Kuwait living in fear of nuclear Iran

It is appalling enough that the American government does not understand why it has a duty, a responsibility, to deal with Iran's nuclear project, not by "invading" Iran and not by bringing "freedom" to "ordinary moms and dads" in Iran as it did, or thinks it did, in Iraq, but by simply bombing (what are all those missiles and planes for, for god's sake?) Iran's nuclear project, sufficiently to set it back a dozen years, and to make sure that the lesson is learned. Iranians will rally around the Islamic Republic -- for a few months. And then they will realize how much money has been spent on that nuclear project, and how badly, how cruelly run their country has been. Some may even begin to see Islam as what it is: a vehicle for Arab supremacism.

But the Americans are not only refusing to meet their obligations, but are doing something even more intolerable and grotesque. They are attempting, in the persons of Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen, to warn the Israeli government that it must not attack Iran's nuclear installations, and that it will not receive any support, if it decides to attack Iran's nuclear project, and indeed the American government si far seems actually to be making things hellishly difficult for Israeli planners, by delaying approval and delivery of bunker-busters (they should have been in Israel's armory a year ago) and, so it has been reported, not giving Israel permission to overfly Iraq, instead suggesting -- can this be true? -- that Israel ask permission of Maliki.

The failed American policies -- that is the failure of the stated goals of American policy to create a unified and prosperous and therefore somehow -- no one ever explains quite how -- a less Islamic Iraq -- are to be blamed on Israel. Yes, if Israel attacks Iran's nuclear project, you see, that will cause Sunnis and Shi'a to not make compromises with each other (as if there were ever a chance), this will make the mendacious Pakistanis even more untrustworthy and more enthusiastic about supporting the Taliban, and so on.

It's a policy made by people who are at the end of their intellectual tether. They just won't, can't, don't dare study Islam, and study all the ways that the Camp of Islam can be kept at bay, without being able to obtain, or deliver, major weaponry, while the ideological war to contain Islam, by exploiting pre-existing fissures within the Camp of Islam (between Arab and non-Arab Muslims, between Sunni and Shi'a Muslims, between the oil-haves and the oil-have-nots) have hardly been recognized, much less been encouraged, as they should and could have been, if cleverer people were in charge.

And they rightfuly should be scared. I doubt Iran gives a hoot about the fate of Kuwait. Hell, Iranian leaders couldn't care less about the fate of the Iranian peoples! They are sandwiched between the proverbial rock and a hard place, so close to the fire that they wouldn't have time to put on their gas masks if anything went "wrong".

I have a serious problem with countries who can't even get their sewer systems and electrical grids to work properly or their masses to practice basic personal hygene having a nuclear ANYTHING!

Unfortunately, the rest of the world doesn't seen worried enough to act NOW. Ofcourse, once the missiles are in the air, the whitehouse answering service will be filled with messages all saying...
"Quick DO SOMETHING" "OMG! Why haven't you people done something about this?" "Heeeeeeeeelp!"

Humpf!

/not so sarc

>>>>
It's a policy made by people who are at the end of their intellectual tether. They just won't, can't, don't dare study Islam, and study all the ways that the Camp of Islam can be kept at bay, without being able to obtain, or deliver, major weaponry, while the ideological war to contain Islam, by exploiting pre-existing fissures within the Camp of Islam (between Arab and non-Arab Muslims, between Sunni and Shi'a Muslims, between the oil-haves and the oil-have-nots) have hardly been recognized, much less been encouraged, as they should and could have been, if cleverer people were in charge.

by Hugh

>>>

I was reading this Hugh,, and I get this awesome bulletin from Bill Warner,,

He goes even further into the "don't dare study"

just have to share this,,

It's Entitled,,

>>>>

The Doctrine of Ignorance - Bill Warner

Of Interest:

"I only obey Allah and his Messenger," says Sheikh Omar Bakri who left Britain with its kafir man-made laws.

http://memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=SD205008

A Salafi Muslim writes that as a member of the ummah, they owe allegiance only to the state of Islam, Mohammed and his god Allah.

http://www.islamicnetwork.com/index.php/weblog/comments/unity_is_strength_and_division_is_weakness/

The Pakistani press on Barack Obama's Pakistani friends and his visit there in 1981.

http://pakistaniat.com/2008/09/01/barak-obama-pakistan/

The Doctrine of Ignorance

Once you understand the doctrine of political Islam, there is a question that naturally arises. Why doesn't everyone know about this? It's simple. But, first let's take a look at the actual state of ignorance.
· The media never refers to the actual doctrine of political Islam.
· No university teaches the doctrine and history of Islamic slavery or about the dhimmi.
· No divinity or rabbinical school teaches the doctrine and history of Islam and the Christians and Jews.

Since schools don't teach about Islam, is it any wonder that kafirs are ignorant?

So there is a doctrine of ignorance about Islam. It is not only that we don't know, we have also developed a systemic social theory of why we will not learn. This guarantees the stability of ignorance. W are ignorant and we will remain ignorant.
The doctrine of ignorance is based upon fear, but it manifests many different ways.

INERTIA
The biggest part of any doctrine of ignorance is inertia. Most people never do anything to buck any system, no matter what the system is. These are the sheep, the sheeple. But this does not explain why leaders and intellectuals do not want learn about Islam. Leaders are supposed to be able to go against the tide.

WHAT WILL WE HAVE TO DO?
This is a big worry by kafirs. There is a sneaky suspicion that Islam is the equivalent of cancer, and if we have cancer, we have to do something. And that something may be drastic. Besides, Islam is so huge, that we can't afford to do anything, so it is better to do nothing.

What is tragic about this concern for "what to do" is that it ignores the true nature of planning, strategy and execution. Don't worry about what to do until you know what the problem is.

Not learning because you don't want to think about what to do is like not getting the biopsy test because you might not like the results and have to deal with the possible cancer results. The smart thing, of course, is to get the data taken.

I KNOW THIS MUSLIM AND HE IS NICE
The defense here is that I don't need to know about the doctrine or the history since Ahmed at work is so nice. Since Ahmed is nice, Islam is nice. That is all I need to know.

Of course, this means that you have to avoid ever wondering why so much violence around the world involves Islam and some Muslims are jihadists. Because if you thought that, you might have doubts about Islam is not so nice.

AFRAID OF BEING CALLED A BIGOT
If the doctrine is bad, then Muslims are bad. If I learn bad things about Islam, I will be called a bigot.

ISLAM CANNOT BE WORSE THAN CHRISTIANITY, SO WHY LEARN?
This belief is that nothing is worse than Christian religious violence. So no matter how bad Islam is it can't be as bad as the Christians. Conclusion-there is no need to know about Islam, I can go back to sleep.

The only thing worse than religious violence in the 20th century was the violence of atheism. Mao of China was an atheist and caused the deaths of 77 million. Stalin of Russia were fervent atheists and killed 77 million and 62 million each. Hitler killed about 21 million and was not an atheist, but he despised Christianity and admired Islam. He said that Christians are wimps and Muslims are killers.

Hitler was right. Islam has killed about 270 million over 1400 years. Maybe, it would be a good thing to know how and why it happened.

IT'S TOO HARD/NON-MUSLIMS CANNOT KNOW ISLAM
This is one of the most common reasons to stay ignorant. One manifestation of this "too hard" idea is that only Muslims can understand the Koran.

This is a natural response because our educational systems have taught us nothing about Islam except its glorious triumphs (where no one suffered) and a vague Golden Age.

What is ironic here is that to understand political Islam, you only need to study Mohammed. How hard can that be? And now the Koran has been made easy to understand-A Simple Koran.

FEAR
When you examine these ideas, they can all be summarized by one word-fear. Those who can function in the presence of fear are heroes. So you must be a little bit of a hero to learn about political Islam.

The next time you are speaking with someone about Islam and they have no facts about the doctrine or history, ask them: What is your reason for not learning about political Islam? Why are you afraid of this knowledge?

Bill Warner

Permalink http://www.politicalislam.com/blog/the-doctrine-of-ignorance/

copyright (c) CBSX, LLC

politicalislam.com Use and distribute as you wish; do not edit and give us credit.

Kuwait living in fear of nuclear Iran
(Article)

If we are smart, we should have the same fear as the Kuwaitis (and the Israelis).

If you review these very recent articles in the Washington Times, you will also see the first strike danger to us posed by Iranian nukes.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/sep/07/the-next-presidents-next-war/

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/sep/02/invisible-nuclear-threat/

I totally agree, Hugh. Our policy of hands-off-Iran is a direct consequence of our finger-in-the-dyke dilemma in Iraq, where we are stuck between our hope for reform and our fear of the jihad. It's really a problem of not defining clear and achievable goals. As Robert has pointed out, we first and foremost have to protect ourselves from jihad, which means we should never tolerate nukes for a jihadist regime. But, we've gotten into this whole reform thing, with all those "moderates", so we need to tiptoe ever so lightly, while the storm brews. The tail wags the dog.

The Pakistani thought processes just keep getting nuttier and nuttier:

Pakistan Puts Air Defense on the Border

The Pentagon and the Pakistani military have denied a pair of reports that emerged September 15 that said Pakistan had repelled US air incursions. Even before the reports, tensions have been on the rise between Washington and Islamabad, creating the potential for military encounters in the air over the Afghan-Pakistani border region, reports Stratfor.com.
Pakistani sources told a foreign news agency on Sept 15 that US helicopters were fired upon by Pakistani troops near Angoor Adda in South Waziristan, and turned back while attempting to cross the border under the cover of darkness. The same day the Pakistani media reported that Pakistani fighter jets had scrambled and intercepted a US 'spy plane' (this could have been an unmanned aerial vehicle) in or near North Waziristan that then returned to Afghanistan.
Regardless of the truth to these now-denied claims, the chance that rising tensions between Washington and Islamabad may manifest themselves in the form of military encounters in the air above the Afghan-Pakistani border region is indeed cause for concern.
Islamabad is trapped between the need to get control over its own jihadist uprising and the need to show its domestic population that it is standing up to increasingly overt unilateral US military action inside its territory. Opposing the primary vector of these actions - unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), fighter jets and helicopters - is one way Pakistan can attempt to push back against the United States and demonstrate its resolve to both Washington and its own people, whether it chooses to do so overtly or through proxies.
The nature of US intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) and special operations forces operations in Pakistan makes it difficult to effectively defend against, however. Constant monitoring by UAVs, bombings by aircraft from along the border and lightning late-night raids across the border in high terrain present a number of defensive challenges in an area where Islamabad already struggles to enforce its writ.
The Pakistani military is unlikely to bring its heaviest air defence hardware to bear in any bid to deter such incursions. Already fairly weakly equipped, these forces must remain largely dedicated to defences focused on India. Given the terrain, Pakistan’s heavier air defence assets would also be difficult to bring to bear beyond very isolated point-defence roles. And given their short supply, the Pakistani military would likely be hesitant to put these defences at undo risk of being destroyed.
More dispersed efforts using gunfire (Pakistan does retain anti-aircraft artillery) and Man-Portable Air Defence Systems (MANPADS) would be problematic as well. Using this sort of defence effectively would require a comprehensive deployment along the border, something Pakistani forces probably do not have the bandwidth for at this time. Even if it did, this picket would still be very limited in capability given the limitations of both older MANPADS, anti-aircraft artillery and crude sensors in the rough terrain.
Though it could help with challenging the United States while maintaining deniability, the idea of dispersing MANPADS to proxies is also problematic. So much has been done since 9/11 to secure these stockpiles in places like Pakistan that even Islamabad might hesitate to do so - especially to third parties they do not control, since there would be the risk that MANPADS could be used to bring down a civilian airliner, and that Islamabad could be found out as the source of the weapon.
Instead, Pakistan could now be running combat air patrols with its F-16s over the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) if there is any truth at all to the news report. Pakistan has yet to secure a deal with the United States to buy new Block 50/52 F-16s, so its patrols are being run by F-16s still operating with the AN/APG-66 radar from the much older Block 15 configuration. They are not ideal, and they are certainly unable to hold up against US and NATO patrols, but they are better positioned to spot inbound helicopters and ISR flights and give them a scare. In most cases (except when supporting troops already on the ground in Pakistan), the US abort criteria will likely generally be set low, since the United States is not interested in losing aircraft inside Pakistan.
But Islamabad is not interested in losing aircraft, either. Already facing a hostile US Congress over the delivery of the newer F-16s the Pakistani air force wants, Pakistan cannot risk losing the F-16s it does have. This is not simply because deteriorating relations with Washington have, in the past, cut off Islamabad’s F-16s from outside support, but because of a profound military disadvantage against India. New Delhi continues to field new Su-30MKI “Flankers,” which even the newer F-16s might have difficulty handling.

I lately wonder if a strike will be necessary. The Israelis have a good technological edge. Might they not be able to shoot down anything Iran lobs at them?

Remember: Inshallah = Quality Control Problems.

In Islam fear rules, Kuwait is terrified of Islam...

Hugh,

I agree with your analysis, but wanted to get some areas clarified.

... They are attempting, in the persons of Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen, to warn the Israeli government that it must not attack Iran's nuclear installations, and that it will not receive any support, if it decides to attack Iran's nuclear project, and indeed the American government si far seems actually to be making things hellishly difficult for Israeli planners, by delaying approval and delivery of bunker-busters (they should have been in Israel's armory a year ago) and, so it has been reported, not giving Israel permission to overfly Iraq, instead suggesting -- can this be true? -- that Israel ask permission of Maliki. ...

Posted by: Hugh

"... it must not attack Iran's nuclear installations, and that it will not receive any support,..."

Is there a link you can provide to substantiate this?

"by delaying approval and delivery of bunker-busters (they should have been in Israel's armory a year ago)"

Agreed, though the sale does appear to be going forward ... http://www.comcast.net/articles/news-world/20080915/ML.Israel.Bunker.Busters/

Here is the way I see it,

Israel will not take military action against Iran's nuclear facilities until they feel that that is the only option left. The point of no return with regard to the military option will probably come up sometime after our November presidential election. There is, I think, an extremely good chance that a President McCain will have the guts to pull that trigger if all else fails; Israel may calculate that they can wait for this to happen. Iran, may have this calculated also, and may to try to opt out with some kind of deal ala North Korea. If Obama gets in, the Israelis know he will NEVER pull the military trigger, and thus, one more time, brave little Israel will have to "do the right thing" about Iran's nuclear project, just as they have done in the past with Iraq, and very recently, Syria.

In the end, Israel knows it does not need our permission to take out Iran's nuclear bomb project. Israel will go ahead and pull the trigger when they must, if we are too stupid to do the right thing.

Iran doesn't have an Osirak reactor in plain sight. Where do Israeli or American forces go to stop Iran's nuclear program?

As for Kuwait, it and all other Sunni countries need to decide which side they're on. Are they willing to support Israel if it attacks Iran in order to destroy its nuclear program or will they claim solidarity with Iran?

Their answer should tell us all we need to know.

None of us should lose any sleep over Kuwait.
Their government appointed preacher has such nice things to say about Europeans and there is no reason to believe he doesn't harbor similar feelings toward Americans.

"I do not write this article out of hate or resentment, though, by Allah, I do hate the infidels among them. I have written this article in fairness, so that those who are impressed with the West will not be deluded and will not think that I am dazzled by the Europeans. For, as I have said, their bad qualities are innumerable. By Allah, even one Muslim who worships Allah is better than all the infidels in the world, even if their appearance impresses some people."

He is rebutted by a reformist Kuwaiti but the man with the hate in his heart is a GOVERNMENT-named preacher.

What would Erdogan say if he saw this hatred of another civilization emanating from a Muslim? Would he see this as a crime against humanity?

In a pig's eye!

http://www.memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=SD205308

Screw the Kuwaitis. We rescued them in '91 from the Iraqis, and now their people support anti western
Islamic terror groups. Kuwaitis are shitting themselves about the Iranians, and they want Western protection again. If Iran bombs Kuwait, the Iranians will be doing us a favor.

PMK asks: "Iran doesn't have an Osirak reactor in plain sight. Where do Israeli or American forces go to stop Iran's nuclear program?" Answer: think EMP. Whether delivered by a drone flying high over Iran or (more likely) by means of satellites with mirrors, the EMP weapon can demolish Iran's nuclear threat in the twinkling of an eye. That threat depends on computers, which would be instantly transformed into modernistic sculptures but of no use otherwise. The same EMP would destroy all the other computers in Iran, which would accommodate this destruction easily, inasmuch as much of its cultural and religious life belongs in the pre-computer era anyhow.

There's plenty of published literature on the electromagnetic-impulse weapon, so if any googler can find it we may be sure that Israeli scientists are the world's leaders in developing it, and that our government knows all about the relevant Israeli R&D (emphasis on the D).

Odds are the Iranians also know all there is to know about EMP. Why wouldn't it be possible to harden your installations against an EMP, just as some are against nuclear attack?

We are more vulnerable to the EMP than Iran is. Our systems are open. Our phone lines hang just a few dozen feet off the ground. Our society is open. Iran's is not.

Do not trust the Kuwaitis, they are very cunning people. There are more anti-Americans in Kuwait than pro American in spite the fact that we saved them when Sadam invaded their country. In Iraq, vast majority of Kuwaitis hate Americans and believe that the US should have not intervened with Sadam's invasion of Kuwait. I trust that the majority of Kuwaitis are supportive of the nuclear in the Islamic state of Iran.

A great commentary, High. I wanted to say the same thing, but you did it for me. Thanks! Saved me a lot of ragin'.

Paleologus:

Here is a link for you:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080911/pl_afp/irannuclearpoliticsisraelusweapons_080911131205;_ylt=AotMVeC0aI8mJnI4yKv8SZlSw60A

GBU-39 are no good. They can penetrate only 6 feet of dirt. Israel asked for GBU-28, the real thing, but our American government and military cowards refused. GBU-39 are fraud. They are being given to Israel to just get rid of its friends in this country complaining through their congressmen. Lying, lying, lying cowards have totally taken over our government and military.

PMK:

The rich Gulf Arabs are telling their "white American slaves" that they want Israel to bomb. For their own sakes, but they support an air war by Israel. It is a measure of the totally paralyzing cowardice of our Coward-in-Chief, coward Rice, coward Robert Gates and the cowardly chiefs of staff of the US military that they don't even follow the orders of their Arab masters. The calls for Israeli action have been surfacing in the media of Kuwait for some time, and Saudi Arabian and United Arab Emirates officials, speaking on the condition of anonimity to the media, said they were telling the Bush administration to stop restraining Israel and let it remove the intolerable threat. Such action by Israel will be met with a huge sigh of relief by everybody around: the Arab governments, Turkey, Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan and Pakistan. There will not be a "negative Muslim fallout" against the West, just the opposite. The worst that can happen is some muted "rage displays" by the notoriously wrong-headed Pakistani and Arab "streets", but even those will blow over quickly. And yet, the US government and military are hanging on to Israel dead, restraining it from any action, out of irrational, totally debilitating fear.
There is no logical explanation for this total cowardice of our so-called "superpower" before a much smaller, stand-alone, non-Arab muslim country, with ethnic minorities opposed to its ruling Mullahs, and which does not have a nuclear weapon YET. The explanation can only be pathological. Our president, his entire cabinet, and all our top generals are totally no-good, pathological cowards. Our country is not "the home of the brave". The United States of America is the home of the cowards. This is cowardice without precedent in the entire world history, even worse than the English appeasement of Hitler in the 1930's, and is likely to lead to even greater horrors.

Ruslan Tokhchukov, EnragedSince1999.

I meant: "A great commentary, Hugh". Sorry for the typo.

Ruslan Tokhchukov, EnragedSince1999.