Islam Expert: Netherlands Tolerates Muslim Excesses
AMSTERDAM, 24/03/07 - Dutch politicians and media are downplaying excesses of multicultural society and thereby increasing these, in the view of Islam expert Hans Janssen. "The Netherlands should resist, using non-peaceful means", he argues in weekly magazine Opinio. Muslims first entered Europe on a beheading frenzy. When they take over, it will be Frenzy2.
Jansen, Professor of Modern Islamic Ideology at Utrecht University, characterizes the Dutch as inhabitants of "a peaceful enclave" who have, however, "forgotten that peace sometimes needs to be defended through violence". A peaceful society that wishes to remain existent and stay peaceful "will have to find a way to defend itself through non-peaceful means from people who are not peaceful", as the Arabist writes. "It will be hard to explaining this convincingly to all those respectable and friendly people in the (Christian coalition parties) CDA and ChristenUnie. And to the rest."
As Jansen sees it, the Netherlands is too indulgent to violence of fundamentalist Muslims. But he also suggests that moderate Muslims, too, strive after an Islamic society in the Netherlands. They intentionally make use of the radicals to enforce their wishes, according to the Arabist.
According to Jansen, Muslim fundamentalists frequently make threats, but the Dutch media remain silent about them. He is pleading for a central reporting station for all Dutch people who are being threatened.
Jansen denounces the fact that the Nieuwe Kerk, a museum in Amsterdam, allowed the Turkish government to remove passages on the Armenian genocide from the catalogue of an exhibition about Istanbul. "Even without the threat of violence, the public gets to see an exhibition opened by the Queen that has been censored by Turkey".
The Netherlands chooses not to make an issue of these sorts of matters, as Jansen states. "This attitude is gradually becoming counterproductive. What is thought, written, exhibited or performed in the Netherlands is to a large extent no longer made in freedom, without this being perceptible. It is not the lie but the obscure threat that reigns".
"We do not realise that the threat of violence, and violence itself, can only be stopped through the controlled and cunning use of violence". The Dutch secret service (AIVD) should get a special department "that gets its hands dirty, if need be".
Jansen is an authority on the Arabic language and the Koran. Theo van Gogh, who was murdered by a Muslim terrorist in 2004, employed him as his tutor on Islam.
How long to the fatwa is initiated against Mr. Jansen?
Finally, a eropean w/the stones to state the obvious. I'm surprised this made the news. Unfortunately the morons in the EU will just paint him as a bigot.
The national symbol for the EU ought to be a yellow ostrich.
#3
ASIA TIMES > THE UN-ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN - denotes the irony of Moud + pro-Islamist Iran wanting to revive a powerful Persian Empire whose demise and destruction was seemingly celebrated by early Muslims; + OSAMAS SWORD Poster > WEST AND ANGLO-SAXON NATIONS ARE PARASITES WHICH MUST BE KILLED OFF FOR GOD AND GOOD OF THE WORLD. Other than that, Radical Islam is chums wid the West + wants love for the World. D ***NG it, HOW CAN THE WEST + RADICAL ISLAM GET ALONG IFF THE WEST WON'T ALLOW ITSELF TO BE USED, ABUSED, AND FINALLY KILLED OFF???
#4
But he also suggests that moderate Muslims, too, strive after an Islamic society in the Netherlands. They intentionally make use of the radicals to enforce their wishes, according to the Arabist.
#6
Let's hope it's starting. I'll contribute some cash to arming the Euro populace against the muzzy invaders. I'd LOVE to see some pictures of the first shipload of them being forcibly deported from Holland as the Dutch line the piers and shout "AMF! Don't bother to write!"
Posted by: Mac ||
03/27/2007 8:24 Comments ||
Top||
#7
How this guy got tenure is beyond me. He would never be hired as a "Arab expert" by an American university.
So, one sane professor!
"Non-peaceful means" is now my favorite phrase. And, yes, it would be glorious to line the piers as the orcish rabble is evicted.
#9
Every day, reality pushes more thinking humans into our pile. Every day, hatred and lunacy capture the hearts, minds, and souls of jihadists sand monkeys who seeth with hate for laughter, song, love, and prosperity.
It's a race for the souls of men.
#11
As Jansen sees it, the Netherlands is too indulgent to violence of fundamentalist Muslims. But he also suggests that moderate Muslims, too, strive after an Islamic society in the Netherlands. They intentionally make use of the radicals to enforce their wishes, according to the Arabist.
Will wonders never cease! A European who sees through the myth of the moderate Muslim. People like Dr. Jasser (the Flying Imams case), who vocally oppose violent jihad must not be classified as moderate Muslims. They are the vanguard of radical reformists who pose one of Islam's only hopes for survival.
Moderate Muslims are exactly what Professor Jansen makes them out to be: Tacit facilitators of radical Islamists in the cause of violent jihad.
#12
Zenster: "Moderate Muslims are exactly what Professor Jansen makes them out to be: Tacit facilitators of radical Islamists in the cause of violent jihad."
Bingo! This non-mozzie Asian seconds that.
"Multiculturalism" has been totally hijacked by 'em mozzies to serve their nefarious ends. As if any other immigrants, like those from Asia, e.g., have actually benefited much. On the contrary, these non-mozzies are lumped together and unjustly given a bad name as well because of these dastardly fanatics. Take one example, because of them, the Sikhs(I'm not one ;)) cannot wear their turban.
It is dismaying that the Europeans have willingly become so bloody stupid! Every excess that they gain will also echo throughout the world and encourage more of the same. This is their triumphalistic nature conditioned by their fascist ideology. Few cannot see that unless they chose not too.
#13
Thank you, Duh!. I think that it is extremely important to retain the moderate Muslim label for those "tacit facilitators". Just as there are no moderate terrorists (or Nazis), neither are there any honestly moderate Muslims. Those Muslims, like Dr. Jasser, who are admirably engaged in attempting to reform Islam should be labeled reformationists or reformers because that is precisely what they are. Far too many Islamic clerics have already made it abundantly clear that Islam has no moderate faction. We must take them at their word.
This is their triumphalistic nature conditioned by their fascist ideology.
Really well-said. Islam's core doctrine makes it an all-or-nothing proposition. I vote that all they get is nothing but death and destruction for the brutality and misery they inflict upon this world.
I wouldn't have submitted but the readers are finding this the most popular video currently up on hotair.com
Nice catch by the Busters here. Western intel agents tell the Blotter that the kidnapping was indeed retaliation for the American raid in Irbil that netted five big Quds Force fish in January and that Iran may be angling for a swap; Iran denies it.
"But interesting with the British sailors, there were 15 British sailors and Marines who apparently went into Iranian waters and they were seized by the Iranians. And I have one thing to say: Gulf of Tonkin, Google it. Okay."
Rosie may have missed the news that not only do the United States and Britain insist they were not in Iranian waters, but Iraq and France do as well. Veteran journalist Barbara Walters did not bother to correct Rosie. For fear of being eaten?
Favorite user post, Jenny Craig. Google it.
HerrMorgenholz
#3
Rosie's obviously not aware of something called GPS which would be on all military ships. Plus a invention called a spy satellite which can track ships from space. I suppose that if she reads the news and the source is from a western news outlet, she assumes that it is either wrong or just propaganda.
What a maroon.
#6
Barbara Walters says Should there be sanctions? Militarily, we certainly don't seem to be in the position to do something militarily. But it is a decision making time.
I guess Barbara knows something we don't, or the facts that we have 150,000 men in Iraq, and 40,000 in Afghanistan, and 3 carrier battle groups in the vicinity, does not bode well for taking military action. Not only do the lefties spin the news to create their immagined world, but they then believe it as if the reality of the situation will and can and should adjust to their senseless dream world scenario.
On the other hand, this statement illustrates just how stupid Barbara Walters is and she is the matron with wisdom of the group. As for Rosie, tu3031 said it best, too much pussy rots the brain.
#7
I'm old enough to remember when Rosie was considered "nice" . . . and "normal."
Posted by: Mike ||
03/27/2007 13:49 Comments ||
Top||
#8
Militarily, we certainly don't seem to be in the position to do something militarily. But it is a decision making time.
It sure is decision time. With all the congressional money running out the middle of next month, its time lighten the load on those carriers for the long sail back home, and dispose of some of the excess "tonnage" stored down in the powder room. I hopwe they don't have to stop to beg for gas money on the way back.
Hopefully the troops can be home in time for the spinich harvest.
#9
I could hear this walking towards us. It went BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM as she stamped up and down trying to get her own way... recent earthquake in California
#11
Nukes don't way much (about as much as Rosie O'dipstick), but they do a thorough job. There are about 42 targets - enough for most of the F/A-18s of ONE battle group, or four B-1s. The other two carrier groups can cover the attack, while the French cover their retreat. Smacking Iran is 28 years overdue (2007 - 1979). Smacking Rosiebutt won't be necessary - our use of nukes would cause her to have apoplexy and croak.
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
03/27/2007 18:30 Comments ||
Top||
#12
Nukes don't weigh much - not getting enough sleep lately.
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
03/27/2007 18:31 Comments ||
Top||
#13
Pardon my blasphemy, but when Rosie first started out 80's - early 90's - she was a stand-up comedian - and funny. My how times have changes. Now she should be put down
Posted by: Frank G ||
03/27/2007 19:02 Comments ||
Top||
#14
Hang in there OP, it only lasts for um......zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
#4
Don't worry, Mr. UN bureaucrat. Nobody will ever see this. That internet thingy's just a fad, nobody even looks at it.
Not that anything's gonna happen to this guy...
Posted by: Frank G ||
03/27/2007 11:16 Comments ||
Top||
#7
They [UNHRC] seek to distort and pervert the very language and idea of human rights.
Well, that neatly solves whatever constipation problems the UNHRC might have had. They now have several new fresh-cut assholes to relieve themselves with. Mr. Nuer should be applauded for ripping the mask off of UN anti-Semitism.
I suppose that we all should take a moment to thank the Palestinian people for electing Hamas and thereby give the outside world an opportunity to see where the UNHRC's real focus lies. Certainly not upon human rights. Hell, as I've said so many times before: Islam is one massive violation of human rights. The UNHRC is one huge tit to suckle at for Palestinian terrorism specifically and Islamic terrorism in general. Mr. Nuer has proven this beyond doubt and we owe him a tremendous debt.
A 35-minute speech by Evan Sayet, followed by a Q&A session. Though none of his points will be new to long-time denizens of Rantburg, he does a nice job of summarizing the moonbat mindset.
Posted by: Mike ||
03/27/2007 06:28 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
They don't think--they "feel."
Posted by: Mac ||
03/27/2007 8:25 Comments ||
Top||
#2
After viewing this video, I'm more convinced than ever that we must target the left and remove them through non-peaceful means!
#3
I could be this guy. A 9/13 republican is almost a perfect description. I am a 9/11 in the evening repub, although it took me years to realize it. If you despair that dems, lefties, or "old liberals" can't change, I am living proof it can happen. It is easy to write them all off as idiotic or any number of other labels, but yhis video takes it one step further and explains the cause and the effect. Too bad others can't see the light, maybe it will take more time, or another attack, or some other event, but I haven't given up hope that they will see the light. Thanks to all here at the burg for finding clips like this.
Mullah Dadullah Akhund, the top Taliban operational commander in Afghanistan, will be delighted about last week, despite failing to bring to heel Operation Achilles, the current NATO offensive in Helmand province, and despite losing almost 100 fighters in just a couple of days. After all, Dadullahs younger brother, Mansoor Ahmed, came home on Monday from an Afghan government jail in Kabul, released along with four other top Taliban prisoners in exchange for Daniele Mastrogiacomo, an Italian journalist who had been kidnapped two weeks earlier. The Italian government is believed to have left Afghan president Hamid Karzai with no choice but to release the prisoners, threatening to pull Italys 1,900 soldiers out of Afghanistan if Mastrogiacomo was killed. Pleased with the outcome, the Taliban has promised to kidnap more foreign journalists.
Dadullahs penchant for bloodily slaughtering prisoners on propaganda videotapes hides a load of sibling solicitude so deep that he promised to relax for a while and let his brother run the Taliban in his place. But more than his brothers return, Dadullahs jubilation was about a huge diplomatic coup that he pulled off last week: resolving an ideological schism in Pakistans North West Frontier Province (NWFP), between local tribal Taliban fighters and foreign Al Qaeda militants, mainly Uzbeks, who settled there after being driven out of Afghanistan in 2001. Dadullahs diplomacy has cleared the decks for the launch of the Talibans Afghanistan offensive this year.
The Taliban and Al Qaeda fundamentally disagreed over whom to fight. The Taliban, practical Pashtuns bred in the tradition of carrying jehad into Afghanistan from safe havens in the NWFP, argued that their fight was against Western infidels in Afghanistan, not against the Pakistani army, which signed a peace deal with tribal Maliks (chiefs) last year and withdrew into cantonments. But the Uzbeks and Arabs of Al Qaeda were in no way inclined to let the sleeping dogs lie. Their jehad was directed at crusaders ally General Musharrafs government as much as Hamid Karzais and the Nato forces in Afghanistan. Al Qaedas aim was nothing short of establishing the Islamic Emirate of Pakistan.
Dadullah resolved the disagreement in good Pashtun style, negotiating with a gun held to the opponents head. Last Tuesday, Taliban fighters in South Waziristan attacked Uzbek commander Tahir Yaldashevs forces; in two days of battle, over 100 Uzbeks were killed and hundreds more surrounded by Taliban fighters. Having flashed a glint of steel, Dadullah despatched negotiators, who persuaded the rattled Uzbeks to maintain peace in the NWFP. The Taliban and Al Qaeda will no longer dissipate strength fighting Pakistani soldiers in Waziristan; instead, they will cross the Durand Line to fight Nato forces in Afghanistan.
Islamabad is jubilant. It claims the Pashtuns are cleaning out their own house, expelling the foreign militants. Interior Minister Aftab Sherpao declared that this validates the wisdom of last years cease-fire with tribal Maliks. What he glosses over is that the tribal commanders who routed Al Qaeda in Waziristan last week, chieftains like Sadiq Noor and Abdul Khaliq, are known Taliban men. Among Dadullahs negotiators who mediated the Taliban-Al Qaeda agreement are Baitullah Mehsud (perpetrator of several recent suicide attacks inside Pakistan, including the killing of 42 Pakistan Army soldiers in Dargai in November 2006) and Sirajuddin Haqqani, the son of legendary Taliban commander Jalaluddin Haqqani. In effect, Islamabad has handed over the NWFP to the Taliban.
Dadullahs diplomacy has trumped that of America: he has created a secure haven to press operations against Nato. In contrast, US diplomacy has run aground on the self-imposed condition that pushing Musharraf (Our Man in Islamabad) beyond a point will destabilise his regime. Now, however, Washington may have tossed aside the kid gloves. Dick Cheneys plain-speaking lunch in Islamabad with General Musharraf on February 26 was the first harbinger of US frustration. That alone wouldnt give Musharraf sleepless nights; hes heard all that before. What is enormously worrisome for him, embattled as he already is by protests against the sacking of Pakistans Chief Justice, are new US statements suggesting that he honour his commitment to hang up his uniform this year.
The General will correctly reason that this is not a sudden upsurge of American nostalgia for Pakistans long-dead democracy. He will understand that George W Bush, desperate for success in Afghanistan to offset the failure in Iraq, is deadly serious about Pakistan cracking down on the Taliban in the NWFP. That leaves Musharraf in a pickle. On the one hand, he could order the Pakistan Army to resume operations in the NWFP. That would stir enormous resentment, not just within the Islamist parties, but also among his commanders and troops who really underpin Musharrafs continuation in power. By ignoring their views, Musharraf would end up ousted, dead, or as Pakistans Hamid Karzai, propped up and protected by US support, and increasingly out of touch with his own country.
On the other hand, the General could defy Uncle Sam. If he does that, Washington will intensify dialogue with Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif, and look among the senior ranks of Pakistans military for more unquestioning support. But will another leader provide the US with better results in the NWFP? Whoever replaces Musharraf will face the same choices.
Who said being a dictator was easy? Or a superpower?
Posted by: Fred ||
03/27/2007 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[9 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Let Nato have access to NWFP/Waristan and we will fight them as Perv does not have the stomach/will!!!!
#2
Every day, in a hundred different ways, Pakiwakiland shows just how much it needs to disappear from the face of the earth. The sooner, the better, the lower the overall death toll, and the sooner an enlarged Afghanistan can achieve peace, instead of pieces. Let the bombing begin.
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
03/27/2007 19:33 Comments ||
Top||
An absolutely KICK ASS speech that sums up the useless/sellout/petrowhore UN. Tells 'em they're do-nothing on the real atrocities of our time. Tells 'em that if Israel sneezes on you, though, there's a resolution. Gives all sorts of examples. Indisputable ones. Of course, how does the UN respond? Introspection? Debate? Investigate? Nope. By threatening to strike the record. You can watch the video at the link if you don't care to read.
Speech before UN Human Rights Council 4th Session
23 March 2007
Delivered by Hillel Neuer, Executive Director of UN Watch
Mr. President,
Six decades ago, in the aftermath of the Nazi horrors, Eleanor Roosevelt, Réné Cassin and other eminent figures gathered here, on the banks of Lake Geneva, to reaffirm the principle of human dignity. They created the Commission on Human Rights. Today, we ask: What has become of their noble dream?
In this session we see the answer. Faced with compelling reports from around the world of torture, persecution, and violence against women, what has the Council pronounced, and what has it decided?
Nothing. Its response has been silence. Its response has been indifference. Its response has been criminal.
One might say, in Harry Trumans words, that this has become a Do-Nothing, Good-for-Nothing Council.
But that would be inaccurate. This Council has, after all, done something.
It has enacted one resolution after another condemning one single state: Israel. In eight pronouncementsand there will be three more this sessionHamas and Hezbollah have been granted impunity. The entire rest of the worldmillions upon millions of victims, in 191 countriescontinue to go ignored.
So yes, this Council is doing something. And the Middle East dictators who orchestrate this campaign will tell you it is a very good thing. That they seek to protect human rights, Palestinian rights.
So too, the racist murderers and rapists of Darfur women tell us they care about the rights of Palestinian women; the occupiers of Tibet care about the occupied; and the butchers of Muslims in Chechnya care about Muslims.
But do these self-proclaimed defenders truly care about Palestinian rights?
Let us consider the past few months. More than 130 Palestinians were killed by Palestinian forces. This is three times the combined total that were the pretext for calling special sessions in July and November. Yet the champions of Palestinian rightsAhmadinejad, Assad, Khaddafi, John Dugardthey say nothing. Little 3-year-old boy Salam Balousha and his two brothers were murdered in their car by Prime Minister Haniyehs troops. Why has this Council chosen silence?
Because Israel could not be blamed. Because, in truth, the dictators who run this Council couldnt care less about Palestinians, or about any human rights.
They seek to demonize Israeli democracy, to delegitimize the Jewish state, to scapegoat the Jewish people. They also seek something else: to distort and pervert the very language and idea of human rights.
You ask: What has become of the founders dream? With terrible lies and moral inversion, it is being turned into a nightmare.
REPLY BY U.N. HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL PRESIDENT LUIS ALFONSO DE ALBA:
For the first time in this session I will not express thanks for that statement. I shall point out to the distinguished representative of the organization that just spoke, the distinguished representative of United Nations Watch, if you'd kindly listen to me. I am sorry that I'm not in a position to thank you for your statement. I should mention that I will not tolerate any similar statements in the Council. The way in which members of this Council were referred to, and indeed the way in which the council itself was referred to, all of this is inadmissible. In the memory of the persons that you referred to, founders of the Human Rights Commission, and for the good of human rights, I would urge you in any future statements to observe some minimum proper conduct and language. Otherwise, any statement you make in similar tones to those used today will be taken out of the records.
#3
Alfonso de Alba showed the white feather with his inability to reply properly. His threat of censure was the equivalent of telling Neuer: "Sit down and shut up!" Not much of a reply to so well-stated of an argument.
In an open act of war, Iran Friday kidnapped 15 British soldiers in the Persian Gulf. Iran's act of aggression occurred just as the British voted in favor of a UN Security Council resolution imposing increased sanctions against Teheran for its illicit nuclear weapons program.
Several theories have been raised to explain Iran's behavior. Some say that the Iranians acted against the British in the hope that Britain would respond by abandoning its alliance with the US and swiftly pulling its forces out of Iraq.
Another theory is that in kidnapping the sailors the Iranians are seeking to reenact their ploy from last summer. Then, Iran ordered its Lebanese proxy Hizbullah to kidnap IDF soldiers in order to divert the international community's attention away from Iran's nuclear program. As is the case with the British servicemen, so last summer's attack on the IDF took place as the Security Council was expected to convene and discuss sanctions against Iran for its pursuit of nuclear weapons.
Yet another theory has it that Iran kidnapped the sailors to use as a bargaining chip to force the US military to release Iranian operatives who the US has arrested in Iraq in recent months. Whatever the case may be, it is absolutely clear that the Iranians intentionally fomented this international crisis with the expectation that their aggression would in some way be rewarded.
AGAINST THIS backdrop, and given the stakes involved, it could have been expected that the US and its allies would be concentrating their attention on how to weaken Iran and its terror proxies and curtail Iran's ability to acquire a nuclear arsenal. But, alas, the US is doing just the opposite.
The Iranians acted as US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was en route to the region. Since Friday, Rice has shuttled between Egypt, Israel, the Palestinian Authority and Jordan, and is on her way to Saudi Arabia. She is not working to coordinate moves to check Iran's increasing bellicosity. Rather, Rice is laboring to empower Teheran's terrorist allies in Hamas, the Islamic Jihad and Fatah. This she does by promoting the so-called Arab peace plan, which demands that Israel agree to dangerous and strategically catastrophic concessions to the Palestinian terrorist government.
In behaving thus, Rice is walking in the well-worn footsteps of her predecessors. Indeed, it seems almost axiomatic that when the going gets tough for US administrations, administration officials get tough on Israel.
AFTER THE Republicans won control of the Congress in 1994, then president Bill Clinton was hard-pressed to advance his domestic agenda. And so Clinton - who had almost no interest in foreign policy in his opening years of office - turned his attention to Israel and the so-called peace process, in which Israel was expected to give land, arms and legitimacy to the PLO in exchange for terrorism.
Clinton's penchant for forcing Israeli concessions to the PLO in the name of peace became more pronounced as things became more difficult for him during his impeachment hearings in 1998. As the House of Representatives poised to vote on articles of impeachment, Clinton twisted then prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu's arm until he signed the Wye Plantation memorandum, in which Israel pledged to transfer wide swathes of Judea and Samaria to Yasser Arafat's terrorist government.
Clinton forced Netanyahu's hand in spite of the fact that, by 1998, it was clear that Arafat was actively enabling Hamas and Islamic Jihad to carry out terror attacks against Israel and indoctrinating Palestinian society to wage jihad for Israel's destruction. Rest at the link
#1
REALCLEARPOLITICS > Iranians don't want to kidnap Amers becuz they know Amer will be likely to defens = mil retaliate, ergo go after Brits becuz Brits are a "soft target". Iranians can get their diplom talking points across wid out worrying of quick action as likely agz America. OTOH, FOX NEWS > NAVAL EXPERT [retired USN] > its still possible Brits may had inadvertently crossed into Iranian waters due to waterway's natural forces + lack of sufficient markers. However, Iran is not helping its case by NOT letting RN = Brit Officios talk/discuss incident wid captured sailors.
Wars have started over less. The March 23 seizure of 15 British sailors and marines by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Navy can be called many things, but spontaneous isnt one of them. It was another in a long series of tests of Western resolve that Iran has posed and we have failed. Iran is -- cleverly and gradually -- escalating its war for control of the Middle East.
In 1979 Iranian revolutionaries -- probably including a young Mahmoud Ahmadinejad -- seized the American embassy in Tehran and held its staff hostage for 444 days. Diplomacy failed so in April 1980, so Jimmy Carter launched and personally micromanaged into failure a military rescue mission in which eight Americans died in an aircraft collision at Desert One.
That failure and the ones to come taught Iran that it could provoke -- even commit acts of war -- without suffering any penalty. In the years since, it has -- either directly or through its terrorist proxies such as Hizballah -- committed a long series of terrorist acts resulting in many American deaths.
For over 20 years, Iran has lied to the UN Security Council about its nuclear programs. Instead of opening them to UN inspectors, Iran has dispersed its nuclear facilities and buried them in hardened sites to prevent destruction by air strikes.
In December 2005, I was among a small group of military analysts that met with the top American commanders in Baghdad. In one briefing, we learned about the Iranian-manufactured explosively-formed penetrator -- EFP in the inevitable acronym -- which was then and is now the weapon that causes more American deaths in Iraq than any other. It is made in Iran, smuggled in by Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps soldiers, and given to militias and insurgents to kill Americans. Irans government has paid no price for, again, shedding American blood.
While killing Americans in Iraq, Irans government is escalating gradually, maintaining control of the pace and direction of its war to become the hegemon of the Middle East. Its government is a complex one. Its public face, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, probably has power to do little more than make inciteful speeches. The real power rests in Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the Assembly of Experts (86 Shiite clerics that control accession to the Supreme Leader post) and the 40-man Expediency Council in which policy is debated under their version of Islamic law. In our political lingo, they are an Islamofascist regime.
America has pursued a policy aimed to isolate Iran. President Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice apparently believe that UN sanctions and furrowed brows can affect the course of Irans conquest of the Middle East. So far, Iran is so isolated that: 1) Russia is openly building and supplying its nuclear program, and has supplied Iran with sophisticated anti-aircraft missile systems that essentially preclude air strikes against the nuclear sites by all except stealth aircraft or missiles; 2) China is trading arms and technology to Iran for oil; and 3) Venezuelas Hugo Chavez has allied his nation with Iran (and China) in hopes of gaining weapons and technology and constricting American access to oil. At this rate, isolation could soon earn Ahmadinejad a seat on the New York Stock Exchange.
In earlier times, Americans had a greater ability to deal with reality. Before Jimmy Carter caused the failure at Desert One, there was another plan to rescue the American hostages in Tehran. The late great Ben Rich, the genius engineer who headed Lockheeds super-secret Skunk Works and inventor of stealth aircraft, once described it to me over several glasses of an adult beverage for which we shared a liking.
Bens plan, cobbled together in a matter of days after the Iranians seized our embassy, was elegant for its simplicity and enormous risk. There are rocket packs that can be mounted on the C-130 Hercules to assist takeoffs from short airfields. Why not, Ben explained, mount some takeoff packs on the back, and mount another set on the nose pointing forward? Ben wanted to fill the sky over Tehran with fighters, land a C-130 on the street in front of the embassy and bring it to a really, really short stop by firing the forward-mounted rockets. Out pour a couple of platoons of Marines or rangers, they shoot their way into the embassy, grab our folks, load everybody back into the C-130, and fire the backward-pointing rockets to blast out of there under heavy air cover. Think of the lesson Irans ayatollahs would have learned had America shot its way into and out of their capital city. Instead, they came to believe we are a paper tiger.
We should not be speaking openly of military action to rescue the British soldiers and marines now reportedly held in Tehran. Thats the Brits call, and if they want our help we should give it unhesitatingly. Meanwhile, we have to rethink our policy toward Iran.
Irans gradual conquest of the Middle East proceeds uninhibited. Its supporters, China and Russia principally, have no intention to limit Irans ambitions. Khamenei and his face man, Ahmadinejad, are claiming dominance over the shallow waters of the Persian Gulf. Their capture of the British troops coincided with a large naval wargame that emphasizes the point. Every neighboring nation -- including our allies such as Kuwait and Israel -- is threatened.
We need to challenge Iran to greater effect than it challenges us. To do so we need not -- openly -- go to war with Iran. But we should begin by imposing real penalties on Iran for each act of aggression. Every time an American is hurt or killed by an EFP in Iraq, Iran should pay the butchers bill. Every act of war, every act to subvert friendly governments in the Middle East, every attack on one of our allies by an Iranian force or proxy should be answered quickly with acts that cost Iran dearly, and assists Iranians to rebel against the ayatollahs. Each of our allies should be assured -- publicly -- that we will defend them against Iranian aggression.
People speak of the military option against Iran as if it consists only of a massive ground invasion, huge air attacks and an occupation like Iraq. Nonsense. We have so many options -- some of them secret -- that we should begin employing now. For example, there are ways to fry electronic systems with an electromagnetic pulse that isnt created by detonating a nuclear device. (HUMAN EVENTS is not the New York Times. We do not leak secrets. This weapon was spoken of openly in 2003). The next time the Iranian navy sits in port one dark night, such an EMP weapon could render its ships inert. Im guessing, but I think Ben Rich would have smiled at that thought.
Mr. Babbin served as a deputy undersecretary of defense in President George H.W. Bush's administration. He is the author (with Edward Timperlake) of "Showdown: Why China Wants War with the United States" and "Inside the Asylum: Why the UN and Old Europe are Worse than You Think".
Posted by: Frank G ||
03/27/2007 7:47 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Dead on target. I hope someone in the WH is listening.
Posted by: Mac ||
03/27/2007 8:28 Comments ||
Top||
#3
I recall reading about the electromagnetic weapon back then, and have since been frustrated that it's never been used. Understand, it would require some significant coordination: "OK. this will be so koowel. At 11:54:30 April 1st, we'll all turn off our equipment. Tehran will be soooo fried! So don't forget or your stuff will be fried too. Poland, I'm looking at you."
Posted by: Captain Lewis ||
03/27/2007 8:57 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Or we could just use nuclear weapons. Call me old fashioned if you must.
#5
If by "old fashioned" you mean stupid. (or glib?)
Posted by: Captain Lewis ||
03/27/2007 9:56 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Jimmy Carter launched and personally micromanaged into failure a military rescue mission in which eight Americans died in an aircraft collision at Desert One.
I distinctly remember a pre PC, pre internet snark refering to this mission as "The Carter Desert Classic"... of course I also remember the outrage when gas hit a buck a gallon...a BUCK a gallon... Ya'all must be crazy!
#7
Excalibur, please, for what I hope is the last time, permit me to remind you that we can achieve all the necessary objectives in Iran through use of conventional weapons. Fuel-air bombs, like the MOAB, produce explosions with the force of an atomic bomb and none of its fallout.
Were the United States to employ first-use of nuclear weapons in Iran or elsewhere, it would be nothing less than an open invitation for terrorists to retaliate with atomic bombs on American soil. Once we had foolishly opened Pandora's nuclear box few, if any, Islamic regimes would feel many compunctions about facilitating such an atrocity against us.
Even though Iran's nuclear facilities are hardened, the massive electrical generation sites and other utilities that are required to support such efforts are not. A series of fuel-air bombs detonated near major ventilaion ports will result in a vacuum pump-down of those buried facilities that would suck the lungs out of their scientists' bodies. Blast doors or no, triggering massive avalanches to cover points of egress will leave any survivors to suffocate or starve.
America's superior military technology provides us with innumerable options in combating Iran's nuclear aspirations. Atomic bombs need not play any role whatsoever in crushing this tyrannical theocratic regime. The only real thing lacking is the political will to do it. All else required for this is strictly off-the-shelf.
#8
Ayatollah power symbolism rests in Qom, the major Shiite seminary center. Take out Qom, and Teheran will fall. People talk of the Basij Gestapo and the Revolutionary Guard, but Iran does have military professionals. Many of the latter would happily turn on the parasitic leadership. However, extensive use of Black Ops would be essential. For one, the scale of resentment against the Ayatollahs would escalate if Iranians knew the extent of confiscated wealth that is held by those parasites. Rafsanjani is a billionaire, and not from business acumen; he claimed government contracts without competitive bidding. His kind are as bad as the Sauds.
#11
Thank you for the correction, Ship. Due to its explosive yield, I was under the impression that it was a thermobaric device. My point remains that fuel-air bombs still are capable of delivering massive strikes:
The effects produced by FAEs (a long high duration pressure and heat impulse) are often likened to the effects produced by low-yield nuclear weapons, but without the problems of radiationalthough this is inexact; for all current and foreseen subkiloton-yield nuclear weapon designs, prompt radiation effects predominate, producing some secondary heatingvery little of the nominal yield is actually delivered as blast. The significant injury dealt by either weapon on a targeted population is nonetheless great.
I think that if they had the capability to deliver a nuke to us, they would use it. What we do is immaterial to that desire.
Jackal, you are absolutely right in presuming that Iran's clergy has an unwavering dedication to destroying the West. That is precisely why I believe a preemptive strike against them is so imperative. Nothing else will avert a far more serious outcome.
Either we cripple Iran's nuclear aspirations now or confront a future need to vaporize their whole damn country in retaliation for the inevitable atomic atrocity that they will instigate. Iran's intention to do America great harm is not merely florid rhetoric for public consumption. It is their central desire and they see America as the single most greatest threat to their backward Neanderthal culture. We are utter fools not to take them seriously. If the use of nuclear weapons was our only option, you would see me advocating it right now. I believe otherwise and sincerely hope such a catastrophe can be avoided.
#12
Zenster, For the first time in a year of reading this site I disagree with you. IMHO the muzzies would use a nuke against any western target if they had it with no regard to first use. These guys are living a Fantasy Ideology. First Use requires logic and an understanding of the concept of cause and effect.
#13
IMHO the muzzies would use a nuke against any western target if they had it with no regard to first use.
I believe you may be misinterpreting me. Where do I disagree with this? I think you are absolutely correct. All of the above only increases the need for preemption in Iran. I'm not saying that Iran would refrain from first use if we continued to do so as well. What I say is that our own first use of atomic bombs would strip away too much moral authority and leave us justifiably vulnerable to terrorist nuclear retaliation.
Instead, we have a plethora of options with which we can neutralize Iran's threat. Let's use those alternatives, retain our moral authority and keep our nuclear hole card available as the ultimate threat. Worst of all is how MAD (Mutual Assured Destruction) has no meaning to Islamic fundamentalists. To quote Ayatollah Khomeini:
We do not worship Iran, we worship Allah. For patriotism is another name for paganism. I say let this land [Iran] burn. I say let this land go up in smoke, provided Islam emerges triumphant in the rest of the world. Speech in Qom 1980
The psychological instability of the fanatics is such that we need to retain nuclear obliteration as a final measure to use against them. No need to invite some sort of tit-for-tat nuclear exchange. It only does us more harm than good. Better to decapitate Iran without delay.
If nuclear weapons were the only possible way of addressing Iran's current hostility, I'd already be advocating their use. I want this issue put on ice at the soonest possible moment. Iran means to do America great harm and we are fools not to take them seriously.
#14
Excalibur, please, for what I hope is the last time, permit me to remind you that we can achieve all the necessary objectives in Iran through use of conventional weapons.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
Mullah Dadullah Akhund, the top Taliban operational commander in Afghanistan, will be delighted about last week, despite failing to bring to heel Operation Achilles, the current NATO offensive in Helmand province, and despite losing almost 100 fighters in just a couple of days. After all, Dadullahs younger brother, Mansoor Ahmed, came home on Monday from an Afghan government jail in Kabul, released along with four other top Taliban prisoners in exchange for Daniele Mastrogiacomo, an Italian journalist who had been kidnapped two weeks earlier. The Italian government is believed to have left Afghan president Hamid Karzai with no choice but to release the prisoners, threatening to pull Italys 1,900 soldiers out of Afghanistan if Mastrogiacomo was killed. Pleased with the outcome, the Taliban has promised to kidnap more foreign journalists. 
