The Onion on Iran's Holocaust Conference

The Onion has it right on other matters as well. Click on "International" to the left, and read "U.S. Soldiers Devise Own Exit Strategy."

You've heard it first in the Onion, before anywhere else. Now, reality really do walk hand in hand with satyre.

But what really suprise me is, Iran's case isn't getting the same coverage as Irak 5 years ago, despite the whole matter being infinitly more serious.

And to believe that all of this in one day!?!?! Thank goodness there is a break for lunch...i mean my goodness gracious so many tasty morsels of information from the mighty midgit in Iran you will need time to digest it all!!

However, I'll wait to see if it is reported on CNN or the BBC just to make sure that it has legitimacy and is not some dastardly ploy of the jews to make the peace loving, Swiss chalet owning, mercedes driving, behind closed doors peodiphile mullahs in Iran look bad.

The only question now is who gets the first Iranian nuke? Jerusalem or the U.S.?

Either one makes for great copy for the Iranian president. For Isreal: The Zionists have defiled our holy places for so long, the only way to purify them is with Holy Atomic Fire!

For New York (or D.C.): We have burned the heart out of the Great Satan! Allahu Ackbar!

For either one it is only a matter of time.

In the U.S., the talk this time of year is about the Super Bowl, among other things.

In Iran, they are talking about the mass murder of a people to "show" it never happened, and that history of the event is somehow wrong.

Based on statements of the new president, perhaps he is trying to justify doing some real genocide, somthing to be real proud of.

A serious clash of cultures...

The main reason that Iran is convinced it can proceed with its nuclear project is not the pusillanimity of the European nations, hitherto so eager to believe whatever the Iranians hint, then hint again when the effect of the first hint wears off, that they are reasonable men who merely want to save face, and their honor, and in the end will not build that bomb, those bombs.

No, the main reason that Iran is convinced it can proceed unhindered with its nuclear project is that it believes the American forces are tied down in Iraq, and that the American government knows that its forces are subject to retaliation, and hence not only will do nothing to Iran, but may even refuse to offer any assistance (satellite photos, refueling, help with routes) to others who might be willing to do something -- all because of those American troops held hostage by obstinacy, merely because the Administration cannot admit to itself that it should pull with one mighty tug free from what is now understood by those whose amour-propre is not involved as the tarbaby of Iraq.

Those who keep deploring the idea of civil war in Iraq as if such deploring was obvious -- "we can't leave Iraq now because if we did there would be civil war" -- should be asked why this possible "civil war" is not to the advantage of Infidels, why a Sunni-Shi'a split, pulling in men, materiel, and attention from both the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, on different sides, would not be to our advantage? Why would not such a Sunni-Shi'a fight make the Shi'a of Bahrain and the eastern province of Al-Hasa (the oil-bearing region) of Saudi Arabia, and the Hezbollah ensconced in Lebanon not perhaps be inspired to move troops to help fellow Shi'a, or the Sunnis of Lebanon not be inspired to diminish the threat of the Hezbollah troops, whose suppliers in Iran and Syria may be more occupied with the sectarian fighting in Iraq.

But, but, someone splutters -- won't the United States be blamed for this sectarian fighting? There are two replies to that. One, the Sunni-Shi'a split has been in evidence for the past 1300 years. The attacks on Shi'a in modern Pakistan not only had nothing to do with the Untied States or Infidels, but the Infidels hardly took any notice. It is doubtful that Bush and his administration had any idea how deep was that split, for clearly they believed that there would be generual euphoria, followed by deep appreciation and gratitude, once the Americans removed Saddam Hussein. No euphora, despite Bernard Lewis's claim in 2002 that the "joy" in Baghdad (or Damascus, or Tehran) would make the "joy in Kabul" look "like a funeral procession." No deep appreciation and gratitude, though of course the new governing class in Iraq is willing to keep the Americans on, fighting and dying and being gravely wounded, and training, and paying, and paying, and paying, for just as long as they possibly can -- then, whenever the Americans leave, all the good they did or tried to do will, will be depicted as malevolent, as not enough, as the wrong thing, for the Americans "always" intended to "harm Iraq," "never" inteneded to "help Iraq." This reaction is not possible or likely -- it is certain.

The Sunni-Shi'a fissure in Iraq is none of America's doing, except insofar as the removal of the Sunni despot and his Sunni ascendancy disguised with the protective coloration of Ba'athism (just as Ba'athism provides the protective coloration for the Alawite despotism in Syria) allowed the Shi'a to throw off that Sunni rule, and to take power in the south, and even, through the ballot-box made so much of by the innocent and obstinate adminstration, the ballot-box. The attacks on Shi'a in Pakistan, the hatred displayed to Shi'a in Saudi Arabia, the Sunni-Shi'a animosities in Yemen, the Sunni rulers lording it over the Shi'a who make up 70% of the population in Bahrain and are Persian in ethnic origin to boot, the Sunni-Shi'a tensions in Lebanon that are there to be exploited, not to be papered over -- all these might well increase if the Americans leave Iraq to its own devices, which is to say, to the kind of displays of internecine warfare that have been, these past few days, such a pleasure to watch in the "Palestinian" territories. But the Administration is not making "war" -- it is making "peace." It skipped the total destruction of the enemy, did not even declare or recognize the enemy correctly, and skipped right to the absurd mini-Marshall-Plan (Jaafari in Washington, calling for a full-fledged Marshall Plan which, he said, should be called "the Bush plan" -- oh, he and other Iraqis had big plans for the Americans, before getting rid of them, to pay for so much, to do so much, to take care of the Sunni insurection, to rebuild the Shi'a lands, to leave military equipment behind, and only then to leave).

And the Iranians have close ties to the new Shi'a rulers. They know better than the Americans what is going on. They have their own agents in Iraq as well. They know what they could do in retaliation for a strike on Iran's nuclear project. So they are sitting pretty, while the tarbaby of Iraq becomes, for the fossilized policy of this administration, with Democracy on the March, and Iraq the Model, and Iraq the Light Unto the Muslim Nations, something akin to the La Brea Tar Pits.

Want to show the Islamic Republic of Iran that the United States is seriously contemplating military action against it, so it better chance its behavior?

Get out of Iraq. Get out of the place that it was reasonable to invade, because of the reasonable belief that there was WMD, because remaining there now is the greatest obstacle to preventing the acquisition of that same Islamic WMD by Iran -- a country that was always much more dangerous to the Infidel world than Iraq under Saddam Hussein ever was.

No more doing favors for the "good" and completely unprepresentative Iraqis of the Makiya-Chalabi variety. Even they, so long out of Iraq, forgot how crazed and primitive and hopeless was the situation, and even they cannot quite connec that craziness, that primitiveness, that hopelessness to Islam itself.

But we, the Infidels, can. And we can act not to make Iraq a going concern as a wonderful nation-state (let it dissolve into those three Ottoman vilayets from which it sprung), in order to make some nice, or not quite-so-nice, Iraqis in exile happy. We can promote Infidel interests, Infidel goals.

Let the spectacle of internecine warfare be put on display for Infidel eyes. Let everyone in Wesetern Europe see what goes on when the Western Infidels remove themselves, and their foreign aid, and their not empire-building in Iraq, but foolish umpire-building. Remove that umpire, keeping both sides from hitting each other below the belt. Let Iraqis be Iraqis.

And let Iran be put on notice, by removing American troops quickly from Iraq, that the government in Tehran now must take the threats from the American government much more seriously.

give me doughnuts:

It could be that the first victim of Iran's nukes will be Iran itself, literally. Sabotage carried out internally is not beyond the realm of possible.

Iran Focus

Tehran, Iran, Jan. 30 – Iran invited British Prime Minister Tony Blair on Sunday to an anti-Holocaust conference it plans to hold, the state-run ISNA news agency reported.

Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid-Reza Asefi told reporters during his weekly press conference, “I think that it would be good if Mr. Blair takes part in the seminar on the Holocaust in Tehran. Of course, he can make the case in support of the Holocaust and at the same time hear the points of views that he cannot listen to there”.