Russians help Iran with missile threat to Europe

The saudis are shivering. Mecca belongs to shiites who have been robbed by the sunnis.

Could this be Ivan's way of saying to the West:
Paybacks a bitch!

How long before these IRBMs are developed into ICBMs capable of reaching the USA?

Lest anyone have any doubt, short of regime-change in Tehran, Iran will soon have nuclear weapons and a capable delivery system. It will be a fact of life.

And, in the absence of a determined Western response, it will probably result in a proliferation nightmare as regimes throughout the region engage in a mad rush for strategic parity and new-found prestige.

Does Ivan have a tendency to favor Shia Islam? Does Ivan make alliances with Shia because its alliance is destalizing to Wahabi and Sunnite Islam that is primarily destalizing to Ivan himself? How much of the dangers Jihad Watch ascribes to Islam is associated with Wahabi as opposed to Shia Islam? Are we to have the same fear to any type of Islam? Which Islam is more peaceful? Are not both Islams at war with the West? How does this affect our response. Perhaps Mr. Roberts, you can help me understand this dynamic. I know that when when Khalifah Uthman is assassinated it was a total suprise to Ali (R.A.) whose two sons, Hasan and Husain (R.A.) were guarding the gate of Uthman’s residence. Perhaps Mr. Spencer or anyone can bring the story foward from that moment please?

Islam has one of history's longest track records when it comes to biting the hand that feeds. Even if Iran comes to some sort of significant victory using these weapons (the odds against which are astronomical, the smart money would be on them just f**king up the planet for the rest of us) what does Russia stand to gain in the long term? Some of their enemies may be gone but the most determined, vindictive and irreconcilably different enemy, now armed with nuclear weapons and flushed with victory, would remain.

I appreciate that with the collapse of the Soviet Union a great many weapons, along with those who made them and what they made them with, were lying around or unemployed. Surely the danger of them falling into the wrong hands would (or at least should) outweigh any financial concern or benefit.

It seems Vladimir Putin is prepared to have Russia piss it's collective pants in the middle of winter. Heaven help Russia, and Heaven help us all.

Russian “military advisers” land in the Gaza Strip – DEBKAfile reports exclusively. Jerusalem was not informed of this latest violation of the military protocols Egypt signed.

http://www.debka.com/

Russian foreign policy makes no sense or, put otherwise, the sense is that of resentment of lost power and a belief, quite false, that the Americans, not satisfied with the end of Soviet power, are intent on permanently weakening Russia. This is false. The United States has no designs on Russia. America is far away, while Islam is close, and so is China.

And how is it that the Russians are so crazy as to think Iranian nuclear weapons will threaten only the Western part of the Infidel world, and not, directly or indirectly, Russia itself? Why is it so hard to imagine that such weapons could be employed to undo Russian control of the entire Caucasus (and that could include independnet and non-Muslim Georgia as well).

In Afghanistan the Americans were foolish enough to distribute Stinger missiles like confetti, and the C.I.A. funded all sorts of activities connected to the Taliban, and to Al Qaeda, in the belief that Islam was a "bulwark against Communism" and that's all that mattered.

Russian aid to Iran in nuclear technology is far more disturbing, and even crazier.

Was this conveyed properly? Did Rice, who prides herself on her thorough knowledge of Russian and Russia (but was made great fun of in Russia after a televised interview, in which she did not distinguish herself linguisically), alude to an "Eastern" people -- vostoch'nij narod -- were capable of, and that if the Russians were patriots who wanted to hold onto their own south -- allusion to General Yermolov and for that matter to Lermontov appropriate here -- they would deny those impelled by the same ideology that was behind the attack in Beslan and on the Moscow theatre, and in Nalchik, and nowhere, from St. Petersburg to Vladivostok, can be considered secure, any possibility of acquiring the know-how to make those weapons.

In private, Rice should have not tried to hector and lecture the Russians, but with a chastened-by-our-own-mistakes tone, a more-in-sorrow expression, criticized her own country for its faults in not recognizing the menace of Islam.

She could have done it thus:

"We had our own experience. We thought during the Cold War it was important to check Soviet power in Afghanistan, and as you know we gave money and arms, and helped the Saudis to transfer arms, to Afghanistan. In effect, we supported the conditions that helped give rise to the Taliban. We failed to stop the Pakistani I.S.I. in its own machiniations. We never stopped Saudi Arabia or the United Arab Emirates from pursuing their own plans in Afghanistan. No, we kept thinking only of how to defeat the Soviet army, and what is still worse, we distributed weaopns -- Stinger missiles -- by the thousands, and at least some of those could be used against civilian aircraft all over the world. We deeply regret our mistakes. We would like you not to repeat those mistakes, by aiding Iran. We are sure you know the history of anti-Western, anti-Infidel violence in Iran. What educated Russian can forget what happened to Griboyedov? [Nods of recognition, glances among the Russians present]? That was not an aberration, alas, but that "Eastern" people impelled by anti-Infidel fury [more nods of recognition]. And the civilizing mission that Russians undertook among the savage tribes of the Caucasus [more surprise among those Russians], could come undone, and the Christian peoples of the Caucasus, including those of Georgia [memories evoked in Russian minds, of earlier trips to Tbilisi, and the unforgettable flow of Khvanch-kara, and the tamada, or master of ceremonies, who orchestrated and conducted the toasts, each more wonderful and absurd and long-winded than the next], could be overrun by the Iranians, with their agents in Azerbaijan, and the constant tug to re-islamize all of those republics that you let go in a stupor [looks of amazement -- what? the Americans are on our side, they didn't want Yeltsin to give them all up?]. Whatever military power Iran achieves from your aid will bite back. Take it from us. We were very stupid. We learned a lesson. We don't want you, or us, or the rest of the Infidels, to suffer now from similar mistakes. [Russians begin to think, think, and come to the conclusion, ultimately, that, after all, the Americans are not such bad fellows. Handshakes of soldiers at the Elbe. Image of Griboyedov being beaten to death. Image of Rice admitting that the United States had committed a colossal error by arming Muslims. Image of Pechorin in Daghestan, Lermontov at his duel, and now an image, irrepressible, of Pushkin, Ganibal, the Christian kingdom of Prester John that was imagined by the West as an ally against Islam, and now an image of Khomeini, and Tehran mobs, who now grade into Gaza mobs, or mobs in Pakistan, or anywhere. Yes, she has a point. We will stop the program.

Diplomacy is not merely a matter of stating baldly, but of appealing to a constellation of things, historic memories, cultural allusions, fears for the future -- and in the case of any American diplomat discussing things with Russian counterparts, the best way to begin is to own up to American stupidies, American mistakes, and to urge the Russians not to go there and do likewise.

If Rice did not do this, and I am certain she did not, find someone who can.

HUGH: "In Afghanistan the Americans were foolish enough to distribute Stinger missiles like confetti, and the C.I.A. funded all sorts of activities connected to the Taliban, and to Al Qaeda, in the belief that Islam was a "bulwark against Communism" and that's all that mattered."

CORNELIUS: These are the kinds of inacuraccies one normally hears from the Left-wing, blame-America crowd.

The United States terminated all assistance to Afghan Mujahadeen groups in 1992. The Taliban didn't exist as an organization until 1994. Al Qaeda didn't make its entry into Afghanistan until 1996.

Hugh,

Don't make too much of the Stinger missile. The Soviet / Russian SA-7 or SA-14 will produce the same results when fired at aircraft. They've been distributed far and wide. Unfortunately for commercial air traffic, the MANPAD is an ordinary infantry weapon at this point.

RE: They may find that this neo-Cold War arming of the mujahedin against the West may backfire on them.

Why the surprise? Arafat was a pawn of Russia.

Some think the Cold War is over. Rest assured, the "evil empire" is now trying a different approach, ie: supporting and fermenting Islamic
Terrorism.

Evil attracts evil.

Hey, Putin!

Remember the Avenue L!

"The Taliban didn't exist as an organization until 1994. Al Qaeda didn't make its entry into Afghanistan until 1996."
-- from a posting above

The Taliban did not appear victoriously in Afganistan until 1994, perhaps, but where did they come from? Who helped to create them? Did they appear out of nowhere? They appeared from the madrasas in Pakistan, a country which, at that very moment, was our friend and ally and conveyer of weaponry to the Afghani mujahedin. It was Pakistan that created those Taliban, Pakistan that nurutured them, sheltered them, and when the time was propitious, allowed them to go back, eased their way back, into Afghanistan.

And when you write that "Al Qaeda didn't make it s entry into Afghanistan until 1996" you are being far too literal -- requiring some formal organization with the title "Al Qaeda." Long before 1996, Bin Laden, and others who regarded the West with the same hatred, had been in Afghanistan and just next door in Peshawar. Does it make sense to say that "Al Qaeda" officially made its entry only in 1996, when years before Bin Laden and those allied to him, who thought the way he did, were in Pakistan and in Afghnanistan? Does one need the official designation "Al Qaeda" or may the term also apply to Bin Laden and his associates if they acted in the spirit of Al Qaeda -- even if, for the moment, their immediate enemy was the Russian infidel (whom he called the "Russian atheist"), and not the Western, and especially American, version of that same Infidel?

In "Taliban" the Pakistani journalist Ahmed Rashid does make one error. In that book, and also in his "Jihad," he immediately tries to convince the reader that the word "Jihad" means a spiritual struggle and only possesses the secondary meaning of a war against Infidels who set up any kind of obstacles to the spread of Islam.

But along with this interpretative license, he also supplies many facts. And here is one excerpt about Bin Laden:

"Bin Laden "first travelled to Peshawar in 1980 and met the Mujaheddin leaders, returning frequently with Saudi donations for the cause until 1982 when he decided to settle in Peshawar. He brought in his company engineers and heavy construction equipment to help build roads amd depots for the Mujaheddin. In 1986 he helpoed build the Khost tunnel complex, which the CIA was funding as a major arms storage depot, training facility and medical centre for the Mujaheddin, deep under the mountains close to the Pakistan border. For the first time in Khost he set up his own training camp for Arab Afghans, who now increasingly sa this lanky, wealthy and charismatic Saudi as their leader.

'To counter these atheist Russians, the Saudis chose me as their representative in Afghanistan,' Bin Laden said later. 'I settled in Pakistan in the Afghan border region. There I received volunteers who came from the Saudi Kingdom and from all over the Arab and Msulim countries. I set up my first camp wehre these volunteers where trained by Pakistani and American officres. The weaopns werre supplied by the Americans, the money by the Saudis. I dsicoververed that it was not enough to fint in Afghanistna, but that we had to fight on all fronts, communist or Western oppression,' he added."

Bin Laden claimed, and no one denies, that he fought in several battles (or perhaps skirmishes) in Afghanistan. He was certainly there, his supporters and allies were certainly there, long before 1996, which is when, according to the claiim is made above, "Al Qaeda" first appeared in Afghanistan.

I beg to differ. And so does Ahmed Rashid. And so, I am sure, does Osama Bin Laden.

This is the lead story in tne Russian newspaper Mosnews.com

Iran Spokesman Praises Russia’s Positive View of Tehran Nuclear Program
The Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman praised Russia for its “positive stance” on Tehran’s nuclear program a day after Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice failed to win Russia’s support for referring Iran to the Council.

And this one as well: Russia, US Split on Iran Nuclear Issue, Rice Defeated
U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice failed Saturday to persuade Russia to offer new support for a hard line on Iran’s disputed nuclear program, despite making a hastily arranged trip to the Russian capital.

"Rice defeated"...defeated...hmmm. It may very well be that Russia is defeating itself, or at least shooting itself in the foot. Putin is playing with old dynamite that might go off in his face at any second. What is going on with these western leaders who make decisions that defy any kind of logic whatsoever...or at least appear to defy logic. Rice who pretends not to know much about Islam, is trying to convince the Russians, who also pretend they dont know much about Islam, that helping the Islamic Iran, is a mistake. The blind leading the blind. Who does Putin think the Iranians actually support, him or Basayev?(Who was just reported killed).

CORNELIUS: These are the kinds of inacuraccies one normally hears from the Left-wing, blame-America crowd.

MAD JACK: Amen. Being lazy bastards, we tend to fight our World Wars one at time, and try to avoid distractions if at all possible. America handled the Soviet Empire rather neatly, and if it meant putting a few shoulder-fired missiles in the hands of Al Qaeda, tough nuts. I'm sure in the process of winning this war we'll somehow strengthen the hand of China and ignore some apartheid-like injustice somewhere in the world and be roundly criticized for it by a bunch well-protected softies.

HUGH: "The Taliban did not appear victoriously in Afganistan until 1994..."

CORNELIUS: I'm not trying to split hairs here, but the Taliban conquered Afghanistan in 1995-96. The organization was constituted in '93-94.

HUGH: "Who helped to create them? Did they appear out of nowhere? They appeared from the madrasas in Pakistan, a country which, at that very moment, was our friend and ally and conveyer of weaponry to the Afghani mujahedin."

CORNELIUS: Absolutely incorrect Hugh...and when I call you on something like this, it would be nice if you'd acknowledge your mistake. The US had terminated all assistance to Pakistan in 1990 because of that country's nuclear weapons program. We impounded F-16s Pakistan had bought and paid for that very year.

By 1994, when the Pakistani ISI had soured on their existing client in Afghanistan - Hekmatyar, and made the move to begin recruiting Pashto-speaking Afghan students in the madrassas of Peshawar, the US-Pakistan falling out was 4 years old. But the myth continues among Left-wingers and even contributors here at JW that the USA somehow created the Taliban.

As for Bin Ladin, yes, he was most definitely one of the Afghan-Arabs that fought the Soviets in the 80s. But he didn't start his jihad against America until the first Gulf War in 1990-91 when he objected to the stationing of American troops on Saudi soil. By then, the Afgan war was for all intents and purposes over; the Russians had already withdrawn and Kabul fell in '92.

MAD JACK: Excellent points. Of course if we had 20-20 hindsight, we might have re-considered our aid to the Afghan Mujahadeen in the 80s...but in that event, what about the 20/20 hindsight necessary to know how Russia would have otherwise weathered an insurgency fought without Western support.

What the collapse of the Soviet Empire been avoided? The variables are endless. What if the Soviets had used their uncontested control of Afghanistan to foment rebellion in Baluchistan and wrest that province away from Pakistan, establishing their long-coveted warm water port in the Indian Ocean? What if Soviet geo-political successes were intimidating enough that it allowed them to extract even greater jizyah than they were already getting from Western banks?

What if?...what if?...what if? As I said, hindsight is always 20/20.

Unlike Iraq which had invaded 2 neighbors, used WMDs, and was an avowed enemy of the USA, the Afghans threatened no one. Russia's invasion of Afghanistan was the unprovoked rape of a country, no different than a powerful man attacking a vulnerable woman. I wouldn't decline to come to the aid of a woman being raped just because she was a Muslim.

If the woman in question turned out to be really a man in disguise, who once you had finished helping him fend off his would-be rapist, would instead of showing you gratitude simply turn on you, and even attempt later on to vandalize the house from which you had emerged to help him, then perhaps you would not be so ready to help.

The Soviet invasion was an attempt to make sure that Communist control over that country was not lost, and that a pro-Soviet regime stayed in power. If it was morally unacceptable, it was morally unacceptable the way that some (not all, but some) American interventions in Latin America have been morally unacceptable, undertaken because the American government did not want any regime hostile to the current definition of American interets to take and retain power.

The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan was something, but that something was not equivalent to rape; it was an attempt to make sure that a pro-Soviet regime remained in power. In Afghanistan (and for that matter in Iraq, or among refugees from the Islaic Republic of Iran), the word "Communist" may merely identify those who would like the country to be completely secular, and have found it necessary to give themselves some pre-fabricated identity from off the shelf. A member of the Iraq Communist Party, an Iranian exile who belongs to the Tudeh party, an Afghani supporter of Rabbani, may all be simply seeking a vehicle for their own disaffection from Islam, without necessarily embracing what they see, perhaps not quite accurately, as the Dickensian capitalism they have been led to believe now characterizes the United States.

I really don't know why the US bothers with this lot (the EU), this is a perfect opportunity to disengage with the EU. Let the EU and the 'Soviets' deal with Iran, the missiles can only strike Europe and Russia (Israel is already within range anyway, she can receive more ABM hardware when developed). When the Europeans and the Russians realise they are on their own, then they may think again. Why should the US carry the can for everyone else? Use the time gained through disengagement to develop effective ABMs and make it perfectly clear to the Europeans that they will neither share nor benefit in either the products or the technology.

As Clinton pointed out, what can Iran do with the bomb? - if they use it they will fry. The Europeans are hell bent on 'engagement' for them there is no other course, they can't crank up enough of that grey matter to consider other alternatives other than engagement or invasion ( UK commons select committee on Iran, Iran has 'rogue elements' within the regime! Very plausible that one a rogue element controlling an A bomb project! or an even better effort; a power struggle within Iran,- works every time that one). Nope, no imagination, no other possibilities - nothing just a dry, shrivelled up grey desert. Where have all the good (or perhaps should I say both educated and intelligent) people gone?

Your animus towards Horowitz and your disdain for Left-Right configurations are starting to make more and more sense as you reveal your political colors.

1) Chances are, a member and particularly a leader of Tudeh in Iran in the 80s was not just a communist with a little c, but an asset of the KGB, ready to do the bidding of Moscow at a moment's notice.

2) The Soviets superimposed the "revolution" on Afghanistan in April '78 when Soviet pilots bombed the Presidential palace and killed then President Daoud, who had allowed his country to be 'Finlandized' by Moscow and whose only crime was that he was not a Communist and not interested in Communizing his country.

Castro, Allende, Ortega and the junta in Grenada that overthrew Maurice Bishop represented actual threats to American hegemony in Latin America by embracing close ties to Moscow (and in the case of the latter 3, Havana). Other US interventions were based on a desire to maintain public order and protect American lives (e.g., Dominican Rep 1965). I'm not morally justifying these interventions, I'm just pointing out the qualitative difference between them and what happened in Afghanistan.

The policies of Afghan Pres Daoud were never a threat to Moscow. In fact, he owed his position to Moscow, which helped him to overthrow his cousin, the Afghan King, back in '73. Moscow had been the pre-eminent foreign power in Afghanistan ever since.

It was the imperial ambition to spread Communism and this alone that compelled the Soviets to gobble up Afghanistan.

The necessity for the Dec '79 invasion would never have existed were it not for the decision to super-impose the April '78 revolution.

OT/
Does anyone know is the book
Jihad and Fighting According to the Shari Policy
by Muhammad Haykal is published in English?

Cornelius wrote: "How long before these Items are developed into ICBMs capable of reaching the USA?"
____________________________

These twisted nits don't need any sophisticated delivery systems, just the fissionable material to get creative. My guess is that they have already cloistered some small manageable warheads in the US via the Canadian wilderness border. They are merely waiting for placement in multiple critical areas so as to employ the "fire ant" technique. They all stealthily creep up your legs and over your body until you see them, then the lead Ant signals doom and the pain begins.

But then again, it could just as easily be an unobtrusive led-lined pretzel cart on Wall Street, or a garbage truck on Pennsylvania Avenue...

"Your animus towards Horowitz and your disdain for Left-Right configurations are starting to make more and more sense as you reveal your political colors."
-- from a posting above

Hmm. Well, I never could have imagined in the days when I would not buy a single Soviet-published book so as not to give that government even a dime that someday someone would make the veiled accusations you are. Are you crazy? Whom do you think I voted for, not once but twice, as President?

But that was not a vote for a man but for a group, and I thought that in that group there were more people who detested the U.N., who were unlikely to use that deplorable phrase "international community," and who simply had a saner, harder view of things. I turned out to be wrong in the innocence of my hope. I have often referred to Senator Jackson. Surely that tells you something. It is possible to have a correct no-nonsense foreign policy and not, in domestic matters, be a mere defender of privilege. And if I now point out that by 1980 the Soviet Union was on the ropes, and the adventure in Afghanistan would have helped to drain it without the Americans stepping in (had they not done so, the Saudis and others would simply have taken up the slack and spent more of their own resources -- that would have been a Good Thing), and furthermore, note that many Iranians in exile, such as a group of Iranian women to whom Ibn Warraq spoke in Stockholm, call themselves Communists but that word "Communist" in Middle Eastern terms is often merely a signal of steely secularism, and does not translate into nostalgia for Stalin or Suslov, or Soviet rule plus the electrification of the whole country.

Few could be more enraged about Communism than I; you know nothing about me, and your attempts to place me are wide of any conceivable mark.

As for my objections to the Horowitz money-making machine, I don't much care for any of these people with their lecture tours, and their well-attended group weekends with panel discussions, and everyone thinking the same way, and the kind of coarseness that always comes when such phrases as "the Left thinks" or "we conservatives think." He's a lot better than the people he attacks, the abolutely beyond the pale Ward Churchills and so on. He has some sense about the ideological seizure of power in universities.

But that is only a small part of it. The damage done by careerism, over-profesionalization, monographism inflicted on history graduate students, inattention to teaching, over-emphasis on the sexual, racial, ethnic background of writers rather than the words -- most of this escapes his own coarse views.

I'm not going to find someone admirable because he is not Ward Churchill, or doesn't like the Columbia Middle East Program. Sorry, that isn't enough. Not nearly. No. I'm sticking with Jacques Barzun.

Hugh - so your "sticking with Jack Barzun?" Yikes! Just a smoother wittier detuned version of Ward. At least he garnered enough smarts to besmirch Darwin.

I see the weekend is condemned to end on a note of sheer craziness. My head whirls. The closest I can come at the moment to splashing some cold clear Vittel on my face is to dip into Barzun's vademecum on French verse. Nothing else will prevent a fainting spell. Waiter, quick, bring me that book. Plus vite with that verbal Vittel.

HUGH: "Few could be more enraged about Communism than I; you know nothing about me, and your attempts to place me are wide of any conceivable mark."

CORNELIUS: Fair enough.

HUGH: "And if I now point out that by 1980 the Soviet Union was on the ropes, and the adventure in Afghanistan would have helped to drain it without the Americans stepping in (had they not done so, the Saudis and others would simply have taken up the slack and spent more of their own resources -- that would have been a Good Thing)..."

CORNELIUS: By 1980, the Soviets - despite their economic problems - were at the pinnicle of their imperial drive. It turns out the dominoes were falling after all...not the theory that had been envisioned, where they'd fall in geographic proximity to one another...but they were falling nonetheless:

After Vietnam, there was Angola in '75, Ethiopia in '77, South Yemen in '78, Nicaragua in '79, Afghanistan later that year. Portugal, Zaire and El Salvador were would-be dominoes that - due to Western diligence - didn't fall.

The Soviets were hardly on the ropes. Oh yes, the rot in the system was evident; as Western economies moved towards chemicals and computers, the Soviets were frozen in the steel and paper era. But even societies in decay can last for decades, even centuries.

And as previously stated, internationally, the Soviets were on the march and the world trembled at their footsteps. Appeasers were a plenty...tribute - in one form or another - was demanded and paid. German banks were subsidizing chronic Soviet agricultural underproduction.

American acquiesence to the rape of Afghanistan would have signaled to the entire world that the Soviets would go unchallenged and that staying on their good side was the prudent course of action. The geo-political fallout of American inaction is impossible to predict.

No, I don't think the House of Saud, as timid as it was (and is) would have challenged the Soviets in Afghanistan without American tutalege. I think individual Muslims would have made their way to Afghanistan to wage jihad, but it would have been a bush-league version of what it was without the infusion of American arms, money and strategic support of Pakistan.

History could have taken any number of turns. Had things been going better for the Soviets in Afghanistan when Chernenko died, Romanov or Ligachev might have captured the position of General Secretary instead of Gorbachev and the chaos of Glasnost and Perestroika might have been avoided.

I'm mearly stating that hindsight is always 20/20. The world could be beset with a whole plethera of different problems (perhaps not as bad, perhaps worse) had the Soviet Empire survived. I'm glad it's gone...and its disappearance was the result of a confluence of events that were NOT preordained.

As for the Iranian communists with a small c, it is amazing how many American communists turned out to be paid agents of the KGB. Whatever the state of the progressive movement today, in the early 80s, the Italian and Spanish Communist parties were the only ones to show any real independence from the Soviets. The dancers may have been local, but the choreography was directed from Moscow.

And back to Horowitz. You once accused him of being an empire-builder. Empires are built on organization. He has none to speak of and he shows no interest in building one. Perhaps he lives well and that bothers you, I don't know. Or perhaps it's a simple matter of his intellectual "coarseness" grating on your own delicate sensibilities...(my God, what you must think of a barely-literate, Neandertal like me).

I recently read a piece you contributed to Front-Page on the state of the academy. It was one of your better essays, devoid of the excessive polemics found in - say, the Chris Patton piece. It's fortunate that David was around to found Front-Page so that you and others like you would have another vehicle to reach tens of thousands with your words.

Whatever his sins, Horowitz's services in the fight against Islam (and its Leftist enablers) are hardly insignificant.

Oh well...to each there own.

Hugh – think of Russian Policy from the Russian side of things. The “underbelly” of Russia is full of Muslims – millions upon millions of them. Most are of the same “tribe” / “race” as the Turkish people.

The EU , for VERY good reasons has rejected Turkey many a time. If Turkey is rejected, Turkey may end up looking towards these same countries in the underbelly of Russia, many whom are ex USSR and have many a nuke. This has to be a worry for Russia.

On top of that Russia has Iran to contend with. I wouldn’t be surprised one bit of Iran and Russia have done a deal. Russia supplies (continues to) Iran with all the deadly toys they want – Iran promises to turn a blind eye to the Islamic fight in Russia. In the long run the deal will favour Iran. But in the short term, it helps Russia fight its Islamic War.

Sir Hugh laments; "I see the weekend is condemned to end on a note of sheer craziness. My head whirls."
_______________________________

So off to the heady springs of French madness with you. Slurp down the dour rhapsodies of Barzun's "cultural sunsets" and "depleted energies." Pirouette into the sunset tethered to ghastly French prose. EEEEK. These are the same cultural heavyweights that deify Pee Wee Herman. My God man, control yourself - people are watching. (I do agree with Barzun's "moral confusion" stuff, just not the cause and effect.) Much more clarity in the N.T.