“The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of ‘liberalism’ they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened.”

Socialist Party presidential candidate Norman Thomas

Friday, March 02, 2012

General Allen grovels before the cult of Islam

Have you seen anything more embarrassing than an American general prostrating himself, and by extension the US, before the enemy?

The terrorist prisoners were using the base library's Korans to send each other terrorist messages. Of course we got rid of them. Who gives a crap if they got disposed of inappropriately? Why are we groveling before our enemy and speaking his language and pronouncing "Afghanistan" like Obama does? It sounds stupid.

I'm beginning to think that the Afghanistan adventure was as misguided as the Iraq clusterfark. Why are we trying to negotiate with, and bring into the modern world, a loose collection of dirty, drug-addled nomads who hate us? It can't be done in Afghanistan any more than it can be done in Iraq, Syria, Iran, Egypt, Somalia, Libya, or any other God-forsaken, third-world hell hole.

Abandon the Afghans, leave them to their own devices, and when they gather for a terrorist attack on the Great Satan, we kill them. But begging forgiveness from people hell-bent on destroying us shows nothing but weakness. The enemy doesn't respect weakness.


david said...

but a stupid decision nonetheless.

If anyone burned a bunch of Bible, for any reason, there would be unrest here and other places.

just stupid.

Ed said...

Do you think so, David? It wasn't done maliciously. It was a mistake. I doubt any Christian would react violently, even if Bibles were burned with bad intent.

If Christians behaved violently then we would have in response to the Piss Christ display of Andres Serrano's. The entire nation of Afghanistan erupted yesterday.

The reporting of the story against the backdrop of the raging Muslim hordes coming unhinged in the streets made it clear that we are in a completely asymmetrical conflict....culturally speaking. How can reason and logic negotiate with unhinged irrationalism? It can't....why are we there? To try to get them to like us? It's laughable.

Isaac A. Nussbaum said...

Just when I was beginning to have a favorable opinion of you, Ed, you went and posted another of your famously idiotic anti-Arab rants.

Iran is a third-world hellhole?
All Arabs are dirty, drug-addled nomads?
Arabs hate America and Americans [without cause]?
Afghans, Iraqis, Syrians, Iranians, Egyptians, Somalians and Libyans are bell bent on destroying America? [Isn't it the other way around?]

You are inexcusably misinformed on all counts. [I am satisfied that you are not stupid. I have not ruled out that you are deliberately lying to your readers.]

Those are the only explanations I can think of at the moment. If the explanation is something other than one of those, by all means let us know.

Ed said...

Point by point, Isaac......

*Iran used to be the cultural, economic, educational Arab example of a progressive State, but thanks to Islamic fundamentalism, it's backward, violent, and regressive.

*No, not all Arabs are dirty, drug-addled nomads, just the Afghans. This is why we need to get out and leave them to their own devices...they cannot be negotiated with.

*Despite billion in aid to all these countries, Islamic fundamentalism is the root of 99% of world terrorism directed at the US and allies. These countries are either radically fundamentalist or are tending toward radical fundamentalism.

*As long as the "Zionist State" exists as an ally, Islamic fundamentalists will strive to harm the US. Israel's existence is an abomination to them and you know it.

Look Isaac, I am in favor of a total and complete pullout of the middle east(I assume you are too)...including the taxpayer aid on which they rely so heavily. Israel will sort things out for herself.

Perhaps my regard for the Arab Street is a tad more coarse than you'd like, but that's how I see them, not full of adoring admiration of noble put-upon peasants, which seems to be your view.

Lastly, I suppose you support Assad's slaughtering of his people by the scores in order to cling to power? That's not in response to America's meddling as you would have us believe is the cause of all middle-east hostilities toward the US. Who is going to stop these tyrants from murdering ordinary citizens in their own country if not the US? Should we stand idly by, shrug and look the other way?

Isaac A. Nussbaum said...

Point by point, Ed....

Iran used to be the cultural, economic, educational Arab example of a progressive State, but thanks to Islamic fundamentalism, it's backward, violent, and regressive.

Complete and utter bullshit.

No, not all Arabs are dirty, drug-addled nomads, just the Afghans.
You've got it backwards, Ed. The Afghans grow the drugs for the CIA to deliver to the drug-addled Americans.

Despite billion in aid to all these countries, Islamic fundamentalism is the root of 99% of world terrorism directed at the US and allies.
Perhaps Islamic fundamentalism IS the root of 99% of terrorism directed at the US and its allies, but the US and Israel are responsible for 99% of the terrorism directed at the world.

As long as the "Zionist State" exists as an ally, Islamic fundamentalists will strive to harm the US. Israel's existence is an abomination to them and you know it.

Israhell's existence is an abomination to every decent, moral and upright human being. America would be better off by orders of magnitude if we were to ditch Israel and cultivate Iran as an ally.

Lastly, I suppose you support Assad's slaughtering of his people by the scores in order to cling to power?

Don't make me freakin' laugh! The West long ago predetermined that regime change would occur in Syria and it is hard at work now bringing that to pass.

Isaac A. Nussbaum said...

The putative sins of Arabs pale into nothingness beside those of America (and Israel), Ed. ~IAN

"Washington is now in the second decade of murdering Muslim men, women, and children in six countries. Washington is so concerned with human rights that it drops bombs on schools, hospitals, weddings and funerals, all in order to uphold the human rights of Muslim people. You see, bombing liberates Muslim women from having to wear the burka and from male domination.

One hundred thousand, or one million, dead Iraqis, four million displaced Iraqis, a country with destroyed infrastructure, and entire cities, such as Fallujah, bombed and burnt with white phosphorus into cinders is the proper way to show concern for human rights.

Ditto for Afghanistan. And Libya.

In Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia Washington’s drones bring human rights to the people.

Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, and secret CIA prison sites are other places to which Washington brings human rights.
How is the world so deranged that Washington can murder innocents for years on end and still profess to be the world’s defender of human rights?
Washington is the worst violator of human rights in our era, and Washington has only begun.

(Paul Craig Roberts, "Washington’s Insouciance Has No Rival", 2/15/12)

Isaac A. Nussbaum said...

Complete and utter bullshit (continued).
TEHRAN (FNA)- Japanese Ambassador to Tehran Kinichi Komano praised the Iranian nation's astonishing and rapid progress in different scientific and technological fields in the last two decades.

"The Islamic Republic has made rapid and giant progress in science, industry and technology in the last 20 years," Komano said Saturday (2/25/12).

Ed said...

What rapid scientific progress has Iran made besides enriching far more uranium than they need for energy? They're making weapons and lying about it. What scientific progress has Iran accomplished?.....things the rest of the modern world has taken for granted for decades no doubt. At least under the American-puppet the Shah, Iran flourished as a cultural, artistic, scientific, and educational center in a primitive region. It's been nothing but backward fundamentalism ever since the Shah fell.

david said...

the "enemy" does not want to see this as a mistake. It is too convenient for them. We cannot afford this kind of mistake.

and yes, if Bibles burned, for whatever reason, there would be unrest.

Ed said...

I think these guys are looking for a convenient excuse to be outraged. If it's not Koran burning, it's cartoons of Mohammad, if not that, it's women showing their ankles....the outrage never ends. We should leave them to their own devices, then in a year when the terrorists have reformed as a terrorist organization....kill them all.

Isaac A. Nussbaum said...

"Kill them all."

Since the Israelis are responsible for more acts of terrorism than any Arab or Muslim country, does your "kill them all" apply to Israel, too, Ed?

If not, why not?

Ed said...

What terrorist acts has Israel committed that weren't retaliatory for something the Palestinians did? Now, I admit the Israeli responses are generally asymmetric, but the effect is supposed to be punitive and dissuasive. Who bombs busloads of women and children? Who shoots rockets by the scores into Israel civilian towns? Who stoned Christian tourists at the Temple Mount this weekend just for the fun of it? Not Isreai.

Isaac A. Nussbaum said...

@Ed "What terrorist acts has Israel committed that weren't retaliatory for something the Palestinians did?"

Let's begin with the U.S.S. Liberty, shall we, Ed?

Ed said...

That far back huh, Isaac? The Liberty didn't properly identify herself to the Israeli's, who were busy under attack from a handful of nations, and it was either a mistake or it was thought she was collecting intelligence on Israeli positions because it was not where she was supposed to be and therefor perceived as a threat. Bad things happen in war Isaac, none of them are terrorist outrages.

Isaac A. Nussbaum said...

Ooh! I bet your nose grew an inch and a half with that one!

But let's move on with something more current, say, the assassinations of Majid Shahriar,
Darioush Rezaie and Mostafa Ahmadi-Roshan.

Ed said...

Do your research Isaac, all these guys were either Fatah officers in the PLO, sworn to the destruction of the Zionist regime, or active terrorists themselves. They weren't "assissinations" but "targeted killings".

See what I did there? targeted killings are legal where assissinations are not. The bin Laden killing for example, was a targeted killing, not an assissination.

Isaac A. Nussbaum said...

@Ed "Do your research[,] Isaac...."

Physician, heal thyself. Do YOUR research. All three were Iranian scientists assassinated in Iran.

Evidently I am trying to have a battle of wits with an unarmed man.

Ed said...

If you search for "Israeli assissinations", you'll get a list of who's who in anti-Zionist terrorism. When threats are credible and existential, a nation has a right to stop the threat.

As to the nuclear Iran issue, Other than the soulless Russians and Chinese, no one believes the Iranians aren't building a collection of nuclear weapons. They have far more centrifuges than they need for peaceful energy production, as they falsely claim.

If you believe a nuclear Iran poses no threat to Israel, you are even more naive than I thought up 'till now.

Isaac A. Nussbaum said...

Ed, Ed, Ed.

Israel is the rogue nuclear power, not Iran.
Israel has 200-300 nuclear weapons; Iran has none.
Israel refuses to sign the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty; Iran has signed it.
Israel won't let IAEA inspectors in the country; Iran fully cooperates with the IAEA.
Iran hasn't threatened anyone with nuclear weapons. Israel has threatened to destroy the world if the world doesn't kiss its ass and let it have its way (the Sampson Option).

Quit lying to your readers!


February 23, 2012 By Ken Dilanian, Los Angeles Times

As U.S. and Israeli officials talk publicly about the prospect of a military strike against Iran's nuclear program, one fact is often overlooked: U.S. intelligence agencies don't believe Iran is actively trying to build an atomic bomb.

A highly classified U.S. intelligence assessment circulated to policymakers early last year largely affirms that view, originally made in 2007. Both reports, known as national intelligence estimates, conclude that Tehran halted efforts to develop and build a nuclear warhead in 2003.

The most recent report, which represents the consensus of 16 U.S. intelligence agencies, indicates that Iran is pursuing research that could put it in a position to build a weapon, but that it has not sought to do so.

Although Iran continues to enrich uranium at low levels, U.S. officials say they have not seen evidence that has caused them to significantly revise that judgment. Senior U.S. officials say Israel does not dispute the basic intelligence or analysis.


Ed said...

Isaac, for every article you can find claiming that Iran has only peaceful intentions for it's nuclear energy program, I can find one that says otherwise.

We choose to believe that which confirms what we already believe.

Isaac A. Nussbaum said...

O.K., Ed. since you choose not to believe "the consensus of 16 U.S. intelligence agencies", let's try a different approach.

Let us accept your unsupported allegation that Iran is developing a nuclear weapon. SO WHAT!

Ed said...

Show me a nation other than Russia, China, Cuba, Venezuela, and North Korea(or simply, countries who don't hate the US and Israel) that thinks Iran is stable enough and trustworthy enough to be in possession of nukes?

There's a reason for that. It's because Iran is epically unstable and their apocalyptic rhetoric attests to this. Even the Saudi's are terrified of a nuclear Iran.

Let's put the security of Israel aside for a minute....especially since that's of no concern to you apparently....what would be the result of an Iranian hegemony in the middle east that comes with nukes in the hands of radical mullahs and a deranged hostage taker? It's practically a foregone conclusion that Iran will invade and take Iraq the second we leave. What's to stop them from throwing their nuclear weight around all over the place if they like?

Isaac A. Nussbaum said...

What, exactly, do you think Iran would do with a nuclear warhead, if it had one, Ed? Be specific, please.

Ed said...

Isaac, the mere threat of nukes is almost as powerful as using one. The first and last time they were used were by us to end WWII with Japan. No country since has even hinted at using them unless you count the Cuban missile crisis 50 years ago. Iran(ruled by radical Islamic clerics and embassy hostage taker Achmadinejad) uses threatening rhetoric toward Israel regularly, and you may remember some recent history of radical Islamists following through with threats of mass destruction.....or are you going to argue that we had that coming for meddling in mid-east affairs?

Iran is a credible threat, especially if they have the confidence that comes with being nuclear.

Ed said...

What would they do specifically? Not sure, but it wouldn't surprise me if they attacked Israel conventionally with the implied threat of nukes behind it. It also wouldn't surprise me if they just shot one at Tel Aviv, just for shits and giggles.

Isaac A. Nussbaum said...

O.K., let's assume that Iran has just lobbed its one nuke into Israel. It has no more nukes. Israel has ~200. The U.S. has ~8,500. Great Britain has ~200. France has ~300.

What happens next? Be specific, please.

Ed said...

There's a long-term, hive-minded belief in the minds of anti-Zionists that sure, Israel can launch lots of nukes in retaliation for an attack, but they can't kill all Muslims, yet it only takes one to pretty much destroy Israel. The loss of a few million Muslims among scores of Muslims is a small and fully acceptable price to pay to rid the world of the Zionist regime.

I know Isaac, that you will argue that Muslims, even extreme-thinking ones, hold self-preservation to be as precious as we infidels do and would not make that sacrifice, but I think you would be wrong.

Isaac A. Nussbaum said...

Let's not get off-track, Ed. We are not talking about all Muslims. We are just talking about Iran.

Iran has expended its one nuke on Israel and killed a few thousand people (maybe; if the nuke got through to Israel, which is not a certainty).

What happens next?

Ed said...

I just told you what happens next, but specifically....Israel retaliates, probably 10 fold as always, and destroys Tehran. With normal adversaries, that mutually assured destruction would be enough to avoid nuclear confrontation, but as I explained earlier, I don't think radical Muslims think that way in the collective.

What happens after that exchange is anybody's guess.

Isaac A. Nussbaum said...

Is Israel the only country that retaliates agains Iran or is Israel joined by the U.S., England, France and perhaps other countries as well?

Ed said...

Who the hell knows, Isaac? I imagine that Israel will take care of that business quickly, before anybody else even knows what happened, so my answer is no. I don't think anybody else will retaliate against Iran.

I don't think Israel will let Iran have a first strike anyway, so the retaliation point is probably moot. Either the US or Israel will attempt to cripple Iran's nuclear capability through conventional means long before Iran has a deliverable weapon.

Isaac A. Nussbaum said...

O.K., fair enough, Ed. Let us accept that Israel alone retaliates against Iran for this hypothetical strike we are discussing and Israel's butt boy, America, sits on its hands.

Is it your contention that the Persians (who invented chess) look at the Middle East chessboard and see:

1) That they have nothing more than a king and one pawn on the board,

2) That Israel has 8 pawns, 2 rooks, 2 knights, 2 bishops, a queen and a king,

3) And yet proceed to mount a futile and self-destructive attack that will cost them everything and gain them nothing?

Do I understand you right?

Ed said...

By your logic Isaac, the entire world is getting the vapors over a wholly imaginary menace and Iran would never, ever threaten a neighbor with nuckear weapons.

Are you suggesting that the entire world is irrationally terrified of a nuclear Iran? How should I know what's in their minds.

Isaac A. Nussbaum said...

I'm not suggesting anything, Ed. I am trying to understand what you expect to happen if Iran were to become a nuclear power; why you are terrified of a nuclear Iran.

So, back to my last post. Is it your belief that Iranian cost/benefit analysis is so poor that after having not invaded any other country for over 300 years, they would abruptly risk all to gain nothing?

Ed said...

Isaac, I'm just going on their hostile rhetoric, history of sponsoring terrorists(Hezbollah and Hamas among others), and the inherent instability of a theistic regime that holds as a world view the idea that non-Muslims must be either converted, subjugated to dhimmi status, or killed.

Isaac A. Nussbaum said...

@Ed "...the idea that non-Muslims must be either converted, subjugated to dhimmi status, or killed."

That is precisely why I am confused by your concern over a nuclear Iran, Ed.

The Talmud teaches that non-Jews eventually must either be converted, made subjects, or killed. Moreover, Israel already IS a nuclear power. And yet you don't exhibit any fear of Israel.

In my view, a rational person ought to be far more fearful of a nuclear Israel than a nuclear Iran.

Ed said...

Tell you what Isaac, when/if Iran gets a nuke, we'll have a look in the years after and see if they've threatened to use them on anybody, or heaven forbid actually used them. Israel has had them for decades and no rational person thinks they pose a nuclear threat to anybody.....unless attacked with them first, that is.

Isaac A. Nussbaum said...

This is what you have chosen over Iran, where 25,000 Jews live in peace and security, Ed.

“Goyim [non-Jews - IAN] were born only to serve us. Without that, they have no place in the world, only to serve the People of Israel.
Why are gentiles needed? They will work, they will plow, they will reap. We will sit like an effendi [a lord] and eat.”

– Rabbi Ovadiah Yosef, former chief rabbi of Israel

Ed said...

If Israel is so secure in the middle east, why all the Persian rhetoric condemning the existence of the "Zionist regime"?

Some nutty rabbi may have said those things, but Israel doesn't act on them.

The transitive property of equality demonstrates Iran's likely aggressive intent.

*Iran finances terrorists. *Those terrorists target Americans and Jews in the name of Islam. *Therefore, Iran has a similar anti-American, anti-Jew mindset as terrorists.

It's a little ironic that I used algebra to prove Iran's intent and a Muslim is recognized as the father of Algebra.

Isaac A. Nussbaum said...

"The goal for which we have striven so concertedly FOR THREE THOUSAND YEARS is at last within our reach, and because its fulfillment is so apparent, it behooves us to increase our efforts and our caution tenfold.

I can safely promise you that before ten years have passed, our race will take its rightful place in the world, with EVERY JEW A KING AND EVERY GENTILE A SLAVE." ~Rabbi Emanuel Rabinovich

Isaac A. Nussbaum said...

At the moment when the Holy One, blessed be He, will exterminate all the Goyim of the world, Israel alone will subsist…’” ~Zohar, Vayshlah 177b

Isaac A. Nussbaum said...

"Annihilate the Amalekites [non-Jews] from the beginning to the end. Kill them and wrest them from their possessions. Show them no mercy. Kill continuously, one after the other. Leave no child, plant, or tree. Kill their beasts, from camels to donkeys." the Torah

Ed said...

Where are you getting all this stuff, Isaac? Besides, I hear no Israeli leaders or military people saying things like this even if they are written somewhere. You can't say the same thing about Iranian leadership.

Isaac A. Nussbaum said...

Where are you getting all this stuff, Isaac?

This "stuff", as you call it, is what ALL talmudic Jews think about you and me, our wives and mothers, our sons and daughters. It is not in the least hard to find.

Besides, I hear no Israeli leaders or military people saying things like this even if they are written somewhere.

Duh! Of course they don't say it where the dupes can hear it! They say it among themselves plenty.

You can't say the same thing about Iranian leadership.

The Iranians have NEVER said anything remotely like the vile things that Talmudic Jews say and write each and every day of the world.

Of course Iran is unhappy with Israel and the U.S. for screwing them over. You can't blame them. But if we would leave them alone, we would have nothing whatsoever to fear from them.

There is much to fear from the Israelis

Isaac A. Nussbaum said...

Here is what Muslims think of Jesus:

"In Islam, Jesus (Isa) is considered to be a Messenger of God and the Masih (Messiah) who was sent to guide the Children of Israel with a new scripture, the Injīl or Gospel. The belief in Jesus (and all other messengers of God) is required in Islam, and a requirement of being a Muslim. The Quran mentions Jesus twenty-five times, more often, by name, than Muhammad." ~Wikipedia

Here is what Ed's buddies think of Jesus (www.youtube.com/watch?v=fcLTqo4jEK4):

"Jesus is a bastard."
"Jesus, the son of a whore."
"Jesus, son of Mary, the prostitute."
"Death to Christianity."

Isaac A. Nussbaum said...

A female Ed Phillips and an I.A.N. clone. Art really does imitate life.