The Case for Bombing Iran

Norman Podhoretz has a great article in commentarymagazine.com spelling out his reasoning for the urgent need to confront Iran militarily. His comparisons of Hitler and the world community's attempts to appease the ideologically driven Nazi leader to the present day kowtowing to Islamofascism and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran is chillingly blunt. It is definitely a "must read".

Here also is a brief interview with Norman highlighting his concerns.



The left will, of course, decry and bloviate about the warmongering attitudes of concerned Americans as being based in fear, racial bigotry, lack of understanding, blah, blah, blah, ad nauseum.

Norman goes into great detail about the similarities and differences in WWII, the Cold War (he calls it WWIII), and the current War on Terror (he calls it WWIV). Here is a chilling section of the article in which Norman also quotes Bernard Lewis.

But listen to what Bernard Lewis, the greatest authority of our time on the Islamic world, has to say in this context on the subject of deterrence:

MAD, mutual assured destruction, [was effective] right through the cold war. Both sides had nuclear weapons. Neither side used them, because both sides knew the other would retaliate in kind. This will not work with a religious fanatic [like Ahmadinejad]. For him, mutual assured destruction is not a deterrent, it is an inducement. We know already that [Iran’s leaders] do not give a damn about killing their own people in great numbers. We have seen it again and again. In the final scenario, and this applies all the more strongly if they kill large numbers of their own people, they are doing them a favor. They are giving them a quick free pass to heaven and all its delights.

Nor are they inhibited by a love of country:

We do not worship Iran, we worship Allah. For patriotism is another name for paganism. I say let this land [Iran] burn. I say let this land go up in smoke, provided Islam emerges triumphant in the rest of the world.

These were the words of the Ayatollah Khomeini, who ruled Iran from 1979 to 1989, and there is no reason to suppose that his disciple Ahmadinejad feels any differently.

Still less would deterrence work where Israel was concerned. For as the Ayatollah Rafsanjani (who is supposedly a “pragmatic conservative”) has declared:

If a day comes when the world of Islam is duly equipped with the arms Israel has in possession. . . application of an atomic bomb would not leave anything in Israel, but the same thing would just produce damages in the Muslim world.

In other words, Israel would be destroyed in a nuclear exchange, but Iran would survive.

In spite of all this, we keep hearing that all would be well if only we agreed—in the currently fashionable lingo—to “engage” with Iran, and that even if the worst came to the worst we could—to revert to the same lingo—“live” with a nuclear Iran. It is when such things are being said that, alongside the resemblance between now and World War III, a parallel also becomes evident between now and the eve of World War II.

Folks, Islamofascism and the drive for a world Islamic caliphate is real. Iran will have its nukes someday, sooner or later. When it does, Ahmadinejad and Iran will use it to achieve their goals.

MPAC's Pack of Lies

I have observed with keen interest the dialogue and exchanges between Edina Lekovic of MPAC (the Muslim Public Affairs Council) and Steven Emerson of Counterterrorism Blog. I must admit that I agree with his assertions about Edina being evasive and untruthful about her involvement with al-Talib, an Islamic publication she was actively involved in while in college. After reviewing the evidence (the PDF's of the issues) it is clear that she openly lied about her involvement with al-Talib and wished to hide her open support of vile and despicable positions of violence. It saddens me because after trying to give so-called "moderate Muslim organizations" the benefit of doubt and deeply hoping for an emergence of a voice of moderation in Islam, I am convinced by Edina's own dishonesty as well as other actions by Islamic organizations that there is no such thing as a moderate, main-stream Muslim that is truly integrated into American society. Will MPAC speak out and denounce Hamas and Hizbollah? No. Will MPAC speak out and denounce Saudi Arabia's discrimination of Christians and Jews? No. Does MPAC as well as Edina Lekovic believe that Shaykh 'Umar 'Abd al-Rahman is truly innocent? Shaykh 'Umar 'Abd al-Rahman was the terrorist that orchestrated the first World Trade Canter bombing.

Shameful.

A Muslim cannot be a true Muslim unless he believes what Muhammud said in 009:029.

29. Fight against those who (1) believe not in Allâh, (2) nor in the Last Day, (3) nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allâh and His Messenger (4) and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

Would MPAC be willing to set aside that passage from the Qur'an? What is MPAC's position on that passage?

How can MPAC call their critics islamophobes and racists with anti-Muslim bias when we see your actions, hear your words and read what Muhammud said to do to those who are not of Islam? Groups like MPAC and the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) are just another part of the "hudna", a false peace and an olive branch that hides a sword.

I think I'll take Muhammud at his word rather than what MPAC and Islam tries to shove down my throat. I am absolutely convinced now that Islam will not be satisfied until we all see a world-wide caliphate and those who do not convert to Islam pay the jizyah or are dead.

Religion of peace indeed.