"Was anyone really fooled by this sham election?"

Evidently, yes. The reactions published on the Eurabian BBC are beyond belief.

Islamic fascism seems so sweet the whole world wants to give it a big kiss.

Pucker up...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/talking_point/4091508.stm

Posted by: JTF at June 25, 2005 1:46 PM

Robert, what I find interesting is that this outcome appears to put an end to all this 'the Iranians love the US and hate the mullahs' BS. If there were so many UShuggers in Iran, they should have chosen Rafshee and beaten back the mayor by an overwhelming vote. Even if there was some ballot rigging and poll harassment, could it be enough to overwhelm the UShuggers. I doubt it.

Clearly there are a LOT of poor, ignorant, US hating voters in Iran and they represent the majority of Iranians.

I think this vote says a lot about Islam. After 26 years of mullah mismanagement, the people still want a hardline Islamic as a leader.

Islam suckx but not to the Iranians that voted.

The major proclaimed he would build an 'advanced' Islamic state. Good luck on that mayor.

Posted by: reset at June 25, 2005 1:54 PM

The true reformers were never even given a chance to run for office. If they are ever successful in throwing off the mullahs, the idiot sheep will follow them, too.

Posted by: Infidel33 at June 25, 2005 1:59 PM

BTW, don't forget that sadaam also won with one-hundred percent of the popular vote. How many of those kurds and shiites want him back in power now? Democracy in muslim-controlled nations is a pipe-dream.

Posted by: Infidel33 at June 25, 2005 2:04 PM

Will the new "democratically elected prez" drive Iran into a war against the infidel US and Israel. Please?

Posted by: voletti at June 25, 2005 2:22 PM

How then did they gain power in Iran, decades before America entered Iraq or Afghanistan?

Posted by Robert

Now that's a GOOD question!

Posted by: Beth at June 25, 2005 3:03 PM

This is bad news, folks. Iran has now an Islamist president who will encourage anti-US/West sentiments. In addition, he'll try to get the nuclear program on track regardless and deliver an oil shock by "clarifying" the oil industry in Iran. Whoop dee doo.

Posted by: Jan Vink at June 25, 2005 4:38 PM

Bad news, but no surprise. The Muslim world is slowly pushing its ideology of jihad toward a global military conflict. The West must neutralize Iran NOW before they have a nuke, make an example out of it to the other savage pedophile prophet-pretender followers. They understand only force. Didn't we get it by now? Bush? Hello?

Posted by: angry_kafir at June 25, 2005 5:48 PM

I think that the interior radicalism in Iran sold very well, but Iran isn´t Iraq and they don´t attack Israel, because if they would do, they would be bombed. There are a cold war with Iran.

Posted by: Franze at June 25, 2005 6:15 PM

The election of one apparently incorruptible monster and the defeat of the other, very corruptible monster, may be clarifying. Rafsnajani may be most famous outside Iran for his fascism, and stated desire to drop a bomb on Israel because, as he noted, Iran and the Muslims would be able to withstand any retaliatory strike, but Israel (and of course Jerusalem, in its entirety).

Rafanjani is corrupt, a millionaire or multi-millioaire in mullah's clothing, and while his daughters swan about the capitals of Europe (and not dressed islamically, either) at home he enforces the dress code of misogynists and murderers who take their cue from some texts concocted 1300 or so years ago.

The lean, mean, hungry looking Mayor of Teheran is a populist. He keeps the city clean. He does not steal, unlike Rafsanjani. So what? Mussolini and Hitler were populists. Mussolini, indeed, began life as a Socialist who then happened to read his Georges Sorel, and the myth-making, and mare nostrum rants from the balcony of the Palazzo Venezia, began. The populism is of the most vicious, rabble-rousing, los-de-abajo manner -- putting us all in mind of those crude populists of yore, Peron and his whorish wife, Robert Mugabe and his anti-white racism, all of those who appeal to the masses -- for there are always masses, alas, to be appealed to.

But here is the point. The poor, and the primitive, who voted Ahmadejinad in also voted for Islam, more Islam. Because in an Islamic society, where everything is pervaded by, suffused with, Islam, it is Islam that fashions everything. Is there corruption? Is there injustice? Yes. So the corruption is that of the un-Islamic. Solution: More Islam, not less. Is there injustice? Yes. Solution: More Islam, for Islam means justice.

Whatever else Islam may mean to the poor or the rich or the middle-class in Muslim societies as far as distribution of wealth and power may go, should not be our concern. We are Infidels. Our concern is what Islam means for us, for Infidels. It means hostility. It means hate. It means conquest by combat or other means. The history is long, the evidence is overwhelming, the canonical texts perfectly clear.

The election clarifies, and makes easier the task which, without delay, must be undertaken. Those weapons factories, whether they are deep underground or not, whether there are hundreds of separate buildings or not, simply must -- from the air, or from internal sabotage (and intelligent Iranians must be told, on the airways, that if the current regime manages to produce nuclear weapons, it will never be dislodged -- and Iran will be condemned to the nightmare of its Islamic Republic forever) -- attempt to destroy, even if only partially, that capacity. Iraq is an expensive sideshow now. That has to be clear to the generals, if not yet to the thick-headed, obstinate, and far too loyal civilians, clinging to the "democracy" and -- who knows -- even now preparing to satisfy Jaafari's preposterous demand that the United States come forth with a "Marshall Plan" for Iraq. Is he crazy? Are we crazy to even allow him to think such things? The largesse is over. Iraq, or the bits and pieces of Iraq, can pay for itself, after the $100 billion in debt relief that the Americans obtained for it, after the hundreds of billions we have spent on that country. Disgusting -- the mere suggestion by him was disgusting, and shows what we have allowed them to think they can continue to take us for. Just like Egypt, Jordan, and the "Palestine" Authority.

A bumpersticker: Stop the Jizya.

Posted by: Hugh at June 25, 2005 7:06 PM

Rafsanjani fantasized aloud 3 years ago that once Iran had the bomb it could completely destroy Israel in exchange for "limited" damage against the world of Islam following Israel's retaliation:

http://www.memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Area=iran&ID=SP32502

This would of course include the complete annihilation of Iran (the country he is supposedly entrusted with protecting), but, hey- what's 2500 years of Persian civilization if Iranians can proudly take one for the umma?

The simple-minded media, including the dhimm-wits at the BBC, just cannot face up to the fact that there was only a choice of evils in this election, like Germans choosing between Hitler and Ernst Rohm.

Posted by: emperor_diocletian at June 25, 2005 7:16 PM

There are some indications that the votes were rigged and perhaps not even counted - Amadinehjad was Kahmenei's candidate and would win anyway. But it's true that he seems to have some support among the poorer classes that seem to believe his "anti-corruption" rethoric. Then again, the poorer classes love populists, who are ineffectual but pretend to be on the people's side, even when they only create more misery, just look at Chaves in South America.
I suppose the "reformists" are mostly in the more literate middle-class, and pretty powerless to confront the monster, specially by an election that is not free nor fair.
In a strange way, maybe it's better this way: Rafjansani was not a much better option, and it seems there was a clash among the hardliners themselves, some supporting Raf and some Amadi. But Amadi will make more inflamatory "anti-US" rethoric, and this will make it easier in the case the US decides to destroy their nuclear processing plants, something long overdue.
It's funny: I thought that Iran, being made up mostly of Persians instead of Arabs, with a good deal of reformists tired of 20 years of islamic restrictions, and having known more liberal times, would be a better candidate for a "democratization" experiment than Iraq. And when the mullahs would be gone, many people would gladly leave Islam, or at least its more restrictive/opressive aspects. But it seems it's not so easy.
I'm not sure where the world goes from here. Meanwhile in the BBC page, deluded Westerners commemorate this election as "fairer than in their own countries". Somebody please tell me I'm dreaming.

Posted by: cronopio at June 25, 2005 8:42 PM

FLASH!!!

Radical thief steals election from 'moderate' thief!

The 'moderate' thief has already protested the massive fraud involved in having the election stolen from him, but says he can't expect anything to be done, because the Radical Thieves will ignore such complaints, as they ignored any about them ALSO rigging the entire election in the first place.

This whole thing is like a zombie movie. Mixed with a Woody Allen comedy.

"IRAN- Dawn of the Laughing Dead"

SEE: The mad Mullahs Steal an ENTIRE Nation!

SEE: The peaceful nuclear power plants that are NOT to be used to produce fissile plutonium OR enriched uranium!

SEE: The Girls Who Mocked the Ayatollahs Hanged like Chinese Lanterns!

SEE: The Israeli Air Force Fueling over the Horizon!

SEE: The World's Largest Glow-in-the-Dark Parking Lot!

One can only hope that with new 'leader' causes so much pain among the young people of Iran that he ends up a victim of his own success.

The Syrian model against Lebanese dissidents?

Posted by: BigSleep at June 25, 2005 8:56 PM

BigSleep...when that movie plays here, I'm going to go see it. Probably lots of x-rated scenes, so I wont take the chilluns....

Posted by: duh_swami at June 25, 2005 9:32 PM

'Radical thief steals election from 'moderate' thief!'

Yeah, but which one is going to get his hands chopped off.

JV

Posted by: jv at June 25, 2005 9:51 PM

JV-

Maybe they'll both be stumping for votes in another run-off?

Posted by: BigSleep at June 25, 2005 11:50 PM

Hugh,

I disagree with your belief that we must pull out of Iraq, let them fend for themselves, and begin trying to knock out Iran's nukes.

Our mission in Iraq is part of the greater mission to destroy the middle east an arab world as it exists today. To just pull out of Iraq will unquestionably lead to an anarchy from which, you guessed it, ISLAM will fill the void.

What must be done, therefore, is a Marshall Plan, but a true Marshall, not a half-assed, money draining, wink and nod version. It must be that islam is totally conquered and replaced with a new version, completely devoid of jihad, dhimmitude and sharia, and the Marshall Plan enforces it with an iron fist of blood.

The way to do this is put Iraq in a strangle hold of raw American power. To crush the islamic rebellions one mosque at a time, one sheik at a time, until it has been pounded out of existance. Our war in Iraq is not flawed by money excess, it is flawed by excessive PC target bombings that work like band-aids on cancer.

Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Kuwait, UAE, Yemen, Moracco, and everywhere else in the world islam is in power all must be de-islamicized with force and with a Marshall Plan on steroids.

Marshall, Marshall, Marshall, as Jan Brady might say, is the solution not the problem. The problem is we haven't the stomach to take out the mosque like we were willing to do in Japan with their emperor 60 years ago.

Each and every sheik, caliph, mufti, ayatolla or other islamic leader, must be publically forced to submit to the America and the allies we have working for us on the ground. Resistance must be crushed, crushed with such force it makes the citizens tremble in fear, a fear worse than any moslem figure could evoke, for fear is what will drive ultimate victory.

The moslems submit to islam out of fear. Fear of what will happen to them if they don't. Fear of what will happen to their families if they resist. Islam is the mafia, and all arabs bow to its power out of pure fear. We must drive islam to its knees so that the moslems fear America's power more than islam and its thugs.

America will win when we drive out islam by making the moslem street beg for mercy. Unconditional surrender by the islamic leaders, public surrender, public tearful surrender, and then we will have beaten this bastard faith out of existence, but not before. No, not until the price for choosing islam over America is too high and too painful.

-MZ

Posted by: Madzionist at June 26, 2005 1:22 AM

Hugh,

I disagree with your belief that we must pull out of Iraq, let them fend for themselves, and begin trying to knock out Iran's nukes.

Our mission in Iraq is part of the greater mission to destroy the middle east an arab world as it exists today. To just pull out of Iraq will unquestionably lead to an anarchy from which, you guessed it, ISLAM will fill the void.

What must be done, therefore, is a Marshall Plan, but a true Marshall, not a half-assed, money draining, wink and nod version. It must be that islam is totally conquered and replaced with a new version, completely devoid of jihad, dhimmitude and sharia, and the Marshall Plan enforces it with an iron fist of blood.

The way to do this is put Iraq in a strangle hold of raw American power. To crush the islamic rebellions one mosque at a time, one sheik at a time, until it has been pounded out of existance. Our war in Iraq is not flawed by money excess, it is flawed by excessive PC target bombings that work like band-aids on cancer.

Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Kuwait, UAE, Yemen, Moracco, and everywhere else in the world islam is in power all must be de-islamicized with force and with a Marshall Plan on steroids.

Marshall, Marshall, Marshall, as Jan Brady might say, is the solution not the problem. The problem is we haven't the stomach to take out the mosque like we were willing to do in Japan with their emperor 60 years ago.

Each and every sheik, caliph, mufti, ayatolla or other islamic leader, must be publically forced to submit to the America and the allies we have working for us on the ground. Resistance must be crushed, crushed with such force it makes the citizens tremble in fear, a fear worse than any moslem figure could evoke, for fear is what will drive ultimate victory.

The moslems submit to islam out of fear. Fear of what will happen to them if they don't. Fear of what will happen to their families if they resist. Islam is the mafia, and all arabs bow to its power out of pure fear. We must drive islam to its knees so that the moslems fear America's power more than islam and its thugs.

America will win when we drive out islam by making the moslem street beg for mercy. Unconditional surrender by the islamic leaders, public surrender, public tearful surrender, and then we will have beaten this bastard faith out of existence, but not before. No, not until the price for choosing islam over America is too high and too painful.

-MZ

Posted by: Madzionist at June 26, 2005 1:22 AM

Hugh,

I disagree with your belief that we must pull out of Iraq, let them fend for themselves, and begin trying to knock out Iran's nukes.

Our mission in Iraq is part of the greater mission to destroy the middle east an arab world as it exists today. To just pull out of Iraq will unquestionably lead to an anarchy from which, you guessed it, ISLAM will fill the void.

What must be done, therefore, is a Marshall Plan, but a true Marshall, not a half-assed, money draining, wink and nod version. It must be that islam is totally conquered and replaced with a new version, completely devoid of jihad, dhimmitude and sharia, and the Marshall Plan enforces it with an iron fist of blood.

The way to do this is put Iraq in a strangle hold of raw American power. To crush the islamic rebellions one mosque at a time, one sheik at a time, until it has been pounded out of existance. Our war in Iraq is not flawed by money excess, it is flawed by excessive PC target bombings that work like band-aids on cancer.

Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Kuwait, UAE, Yemen, Moracco, and everywhere else in the world islam is in power all must be de-islamicized with force and with a Marshall Plan on steroids.

Marshall, Marshall, Marshall, as Jan Brady might say, is the solution not the problem. The problem is we haven't the stomach to take out the mosque like we were willing to do in Japan with their emperor 60 years ago.

Each and every sheik, caliph, mufti, ayatolla or other islamic leader, must be publically forced to submit to the America and the allies we have working for us on the ground. Resistance must be crushed, crushed with such force it makes the citizens tremble in fear, a fear worse than any moslem figure could evoke, for fear is what will drive ultimate victory.

The moslems submit to islam out of fear. Fear of what will happen to them if they don't. Fear of what will happen to their families if they resist. Islam is the mafia, and all arabs bow to its power out of pure fear. We must drive islam to its knees so that the moslems fear America's power more than islam and its thugs.

America will win when we drive out islam by making the moslem street beg for mercy. Unconditional surrender by the islamic leaders, public surrender, public tearful surrender, and then we will have beaten this bastard faith out of existence, but not before. No, not until the price for choosing islam over America is too high and too painful.

-MZ

Posted by: Madzionist at June 26, 2005 1:23 AM

Sorry for the multiples...i have no clue why that happens.
-MZ

Posted by: Madzionist at June 26, 2005 1:27 AM

Hugh:

"The lean, mean, hungry looking Mayor of Teheran is a populist. He keeps the city clean. He does not steal, unlike Rafsanjani"

Perhaps not yet. Wait till he gets his fingers in the till...!

Madzionist:

"Each and every sheik, caliph, mufti, ayatolla or other islamic leader, must be publically forced to submit to the America and the allies we have working for us on the ground. Resistance must be crushed, crushed with such force it makes the citizens tremble in fear, a fear worse than any moslem figure could evoke, for fear is what will drive ultimate victory..."

Can't do that. We are nice, civilized people, remember? We are fighting a humanitarian war! We will give them freedom and democracy! They don't know how good we are! Why do they hate us?

Fill in your answer..................................................................

Posted by: Terminator at June 26, 2005 2:03 AM

We are nice, civilized people, remember? We are fighting a humanitarian war! We will give them freedom and democracy! They don't know how good we are! Why do they hate us?

Fill in your answer...............
-Terminator

Because we don't give enough concessions, of course. How foolish of me. Yes! I now see that the answer is pacifism. We will win their hearts and minds with a war of hugs! We will have a new policy, a policy where we hug a moslem every time an infadel is killed! That will win their hearts and minds and end all the senseless violence.

In fact, moslems will see how wnderful we are with the Bono/Sean Penn led "Hugs Around The World" festival. All moslems will surely feel a surge in self esteem and compassion, and, thus, will voluntarily give up Jihad and become socialist intellectuals! Yes, I see it very clearly, now. Soon, all the world will become one big Humanist Utopia, where all living creatures will share hugs, eat organic food, and embrace homosexual love.

-MZ

Posted by: Madzionist at June 26, 2005 2:37 AM

Madzionist... It's not enough to hug them. You have to give them money as well. So next time you hug a muslim, slip a ten dollar bill into his Quran. Allah needs the money...Thats what Sean Penn does. Look how well it works for him. So far he has only lost one camera.

Posted by: duh_swami at June 26, 2005 3:05 AM

Madzionist... It's not enough to hug them. You have to give them money as well. So next time you hug a muslim, slip a ten dollar bill into his Quran. Allah needs the money...Thats what Sean Penn does. Look how well it works for him. So far he has only lost one camera.

Posted by: duh_swami at June 26, 2005 3:08 AM

The proposal of "Madzionist" is one I disagree with not only generally, but in every single one of its suggestions.

"Islam will fill the void"? Islam is already there. It never left. Ba'athism was not an opponent of Islam, but a means those who sought, like Michel Aflag, a way for those who were either Christians, like himself, or Muslims of a more secular bent, to present not an alternative to Islam but a way to redirect it.

Saddam Hussein invokved Qur'anic imagery whenever he needed to. All of his battles against Iran, and even his massacres of the Kurds, were given names taken either from the Qur'an (e.g. "Anfal") or Muslim history. References to Qadassiya were frequent. He put Qur'anic verses on the flag, built mosques including one which was to be possibly the largest in the world. He commissioned a Qur'an calligraphed with ink that consisted in part of his -- Saddam Hussein's -- blood.

His Ba'athism, in a country where his own Sunnis were far outnumbered by the Shi'a, offered a way to those Sunnis to offer an alternative to the power of the imams in the mosques, and since most of the mosques, and the truest believers (some of the Sunnis had been influenced, in Baghdad, by the more worldly atmosphere and even, it might be noted, by the presence of a considerable Jewish population which had an effect on the more educated Muslim Arabs, though that would never be admitted by them), were Shi'a, the only way to keep power would be to emphasize the pseudo-secular Ba'athism which would, supposedly, appeal to everyone beyond sectarianism, but was really a vehicle to maintian the power of the minority Sunnis.

"all must be de-islamicized with force and with a Marshall Plan on steroids" writes "Madzionist.

What can this possibly mean? We shall turn over tens or hundreds of billions of our dollars to Muslims -- and then what? How will this "de-islamicize" them? Do you think simply repeating this phrase, like the loyal followers of Bush, makes it so? Aren't Saudi Arabia and the U.A.E. the chief financers of Islam all over the globe? Were they not the chief financers, and the only countries to extend diplomatic recognition to (save for malevolent Pakistan) the Taliban? Why will giving Muslims more money make them less Muslim? Is that what has happened in Saudi Arabia? In the U.A.E.? Anywhere?

You have it backwards. The less well-off they are, the more the poor Arabs have to run to the rich Arabs, hat in resentful hand, becuase they can no longer wheedle or inveigle money out of us, the more they will dislike their rich Arab brethren, and divert some of their hatred of the West (in no way mitigated by aid from that West -- indeed that aid simply increases the contemptuous assumption that the Western world has a duty to supply that aid, for the attitude of jizya-reliance is deep in the Muslim psyche -- ours by right, and yours, you Infidels, a duty to give.).

The idea of a "Marshall Plan" that Jaafari, merely echoing the Americans (just like Rice, who seems to think that the experience with Japan and Germany, completely defeated after World War II, and their respective ideologies also completely discredited, seen to have failed -- unlike Islam, which can only be seen to have failed once Muslims are condemned more or less to the solitary confinement of their own hideous dar al-Islam, and have to cope without Western technology, Western money, access to Western medicine and Western education, and are further seen, all over the Infidel world, for what their totalitarian belief-system has made them.

Not a single cent should be given to Iraq, a country that is perfectly capable of borrowing againt future earnings. Not a single American soldier should risk his life to "reconstruct" Iraq. Let them do it, or hire people who wish to take the risk -- and they need not be Americans.

To force our soldiers to risk their lives for a policy that is based on a great intelligence failure -- intelligence about the nature, and menace, of Islam -- is maddening. The officers and men of the American armed forces are wonderful. They deserve better than to have to manfully and bravely continue to implement a policy based on hasty assumptions, illogic, ignorance about Islam and about the history and makeup of Iraq (an ignorance that seems almost willful), an attempt for which they pay in dead and wounded, while those who keep prating about this swan about official Washington, ignoring Iran, ignoring the islamization of Europe, pretending that all manner of things are well, and attempting to intimidate those who offer sensible criticism which, they ludicrously imply, is of the same kind as what moral idiots, from Ward Churchill to Irene Khan to Senator Durbin, offer up as criticism.

There is no connection. Those who appease, or offer ridiculous moral equivalence, have nothing to do with, and would not approve at all, of anything I have suggested. And there is not a single thing I have suggested that would not make the heart of any Muslim interested in Jihad sink. For the very idea that we would leave, would allow those fissures within Islam to grow, would stop shelling out money to Iraq or Egypt or Jordan, would begin to move heaven and earth to deprive the Saudis of their ill-gotten gains which are recycled to harm us, to harm Infdiels -- all of this deeply upsets.

But what can they do? Scream that American soldiers must stay, and must "make things right"? Oh, they will. Muslims everywhere, and their defenders or apologists or explainers-away, from the editors at The New Duranty Timies on down, will be horrified at the notion that we could leave Iraqis to their own devices.

But the voters won't. The American voters will be delighted. And they will begin to get the idea about what needs to be done. And so will Infidels elsewhere, many of whom are confused about Iraq, about Islam, about what they can do in their own countries, such as Holland, about the horrible situation that they have allowed to develop out of ignorance of Islam, and the hypnotic repetition of platitudes about tolerance, peace, diversity -- you name it.

Out of Iraq, and into the real world. The realest of real worlds.

Posted by: Hugh at June 26, 2005 11:38 AM

The idea that Hugh feels will defeat islam, or at least weaken it to a level that makes it benign, through "western creep" of technology and modernism, along with economic and political isolation, is vintage paleo conservative pragmatism which has no record of success whatsoever.

There is no evidence that exposing poor, rogue islamic nations to the merit of westernization will have success at changing the fabric of the government or its people. Islam cannot be negotiated with, reasoned with, or have responses measured by our own self-projections onto their utterly inompatible culture.

All along liberals and paleocons have believed that political engagement with islamic terror states or movements, along with boycotts and sanctions for uncooperative, violent behavior, would somehow make things different. This logic has failed in every single arab nation or movement, from Arafat's PLO, to Hezbollah, to Iran, to Iraq, to Afghanistan, and beyond. All we do by ignoring islam, or attempting to westernize them with our temptations, is strengthen the beast.

Islam must be crushed, regardless of the cost in men, money or time frame. Defeating them as we defeated Japan; entirely on both the military and civilian levels, in the big picture is the most humane, just and prudent action we could undertake, and whether you like the Bush administration or not is irrelevent to the fact that beating the real enemy to death and rebuilding them in our image is the one and only hope for our future.

Bush can only be blamed for being too patient, too PC, too defferential to islam than he should be. As WMD got us into the war, like state's rights vs. federal power was the original claims for the American Civil War, we now must admit the real reason: islam, islam and more islam, just as in 1862 it was really slavery, slavery and more slavery.

In wars of civilization we don't fight battles with risky compromises or Chamberlainesque isolationism and appeasement, but with all our might, all our strngth and all our being, because life and death are hanging on the outcome and relying on our enemy's sense of decency is not an option. This is that war, and either islam must die as it exists today, or life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as we in America know it, will crumble under the weight of the ever advancing islamic jihadi enemy.

It's us or them, but both cannot stand.

-MZ

Posted by: Madzionist at June 26, 2005 1:54 PM

Madzionist: You speak as though America had the resources. America has not. Occupying a tiny little part of dar-el-Islam (Afghanistan and Iraq) is already stretching American resources to the limit. Americans may not like to be told, but theirs is no longer the country that was able to mobilize enormous armies and build great fleets from nowhere in 1941. It has lost a great deal of power since then, and other players on the international stage have gained it.

Even so, I think what you want to see will happen, little by little, covertly or overtly. I have said it before and I repeat it: we are moving towards a creeping re-colonization of the Islamic world, with non-Islamic countries, especially America and the EU, taking by various means increasing amounts of control over the internal matters of Muslim countries. This process will be driven by amorphous and continuing Muslim terrorism, to which the West must respond, and will respond by demanding more and more guarantees, control, and crackdowns, to the Muslim governments. Already four Muslim countries - Bosnia, Kosovo, Iraq and Afghanistan - are Western protectorates. The number shall grow.

Posted by: Paolo at June 26, 2005 5:03 PM

Paolo,

America surely does have the resources to devour the islamic nations of the world. These countries are weak, and despite your claims that America has faded in strength, a point which I entirely disagree with, there is no question that America's might isn't an issue in the conquest of the moslem world, rather it's America's will that is in question.

Your points are very astute about the gradual creep of American takeovers of moslem lands, however I see the moslems still calling the shots from the mosques in Afghanistan and Iraq, which means the conquest is somewhat shallow and the victories misleading in scope.

Your belief that the EU is part of the gradual takeover of islam I believe is confused, as I see islam doing more takeover of europe than the other way around.

Bottom line: We must kill the cancer, and whether it is done as I believe it must, with an awesome destruction of islam and its symbols with a follow up of Marshall Law to build up islam in our image, or as you suggest, with a slow creeping takeover of islamic regimes as a reaction to terrorism, one thing is for sure: islam is the foe and islam must go.

-MZ

Posted by: Madzionist at June 26, 2005 8:06 PM