Religious delusions and nuclear weapons

Iran's been on my mind (and therefore on this blog as well) a lot lately, and so it should. It should be on the mind of every person on this planet, even Shiite muslims living in Iran. Because Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iran's current leader, follows the trend to call every muslim who dies - no matter the cause - a martyr. And that makes starting a nuclear war so much easier.

Daniel Pipes goes into some detail about this man. It becomes clear why he's so much more dangerous still than his predecessor, because he's so much more deluded still. Ahmadinejad believes in the return of the Mahdi, in fact hopes to facilitate it and speed it up:

As mayor of Tehran, for example, Mr. Ahmadinejad appears to have in 2004 secretly instructed the city council to build a grand avenue to prepare for the Mahdi. A year later, as president, he allocated $17 million for a blue-tiled mosque closely associated with mahdaviat in Jamkaran, south of the capital. He has instigated the building of a direct Tehran-Jamkaran railroad line. He had a list of his proposed cabinet members dropped into a well adjacent to the Jamkaran mosque, it is said, to benefit from its purported divine connection.

He often raises the topic, and not just to Muslims. When addressing the United Nations in September, Mr. Ahmadinejad flummoxed his audience of world political leaders by concluding his address with a prayer for the Mahdi's appearance: "O mighty Lord, I pray to you to hasten the emergence of your last repository, the Promised One, that perfect and pure human being, the one that will fill this world with justice and peace."

On returning to Iran from New York, Mr. Ahmadinejad recalled the effect of his U.N. speech:

one of our group told me that when I started to say "In the name of God the almighty and merciful," he saw a light around me, and I was placed inside this aura. I felt it myself. I felt the atmosphere suddenly change, and for those 27 or 28 minutes, the leaders of the world did not blink. … And they were rapt. It seemed as if a hand was holding them there and had opened their eyes to receive the message from the Islamic republic.

What Mr. Peterson calls the "presidential obsession" with mahdaviat [Return of the Mahi - Ed] leads Mr. Ahmadinejad to "a certitude that leaves little room for compromise. From redressing the gulf between rich and poor in Iran, to challenging America and Israel and enhancing Iran's power with nuclear programs, every issue is designed to lay the foundation for the Mahdi's return."

His personality alone should scare you. Imagine this madman (apply this term literally here) with control over nuclear weapons.

For him, this is his destiny.

What to do about Iran

This question will keep coming up until either The Mad Mullahs have made good on their threats, or until someone synchronizes their state of society with their state of mind - by carpetbombing Iran back into pre-Islamic times.
Here's Mona Charen, who feels bad that the world fell all over Israel when it bombed Iraq out of its nuclear dream (but secretly let out a sigh of relief).

In 1981, Israeli planes streaked across the desert at low altitude and destroyed the Iraqi nuclear reactor at Osirak, a facility built by the French and partially manned by Italians. The world's response was volcanic. "An unprovoked attack" and a "grave breach of international law" declared the British Foreign Office. The French called it "unacceptable" and pointed out that Iraq had signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Then U.N. Secretary-General Kurt Waldheim (not yet unmasked as a former Nazi) called the Israeli raid a "clear contravention of international law." The Soviet Union denounced the "barbarous attack." And the U.S. State Department spokesman called the air raid ''a very serious development and a source of utmost concern.'' Israel was condemned by the U.N. Security Council with the U.S. voting aye. (Though at a press conference, President Reagan could not resist defending Israel's actions, pointing out, for example, that Iraq had maintained a state of war with Israel since 1948.) The New York Times called the Israeli attack "an act of inexcusable and short-sighted aggression . . . Israel risks becoming its own worst enemy."

I feel I shouldn't need to explain once more why an Iran with nukes would be such a bad idea, but it won't hurt, and Ms Charen does it well:

The prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran was made even more terrifying with the ascent last June of the Holocaust-denying, religious vision-seeing Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as president. Ahmadinejad reportedly believes in the imminent return of the righteous descendant of the Prophet Mohammed, the 12th Imam, whose appearance on Earth will be presaged by war and chaos. A previous Iranian leader mused that only one nuclear bomb would be sufficient to completely obliterate Israel and the largest Jewish population on Earth. A return salvo by Israel could destroy only a fraction of the world's Muslims. Would this madness be within the realm of the conceivable to Ahmadinejad? Even apart from his hysterical rantings about Israel ("a disgraceful blot" that "should be wiped off the face of the Earth"), consider what he said to his own countrymen when a plane crashed into a Tehran building killing 108. "What is important is that they have showed the way to martyrdom which we must follow."

It is one of the problems the civilized West suffers from: We have lost the ability to realize not every human on the planet thinks and acts like we do. In fact, we are a minority.
So is the band of insane religious fanatics that rule Iran, but when nukes are involved, it really only takes one. It's bad enough they own any weapons at all, but they simply cannot be allowed to get their hands on nuclear weapons. Imagine an 8th century barbaric cleric wielding a nuclear missile instead of a sword, and you've got a pretty accurate idea of who rules Iran.

Ms Charen thinks - as I do - that the West should take action as soon as possible (which really means now, as I'm writing this). Where we disagree is that she feels that, painful as it might be, we might need to be as harsh as instituting an oil embargo.

That leaves us with no painless options. If we, together with a coalition of the willing, impose the only sanction that will truly pinch -- an embargo on Iranian oil -- oil prices will rise, probably by a lot. But that cost will have to be weighed against the cost of military action, which would be far higher. In the meantime, as the far-sighted Michael Ledeen has argued for years, we ought to be supporting the democratic opposition within Iraq for all we're worth. The vicious Iranian regime sits atop a population that detests it. Revolution would be redemption -- for all of us.

Their revolution MIGHT indeed be a redemption for us (although there certainly are no guarantees). But first of all, Shiites are in ascendancy at the moment. The regime is NOT going to fall anytime soon. Which brings me to the second, far more pressing point: We have perhaps only months left to act. An oil embargo - while certainly the more humane means to pressure Iran - will take years to sting enough to force Iran do give up its nuclear aspirations. And even if the Mad Mullahs give in, it will result in the same hide-and-seek game which they (like Iraq until 2003) have been playing with the IAEA for years now: stall, lie, hide, cooperate, bluff, withdraw, on and on. It will not stop until they are stopped, and their regime is displaced. If it is replaced by a more civil, peaceloving government, great. If not, the new leaders will at least realize that going nuclear is not an option.

UPDATE: Another reason why sanctions won't even come off the ground (and why they didn't work against Iraq): The UN is the only place they could be decided upon, and as has been demonstrated time and time again, there's ALWAYS someone against. There's always a country with opposed interests on the UN SC, who will stall, water down, or just plain veto.

Cox&Forkum know this.

Israel's floundering

Ilana Mercer writes about Israel's self-destructive behaviour. I did too, but I'm going to let her show you how bad it is in Israel itself:

Henceforth, the Palestinians, aided by their E.U. patrons and the Egyptians, will be trusted to prevent the smuggling of weapons, explosives and terrorists from Egypt into Gaza at the Rafah crossing. (Remember, the Muslim Brotherhood is the unofficial representative of the Egyptian people; and Hamas a rib from the Brotherhood's rib cage). Israel's security has thus been turned over to the Egyptians and the Palestinians (who now, naturally, revere Rice.)

The 'Palestinians' and the Egyptians will be trusted... The Egyptians have been actively supplying the 'Palestinians' with weapons for decades, when they should have been policing the border in accordance with agreements with Israel. There will be less monitoring than ever before, but the Arabs will suddenly stick to the agreement?

It gets worse. In the case of a terrorist threat – a daily reality in that country – Israel is not permitted to shut down the crossing from Gaza into Israel, located on its territory. Instead, it must wait for Washington's authorization. Not even Jack Bauer, hero of "24," and the Houdini of Counterterrorism, could save the day under such constraints.

Washington's authorization. The only words that come to mind when I read this are REALLY unfit to print.

The Palestinians will also be performing customs inspections at Israel's Kerem Shalom terminal. Remember the Middle Eastern airport screeners at Dulles airport who looked the other way as two of the 9-11 hijackers set off the metal detectors? No, I suppose you don't.

To top it all, the stretch separating Gaza and the West Bank – also Israeli territory – is now terra incognita to Israelis, but not to terrorists. They are allowed to move freely between Gaza and the West bank, because Israel is no longer permitted to stop them, search their vehicles, or arrest them.

Israel is giving away sovereignty and territory left and right. It is sacrificing parts of itself to appease a ravenous hyena, to still its hunger for a little while. A period to close its eyes and pretend all is well, life is normal.
The hyena returns, of course. It has learned it will be fed again, instead of being castrated or shot dead, like it should have been a very long time ago.

The question is of course: Who has taught the hyena this lesson?

Israel's course.

Before I describe what is in my view the only course Israel can take if it wants to remain a sovereign Jewish nation, let me tell you a little bit about myself.

I am not an extremist. I do not hate Arabs. I am however the kind of person that does not engage in wishful thinking, and despizes it in others.

So what do I consider wishful thinking?
Wishful thinking to me is considering Iran's quest for nuclear energy as nothing more than the desire for an alternative source of energy. If a person believes that, after everything that has been said by Iran's ruling order with regard to Israel's existence, then that person can be said to engage in WT.

Another example of WT is insisting that all the 'Palestinians' want is a country of their own, and once they have that, all will be well for Israel. If after all the opportunities there have been for the Arabs calling themselves 'Palestinians' (starting in 1947), after all the hatred and incitement that continues to this very day, after all the concessions by Israel that are rewarded by ever more brazen demands and cries for violence, if after all that a person stil believes all these Arabs want is another country, then that person can be said to engage in WT.

There are plenty more examples, but the jist is clear: I believe that Israel wants peaceful coexistence in the Middle-East, and the vast majority of the Arabs do not. I also believe that the Arabs regard this a long-term issue, and that it is purely a matter of endurance. The last man standing. They will not allow Israel to live in peace, and the only reason for the absence of overt war is the certainty of defeat in such a war. Hence the low level covert war that has been going on to varying degrees, on different 'fronts' since 1973.

I also believe that there is not once country on this planet, other than Israel itself, that feels it has anything to gain by a strong, sovereign and independant Israel. All the players in the drama have much more stake in the Middle-East on the side of the Arabs than they do in Israel. In fact, this to me is so self-evident that I challenge anyone to come up with an example of a care where a country - ANY COUNTRY - had a clear, vested interest in Israel being safe, at peace, and prosperous.

Ariel Sharon is gone from politics. Many people like to believe his stroke was divine retribution for his betrayal of the Jews, but that is nonsense. In fact, it is proof of the absence of God, because God would have removed Sharon from office one way or another long BEFORE he was able to do the damage that he did.
Nevertheless, gone he is, and here's a chance for Israeli's to put a man at the helm who can at least keep Judea and Samaria. A man who regards Israel as a sovereign nation and not as a dhimmi state to the US. A man who is not afraid to bomb Hezbollah out of existence, not afraid to televize the hanging of Abbas and every other 'Palestinian' leader who shows anything but true remorse and revulsion for every terrorist attack.

Does such a man exist? And if he does, will Israeli's elect him? The latter question is of course the weightier. Sharon was elected on a tough platform, and he completely reversed himself once in office, and subsequently allied himself with previously diametrically opposed political parties.

Israeli's of course in the end have no one to blame but themselves. By all the signs it seemed to be clear that Sharon was going to win the next elections with his new party, Kadima. This to me is incomprehensible. President Bush Sr. once said "Read my lips. No new taxes!", he raised taxes anyway, and was solidly defeated at the next elections. Send such liars packing!
And what Sharon did was much worse. He didn't screw over his constituents financially, he led them down the path of self-defeat. I don't know what Bush or Rice threatened him with, but he should have just spat in their face. In a figure of speech, or course.

But Israeli's were going to elect him PM. Again. No excuse this time for buying into his treason.

I'm going to say something really astounding here. It's something that's been nagging at me for some time now. At first it seemed unspeakable, but I think it needs to be said.

As Israel faces the brunt of the onslaught of Islam, it suffers more than any other country from a lethal desire for peace, a longing for quiet. And Israeli's are more and more willing to pay any price, to follow any man who promises to get them there.

It took me a lot of effort, but I succeeded in imagining a world without Israel.

It will be a world in transit. Because it will mean that Islam has won a decisive battle. Europe will fall with few hickups after that.

The world in general, and the US and EU in particular will bear a substantial responsibility. But the major part will fall on the shoulders of the Jews themselves. There was nothing stopping them but they themselves. There's nothing stopping them now. From being free. From being unafraid, and safe. From being Jews in their own sovereign land.

There is still time. To choose freedom, and not the ghetto.

About that Mohammed guy...

David Wood made me laugh out loud when he compares Mohammed to John Wayne Gacy:

True, there are plenty of instances in Muhammad's life that one could view as the deeds of a moral individual, and Muslims are quick to point out his acts of charity and his dedication to prayer. However, in assessing the overall character of a man, we must take into account all of his actions, not just the ones that support our feelings about him. For instance, suppose I become convinced that the greatest person in history was a man named John Gacy. I could point to his charity work at local hospitals, to his activities in the Boy Scouts and the Jaycees[2], to his patient endurance of numerous physical ailments, to his community activities such as neighborhood barbecues and other social gatherings, to his generosity to others, to his dedication to his family, and to his outstanding work ethic, which made him one of the pillars of his local business community. Yet, if I am to make a case for the moral superiority of Mr. Gacy, I must not leave out the fact that he raped, tortured, and murdered more than thirty boys and buried them under his house.[3]

Wood makes a good case in showing why Islam had such a bad start (morally speaking) with Mohammed as its prophet. I am no Christian, but certainly, Jezus makes a better role model than Mohammed.
Please read the whole FrontPageMag article.

The new Goebbels

Hany Abu-Assad is an Arab Palestinan who lives and works in Holland. He first drew headlines when he published a "documentary" which turned out to be completely fictional, called "Ford Transit". When caught on his lies, he simply called it artistic freedom, and all of artistic and Leftist Holland nodded yes, and went on with business as usual. A previous "documentary" of his was equally false, with complete fabricated scenes, played by actors, posing as reality.

All of Europe eats it up and demands more. Awards galore. Instead of being branded the lying terrorist supporter that he is, Assad has become a celebrity.

Then comes "Paradise Now". Assad actually calls this a movie. He does not claim it is reality. No, this is even more vile. For a complete review, go here. The article also goes into the psyche of the pro-Arab European, who attempts to dissect the mindset of the suicide terrorist, but has one cause as the only possible outcome: The despair, oppression, lack of freedom, lack of perspective that all 'Palestinians' suffer from under Israeli 'occupation'. Another chilling part of the article goes into the indoctrination that comes with this "analysis", almost forcing students to empathize with Arabs intending to commit mass-murder on Jews.

Hany Abu-Assad is another exponent of exported Arab terrorism. He does not use guns or explosives, but his propaganda may well be even more destructive in the longer run.

If the most inept bureacrat says it, it must be bad indeed

Mohamed El Baradei, the head of the IAEA, has admitted that after three years of studying Iran's nuclear facilities, he is still "not yet in a position to make a judgment on the peaceful nature of the programme".

"If they have the nuclear material and they have a parallel weaponisation programme along the way, they are really not very far - a few months - from a weapon," he told Newsweek magazine in an article published today.

Read the whole article here.

First post of the year...

...And the more things change, the more they stay the same.

One thing I am glad to see never changes is the analytical razorblade that is Caroline Glick of the Jeruzalem Post. Mandatory reading every day, but today she sparked an idea I've been having for a while (I'll get into that later on):

...we arrive at the main fact that we have refused to acknowledge since the Palestinian Authority was established. We already know what a Palestinian state is because we have been living next to it for 11 years.

For Israel, that state has four significant attributes. First, the Palestinian state is a failed state comparable to Somalia and will remain a failed state comparable to Somalia. The Palestinian state will never be ruled by law. It will forever be ruled by gangs that thrive on chaos. It will never fight terror, but rather will always enable terror. It will never build the physical, economic or ideological foundations upon which a healthy economy can grow but rather will continue to divert its funds to financing terrorism and will continue to indoctrinate its people in the culture of jihad. The transformation of the former Israeli communities in Gaza into terror training camps is just one example that illustrates this general principle.

This so cuts to the heart of the problem. For more than a hundred years now, Arab collective efforts have been directed towards a sole purpose: To get rid of the Jews. These efforts only gained in support after the formal creation of the state of Israel. Apart from the few people who just want to get on with life, every 'politician', every religious leader, anyone who ever played any role in the theater, they may have been divided on the how and when, but there has NEVER been a difference in opinion between them on this key issue: Israel has to be destroyed. There is still no Arab that feels differently. You may find some who are resigned to Israel's existence, but if they had a choice, it would be clear. It is sad, but it is crucial to recognize this.

There have been NO Arab Palestinian leaders who strove to live in peace with Israel. There have been none who recognize its right to exist. There have been none who took initiatives to stop the incitement in schools and mosques.

And there are none today.

What is even more sad is, none of Israel's neighbours feel any different on the matter.