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.

Hitchens vs. Hedges

As always, Zombie has a great post at Zombietime about a debate he attended on May 24 between Christopher Hitchens and Chris Hedges at King Middle School auditorium in Berkeley, California. The debate was centered around the theme "Is God...Great?"

Zombie said...

Surprising as it might seem in a contemporary political landscape where mocking religion is an established liberal pastime, and where Christianity and spirituality are most often associated with conservatism, it was Hitchens -- now loathed by the left for not toeing the party line over the Iraq War -- who attacked religion, while the neo-Socialist, anti-patriotic, radical Hedges volunteered for the seemingly topsy-turvy position of having to defend spirituality and the existence of God.

How did this strange state of affairs come to pass? In one word: Islam.

The left -- of which Hitchens was a part until recently -- has always been anti-religion. But now, they've become caught in a philosophical bind: how can they promote multiculturalism -- and by extension all non-Western cultures, such as fundamentalist Islam -- if they condemn religion in general? Neocon pundits have since 9/11 frequently accused the left of being in bed with Muslim extremists, a charge which the left has vehemently denied. But with every denial their position was becoming more and more untenable, as the verbiage and narratives of Islamic radicals and "anti-war" progressives have grown to become virtually indistinguishable.

Someone had to take the lead and resolve the dilemma that the left had created for itself. And so it was Hedges who stepped forward in this debate to test the waters for the first time, taking what is for him (and the left) a revolutionary position: that spirituality and religion -- with the noteworthy exception of organized Christianity -- is good.

Now, at no point did Hedges state that he was performing this amazing flipflop specifically due to Islam. He didn't need to say it -- because Hitchens said it for him. In fact, Hitchens repeatedly tore the roof off of Hedges' carefully constructed rhetorical edifice, saying aloud the exact thoughts that Hedges and the left didn't want anyone to hear.

While I find Hitchens to be at times vulgar and and extremely vitriolic towards faith, his grasp of the dangers that confront us is excellent and verbalizes it in a way only he can do.

Hitchens: But, to what I think is the hidden agenda of the question: 'Is George Bush on a Christian crusade in Iraq and Afghanistan?' Obviously not, obviously not. Anyone who's studied what's happening in either of those countries now knows that the whole of American policy -- and by the way a lot of your own future, ladies and gentlemen -- is staked on the hope that federal secular democrats can emerge from this terrible combat. We can protect them and offer them help while they do so. We know that they're there, that we are -- I've met them, I love them, they're our friends. Every member of the 82nd Airborne Division could be a snake-handling congregationalist, for all I know, but these men and women, though you sneer and jeer at them, and snigger when you hear applause and excuses for suicide bombers -- and you have to live with the shame of having done that -- these people are guarding you while you sleep, whether you know it or not. And they're also creating space for secularism to emerge, and you better hope that they are successful.

And this...

Hitchens: It's exact equivalent of the evil nonsense taught by Hedges and friends of his, who say the suicide bombers in Palestine are driven to it by despair. Have you read the manifestos of these suicide bombers? Have you seen the videos they make? Have you seen the manifestos they put out? The propaganda that they generate? These are not people in despair. These are people in a state of religious exultation. Who are promised everything. Who are in a state of hope. Who are in a state of adoration for their evil mullahs. And for their filthy religion. It's this that makes them think they have the right to kill others while taking their own lives. If despair among Palestinians was enough to create psychopathic criminal behavior, there's been enough despair for a long time, and enough misery to go around. It is to excuse the vicious, filthy forces of Islamic jihad to offer any other explanation but that it is their own evil preaching, their own vile religion, their own racism, their own apocalyptic ideology that makes them think they have the right to kill everyone in this room, and go to paradise as a reward. I won't listen, nor should you, to anyone who euphemizes or excuses this evil wicked thing.

Why was Chris Hedges chosen to supposedly somehow defend faith in God when he is very outspoken in his criticism of all religion. Well, ALMOST all religion. All religion except for Islam, of course.

It is curious indeed that one of the sponsors of the event was The Zaytuna Institute, a local Islamic training facility. Zombie noted the actions of those in attendance from the institute.

There were entire rows of seats in the auditorium reserved for Zaytuna Institute staff and students, and many others sat elsewhere in the hall as well (see photo on the right, for example). Throughout the debate, whenever Hedges attacked Christianity, the United States or Israel, and when he praised the Palestinians or defended the Muslim point of view, the Zaytuna crowd cheered and clapped. Whenever Hitchens criticized suicide bombing or praised the goals of the Iraq War, they booed and grumbled.

So, the entire purpose of the debate came into focus: Hedges was there essentially to defend Islam, and the Zaytuna Institute had invited him for this very reason. He was obviously their favorite, and Hitchens was cast as the villain. (Even though, as it turned out, a great number of Hitchens fans showed up as well.)

But Hedges was in a delicate position. He couldn't overtly defend Islam in preference to all other religions, lest he lose his veneer of impartiality. So he hardly mentioned Islam at all. Hence, his strategy became this: to praise spirituality, but then criticize every organized religion except Islam. So he ended up championing Islam in a backhanded way. (Also, after repeatedly proffering excuses and explanations for suicide bombers, Hedges was so pestered by Hitchens that he was compelled to say at one point that he did condemn the practice; but as Hitchens later pointed out, Hedges' words rang hollow because most of his other statements justified suicide bombing.)

Many thanks to Zombie for the post. He gets all the action out there in California.

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.

Iran's Political Machinery

Here's a great analysis of the political situation in Iran by Pepe Escobar of the Asia Times from December 19. He notes that if Ayatollah Mesbah Yazdi - the gray eminence and spiritual leader of President Mahmud Ahmadinejad - is among the 16 clerics representing Tehran in the Council of Experts, the political situation in Iran may be more volatile than we know.

Note this excerpt -

Yazdi and his followers have always stressed they want to implement "real Islam". They view the Rafsanjani camp as a bunch of filthy rich, morally and legally corrupt decadents, totally oblivious to the concerns of "ordinary people", whose self-styled key symbol happens to be Ahmadinejad.

Yazdi is also the spiritual mentor of the Hojjatieh, a sort of ultra-fundamentalist sect whose literal interpretation of Shi'ite tradition holds that chaos in mankind is a necessary precondition for the imminent arrival of the Mahdi - the 12th hidden (since AD 941) Shi'ite imam who will come to save the world from injustice and widespread corruption. Ahmadinejad may not be a Hojjatieh himself, but he understands where they are coming from.

Yazdi's "real Islam" has nothing to do with Western democracy. He wants a kelafat - a caliphate. Ayatollahs like Yazdi are simply not concerned with worldly matters, foreign policy, geopolitical games or Iran's nuclear program; the only thing that matters is work for the arrival of the Mahdi. Yazdi is on record as saying that he could convert all of America to Shi'ism. But some in Tehran accuse him of claiming a direct link to the Mahdi, which in the Shi'ite tradition would qualify him as a false prophet.

Read the whole thing and get to know the political machinery of our enemy a little better.