Can Iran possibly scream any LOUDER its intention to go to WAR????????

Posted by: flowerknife_us at May 13, 2008 8:58 AM

Can Iran possibly scream any LOUDER its intention to go to WAR????????

Posted by: flowerknife_us at May 13, 2008 8:59 AM

"'Israel is the greatest tool in West's disposal to continue the path of hegemony in the Middle East,' said the [Iranian] envoy.
-- from the article

In fact, Israel is not the "tool" of the West, and Israel was created not, as so many believe, either by the U.N. or by a West supposedly wracked by guilt, but by the hgeroic efforts of its own citizens and by Jews abroad who had been collecting money in little cans ("National Fund") for decades, money spent to buy land from absentee Arab landlords. No arms or other aid were sent by any foreign government to the Jews in 1948; the Israelis had to rely on small arms, and a few rusty Messerschmitts (which managed to shoot down five planes, flown by British pilots in the pay of the Arabs, over the Negev)that were smuggled in from Czechoslovakia. And those who had survived the Nazis, and were trying to get to Mandatory Palestine, were kept out by the British, in direct violation of the solemn requirements of the Mandate -- indeed, 3% of those trying to get to Mandatory Palestine died trying, which was a higher mortality than that suffered by the Jews of the nascent state of Israel during the 1948 War.

But in a sense the Iranian envoy has a point. Because the focus on the Lesser Jihad, which was all the Arabs and Muslims could do, before they had the trillions in OPEC oil wealth, and before they had the millions of active agents of Islam settled in Western Europe (and to a thankfully much lesser extent, North America), deep behind what they, the Muslims, have been taught to regard as enemy lines, the lines delineating Dar al-Harb, for a long time enabled the Western world to believe that while Israel might be threatened, the rest of the West was not. But it turns out to have been a mistake, both in Israel -- where few recpognized the nature or permanence, because of its nature, of the war against Israel -- and also in the West, which failed to see that Israel actually served to deflect, for a while, the greater Muslim hostility to all Infidels, and failed to recognize that, because of Muslim triumphalism, any victory over Israel, whether diplomatic, economic, or military, would not sate but whet Muslim appetites, and that it was folly to pressure into Israel to keep making, as it has over the past sixty years, a series of disastrous concessions to a series of Arab states and "authorities," all of them treated with contumely by the Arab Muslim side, while the Israelis always scrupulously observe whatever commitments they undertake. The reason for this repeated madness is not hard to discern: Israelis do not want to believe that the war against them is permanent (nor are they willing to sit still and think about how, while the Jihad is permanent, it is also manageable if they cease to surrender their legal, moral, and historic claims, but make those claims rather than, as they have been, muting them), just as the countries of Western Europe, or the political and media elites of those countries, do not wish to admit to their own peoples, much less to themselves, that it was a fantastic error to allow large-scale Muslim immigration, that Muslims -- to the extent that they remain true to Islam, are a permanently subversive and menacing presence, determined to remove all obstacles to the spread, and dominance of Islam, and among those obstacles, of course, are the very political and legal institutions that make the West the West.

Israel cannot be allowed to go under, and it is in the interests of the larger Western world that it support those in Israel who are not hell-bent on further concessions, those who see clearly the nature of the conflict, as the Jihad it always was, rather than a phony "nationalist" effort for the "legitimate rights" of the recently-invented "Palestinian people." The Israelis have had a series of not-very-acute and not-very-articulate rulers. They deserve better. And the West owes it to its own future survival to support those in Israel who will not surrender, rather than offer its support to those who, like Olmert, have shown themselves incapable of understanding what is going on, and therefore eager to "make painful concessions" for "the sake of (an entirely phony, and impermanent) peace."

Posted by: Hugh at May 13, 2008 9:02 AM

Ditto what Hugh said.

Posted by: S Perry at May 13, 2008 9:22 AM

Those who would abandon Israel can kiss their own ass goodbye.

The way of Jimmy Catta is the way of civilizational suicide.

Saw that fool Finkelstein on Utube - cruel but true - have to ask him - who is your daddy ? How can you diss the memory of your parents by counselling surrender ? Suicidal fool.

Cheers for Israel.

Posted by: dgene at May 13, 2008 9:48 AM

I live in NYC and what I do not understand is the rhetoric from so many Americans in NYC's Jewish community heard more often than I care to hear anymore reduced basically to:

"America is an evil imperialist occupier lead by Bushhitler for oil BUT America must do everything possible to protect Israel"

I used to show up to many a pro-Israel rallies over the last couple of years however I stopped when it became clear to me that when you crap all over your friends don't expect them to show up to defend you when your circumstances are in dire straits.

Thanks ever so much Sen Chuck Schumer and the gang for while you attack America, George Bush and all things Republican you are basically leading the way for Israel's destruction.

The polls tells us that some 60% of Americans in the Jewish community will be voting for Obama; does the idea 'you are your own worst enemy' mean anything?

Iran's intentions are evil however the side is completely insane.

Good luck.

Posted by: syn at May 13, 2008 10:39 AM

These idiots are fighting the God of Israel.

Posted by: interestinconundrum at May 13, 2008 10:46 AM

Harry Truman recognized Israel but the US had no meaningful involvement in Israel until after the Six Day War, whereas Eisenhower came down on the side of Egypt in 1956, forcing Israel, France and Britain to withdraw from the Sinai.
LBJ, Ike and Harry Truman. Two Democrats supported Israel and the Republican (seemingly) opposed it, or at least (again, seemingly) worked against its interests.
The Jewish love affair with the Democratic Party can be chalked up to inertia. There was once a time when the relationship meant something but old habits die hard. You also have the peaceniks (a disease to which Jews aren't immune) who want peace at any price, even their own submission.

Posted by: PMK at May 13, 2008 11:36 AM

Reading where the US gave Iran the threatening ultimatum last week about training terrorists and insurgents and supplying weapons that are killing Americans in Iraq. Iran as predicted gave the US the finger. Plans were approved to attack specific Al-Qods training camps inside Iran, as a slap upside the head. After that it will be Irans move.
When and if this happens, is up to Bush...

Posted by: duh_swami at May 13, 2008 12:11 PM

Only following the opinions of pacifists can lead to a fallacious understanding of adversaries. They assume non-intervention is an indefinite option.
But the ever-increasing lethal capability of enemies is not a fantasy. They covertly develop weapons of mass destruction. They spread their ideology throughout the world. Their religion encourages martyrdom. They target freely elected allies of the west. Their idea of government is to suppress the people.

Posted by: SFOD at May 13, 2008 1:13 PM

"The Israelis have had a series of not-very-acute and not-very-articulate rulers. They deserve better. "
From Hugh's comment above.

Not unlike the U.S.

Posted by: Eastview at May 13, 2008 2:30 PM

If Israel is annihilated, the whole muslim world is annihilated. It would behoove muslims to read the example of Samson.

Posted by: R.A.W. at May 13, 2008 3:17 PM

If words could kill - then Ukemad would have destroyed Israel 100 times over by now. Sticks and stones are the least of their worries.

Nuke or be nuked.

Posted by: champ at May 13, 2008 3:28 PM

"The Israelis have had a series of not-very-acute and not-very-articulate rulers. They deserve better. "
From Hugh's comment above.

Not unlike the U.S.

Posted by: Eastview

When they demand it, they'll get it. As long as they settle for what is placed in front of them, both countries deserve the government they get.

Posted by: PMK at May 13, 2008 4:00 PM

When they demand it, they'll get it. As long as they settle for what is placed in front of them, both countries deserve the government they get.

Barack Hussein Obama
Hillary Clinton
Juan McCain

What a choice.

Posted by: interestinconundrum at May 13, 2008 4:19 PM

A stern comment comming from Israel about Iran's futur might produce more whines from Iranians to the
UN. funny thing is that with all these rants coming from Iran now, no one takes notice in the media.

Posted by: ZenaWarriorPrincess at May 13, 2008 5:49 PM