'cookieChoices = {};'


The public has recognized that Corporate, Chamber of Commerce Republicans,
and Wall Street Democrats
are the same party, and serve the same constituency,
and it’s NOT THEM.

click.jpg

Friday, August 29, 2008

We Don't Need To Attack Iran Or Use Nukes" - An Interesting Comment From An Anonymous Commenter


The West doesn't NEED to attack Iran or use Nukes.

As I hear MOST Iranians do not fully support the Government or the President or the Imams and Mullahs, but like the bullied Germans in the mid 20th century dare not disobey.

Muslims NEED to be either freed from their 7th century beliefs
or forced to "come out".


Two or three conventional missiles aimed at the Ka'aba in Mecca and the two mosques on Temple Mount would either force them to become a convential army - or make them say "ah well" and discard their mantle and become true world citizens without the chains of Islam.

WHAT a diplomatic incident! But then who would know who did it anyway? Actually a few RPGs might be as good - and just WHO did it?

True they will blame the US whatever but they even blamed the US (and Jews) for 9/11. Islam spawns a blame culture . Could NEVER be them. Perhaps we should learn from their example!

The Muslims are NEVER to blame.


They ARE, after all, better than anyone else (except the women that is - and ARABS are best of all - a fact most non-Arab Muslims fail to realise.) the Pakistanis in an Islamic State would at best be 2nd class citizens.

Then again if we leave them alone their inter-sect fighting will eliminate many more than will be eliminated by East-West wars.


So much for the Umma and the Brotherhood then. (BOTH fictitious and supremacist.)


Is it REALLY true that a Pakistani peasant with NO education, limited intelligence, work-shy, and living in disgusting conditions is ACTUALLY better than me?


I don't think so but Islam does. They even claim that I am "dirty".


I do not claim to be better than them but THEY claim to be better than me. The peasant, freed from the constraints of Islam might well bossom

Funny how they want to come here to the UK then.


No doubt the free welfare benefits are just as good as jizyya and, if they can manage it then tax evasion is another good rip-off. After all it is "cultural".

So TAKE OUT the Ka'aba and deal with the fallout! If I only HAD access to Mecca (and non-muslims do not) then I'd happily do it for the benefit of ALL mankind.

The fallout? Well I'd guess it would cause the confusion caused when one destroys an ants nest

Just a thought
Bookmark and Share
posted by Pastorius at permanent link#

32 Comments:

Blogger Epaminondas said...

And the day after?

Friday, August 29, 2008 2:36:00 am  
Blogger Pastorius said...

I guess we'll have to pay so much for oil that we'll have to decide drilling our own, huh?

What a tragedy.

Friday, August 29, 2008 2:43:00 am  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The day after, the OIC puts the screws to all customers, tightening supply and upping the price in Euros not dollars, releasing shipments upon appropriate political support at the UN and EU.

Friday, August 29, 2008 2:52:00 am  
Blogger WATCHER71 said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

Friday, August 29, 2008 9:31:00 am  
Blogger WATCHER71 said...

Good comments Anon, as quoted in the post. Never a truer word was said. The reality of Pakistani neighborhoods declaring themselves as Pakistani/Muslim ONLY neighborhoods and NO go area's for ANY non Pakistanis is a daily reality for many of us here in the UK. America...just wait. Give them time to breed 2 generations and you will see a dramatic population explosion that will enable this phenomena in the US...although in retrospect...I just cannot see my people in the Bronx putting up with that shit...If it were to happen I would be stunned beyond words...Thoughts...The day the west comes up with an alternative energy solution to petroleum will be the day Islam is defeated...and without going into detail, I am 100% convinced that technology ALL READY exists and is being held back for reasons of corporate interest...ie energy corporations do not want to shoot themselves in the foot, at the expense of the west's national and energy security. Shame on them!

ps..previous comment deleted because of typo's..

Friday, August 29, 2008 9:32:00 am  
Blogger Epaminondas said...

The day after the OIC ends all oil exports to the west.

Are we ready?

Will Europe join in, or will those govts simply let us do the dirty work and suffer the long term fallout?

With the exception of Israel every nation from Morocco to the Chinese border plus Indonesia will be our religious enemy for all time.

Are we prepared to do what would be required in that circumstance?

Forget that path.

What we have to destroy is an idea.
We have to set in motion a chain of events by which the result we want is achieved by the muslims themselves.
We have to kill the idea that god authored the Quran, and lead them to question the 'madman'

All else will proceed from that

Friday, August 29, 2008 11:59:00 am  
Blogger WATCHER71 said...

Well Epa, frankly if Islamic oil producing nations were to stop exporting oil to us, or raise the price to an impossible level, European nations would have no choice but to be part of a military response. I think even the most liberal Euro government would be forced to act out of self interest...and if they did not...in a climate of energy destitution that government would not survive a general election, indeed they would possibly removed from power before then, or face civil disorder of the like they have never seen. Just wait till the lights start to go out, the shelves are empty in the stores and there is no heating in our homes...

Getting the Muslims to make these changes themselves is of course the holy grail. I certainly do not want to see more civilians caught in the crossfire between nation states in conflicts that are directly or indirectly related to oil...and believe me the potential for future conflicts being directly related to oil is huge.

Muslims bringing about a revolutionary change within Islamic thought would be great, though how do we achieve this..? How long will it take..? Can it be done...? Even Muslims in the West struggle to do this, although a few brave souls do stick their heads above the parapets. How can we expect Muslims living under an oppressive Islamic regime to bring about change?

The evidence of Muslims in the West appears to be that they are in denial, deluded, or just plain hostile to west.

I know that there is quite a sizable movement for change in Iran but the population have zero power or influence, so rather than rise up they rightly cower in fear. Lets face it, criticism of the theological regime in Iran is a death sentence..

Friday, August 29, 2008 1:03:00 pm  
Blogger Pastorius said...

Epa,
You said: With the exception of Israel every nation from Morocco to the Chinese border plus Indonesia will be our religious enemy for all time. Are we prepared to do what would be required in that circumstance?


I say: Epa, We have attacked Iraq several times. We have sent missiles into Libya, and Kenya (I think), and we have aided Israel (indirectly) against Lebanon.

These actions have not made us the all-time enemy.

It seems to be true that if you hit them, they shut up. If you appease them, they hit you more.

Friday, August 29, 2008 1:18:00 pm  
Blogger Pastorius said...

Epa,
You said: What we have to destroy is an idea.
We have to set in motion a chain of events by which the result we want is achieved by the muslims themselves.
We have to kill the idea that god authored the Quran, and lead them to question the 'madman' All else will proceed from that


I said: Our blueprint for winning wars (Japan, Germany, the American South) and effecting real change, points to the idea that we first have to totally defeat the enemy. And, then, in that vacuum, we have to plant a new ideology.

Friday, August 29, 2008 1:20:00 pm  
Blogger WATCHER71 said...

...'Our blueprint for winning wars (Japan, Germany, the American South) and effecting real change, points to the idea that we first have to totally defeat the enemy. And, then, in that vacuum, we have to plant a new ideology.'


I have to concur with that...the often distasteful word Hegemony applies...but the elephant in the room, the inescapable question is...alternatives please?

Friday, August 29, 2008 1:30:00 pm  
Blogger Pastorius said...

The alternative please?

I thought Anonymous' comment here was brilliant because it forces Islam to

PUT UP OR SHUT UP

or as the British comedian said,

SHIT OR GET OFF THE POT, SIR!

The problem with this "war" as it stands is it's like the first round of an epic boxing match. We're just looking at each other and throwing the occasional jab, trying to figure out the other's plan, and frankly, being afraid to jump in and start using ours.

Enough is enough. Let's get it on.

At this point, anything, ANYTHING, that will either shut them the fuck up, or provoke a wider conflict is a good thing as far as I'm concerned.

Friday, August 29, 2008 1:36:00 pm  
Blogger Pastorius said...

I'm surprised Epa doesn't like this idea, because I know he agrees with me that the longer we wait for this war to start, the more people will inevitably die.

Friday, August 29, 2008 1:37:00 pm  
Blogger Pastorius said...

I'm surprised Epa doesn't like this idea, because I know he agrees with me that the longer we wait for this war to start, the more people will inevitably die.

Friday, August 29, 2008 1:37:00 pm  
Blogger WATCHER71 said...

Exactly....is it morally better to have a protracted low intensity war that drags on indefinatley....or to have a high intensity conflict that results in peace.

I favour the latter.

Lets face it.

The sooner we can get to the total defeat of the enemy and get to reconstruction and winning of hearts and minds, the better.

We cannot win hearts and minds whilst, for example, as we saw in the intervening years with the no fly zones in Iraq, we are constantly engaging the enemy in low intensity engagements, such as bombing sam sites. Whilst attacking the sam sites was of course justifiable, people who really matter here is not the state actor/government that we are at war with...but the population of that country...You win them over, you have won the war. I think Italy in WWII may be a good example. Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't it Italians who put a rope around Mussolini's neck...?

I hate war....yet sometimes it is necessary.

And if we MUST have war, let it be high intensity and brief...

Let the enemy recoil in shock at the assault...so much so that they either fall or capitulate. You see the logic..?

Friday, August 29, 2008 1:49:00 pm  
Blogger WATCHER71 said...

I'm sure...No....I know Epa has good reasons...

Friday, August 29, 2008 1:52:00 pm  
Blogger Epaminondas said...

"European nations would have no choice but to be part of a military response"

That would seem to be a truth, but that doesn't mean it will happen. I hope they will, but I'm pretty disgusted right now.

Pasto..don't confuse my observations with my desires.

If we were to take out the Kaaba it would mean (I hope) we would be ready to face the full consequences.

That may be killing 2 billion people.

Do you know many people ready to do that?

Ready to say their vote made them responsible for that?

I hardly know anyone outside this forum who will even admit there is a war going on.

Our army is tiny. There are no weapons we could use to win such a war other than the cataclysmic ones. It would take an army larger than the US had in WW2, a nation turned to the invention and production of only one kind of goods, and an arsenal which boggles the imagination to avoid the massive use of nuclear weapons to win. I see absolutely no chance of this nation or any western nation making that kind of effort.

Now perhaps there would be abject surrenders cutting off a mass slaughter. Any takers? It would mean people more worried about their children's lives in this world, and not the next.

These are my observations.

Friday, August 29, 2008 3:02:00 pm  
Blogger Pastorius said...

Watcher,

You said: Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't it Italians who put a rope around Mussolini's neck...?


Actually, I believe they stomped him to death in the street.

Friday, August 29, 2008 3:37:00 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

As my sons come of age I ponder this issue from my heart.

There is no alternative to the proverbial 'elephant in the room'.

It boils down to whose hegemony will survive - Western hegemony or the hegemony of Islam.

The brief record of Western/American hegemony speaks for itself. What we destroyed, needed destruction. Imperial Japan, Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy . . .all reborn under Western guidance and assistance as productive allied (if not tempermental)societies within a generation.

The current matrix set before us - dar al-islam vs. dar al-harb - is not of our making.

The demise of this matrix, however, must be.

Friday, August 29, 2008 3:37:00 pm  
Blogger Pastorius said...

Epa said: Our army is tiny. There are no weapons we could use to win such a war other than the cataclysmic ones. It would take an army larger than the US had in WW2, a nation turned to the invention and production of only one kind of goods, and an arsenal which boggles the imagination to avoid the massive use of nuclear weapons to win. I see absolutely no chance of this nation or any western nation making that kind of effort.

Now perhaps there would be abject surrenders cutting off a mass slaughter. Any takers? It would mean people more worried about their children's lives in this world, and not the next.

These are my observations.



I say: They are good observations.

Here's what I think. WWII didn't start for the USA until we were attacked. Then, we got up to speed in about a year.

If we attack Mecca, they will attack us. And then, in a year or so, we would destroy them.

Someone has to fire the first shot. Thus far, we have looked from approval from Saudi, negotiated with Pakistan (who is, for all intents and purposes an enemy state, even if their military coup-won leader has done a little of what we have asked) and acted as if we are afraid of Iran.

We are, in my opinion, reaping what we are sowing.

Friday, August 29, 2008 3:42:00 pm  
Blogger Pastorius said...

As much sense as Epa makes, I agree with Anonymous.

We've got to start this war. Dawdling is only going to make it worse. The whole 2 billion people thing Epa, I don't really agree.

Hit, then negotiate. Rinse and repeat as necessary in ascending amounts.

Friday, August 29, 2008 3:43:00 pm  
Blogger Pastorius said...

And, as Anonymous pointed out, it doesn't have to be nuclear.

Friday, August 29, 2008 3:44:00 pm  
Blogger Pastorius said...

Let them fire the first nuclear shot, if that's what they want to do. They would know what was coming.

Of course, if Obama becomes President, nothing will come, and this whole discussion is a moot point.

Friday, August 29, 2008 3:45:00 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Let them fire the first nuclear shot?

How many casualties have we already taken from Islamic Jihad? Consider 3 - just three - factors:

1993 World Trade Center bombing: Six people were killed and 1,042 others were injured

9/11 . . .2,974 and countless injured

American troop deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan . . .Confirmed Deaths: 4146
Wounded: 30,324

I am neither related to or even know one person involved in those counts. Islam has not touched my family directly - yet. That doesn't mean I am willing to exponentially up that miniscule partial list of casualties (inflicted by Islamic jihad) with a freebie nuclear blast . . .so we can blame the enemy with a free conscience.

Americans and American interests were on the receiving end of jihad - numerous documented times. And such attacks will continue unless we put forth disproportionate force to destroy it.

Friday, August 29, 2008 4:16:00 pm  
Blogger WATCHER71 said...

Anon, exactly that's elephant in the room....there is no alternative. As I say...'Alternatives please..?'

Hegemony is not a concept that I am generally comfortable with...but given the situation...either we face Islamic Hegemony or we impose a western Hegemony on those who would destroy us...and for sure their demise can be the only resolution that is palatable.

Pastorius, yea that's right they only hung him after they had killed him...I wish they would do the same in Iran and Saudi....We could provide the meat hooks as a special gift from the IBA community...

Epa, I wish I spoke for the various European governments...as there WOULD be TOTAL commitment. I think, however, that at the end of the day, all politicians, all governments all ways have one eye firmly fixated on the looming next general election...and their potential re-election. Politicians are motivated by retaining their jobs and driven by the possibility of rising up through the political ranks. With that in mind, any government...and especially one here in Euroland that allowed the lights to go off, the shelves to be empty, the heating to go off. I think even Merkel (Germany) would be forced by her electorate to act. Failure to do so would see her party in the political wilderness for generations...and don't forget that the opposition would make political capital out of the situation and adopt a policy of military intervention, seeing them elected shortly there after. Remember, certainly in the UK, a vote of no confidence in the Government can spark a general election, which here in Euroland is over and done with in a matter of months. In short we can change our governments very rapidly.

The US Army is currently stretched and a conventional attack would necessitate a massive increase in numbers. Think how many fit healthy Western non Americans could be recruited....give me a green card and I'll fight for you!! (infact I'd probably fight even without a Green card!). It helped in Vietnam...use it today...or you face the draft. My brother is already registered with the draft board, so we know the US government has already considered this one...

Either way a response is being forced upon us. The technology time bomb is ticking down and time is virtually up. The fact is, we have to face up to this and act....and I know that you agree with that. The refusal to adopt the Nuclear solution may not actually be our choice...The West will be compelled to respond to a Nuclear attack, with a nuclear attack...

Friday, August 29, 2008 4:26:00 pm  
Blogger WATCHER71 said...

Palin as running mate...interesting...

Friday, August 29, 2008 4:27:00 pm  
Blogger Pastorius said...

Anonymous,
What you say makes sense.

The thing is, at this point, for every attack us, we have returned the fire at least ten-fold, if not 100-fold.

Nukes are really, in my opinion, forbidden territory.

That's why I posted this comment. Because I thought, hey, here's a way to say, shit or get off the pot, Islamic world. Stop coming at us, because we are serious, and if you aren't serious, then you'd better stop.

Nukes would be a step beyond that. Firing a nuclear weapon at any Islamic country would likely land in a retaliation (from both sides, and possibly including Russia and China), which could end up destroying the entire world.

That's my opinion.

Honestly, I don't think the idea of using bunker-busting tactical nukes against Iranian nuclear facitilites is even a reasonable idea.

I think nukes should not be used, unless they are used against us, in which case, I say, all bets are off.

Friday, August 29, 2008 4:40:00 pm  
Blogger Epaminondas said...

Negotiate?

With who?

Friday, August 29, 2008 5:01:00 pm  
Blogger Pastorius said...

Muslims will negotiate (hudna, but at least it's something) if they are hit hard enough and they have to face a little bit of reality.

Do you disagree with that?

Vlad, Jean Sobieski, Isabella and Ferdinadn, Charles Martel.

In my opinion, all those people proved my theory.

Friday, August 29, 2008 5:56:00 pm  
Blogger Epaminondas said...

No I am saying, WHO will negotiate for the muslims? And how?

Qaradawi?
Khamenei?
Tantawi?
Al Saud?
Jannati?
Mesbah Yazdi?
Omar Sharif?

Who can speak for "muslims"?

If there are mass surrenders, how?
Damascus revolts?
Isfahan runs up a white flag?

After we are attacked, our response will eliminate anyone who could turn it off on that side.

That's why I am saying we shouldn't get started unless we are prepared to go all the way.

If we create 1,000 Fallujahs we have to be ready to ACT LIKE IT and eliminate 1000 Fallujahs. We cannot take out the Kaaba then later say 'It would be a bad thing to eliminate all the people in these 1000 Fallujahs'.

We can't have Hizballah attack the NYC water system after we destroy the Kaaba, and we turn the 20 largest cities in Iran into glass, then stop ourselves because we weren't ready to go all the way.

We must be prepared to make the entire Islamic world look like Tokyo in 1945, or we have to forget it. We might not have to do it, but we have to be prepared to do it, mentally, and emotionally as well as physically.

My point is that we will NEVER (as democracies) be prepared for that if WE act first to destroy Mecca. For us to (be prepared to) take that action we WILL have to absorb a terrible attack first, and then act in righteous horror, and righteous anger, secure in the knowledge that the destruction we will have wrought was COMPULSORY.

Good discussion. Thought provoking

Friday, August 29, 2008 6:29:00 pm  
Blogger Pastorius said...

Call me crazy, but I think ultimately there are only three Islamic states we REALLY have to worry about;

Saudi Arabia
Iran
Pakistan

Am I nuts?

Friday, August 29, 2008 7:02:00 pm  
Blogger Epaminondas said...

Yes, I think so.

Bin Laden was the Sudan and Afghanistan once he grew up.

We have to be prepared to go all the way.

What's the KSA population? Miniscule.
Indonesia and India have the most muslims.

A mess

Friday, August 29, 2008 7:25:00 pm  
Blogger Pastorius said...

There are virulent Muslims all over the Earth. But Indonesia is not going to attack us with nukes, and I seriously doubt the Muslims in India are going to aquire the power any time soon.

Friday, August 29, 2008 7:54:00 pm  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home


Older Posts Newer Posts