Can war be avoided, when Iran pushes for it?

This picture by Cox and Forkum was made for the cover of the latest issue of of The Intellectual Activist magazine.

The cover story there is Robert Tracinski's article: Five Minutes to Midnight. Cox and Forkum offer this excerpt:

Observing the events of today—the hesitation and uncertainty, the stubborn clinging to the fantasy that the enemy can be appeased if we just keep talking and find the right diplomatic solution—I now feel that, for the first time, I really understand the leaders of the 1930s. Their illusion that Hitler could be appeased has always seemed, in historical hindsight, to be such a willful evasion of the facts that I have never grasped how it was possible for those men to deceive themselves. But I can now see how they clung to their evasions because they could not imagine anything worse than a return to the mass slaughter of the First World War. They wanted to believe that something, anything could prevent a return to war. What they refused to imagine is that, in trying to avoid the horrors of the previous war, they were allowing Hitler to unleash the much greater horrors of a new war.

Today's leaders and commentators have less excuse. The "horror" they are afraid of repeating is the insurgency we're fighting in Iraq—a war whose cost in lives, dollars, and resolve is among the smallest America has ever had to pay. And it takes no great feat of imagination to project how much more horrible the coming conflict will be if we wait on events long enough for Iran to arm itself with nuclear technology. Among the horrific consequences is the specter of a new Holocaust, courtesy of an Iranian nuclear bomb.

(bold emphasis mine) We have a window of opportinuity here to stop this. If we let that window close, and Iran obtains nukes, what would happen? Neal Boortz today speculates on just such a scenario:

HOW SOON FOR THE IRANIAN NUCLEAR BOMB?

...Let's spend just a few moments thinking of what happens when Iran gets the bomb. There are several scenarios. A nuclear strike on Israel is one, of course. Would the West retaliate? Perhaps. Remember, though ... Ahmadinejad and his Islamic fascist pals don't really care how many of their countrymen are killed in any retaliation. They way they look at it, they're fighting and dying for Allah, and this guarantees their place in paradise. Kill infidels, or die trying to kill infidels. It make no difference. In their twisted vision of their religious duty, it's all the same.

So ... Iran makes a few nuclear weapons. They then use the porous border between the U.S. and Mexico to bring one of those bombs into the U.S. Perhaps in the well-shielded back of a minivan. They park the minivan in a garage of some ordinary house in an obscure neighborhood in some mid-sized American city. Then they conduct a nuclear test in Iran. Surprise! We have the bomb!

As the world is reacting to the Iranian nuclear test, some deranged Mullah steps up to the microphones to inform the world that there is a bomb just like the one they tested somewhere in the United States. There's another in some Western European country. The world is then informed that both of these bombs will be detonated unless certain Islamic demands are met.

What demands? Well, let's start with the removal of all U.S. and Western troops out of the Middle East. Then all Jews are told to leave Israel or face annihilation. The U.S. is told that if we dare to defend Israel, the bomb will be detonated. In short order the Islamic fascists have complete control over the entire Middle East. All moderate Arab governments will fall. The Persians of Iran will rule. All oil supplies to the Western world will be held hostage to Iranian demands.

Now ... is there anything in this scenario thus far that you think is absurd? Can you not see things playing out pretty much this way? Sure, there are as many possibilities are there are people capable of dreaming them up. Any way you look at it, Iran with a nuclear bomb isn't a warm and fuzzy thought.

So .. what do we do?

There are three main alternatives.

1. Diplomacy
2. Sanctions against Iran
3. Military action...

(bold emphasis mine) Boortz goes on to examine each of these three alternatives in detail. He starts with an excellent analysis of Diplomacy, and how the left has undermined our efforts in this area to the point where it is now practically worthless. Sanctions would also be undermined by the left and the media, and as for a military solution... it's a new game, with new rules, and it's pretty ugly. And the left once again, plays it's part. There's much more, I recommend reading the whole thing. There is also an opinion poll with the article, where you can vote on the alternative you think would be best.
     

Islamic cult thinking:a pathological mental illness?

The following is an excerpt from the on-line introduction to the Comic Book Mohammed's "Believe It or Else":

Why Mock Islam?

by Ali Sina

Because it is therapeutic! Mocking is a very powerful way to convince those who are unwilling to think to do it. Shame is a great motivator.

Muhammad suffered from malignant narcissistic personality disorder. His followers, to the degree that they emulate him, think like him and try to behave like him, have entered into his narcissistic bubble universe and have become narcissists by extension. This happens to all cultists. In all cults, the insanity of the guru reflects on the followers who surrender their intelligence to him and follow him unquestioningly and brainlessly.

The narcissists feel grandiose and self-important. They want to be acknowledged without commensurate merit. They want recognition and preferential treatment. They expect respect without feeling any obligation to reciprocate. They get their sense of self- importance by putting you down, criticizing you, decrying your world and disparaging your values, but you are not allowed to slight them. It is okay for them to violate your rights, abuse you and even kill you, but you are not supposed to mistreat them in the slightest way. In fact, they demand privileges that are not available to others. What they want is your submission. That is what Islam is all about – submission...

(bold emphasis mine) This introduction makes some excellent points, you can read the whole thing HERE, including the comic book itself on-line.

There is also an on-line An Interview with Ali Sina on Muslims in Europe. An excerpt:

Jarek
Q01: You have often stated that Islam is a dangerous cult which promotes violence. Yet many Islamic scholars and officials say that this is only a misunderstanding, a bad picture of Islam made by few misguided terrorists. They say that Islam is a religion of peace and tolerance. In fact, the word “islam” actually means “peace” in Arabic. How can you explain this difference between their opinion and yours?

Sina:
Words can mean different things to different people. It is important to understand what people mean when they use a certain word. Let’s make an example. Take the word gay. Fifty years ago, gay meant exclusively cheerfulness, lighthearted excitement, merry or bright colors. Today this word has a different meaning. You won’t call a cheerful person gay because it could be understood as something else.


Just as the same word can mean different things in different times, it can also mean different things in different cultures. Islam does not mean peace. It means submission. The word “peace” for Muslims has a different meaning. Peace, according to Muslims, will be achieved when everyone submits to Islam.

Muslims can't offer peace. They can offer truce. In their minds, peace will be achieved only when you are subdued and they are the masters. Any other arrangement is not Islamic.

Recently the newly elected leaders of Hamas, who have been surprisingly honest, have spelled the concept of Islamic peace eloquently. They said that they won't give up on their quest to destroy Israel but meanwhile, as long as they are weak and realizing that such dream is not yet possible, they are willing to work out a truce, to be broken when they feel strong enough to wipe out Israel from the map and establish the "peace" as it is acceptable by Islam.

Muhammad divided the world in two sectors. One he called Dar us Salam (House of Peace) and the other, Dar al Harb (House of War). All countries, where Islam is not the ruling authority, are Dar al Harb. It is the duty of the Muslims to wage Jihad in Dar al Harb, overthrow the governments and force people into submission. This is the only kind of peace that Islam recognizes...

(bold emphasis mine) This is nothing new, it's always been like this. The only thing that has changed is that in the West, the political left is using multiculturalism and political correctness to weaken us, and support Jihadists against us.

Melanie Phillips, in her article "The country that hates itself", explains it thus:

...At the heart of multiculturalism lies a radical egalitarianism by which everyone’s culture and lifestyle has equal validity and moral stature. The consequence is that people are increasingly unable to make moral distinctions based on behaviour. Instead, minorities of all kinds — ethnic, religious, sexual — are not held responsible for their misdeeds because they are perceived as a victim class. So the majority are held responsible instead.

The greatest exponents of this morally upside-down grievance culture are those Muslims for whose pathological inferiority complex it seems to be tailor-made. They represent their own aggression against the west as defence, because of their belief that the weakness of Islam relative to the west must be the result of a western conspiracy to destroy the religion. Since they therefore think that their culture is under attack, they believe it is legitimate to restore the former global power of the Islamic empire by aggressive attacks which they reconceptualize as defence.

Everything that follows is viewed through this prism. The Islamists’ exaggerated notions of shame and honour mean that every slight turns into a major grievance, disadvantage morphs into paranoia and Islam itself is perceived to be under siege everywhere. The more the free world defends itself, the more the Islamists claim they are under attack. So the more atrocities there are against the west, the more the Islamists claim they are victims of Islamophobia. Truly, this is a dialogue of the demented.

It is impossible to overstate the importance to the global struggle against Islamist extremism of properly understanding and publicly challenging this moral, intellectual and philosophical inversion, which translates aggressor into victim and vice versa.

Only by doing so will the free world realize that it is not enough to thwart actual terrorist plots, crucial as that is. What must also be addressed is the fanatical hatred in people’s heads that drives them to such inhuman acts, and which is itself fuelled by paranoid fantasies and lies about a conspiracy to destroy Islam by the west and its supposed puppet-masters, the Jews. It is impossible also to exaggerate the fuel that has been poured onto the fires of Islamist terror by the dupes and malcontents of the western intelligentsia who themselves echo precisely these prejudices...

(bold emphasis mine) Phillips gets it. It's the MENTALITY that is not being dealt with, and things will only get worse until we start being honest about what we are dealing with, and how this mental pathology spreads, grows and thrives.

It was hard to choose an excerpt, the article is very concise and it's worth reading the whole thing.

I have been saying for quite some time that there is a mental pathology at work in the Islamic world, a cult mindset that is unreasonable and irrational. We have yet another case of a lone Muslim attacking Jews and other infidels, this time in San Francisco. We are told, once again, that it is not terrorism or a hate crime; he's just "mentally ill":

"Killer suffered from mental illness" - yep, it's called Islam
Here is a post about yet ANOTHER attack on an American Jewish Community Center. Yet we are told it is not political or a hate crime. It's just another Muslim, who just returned from Pakistan, who just attacked jews, who isn't a terrorist, he's just, uh, "mentally ill".

Yes. It's a pathological mental illness that is being deliberatly progagated and spread. It's called Islamism.


Related links:

Where is the Outraged Muslim Mob?

A blood stained and partially burnt Koran lies on the floor of the Shi'ite Buratha mosque after a suicide bombing attack

Here is a burned and bloody Koran. And yet, no hysterical, murderous Muslim riots over the "offense" and "insult" to Islam. Funny enough, this outrage did not come from Gitmo and Abu Ghraib. And no, it's not the latest result of a supposed Marine-Gone-Wild, or Islamophobic Americans destroying the "holy book" of Islam. In fact, with all we have faced since September 11, through the liberation of Afghanistan and Iraq, there has never been one single case of American soldiers destroying a Koran.

Instead, this Koran was defiled by Muslims during an act of Muslim cold-blooded murder...

Islam's long history of forced conversions

...Given this enduring (and ignoble) historical legacy, it remains to be seen whether contemporary Muslim religious authorities—particularly those within Palestinian society, and affiliated with Hamas or Fatah—will condemn publicly the forced conversions of the kidnapped Fox reporters. Moreover, will they be joined by a chorus of authoritative voices representing the entire Muslim clerical hierarchy—Sunni and Shi’ite alike—from Mecca and Cairo, Qom and Najaf, to the Muslim advocacy groups in the West (such as CAIR in the United States, and the Muslim Council of Britain in England)—unanimous in their condemnation of this hideous practice, and formalized by a fatwa stating as much? ...

This time the crocodile won't wait

...In her book, Phillips portrays an emasculated Britain ashamed of its own national identity and anxious to appease the "clerical fascism" of the jihadis.

Britain, Phillips warns, is reaping what it has sown. A large minority of British Muslims are disaffected at best and seditious at worst. Phillips cites a 2004 Home Office survey finding that 26% of British Muslims felt no loyalty to Britain, 13% supported terrorism, and about 1% (up to 20,000 individuals) were "actively engaged" in terrorism or support for terrorism. Another poll found that 32% of British Muslims agreed that "Western society is decadent and immoral and that Muslims should seek to bring it to an end".

Phillips believes that in the event of a violent collision between the West and Iran, for example, civil conflict might arise in Britain on a scale resembling that in Northern Ireland in the 1970s. I believe I will be much worse and more along the lines of the Spanish Civil War of the mid to late 1930s....

More and more it seems like we are re-living the 1930's again. Most people naturally don't WANT war, so they resist the idea, grasping at any apparent alternative. To a point that is understandable. But there is also the point where he who hesitates, dies.

Like Hitler, this enemy is on the verge of obtaining nuclear weapons. Like Japan, the enemy is gripped by a suicide death cult. But unlike Hitler's Germany, Iran is even closer to obtaining the bomb, and it has oil fields to finace it's ambitions. Unlike Japan, the Jihadist death cult is WORLD WIDE, and growing outside the boundries of any one country.

Are we at war with Islam? It would be more correct to say that there is a segment of Jihadist Islam that is at war with us; a segment that is growing as we increasingly fail to recognize it for what it is and deal with it effectively. Our lack of reponse only encourages it.

I am by no means saying that every Muslim is pathologically mentally ill; I have met moderate, educated Muslims who want to participate in the world community as equals. The reason we don't hear more from moderate Muslims is because in much of the Middle East, they would be killed for expressing their views. Those moderates who have immigrated to the West and then speak out, also face death threats. The attack of 9-11 was a message to them too, saying "If we can do this to the infidel in NYC, we can do this to YOU also, where ever you are. Don't even THINK about speaking out or trying to reform Islam".

Muslim moderates understand the pathological death cult; it's about time we understand it too, and help give the moderates a voice. It's time to be strong again, to drop the politically correct multi-culturalism the left has been trying to smother us with, and say we won't tolerate Jihadism any longer, and back it up with actions.
     

The disproportionate response of the West...

Hat tip to Cox and Forkum for the cartoon.

Why is the West so ineffective in coping with Islamic Jihadists? In a must-read article in the Opinion Journal today, Shelby Steele maintains that we in the West completely misunderstand the Jihadists nature and misinterpret their motivations, and are therefore incapable of responding effectively.

Life and Death:
Western guilt blinds us to the nature of Islamic extremism.

...Israel can do nothing to appease the Muslim animus against her. And now much of the West is in a similar position, living in a state of ever-heightening security against the constant threat of violence from Islamic extremists...

...the anti-Semite comes to a chilling place: He easily joins himself to evil in order to serve God. Fighting and even killing Jews brings the world closer to God's intended human hierarchy. For Nazis, the "final solution" was an act of self-realization and a fulfillment of God's will. At the center of today's militant Islamic identity there is a passion to annihilate rather than contain Israel. And today this identity applies the anti-Semitic model of hatred to a vastly larger group--the infidel. If the infidel is not yet the object of that pristine hatred reserved for Jews, he is not far behind. Bombings in London, Madrid and Mumbai; riots in Paris; murders in Amsterdam; and of course 9/11--all these follow the formula of anti-Semitism: murder of a hated enemy as self-realization and service to God.

Hatred and murder are self-realization because they impart grandeur to Islamic extremists--the sense of being God's chosen warrior in God's great cause. Hatred delivers the extremist to a greatness that compensates for his ineffectuality in the world. Jews and infidels are irrelevant except that they offer occasion to hate and, thus, to experience grandiosity. This is why Hezbollah--Party of God--can take no territory and still claim to have won. The grandiosity is in the hating and fighting, not the victory.

And death--both homicide and suicide--is the extremist's great obsession because its finality makes the grandiosity "real." If I am not afraid to kill and die, then I am larger than life. Certainly I am larger than the puny Westerners who are reduced to decadence by their love of life. So my hatred and my disregard of death, my knowledge that life is trivial, deliver me to a human grandeur beyond the reach of the West. After the Madrid bombings a spokesman for al Qaeda left a message: "You love life, and we love death." The horror is that greatness is tied to death rather than to achievement in life.

The West is stymied by this extremism because it is used to enemies that want to live...

The Western Political Left sides with the Jihadists, and muddies the waters further by interpreting the Jihadists actions as stemming from the same causes and grievences the Western Left embraces:

...Islamic extremists don't hate the West because they are oppressed by it. They hate it precisely because the end of oppression and colonialism--not their continuance--forced the Muslim world to compete with the West. Less oppression, not more, opened this world to the sense of defeat that turned into extremism.

But the international left is in its own contest with American exceptionalism. It keeps charging Israel and America with oppression hoping to mute American power. And this works in today's world because the oppression script is so familiar and because American power cringes when labeled with sins of the white Western past. Yet whenever the left does this, it makes room for extremism by lending legitimacy to its claim of oppression. And Israel can never use its military fire power without being labeled an oppressor--which brings legitimacy to the enemies she fights. Israel roars; much of Europe supports Hezbollah.

Over and over, white guilt turns the disparity in development between Israel and her neighbors into a case of Western bigotry. This despite the fact that Islamic extremism is the most explicit and dangerous expression of human bigotry since the Nazi era...

(bold emphasis mine) Steele hits the nail on the head with this one, it was hard to choose excerpts; it's not a very long article, and the whole thing is worth reading.

Hat tip to Tammy Bruce for the link, via her post:

Western Guilt and Our Islamic Enemy.
     

What could be more upsetting? Seriously?

Hat tip to Cox and Forkum for the cartoon. You can read their related commentary and links HERE.

The American Civil Liberties Union and a leading Islamic group on Wednesday accused security officials at New York's JFK airport of racially profiling Muslims.

"The price to pay for racial profiling is too high," Dennis Parker of the American Civil Liberties Union told a news conference. "All people should be treated in the same way regardless of their race, their ethnicity or their religion." ...

Well yes, I really CAN think of something more degrading and humiliating for an American citizen to go through...










2,996: A Tribute to the Victims of 9/11
Bloggers honor the innocent victims of that awful day...

The 2,996 Project

The idea is simple, but powerful: have a special tribute for each victim of 9/11, with each tribute being created by a different blogger. We started 2,996 Project to coordinate the creation of the tributes, and that's what this site is all about. Here you can sign up to make a tribute yourself, on your blog (we'll randomly assign a victim to you). You can also browse or search through either the victims that have already been assigned, or those that have not -- and you can get pointers to more information on all of them...

I will be paying tribute to Lorraine D. Antiqua, age 32.

Last I checked, there were 258 names still waiting for to be assigned. If you feel at all motivated, please look into it.

UPDATE 11:45 pm

Related Link:

Racial Profiling? Breaking a Taboo
An excerpt (a quote within the article, of Jonah Golberg of the Chicago Tribune):

[R]oughly 99 percent of jihadi terrorists are of either Middle Eastern or South Asian descent and 100 percent of them are Muslim. Critics of racial profiling say that it wouldn’t have stopped Richard Reid (the shoe bomber) or Timothy McVeigh (the Oklahoma City bomber). This is a red herring. Nobody ever proposed that race should be the only factor [in scrutinizing airline passingers], or even the most important factor. But why can’t it be one of those 30-plus factors? [...]

The terrorists we’re looking for are overwhelmingly young male Muslims from places such as Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. Why is it morally superior to inconvenience old Mormon women of Swedish descent – for no reason at all – as much as young men from Pakistan?

Two alleged members of the British liquid explosives plot were young men of British descent who converted to Islam, and one was a woman with a child. Only a fool would advocate a system that, as a rule, deliberately excludes such people from scrutiny. But isn’t it equally foolish to spend vast sums on machines designed to interpret the facial twitches and sweat glands of millions of passengers out of an irrational phobia of racial profiling?

(bold emphasis mine) A good argument can be made that racial profiling by itself is almost as inefficient and wasteful as random searches. The Israelies and other countries overseas do something called Behavior Profiling, which would make more sense. Efforts are being made to expand it's use here, but it's being fought by the ACLU.

Good Turkish advice:"Watch the way people dress"

This looks hilarious to me. Why bother taking a photo? It looks like five garment-bags in a row, with slits at the top for the eyes to peer out. Is some kid gonna look at the photo in the family photo album years from now, and ask "Which one is Mommy?" And will someone say to the kid, "She's the second garment-bag from the left".

I don't remember where on the internet I found this photo, but the title of the file is: "miss_radical-islam". Now, isn't that being "judgemental"? Is a woman an islamic radical, a fanatic, if she dresses like that? Is her family likely to be sympathetic to terrorists?

According to one Turkish woman, the answer is probably "Yes":

The Enemy in Our Midst

In this article by Paul Belien at the Brussels Journal, he talks about a conversation he had with a Turkish friend of his:

...Following the foiled plot European governments seem to be as worried about rising islamophobia as about terrorist attacks. If islamophobia is on the rise, however, one should decide who is primarily to blame. As long as our governments refuse to do this, and blame their own people first, the chances of saving Europe from islamo-fascism are bleak.

In Turkey last May it struck me that the Turks have far more realistic views on the danger of islamism than the European political and media establishment. At least they do not equate criticism of islamism with criticism of religious Muslims. A Turkish friend told me that I would always be welcome in her country if the Belgian authorities should prosecute me for alleged “racism” or “islamophobia.” She was a Muslim herself but said that she did not understand why the West European countries tolerate islamist extremism to a degree that is not tolerated in her country. She explained that it was easy to recognize who the fanatics are. “Just watch the way people dress,” she said.

“I have seen you wear a headscarf myself,” I said.

“I am not talking about headscarves, which are the traditional women’s wear of the Turkish countryside, but about hijabs and burqas,” she said.

“Are you saying that all the women wearing those are terrorists?” I asked.

“No, but you can be fairly sure that families where the women dress like that sympathize with the terrorists.”

We see growing numbers of these women in our European cities. If my Turkish friend is right it is relatively easy for the police to establish where to find potential terrorists. I am opposed to thought crimes, but I wonder why European governments that introduce such crimes for so-called “racists” and “islamophobes” do not make it a thought crime to sympathize with terrorists. If one can be arrested for carrying a swastika flag, why is one allowed to demonstrate in front of Westminster with the Hezbollah flag (which depicts a machine gun)?...

(bold emphasis mine) The whole article is not long, and worth reading, it has several embedded links. One link is to another article by Belien, about his visit to Turkey:

For Whom the Bell Tolls

...On a tour of the town the daughter of our Turkish host showed me a banner by the gate of a local school, which bore a quote of Atatürk: “Nations who do not know their national identity will become the prey of other nations.” West Europeans would do well to bear this in mind. A young Turkish woman said that she is opposed to Turkey joining the EU because she fears that the Eurocrats will force her country to be “tolerant” towards Islamist fanatics, allowing them “rights” which in contemporary Turkey they do not have. Possibly an EU including Turkey would adopt more realistic, sensible and “tougher” policies with respect to Muslim extremism. Perhaps the current witch hunt in Western Europe, where everyone who worries about Islamism is branded as an “Islamophobe” and a “racist,” would stop if Turkish voices were heard.

During the past two weeks I also heard Turks expressing more sensible views on the relationship between church and state than I am used to hearing in Western Europe. Prof. Attila Yayla, one of Turkey’s most outspoken liberatarians, said there is nothing wrong with religious conservatism. The latter is not an enemy of the free society. On the contrary, “religious conservatives are our allies in the fight against state totalitarians,” says Yayla. I agree, as would most Americans (but not, unfortunately, most Europeans). Where morality is no longer upheld by religion, the state steps in to fill the void and the state becomes God, obliterating all morality. Today the welfare state, both at the national and at the European level (the “EUSSR”), is becoming increasingly totalitarian, confirming Vladimir Bukovsky’s warning in this respect. It is no coincidence, I think, that precisely the fanatic proponents of a complete secularisation of European society, such as Belgium’s leading politicians and intellectuals (including priests such as Father Leman) are harassing the so-called “islamophobes” and “racists.” ...

Belien maintains that European secularists are a greater threat to freedom and democracy in Europe than religious conservatives. As a case in point, he offers Dutch Parliament member (and Somalian immigrant) Hirsi Ali as an example. She is an outspoken ex-muslim, but also a secularist and a critic of religious conservatism. Belien disagrees with her views on religion, but admires her courage to speak out. Yet, he shows how the very secularists that Hirsi Ali supports, attack her. At the time this was written, they were actively FORCING her out of Holland, because of her criticism of Islam (this was written in May; she has since left for America Correction: She has made plans to leave Holland in September, and come to the USA. See comments section below for details. Also see Hirsi Ali, facing deportation, decides to leave Holland and come to the US, and Ayaan Hirsi Ali: "I am not an Islam basher").

The article ends with the Hirsi Ali drama, and some shocking statistics about immigration and emmigration in the Netherlands. A facinating read, with many embedded links too.

The Game continues on...

Hat tip to Cox and Forkum for the cartoon. You can read their related commentary and links HERE.

The hope is, that if we (the west) offer incentives to Iran (like a "carrot") we can keep them from developing the capability of making atomic weapons. But as this cartoon illustrates, we pin so much hope on gaining the cooperation of the Iranian theocracy, that it enables Iran to use that hope as the "carrot" to manipulate us.

Europe doesn't have the will to stand up to Iran, and it seems we are following the European model for dealing with Iran...


In an interview with the German Magazine Der Spiegel, Ahmadinejad talked about the "special relationship" Iran has with Europe, and how he believes it is in Europe's best interest to forgo close ties with the U.S., infavor of Iran, because Iran can do so much more for Europe than the U.S. can.

Tammy Bruce recently suggested that the reason Europe helped broker a cease-fire between Israel and Hezbollah was because Israel was winning, and Iran wanted more time to re-group and build up Hezbollah. She also suggests that money went from Iran into certain people's pockets in the European Union, to help this to happen. It's not a stretch, when you consider how certain Europeans were involved in kick-backs in the U.N.'s Oil-for-Food scandal. It would also explain why the Europeans brokered the cease-fire, but will not supply significant troops to support or enforce it. Tammy believes that is because they never intended to support it.


Thomas Sowell writes about the kind of world we will be letting ourselves in for if we allow nukes to fall into the hands of terrorists:

Point of No Return?

... Fanatics filled with hate cannot be either deterred or bought off, whether Hezbollah, Hamas or the government of Iran.

The endlessly futile efforts to bring peace to the Middle East with concessions fundamentally misconceive what forces are at work.

Hate and humiliation are key forces that cannot be bought off by "trading land for peace," by a "Palestinian homeland" or by other such concessions that might have worked in other times and places.

Humiliation and hate go together. Why humiliation? Because a once-proud, dynamic culture in the forefront of world civilizations, and still carrying a message of their own superiority to "infidels" today, is painfully visible to the whole world as a poverty-stricken and backward region, lagging far behind in virtually every field of human endeavor.

There is no way that they can catch up in a hundred years, even if the rest of the world stands still. And they are not going to wait a hundred years to vent their resentments and frustrations at the humiliating position in which they find themselves.

Israel's very existence as a modern, prosperous western nation in their midst is a daily slap across the face. Nothing is easier for demagogues than to blame Israel, the United States, or western civilization in general for their own lagging position.

Hitler was able to rouse similar resentments and fanaticism in Germany under conditions not nearly as dire as those in most Middle East countries today. The proof of similar demagogic success in the Middle East is all around.

What kind of people provide a market for videotaped beheadings of innocent hostages? What kind of people would throw an old man in a wheelchair off a cruise liner into the sea, simply because he was Jewish? What kind of people would fly planes into buildings to vent their hate at the cost of their own lives?

These are the kinds of people we are talking about getting nuclear weapons. And what of ourselves?

Do we understand that the world will never be the same after hate-filled fanatics gain the ability to wipe whole American cities off the face of the earth? Do we still imagine that they can be bought off, as Israel was urged to buy them off with "land for peace" -- a peace that has proved to be wholly illusory?...

(bold emphasis mine) It was hard to choose and excerpt from this, the whole thing is very good, not long but worth reading - as usual, he gets to the point quickly, and talks about the things nobody in the MSM seems to want to talk about.




Here is an article Pat had posted a link to on Monday, I didn't see it in time to include it in my Ahmadinejad Aug 22nd post, and I was too busy yesterday to blog. I wish I had included it, as a good counter-balance viewpoint:

August 22: Tuesday, Not Doomsday

There was one thing that was said in the article, that I think is still relevant now. A high level source in the Israeli government is reported to have said about Iran:

“...They are supposed to give answers to the US about the nuclear program on that date. They will probably say they want nuclear power for legitimate reasons and will buy themselves another six, nine, or twelve months by doing so. Then, eventually, Iran will acquire nuclear weapons and Ahmadinejad will then say 'Look, I already have it. Go on and do what you want to do.'”

(bold emphasis mine) I expect this is what will happen, if things continue as they are. Remember the Islamic Concept of Al-Taqiyah, whereby it is perfectly acceptable to lie to infidels? Iran is ruled by a fanatical Islamic sect, who are very familiar with Al-Taqiyah, and I don't doubt they practice it. They can say anything, agree to anything,to buy time for themselves; once they have the bomb, nothing they agreed to will matter. Then we will be facing the scenario Thomas Sowell outlines so well above.



Related Link:

Totten: "Warmongers Ask for More"

The Arab bar for military victory is set so low that anything short of annihilation is considered a “win” by fools who start doomed-to-fail wars. There is no such thing as a partial defeat, a standstill, or even a Pyrrhic victory.

So Hezbollah, Syria, and Iran are gearing up to go another “victorious” round...

See the full post by Pat for some more embedded links.
     

France Fails to Impress... Predictably

Hat tip to Cox and Forkum for the cartoon, which they titled "Disproportionate Response II". You can read their related commentary and links HERE.

One of their excerpts, from Jules Crittenden at the Boston Herald:

In recent weeks, France stepped forward to act as a broker of peace in Lebanon. “Act” is the key verb in that last sentence, as it now would seem that the only other verifiable part of the sentence is “in recent weeks.”

To correctly parse that sentence, one must understand that when France suggested it wanted to broker peace in Lebanon, it did not necessarily mean “broker” or “peace” or “Lebanon” in the way we might understand those words. The same is true when France further suggested it wanted to “lead” a “strong” “multinational” “force” there.

I don’t speak French, so I have no idea what the actual French words are for those concepts or what possible nuances there may be. I’ve been relying on news reports in English, which now inform me that the French do not intend to send any significant number of troops to what is supposed to be a force of 15,000 in Lebanon, like everyone thought they said they would.

The heady moment of peace brokering having passed, upon sober reflection, the French now say they already have a general and some staff in south Lebanon ordering about UNIFIL, the U.N. monitoring entity there. That’s plenty of leadership, the French suggested: All France needs to contribute now is another 200 combat engineers.

In tactical terms, when it comes to securing a Middle East conflict zone, that can be referred to as “squat.”

(bold emphasis mine) I was going to title this post "France Drops the Ball", but I couldn't, because to drop it, they would have had to caught it in the first place. They haven't even come close.

I am incredulous that our State Department ever thought anything good would come from this. I'm very disappointed in Condi Rice. I sincerely hope she isn't going to become the Republican party's version of Madeline Albright.

Meanwhile, the Iranian nut-case president AhMADinejad, who wasn't even really elected, continues to work at creating global chaos, violence and death, which he believes will open the way to bring about the return of the Mahdi, the Hidden Imam, from the bottom of a well somewhere...


Lt. Col. Gordon Cucullu offers this chilling scenario to explain what the Iranian leader could be up to. Iran has been working closely with North Korea to improve their missle technology. His scenario is based on the missle tests both countries have been conducting, and the current actions of Iran and it's proxies. It's worth reading; even if there is no Aug. 22nd suprise, this scenario could still unfold in the not too distant future.


Related Links:


Jihad and European Multiculturalism

...Western European multicultural programmes, which traditionally structured themselves around a liberal governance of individuals regardless of religion, race, colour and creed, are no longer sustainable for the societies they govern. They are gently becoming the human societies fit for different herds of religious savages, equipped with rights but not responsibilities, provided with authority but no elective legitimacy, administered with intensive social policing without a true realm of private activity, filled with a countless number of illegal and unmeasured migrants far removed from common social mores of both work and leisure. Such societies seemed condemned to tragedies on an apocalyptic scale.

An ongoing trend is the social disaffection brought by the infusion of Muslim immigrants into those European societies. The most disquieting of all those immigration (mis)measures is the pockets of private space given delivered to violent Muslims, or jihadists, unable to withstand opposition to the Islamic doctrine – and frequently so uneducated as to no longer understand the meaning of their doctrine and how the modern world relates to it – hoping for the devastation of the society which originally contracted each of them the right to live freely. In the hands of fundamentalist Islam, Western society and all its fruits have become pearl before the swine...

(bold emphasis mine) This is a meaty article by James McConalogue at the Brussels Journal, which demonstrates so clearly why the tolerance of Multiculturalism must not be extended to those who are intolerant of of other cultures, if one wants to avoid disaterous concequences.

“A car decorated with Hezbollah flags drives on the Lebanese side of the Israel-Lebanon border, near the northern Israeli town of Metula, Thursday Aug. 17, 2006.”

This Failure Of A War

...In warring with a religion, decades of secularism have left us utterly disarmed. We are trained to think of faith as either irrelevant or benign: and when it is undeniably malign, we ascribe its malignancy to “fundamentalism,” which is (in direct negation of the meaning of the word) somehow separable or diversionary from the fundamentals of the faith in question. See Andrew Sullivan for a shining example of this self-contradictory foolishness; or worse, see the President of the United States on Islam. Mark Steyn noted it well: these days, when Muslims slaughter our own, the political leaders of the victims generally rush to a mosque to make friendly overtures. We are assured that “real” faith does not do awful things, nor encourage them, nor give succor to those who do: and in the very hour of grief, as the bodies are lifted, or unearthed, or scraped, from the scene of the latest horror, that is what we must remember. We are not to believe the perpetrators, nor their sympathizers, nor the Palestinians celebrating the news of thousands dead in New York City. The true interpreters of Islam are not Muslims themselves — though they certainly deserve that basic respect — instead, we must listen to John Esposito, Juan Cole, Karen Armstrong, and George W. Bush...

(bold emphasis mine) This article by Joshua Trevino is also from the Brussels Journal. Political Correctness and Multi-culturalism are preventing us from even naming the enemy. How can you defeat an enemy when you can't even refer to them by name or criticize them? I recommend seeing the full article, it's filled with embedded links.


Update 08-22-06:

Europe to Israel: Nevermind

After all the huffing and puffing and instance on a cease-fire, Euro nations have decided everything's a bit too vague for them to commit troops for the international force that's supposed to guard the Lebanon-Israel border.

This after all of them signed off in the first place regarding the conditions and expectations of the cease-fire and the peace-keeping force. But then again it's safe to say that they never intended on contributing to the force. They just noticed Israel was indeed winning and they needed a way to save Hez, which would save Iran, which would keep money rolling into the right EU pockets.

(Bold emphasis mine) What an interesting idea! Seeing how Europe was complicit in the Oil-for-Food kickback scandal, I wouldn't be suprised if this were true, and it would explain why they backed a cease-fire proposal that they were not prepared to actually support in any meaningful way.

I had read somewhere that some believe that while Iran does fund Hezbollah, they do not have total control over it; that Hezbollah acted against Israel too agressively, and provoked too strong a response too soon, before Hezbollah and Iran were ready.

If that is true, then this fake cease-fire would also buy them much needed time. But ready or not, Hezbollah's intentions have been exposed, as well as their militant entrenchment in Lebanon. The only question now is how much longer will they be allowed to draw this game out? As for France: Thanks for nothing (other than helping our enemies once again). France has a history of betraying it's allies for it's own short-term gain. I fear they are at it again.
     

Iran, Ahmadinejad and August 22nd

I can see on my Sitemeter that there have been lots of inquiries about Iran and August 22nd. People are wondering what stunt Iran may try to pull now. It's difficult to know.

Here are four links to articles, with excerpts, that discuss the idea in some depth (bold emphasis done by me):

THE OLD WISE MAN AND THE NUTCASE

...[Bernard] Lewis has fingered something that most other “experts” either refuse to acknowledge or are simply unable to grasp; the determined fanaticism of our enemy.

This weird and dangerous blind spot in many leading academics, diplomats, and even military and intelligence analysts is something I’ve noted before. By insisting that fanatics like Ahmadinejad can be reasoned with, or bargained with, or deterred in any “traditional” way, the experts are able to rationalize almost any policy or proposal except confronting the madness in an effort to totally marginalize it or destroy it...

...The idea that Ahmadinejad can’t be deterred, or bought off, or deflected in any way from his fanatical, religiously inspired goal is such an anathema to most of our “wise men” that perhaps it is a concept that simply escapes them. Like the theory of quantum mechanics escapes almost everyone, maybe there is nothing in these very smart, very able people’s life experience that would allow them to face up to and recognize that, like Hitler, Ahamadinejad is announcing exactly what he intends to do, so pleased he is with his grand designs that he simply must share them with the world...

...Perhaps our experts simply have not been able to apply the necessary lessons of history to the present circumstances with Ahmadinejad. Perhaps, like most diplomats, they are so in love with the idea of “process” that the end result of any negotiations aren’t as important as the negotiations themselves. This is a mindset that seems especially prevalent with our Middle East diplomatic community. For 60 years, the “process” has dominated. But what have been the practical, real world benefits accrued over that time? To the United States? To Israel?...

...when an old wise man like Lewis can look fanaticism in the face and speak the truth, we should listen closely. And we should hope that anyone anywhere who has anything to do with any potential negotiations with that dangerous fanatic is listening also.

I've maintained that there is dangerous cult thinking at work here. You can't reason with it. Ahmadinejad and the Iranian Mullahs -indeed, much of the Islamic world- believes in the return of the Hidden Imam (or Mahdi), and that the only way to precipitate his return is massive violence, bloodshed and global chaos. They believe the Mahdi can't return until these conditions are met, and they are determined to bring them about.



Bernard Lewis, in his article for the WSJ, wrote about the text in an Iranian School book:

...A passage from the Ayatollah Khomeini, quoted in an 11th-grade Iranian schoolbook, is revealing. "I am decisively announcing to the whole world that if the world-devourers [i.e., the infidel powers] wish to stand against our religion, we will stand against their whole world and will not cease until the annihilation of all them. Either we all become free, or we will go to the greater freedom which is martyrdom. Either we shake one another's hands in joy at the victory of Islam in the world, or all of us will turn to eternal life and martyrdom. In both cases, victory and success are ours."

In this context, mutual assured destruction, the deterrent that worked so well during the Cold War, would have no meaning. At the end of time, there will be general destruction anyway. What will matter will be the final destination of the dead--hell for the infidels, and heaven for the believers. For people with this mindset, MAD is not a constraint; it is an inducement...

These psychos believe that even if they all die trying to kill us, they still win. What do you suppose such people would do with nuclear weapons? And even if they don't have nukes yet, what can they do with other weapons they have NOW? Consider this:

The Missiles of 27 Rajab

...Assuming the worst case – a default mental mode for military planners – what ought we to expect to happen the next several weeks? A possible scenario can be constructed based on events of recent weeks and months, although the groundwork for this action has taken years to develop. Let us try to outline what Ahmadinejad and his surrogates in Syria and inside Hezbollah might have on their minds.

To begin we review what we know for certain:

1) Iran has been focused on acquisition of nuclear weapons, working for years with the AQ Khan group and North Korea;

2) Iran has for all intents and purposes declared war on Israel and America (though the U.S. has not understood Iran’s commitment), outlining its war policy as one of utter extermination;

3) Iran has worked unceasingly with North Korean scientists and engineers to improve missile technology, resulting in several models of varying ranges and payloads, and with highly improved mobility over SCUDs;

4) Iran has used surrogate movements and states to support clandestinely attacks on Israel and America (the latter inside Iraq);

5) Iran has positioned large numbers of technologically advanced weapons and the troops from the Iranian Revolutionary Guard to assist inside Lebanon and Syria.

We have confirmed that Iran was a sponsor and participant in North Korea’s early July 2006 missile tests, and have shown rather convincingly that the real testing was the ability to deploy rapidly missile units, each capable of firing several weapons independently. The capstone of the test was that multiple missiles fired on schedule, each simulating many, and that the tests were frighteningly successful. Equally important was that the public misunderstood the real purpose of the tests and vastly underestimated the value derived from them...

...the Iranians have smuggled several of the Zelzal Class into Lebanon for Hezbollah use. These are heftier weapons, also known as Shehab Class missiles, derived from the North Korean Nodong Class, built with Iranian financial backing. These can fly up to 1600 kilometers carrying a payload of almost a ton. Even with conventional loads these are formidable terror weapons. Bachelor notes that these missiles are “on their mobile launchers, under Iranian rocket crews” parked in Syria waiting the order to attack. Once given the green light crews will “push over the border crossings, park about 15 meters inside Lebanon, and launch on Tel Aviv and Jerusalem.”

Reinforcing the threat, Hassan Nasrallah, Hezbollah leader, warned that “deeper” attacks would be forthcoming. The Israelis, Bachelor says, have accounted for more than 36 such missiles inside Lebanon. They’ve already killed some, but how may more wait across the Syrian border? Dozens? Hundreds? Using the tactics just rehearsed in North Korea suppose Syria, backed to the hilt by Iran, having provoked an Israeli or American strike which provides them sufficient excuse, then floods across the border. Many specially trained battalions with scores of Zelzals and smaller payload missiles dispersed among them will lead. It is probably that many of the weapons and units are already pre-positioned.

These Zelzal missiles if properly dispersed and simultaneously launched – if, in other words, the tactical model developed by the Soviets, taught to the Iranians, and just practiced in front of the world in North Korea is followed – we could expect that existing Israeli missile defense systems would be overwhelmed. Radars would pick scores, perhaps hundreds of missiles launched from a very short distance away all converging on Israeli cities. It would be impossible for upgraded Patriot or any other deployed system to get them all. The leakers would certainly penetrate. Are they going to carry conventional explosives, a serious enough threat by itself, or will these be the ones that carry the dirty warheads, the small fission devices, or the VX nerve gas? Is this the “day or rejoicing” that Ahmadinejad threatens?...

I hate talking about all this grim stuff, especially on a Sunday, but it's what I've been reading and with the 22nd comming up on us soon... well, I guess we wait and see. Even if Ahmadinejad is full of hot air and nothing happens on the 22nd, the above war scenario does give some ideas about what could happen in the future.



The following article goes into some detail about the story that inspires Ahmadinejad to use the date of August 22nd:

Iran's Day of Terror?

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has frustrated Western officials by refusing to reply to their offer of various incentives in exchange for Iran’s discarding its nuclear program until August 22. The Western governments had asked Ahmadinejad to reply by June 29; why would Tehran need two extra months?

Farid Ghadry, the president of the Reform Party of Syria, has offered a provocative explanation for this delay. He asserts that the Supreme National Security Council of Iran chose the August 22 date “for a very precise reason. August 21, 2006 (Rajab 27, 1427) is known in the Islamic calendar as the Night of the Sira’a and Miira’aj, the night Prophet Mohammed (saas) ascended to heaven from the Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem on a Bourak (Half animal, half man), while a great light lit-up the night sky, and visited Heaven and Hell also Beit al-Saada and Beit al-Shaqaa (House of Happiness and House of Misery) and then descended back to Mecca.…” ...

It gives a summary of the whole kooky story, fortunately it's not too long. It sounds like a really bad made-for-tv movie, on the Sci-fi channel, late at night. Dubbed in Italian, with bad lip syncing and B-grade actors.

Based on this (to us) absurd story, Ahmadinejad chose the date of August 22nd for his suprise. I read somewhere, that the sky is supposed to "light up" over Jerusalem at moonrise on the 22nd. At Israeli time, that should be 4:34am. Would that be 7:34pm Monday, Oregon time?



This could all turn out to be a bunch of Hooey. But the death cult mentallity of the Muslim players in this can only make you wonder what stunt they might pull next. We may not believe in Hidden Imams, but we have to take seriously the fact that THEY do.
     

Good software review of PCLinuxOS 0.93a

Here is a good link to a review of the two latest versions of the PCLinuxOS. It's acurate and informative, with lots of good screen shots too:

PCLinuxOS 0.93a Junior and MiniMe - Two reviews for the price of one

Here is an excerpt:

...This has been a real pleasure, playing with Junior and MiniMe. I can honestly say that this distro hits the head on 95% of my key issues and doesn't take too much gray matter to overcome its shortcomings. But when you consider that the download for this is 2/3 for Junior (and 1/3 for MiniMe) of the size of any other major distro in similar form, this does wonders. I have no doubt that if you were to give this a whirl, you too would be set back and wonder why this hasn't risen the list at Distrowatch even more than it has. I wish a couple of things were different, and that they might look at XGL in their Live offering, but I understand their niche market probably is outside of that package. I am sure it is in the works, and when Tex anounces it is available I will be right there downloading and enjoying a solid distro with amazing performance and rock solid support.

My hat is off to you Tex and gang. Being a former resident of the great state of Texas (and married to a Texan), I will toss a "Damn Good Job Pardners" your way. This distro will be on my machine now as my primary Linux, which for me is the ultimate testimate to how much I like what I see here...

(bold emphasis mine) The excerpt is from the summation of the review, but the rest of the article is a good introduction to this operating system, with a great illustrated step by step guide to installing it on your hard drive, showing you just what you will see and experience if you want to try it.

I've installed it on my hard drive, and I'm finding PCLOS a delight to use, it's the first linux I've been able to use every day, without missing Windows. If you feel at all inclined, check it out.

Note also, that even if you aren't looking for a Windows replacement, a live CD like this one can often be used to rescue your files from your hard drive, if Windows should crash and you can't get it started again. The Live CD runs entirely off your CD drive and RAM memory, providing you with a complete operating system that allows you to access files on your hard drive and save them, if they are still there and intact. It's a handy thing to have for emergencies.


Related link:

25th Anniversary of the IBM PC; it's been a long and winding road...
     

ACLU and CAIR sway Judge Taylor

Hat tip to Cox and Forkum for the cartoon. You can read their related commentary and links HERE. An excerpt from one of their links, at the WSJ:

As for the First Amendment, Judge Taylor asserts that the plaintiffs--a group that includes the ACLU and assorted academics, lawyers and journalists who believe their conversations may have been tapped but almost surely weren't--had their free-speech rights violated because al Qaeda types are now afraid to speak to them on the phone.

But the wiretapping program is not preventing anyone from speaking on the phone. Quite the opposite--if the terrorists stopped talking on the phone, there would be nothing to wiretap. Perhaps the plaintiffs should have sued the New York Times, as it was that paper's disclosure of the program that created the "chill" on "free speech" that Judge Taylor laments.

(bold emphasis mine) I should think we would WANT al Qaeda types to be afraid to speak on the phone. But if you are a Democrat, I guess not.


Related link:

I have to confess, I am predjudiced against judge Anna Diggs Taylor. I really do have a problem with women who shave off their eyebrows, then paint them on again, but halfway up their forhead instead of where they used to be. This gal looks like she should work in one of those ticket booths of the sleazy porn theaters one sees on Market Street in San Francisco. But no, she's a federal judge. Who appointed her?

If that is too judgemental, then I apologise in advance. ;-)

Picture of the judge is courtesy of Nealz Nuze. Boortz asks some relevent questions, you can read his commentary here:

THE WIRETAP RULING

...Here's something I want you to think about though. Let's consider a scenario. U.S. Intelligence forces are eavesdropping on the cell phone conversations of an Islamic terrorist in Pakistan. It is starting to become clear that this Islamic terrorist is in the final steps of implementing a terror attack on a U.S. target ... let's say a large shopping mall. Our intelligence agents are on pins and needles because it looks like this man is preparing to call the Islamic goons who will carry out the attack and give them the go-ahead. As our intelligence people watch their monitors it suddenly becomes clear that the terrorist is making a phone call to the United States. This could be it! He may be calling his contact to discuss the final details and timing of the attack!

Under Judge Taylor's ruling will our intelligence folks have the authority to listen to the conversation, or will they have to hang up? If they can listen, fine. If they have to get a warrant a few days later from that super-secret court, fine. If they have to hang up .. not fine. ..

Yep... partisian politics (and high eyebrows) aside, that is the crux of it.

UPDATE 8:40am 08-19-06 :
OK, I was joking about her eyebrows, to be fair I've seen worse (they aren't in the middle of her forehead), but I'm still not sure they are in the place where God had originally put them. I suppose they might be. She's also 73 years old, and I think perhaps there are many of her generation that favor high eyebrows. But I still don't understand why some women think it looks more attractive to move them up? At best, it makes them look perpetually suprised. At worst, it looks like a face lift gone wrong.

But on to the real purpose of the update: Yes, she was appointed by Jimmy Carter. No suprise there. It's also worth noting that Dearborn, which is in her district, has the highest concentration of Muslims in the US. The ACLU could have filed this case anywhere, but they chose Detroit. Why?

Publicity. Judge Taylor is a real Bush hater, who asked to judge this case. The 6th Circuit is predominantly conservative, and her decision is likely to be overturned. You can read more about it HERE. They didn't really "sway" judge Taylor; they picked her. I suspect the ACLU and CAIR worked together to orchestrate this as a publicity stunt. They got the headlines they wanted.

Author Tammy Bruce, in her latest book "The New American Revolution", had a great deal to say about the ACLU and their real agenda, much of it quite shocking. But so as to not just curse the darkness, but to light a candle instead, she is also advocating support for three alternative organizations to the ACLU, that work to help ordinary Americans. Here are the links to their websites:

The Alliance Defense Fund ( www.alliancedefensefund.org )
Founded to respond to the urgent need for the legal defense and advocacy of religious freedom, they now lead in countering the malevolent agenda of the ACLU.

The American Center for Law and Justice ( www.aclj.org )
Specialising in Constitutional law, the ACLJ focuses on national security, protecting America's families, and protecting human life.

The Young America's Foundation www.yaf.org
Described as the Voice of Freedom on Campus, YAF is dedicated to making sure the marketplace of ideas remains so, and is committed to ensuring that increasing numbers of young Americans understand and are inspired by the ideas of individual freedom, a strong national defense, free enterprise, and traditional values. The foundation introduces thousands of American youth to these principles. They accomplish their mission by providing essential conferences, seminars, educational materials, internships, and speakers to young people across the country.

If you visit the websites of these organizations, you will see the many ways that they ARE making a difference, and why they are worth supporting.
     

Ahmadinejad's beliefs:the destruction of Israel, world chaos, the return of the Mahdi and global Islamic theocratic rule

Hat tip to Cox and Forkum for the cartoon. You can read their related commentary and links HERE.

Those nice "folks" in the Iranian government are having a Holocaust Cartoon Exhibit. And why not? No need to worry about offending jews, when you have already stated in public repeatedly that you want to wipe them off the face of the earth, as Iran's president has.

An excerpt from the Jerusalem Post:

Yad Vashem on Tuesday deplored the "alarming silence" of most of the world in the face of repeated Iranian genocidal threats against the Israel, warning that the Islamic republic represents a danger to all enlightened nations.

"The alarming silence of the world indicates that the West has not yet understood that what is taking place is an attack on Western values and civilization," said Yad Vashem Chairman Avner Shalev.

"History has demonstrated that silence in the face of evil statements begets evil actions," he added.

Related Links:

Iran's president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has made a lot of statements that have been met by silence. He also talks about his strange religious beliefs, which motivates him, but they aren't talked about much in the MSM. Here are some links to articles about his beliefs:

'Divine mission' driving Iran's new leader

...When an aircraft crashed in Teheran last month, killing 108 people, Mr Ahmadinejad promised an investigation. But he also thanked the dead, saying: "What is important is that they have shown the way to martyrdom which we must follow."

The most remarkable aspect of Mr Ahmadinejad's piety is his devotion to the Hidden Imam, the Messiah-like figure of Shia Islam, and the president's belief that his government must prepare the country for his return.

One of the first acts of Mr Ahmadinejad's government was to donate about £10 million to the Jamkaran mosque, a popular pilgrimage site where the pious come to drop messages to the Hidden Imam into a holy well.

All streams of Islam believe in a divine saviour, known as the Mahdi, who will appear at the End of Days. A common rumour - denied by the government but widely believed - is that Mr Ahmadinejad and his cabinet have signed a "contract" pledging themselves to work for the return of the Mahdi and sent it to Jamkaran.

Iran's dominant "Twelver" sect believes this will be Mohammed ibn Hasan, regarded as the 12th Imam, or righteous descendant of the Prophet Mohammad.

He is said to have gone into "occlusion" in the ninth century, at the age of five. His return will be preceded by cosmic chaos, war and bloodshed. After a cataclysmic confrontation with evil and darkness, the Mahdi will lead the world to an era of universal peace.

This is similar to the Christian vision of the Apocalypse. Indeed, the Hidden Imam is expected to return in the company of Jesus.

Mr Ahmadinejad appears to believe that these events are close at hand and that ordinary mortals can influence the divine timetable.

The prospect of such a man obtaining nuclear weapons is worrying. The unspoken question is this: is Mr Ahmadinejad now tempting a clash with the West because he feels safe in the belief of the imminent return of the Hidden Imam? Worse, might he be trying to provoke chaos in the hope of hastening his reappearance?...

People drop messages to the Mahdi down the holy well, because they believe the Mahdi disappeared in A.D. 941, down the well at age 5, and is waiting to return. This would seem to imply they believe he is somehow still down there... reading their messages?

And that comment about the airplane crash victims dying showing the way to martydom that the Iranian people must follow... I suppose it's not really suprising, when you consider that even the students in Iran's state schools are taught to prepare for death by martyrdom. Can you say "death cult"?


The return of the Mahdi

...Shiite Muslims believe that the Twelfth Imam disappeared down a well near Jamkaran in A.D. 941, and will emerge from this location at his Second Coming. But first, they believe, the world will go through great calamities and upheavals. This "apocalypse" will set the conditions for the Mahdi's return...

...Ahmadinejad has taken up the banner of the Hidden Imam. His hate-filled rhetoric aimed at the Jews and America is stirring fanatical Muslims the world over...

...As days pass, Ahmadinejad becomes more defiant. It is as if he is daring the nations of the world to try to stop him. How far will he go? Will he, indeed, launch a murderous attack against Israel or the United States in a misguided attempt to see his dream of the return of the Hidden Imam come to fruition?...

This article has more details about the Mahdi, Shia hsitory and beliefs, and how they relate to Ahmadinejad.

Iran leader: Islam to 'rule the world'
Urges Muslims to get ready for coming of 'messiah'

Islam must prepare to rule the world, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad told a crowd of theological students in Iran's holy city of Qom, according to a report.

"We must believe in the fact that Islam is not confined to geographical borders, ethnic groups and nations. It's a universal ideology that leads the world to justice," Ahmadinejad said Jan. 5...

...Ahmadinejad is urging Iranians to prepare for the coming of the Mahdi by turning the country into a mighty and advanced Islamic society and by avoiding the corruption and excesses of the West.

"We must prepare ourselves to rule the world and the only way to do that is to put forth views on the basis of the Expectation of the Return," Ahmadinejad said. "If we work on the basis of the Expectation of the Return [of the Mahdi], all the affairs of our nation will be streamlined and the administration of the country will become easier." ...

What the relevant Mid-East despots are saying:

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad:

* Speaking at a Tehran conference on the subject of "The World without Zionism": "The establishment of the Zionist regime was a move by the world oppressor against the Islamic world...The skirmishes in the occupied land are part of a war of destiny. The outcome of hundreds of years of war will be defined in Palestinian land...As the Imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map."
* "The fact is that Israel can ultimately not continue its existence."
* "We ask the West to remove what they created sixty years ago and if they do not listen to our recommendations, then the Palestinian nation and other nations will eventually do this for them. Do the removal of Israel before it is too late and save yourself from the fury of regional nations."
* "The real Holocaust is what is happening in Palestine where the Zionists avail themselves of the fairy tale of Holocaust as blackmail and justification for killing children and women and making innocent people homeless."
* "Israel is a rotten, dried tree that will be annihilated in one storm."

(All bold emphasis mine) I read somewhere that only 20% of Iranians literally believe in the Mahdi. Apparently Ahmadinejad is one of them. So how did such a president get elected?

Ahmadinejad was miraculously elected president, even though opinion poles at one point showed he only had the support of 1% of the electorate. Hmmm, that is quite a "miracle".

Factor in too, that all political parties and candidates in Iran must be approved by the ruling Muslim clerics. This is why Iran is not widely accepted as a legitimate democracy; all the candidates are hand picked by the Mullahs. Ahmadinejad is their puppet.

So here we have an Iranian President, who aspires to posses nuclear weapons, who believes in the destruction of Israel, Global theocratic Islamic rule, and that a 5 year old child who vanished down a well near Jamkaran, Iran, in A.D. 941 is going to return in the End of Days, amid global chaos, to lead the world to victory in a global Jihad, and that his people need to prepare to die as martyrs to this cause, because that is the reason for their existance.

Gee, and to think I was worried that he might be irrational or something. What a relief.

Mike Wallace said about Ahmadinejad after a recent interview with him: "He's obviously smart as hell." Yeah, brilliant. Who could deny it?

Mike Wallace: Ahmadinejad Not Crazy, Deadly Serious

Mel Gibson is a Jew-hater, but the president of Iran is not?!
It is ridiculous to the point of absurdity, the way the MSM keeps going on, and on, and ON, about Mel Gibson's anti-semitism, while completely ignoring the DEADLY anti-semitism of Ahmadinejad. The Iranian president is clearly the Elephant sitting in the room, that nobody in the MSM wants to acknowlege.
     

The Israeli people's reaction to cease-fire

Hat tip to Cox and Forkum for the cartoon. You can read their related commentary and links HERE. A partial excerpt from one of their quotes, from The Jerusalem Post:

...The Knesset must vote no confidence in this government and new elections must be carried out as soon as the law permits. If the Knesset hesitates in taking this required step, then the people of Israel must take to thstreets in mass demonstrations and demand that our representatives send Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, Defense Minister Amir Peretz and their comrades out to pasture. ...

OLMERT'S DECISION Friday to begin the ground offensive was by all accounts motivated not by a newfound understanding that this is a real war, but by the headlines in the newspapers that morning calling for his resignation. Yet, by Friday, the IDF had only 48 hours to achieve the objectives it had waited a month to receive Olmert's permission to accomplish.

Diplomatically, in the space of five weeks the government managed to undermine Israel's alliance with America; to hand Syria, Hizbullah and Iran the greatest diplomatic achievements they have ever experienced; and to flush down the toilet the unprecedented international support that US President Bush handed to Israel on a silver platter at the G-8 summit.

The UN cease-fire that Olmert, Livni and Peretz applaud undercuts Israel's sovereignty; protects Hizbullah; lets Iran and Syria off the hook; lends credibility to our enemies' belief that Israel can be destroyed; emboldens the Palestinians to launch their next round of war; and leaves IDF hostages Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev in captivity.

(bold emphasis mine) Can the Olmert government wiggle their way out of this one? I don't see how. And what about our own government? What are they doing?


Related links:


No retreat, no surrender

The problem, of course, is that Israelis are feeling that their mission was not accomplished. Hezbollah remains operational, and now defiantly so, while Israeli civilians remain a target. What did Israel win, exactly?

"....many Israelis, including those who sat for a month in stifling bomb shelters, reservists who dropped everything and reported to their units and the families who anxiously awaited a telephone from their sons in Lebanon and dreaded the knock of the local IDF liaison are feeling that their sacrifice has been betrayed.

After years of dismissing the UN as an ineffectual and anti-Israel organization, how can Israelis believe that of all the possibilities, it will be the one to make sure that Hizbullah never again threatens our northern towns and villages. "

It's interesting to apply this lesson to the Iraq war: if we leave too early, without finishing the job, and the country is once again turned over to thugs and terrorists, how can we tell the families of dead American soldiers that they fought with good reason, that their sacrifice was not in vain, that the cause was noble, but we just couldn't stomach seeing it through to completion?

If I had to spend a month in a bomb shelter, I'd be pretty angry, too.
Could there be a lesson in this for weak polititians everywhere?




Speaking of weak polititians, why is OUR government backing this cease-fire? Thomas Sowell has the answer:

Will cease-fires never cease?

...Why do these phony cease-fire scenarios keep getting repeated? Because there are too many people, including many in the media, who take the corrupt windbags at the U.N. seriously -- so our political leaders have to act as if they take the U.N. seriously as well.

This is a costly charade. Among its costs are human lives. U.N. cease-fires are the ultimate in feel-good decisions made by people who pay no price for the repercussions.

No one in his right mind believes that either the Lebanese army or the U.N. "peacekeepers" will disarm Hezbollah. The track record of both is virtually a guarantee that Hezbollah will be able to resume war against Israel at whatever time and place it chooses. Most people have no idea how small Israel is -- and therefore how vulnerable every part of it is to its surrounding enemies...

(bold emphasis mine) That explains the actions of our government. The UN is incompetent, and needs a good kick in the teeth. Shame on our government, for going along with such crap.

Condi tries to spin it all in a positive light, but Tammy Bruce exposes the spin for what it is, picking it apart piece by piece:

Condi, Too, Insists Everything is Great

...This sort of patronizing garbage should insult every single one of you. The speeches, actions and statements of both the president and Rice in the past few days also indicate quite strongly that they know they're in trouble with this situation. In other words, they know how bad it is and instead of working to fix it, they're spinning like tops trying to make it sound good...

Tammy quotes the highlights of Rice's speech, with her added commentary about why it doesn't fly. Tammy also offers a rather harsh assesment of Condi's performance as of late: Heartbreaker: The Failure of Condi Rice. One has to ask also, how much of these failures are due to President Bush? Has he lost his cojones? Mabye the Saudis have them in a jar somewhere, and won't give them back:


President Bush Renames the Enemy "Folks"

...For crying out loud, how many more euphemisms do we need to use to simply allude to the enemy, without actually naming them?

Why any non-terrorist Muslim would be upset at our calling the enemy what they are is beyond me. After all, if you're not Islamist Fascists then we're not talking about you, are we?

Ohhh, now I understand. The Saudis are taking it personally.

This is what happens when you take the tyrants and dictators at the UN seriously.
     

Hezbollah to be disarmed: a bad joke?

Hat tip to Cox and Forkum for the cartoon. You can read their related commentary and links HERE. A partial excerpt from their Fox News quote:

...The deal was seen at best as a draw with Hezbollah, and some felt Israel — unable to subdue a guerrillas force — had lost.

Neither the Lebanese army nor U.N. forces can be counted on to challenge Hezbollah and prevent the Iran-supplied guerrillas from rearming, military experts and commentators said.

The deal buys a period of calm, at best, and sets the region up for the next war with Tehran's proxy army, critics said. The truce will be "a time-out until the next confrontation, and maybe not even this," commentator Nahum Barnea wrote in Israel's Yediot Ahronot daily.

(bold emphasis theirs) There are links to several other articles, including one by a Lebanese man who claims that the Lebonese army is basically controlled by Syria, Iran's ally in terror.

Does anyone seriously believe that the Lebanese army can or would disarm Hezbollah? Isn't it more likely they will just pretend to go through the motions, until Hezbollah has re-grouped to attack again? Since Lebanon completely failed to disarm Hezbollah under the last U.N. resolution, why should this one be any different?

France is going to lead the U.N. peacekeeping force. They say they have no intention of disarming Hezbollah by force. I can believe that... they are completely useless.

How long before this all falls apart, after accomplishing nothing but letting Hezbollah re-group to attack and kill again, stronger than ever?

The left in our own country thinks that is just fine, too:


You see, it's all OUR fault, because we support capitalism. Supporting Islamo-fascism is SUCH a better, enlightened alternative.

Totalitarians think alike. Islamo-fascism and the Western left both have in common a shared hatred of individualism and liberty.


Related link:

THE CEASE FIRE

...There is not one ounce of doubt in my mind that Hezbollah will use this cease fire to re-strengthen and re-arm. Any belief that Hezbollah will actually disarm is absurd. The goal will remain the same; to destroy Israel and to continue to build the base in the Middle East for an Islamic government that will rule the world.

Yeah ---I know. The "rule the world" dream might sound ridiculous to us sitting here at our computer screens in the U.S., but these Islamic radicals see it as a destiny. Bit by bit they're making headway. When they do end up getting pounded, as arguably they are in Lebanon, they will agree to a cease fire, but only as a temporary maneuver to permit them to regain their strength and build for the next battles...

(bold emphasis mine) I'm not the only one who sees it. Many people do. So why are we playing this game? I suppose for the same reasons people played this game in the 1930's with Hitler. Most people don't want war. While that is perfectly understandable, it's still true that facing up to facts and the way things really are can also pre-empt a much uglier and deadly war senario. History teaches us this, if only we would learn.