fighting a very steep uphill battle. I agree that we should encourage this, but until a serious look at reforming Islam is taken by more of the clerics then these moderates will remain in the minority.
There are moderate Muslims, a majority of Germans did not vote for Hitler--so what? The widespread whooping it up after 9-11 in the ME spoke to me volumes about what Muslims think of us and what they'd like to do to us igiven the chance. The Quaran and the Hadith are a constitution for the establishment of a despotism. The peace of Islam is the peace of a tyranny--all dissent squelched, all active enemies liquidated. Go to Nigeria and find me these "modrates", go to West Papua, and Aceh in Indonesia, go to the Sudan. And don't tell me these are just abhorrations, wherever Muslims are a significant minority there is jihadist trouble. Even if the majority don't directly support jihadist activity, the vast majority of all Muslims living in non-Muslim nations would like to see the imposition of sharia. The teachings of Islam declare all non-Muslims to be either killed or subjugated. If you believe that, you are a good, practicing Muslim. A moderate is simply a Muslim who has abandoned a significant part of his religion.
My original point about the Crusades was that they were DEFENSIVE in nature.
Many thanks, and I'll throw in an "Allahu Fubar!"
Jihadists will learn nothing until they get a Trumanesque "rain of riuin". It's just that simple. They look at our restraint with utter contempt.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.