As for Truth Before Dishonor, we know which side we are on.
Archive for the ‘Islam’ Category
Posted by John Hitchcock on 2015/01/16
Posted by DNW on 2014/09/29
In an update to the Alton Nolen story, we have his mother’s assurance that it was not him, or the real him, that was there when this thing “happened”.
He was raised in a loving home, you see.
And Mom says, he believed in God.
Though that is not quite what is at issue: since no one disputes that Alton Nolen believed in a god of some sort; just not the Christian God his mother and sister appear to – sincerely – profess.
No, the god Alton Nolen professed was the god Muslim faithful refer to as “Allah”. And it was apparently Alton Nolen’s belief in Allah and in the Koran as the word of Allah, that led Nolen to argue that women should be stoned for certain offenses, and is probably why he beheaded the woman he chose as one of his slashing victims.
But you know, Alton’s mom is, perhaps understandably, having a hard time dealing with this.
“Relatives of the main suspect in an Oklahoma workplace beheading insist that he is a good person and would never hurt anyone.
Mother Joyce Nolen and sister Megan Nolen made the emotional claims in a video posted Saturday to Facebook. Accused killer Alton Nolen has a violent criminal past and has spent multiple stints in prison, records have shown.
Listening to the audio we hear this from his mother, transcribed below as accurately as possible without resorting to a phonetically reproduced “dialect” style of quoting:
“This uh I would like to make a statement on behalf of my son Alton Nolen …. my heart is just [undecipherable] right now
Uh, I know my son, my son was raised up in a lovin home. My son was raised up believing in God, that’s what he believed in. My son was a good kid.
You know, I know what they saying he done, but I’m gonna tell you this; that’s not my son.
There’s two sides to every story. And, we’re only hearing one.
His family, our hearts bleed right now, because what they saying Alton has done.
I wanta apologize to both families, because this is not Alton.
But I just … I’m praying that justice will prevail; the whole story will come out; the whole story.
“There’s two sides to every story and we’re hearing only one …”
“I’m praying that justice will prevail. The whole story will come out … the whole story … “
Yeah, Alton was a good kid. Probably no “serious felonies” as they say in Ferguson.
Their hearts are bleeding too, figuratively speaking. Almost as much as the decapitated body of Alton’s victim did literally.
But remember! The whole story has not come out! Who are we to judge his acts before “the other side” ( whatever that might be) is heard?
Now, as regards Alton’s assaults on police officers? The prison time?
Well as sis puts it: “Alton my brother has always been a great person, a loving person, he’s always been a people person, he’s never been a violent person … so, for something like this to have happened …. [note the use of the passive voice]… And we are all still in shock right now, we’re all still in shock …”
Well, that settles that.
He was a good kid, done wrong. Fired. Driven to act out in a way contrary to his loving God believing nature and upbringing.
The solution is obvious. Call in Sharpton and …
Burn down Oklahoma.
Posted by Yorkshire on 2014/09/04
Two stories popped up on Facebook that should raise eybrows around Europe Especially. Taken individually, it’s a well??? But together it should set off ALARM BELLS across at least Europe. First is that Islamist (no brand or flavor mentioned, but is that necessary?) stole ELEVEN Planes from Tripoli AP. Then our dear leader opens the ability of Flight Training to Libyans. 9/11 anyone. I’m 99% sure they won’t make it here, but Europe, especially Italy are close. ISIS already has a price on Pope Francis’s Head. Need I speculate more?
11 Planes Taken From Tripoli AP
(by Bill Gertz, Washington Free Beacon) — Islamist militias in Libya took control of nearly a dozen commercial jetliners last month, and western intelligence agencies recently issued a warning that the jets could be used in terrorist attacks across North Africa.
Intelligence reports of the stolen jetliners were distributed within the U.S. government over the past two weeks and included a warning that one or more of the aircraft could be used in an attack later this month on the date marking the anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks against New York and Washington, said U.S. officials familiar with the reports.
Obama Lifts Ban on Libyans Attending U.S. Flight Schools, Training In Nuke Science
Ban has been in place since 1983
BY: Adam Kredo
August 12, 2014 7:45 am
The Obama administration has lifted longtime restrictions on Libyans attending flight schools in the United States and training here in nuclear science, according to a final amendment of the ban recently approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
Less than two years after the deadly terrorist attacks in Benghazi, Libya that killed four Americans, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is poised to sign off on an amendment reversing the ban, which was enacted following a wave or terrorist attacks in 1980s and prevents Libyans from studying these sensitive trades in the United States.
More of this HERE:
Posted by John Hitchcock on 2014/08/04
Yeah, like that’s ever gonna happen. But seriously, Hamas used the media as human shields as they launched a rocket aimed at Israel from the Gaza hotel that the media uses.
On August 1, terrorists fired a rocket at Israel from the al-Mashtal hotel frequented by foreign journalists in Gaza. pic.twitter.com/FzPXrA7zs2
— IDF (@IDFSpokesperson) August 4, 2014
DAILY RECAP: Day 27 of Operation Protective Edge. 108 rockets struck Israel. pic.twitter.com/M2iLIxonEF
— IDF (@IDFSpokesperson) August 4, 2014
Will the media wake up to the Truth? Is the Pope Hindu?
Posted in Character, genocide, Insanity, Islam, Israel, media, military, Personal Responsibility, Philosophy, politics, society, terrorists, truth, war | Tagged: Hamas, Islamic terrorism, Israel, media as human shield, War in Gaza | Comments Off
Posted by John Hitchcock on 2014/07/18
Sorry for the redundancy in the headline. While Truth Before Dishonor is decidedly pro-Israel, as is any Bible-believing Christian, the Democrat Party, as shown in their loudly booing the insertion of pro-Israel language in its platform in 2012, Progressives, Mainstream Media (brought to you by the Redundant Department of Redundancy) are decidedly anti-Israel. To the extreme that they support Islamic Jihadists, Islamic terrorists, child-murdering war criminals against the peace-desiring, self-defense-minded, self-preservation minded Israelis and the only nation in the Middle-East that is both Democratic and tolerant of Mohammedism, Christianity, Judaism, atheism.
From Robert Stacy McCain:
Here’s how the liberal mind works: The only thing they need to know is, “Who’s the victim of oppression?” Once the liberal media decides Palestinians are victims and Israelis are oppressors, it doesn’t matter what actually happens — Hamas suicide bombers blowing up busloads of innocent Israelis, launching missiles at Tel Aviv, whatever — the victim/oppressor dynamic controls the narrative.
— בועזיז (@Boazziz) July 18, 2014
Stand for Freedom.
Stand for religious tolerance.
Stand for Democratic rule of Law.
Stand against genocide.
Stand against bigotry.
Stand up for the right of Israel to exist and Jews to live.
Down with the lying Media. Down with the lying Hamas and State-sponsored Terrorism.
Posted in Christianity, crime, Culture, Islam, Israel, Judaism, Liberal, media, Philosophy, politically correct, Politically Incorrect, politics, Religion, society, terrorists, truth, war | Tagged: Hamas, mainstream media, Pro-Israel, Pro-Jew, Pro-Life, Syria | 1 Comment »
Posted by John Hitchcock on 2014/07/14
Hamas has meetings and stores weapons across the street from an UNRWA medical center, a school and civilian homes. pic.twitter.com/eW0UIrdcxP
— IDF (@IDFSpokesperson) July 14, 2014
Posted in Character, Culture, genocide, Islam, Israel, media, Personal Responsibility, Philosophy, politically correct, politics, Religion, society, terrorists, truth, war | Tagged: Anti-Semitism, fsck Palestine, Hamas, Pro-Israel | Comments Off
Posted by DNW on 2014/05/29
Or is it emotions, i.e., feelings, as “the only certain knowledge”?
This post is not an argument in favor of “emotional knowledge” whatever that might be taken to mean. Nor is it about some theory of psychological health, involving the integration of all aspects of the human personality.
Instead, it is a momentary reflection on the degrading effects of skepticism, both moral and perhaps epistemological as well, on the ability of the convinced skeptic – if such a term is permissible – to actually engage in moral argument.
This was brought forcefully to mind by a YouTube video posted by Yorkshire on First Street Journal.
In this video we see a youthful British woman clad in sandals and a baggy red shift-like garment reaching to well below the knees, bemoaning the manner in which radical Moslems now inhabiting her old Luton neighborhood are protesting the arrest of the wife of Moslem who had set off a bomb in Stockholm.
What seems to really upset the British girl is the Moslem vitriol; their loudly antagonistic, hateful, and contemptuously hostile way of expressing themselves with respect to the institutions of both the culture and the country which has harbored and sheltered, and if news reports are right, often literally housed and fed them.
She seems especially disturbed by the marchers’ chant that the British police should burn in hell.
Attempting to engage one contemptuous burka clad protester in conversation, she’s informed that she looks naked; and is asked if she is trying to seduce.
She is told to “Go and put on some clothes”.
She becomes indignant, sputtering, “How you chose to dress like that, I chose to dress like this”.
The British woman then protests that her female critic is “judging” her.
The female marcher cheerfully admits that she is indeed judging the indignant and whiny western woman.
The westerner babbles that she should not be judged because she is not judging the Moslem woman; just as if the Moslem woman actually believed that she and the western woman were moral peers inhabiting the same moral plane.
“I don’t judge you, because I’m above that” says the western woman, while flailing her arms about for emphasis.
“Don’t you dare speak to me like that.” she rails. ‘This is my hometown as well”: again, implicitly referring to a moral framework based on respect for persons – even the stupid, weak, and misguided – which assumes a vision of living space and power “sharing”, at which the Moslems marchers obviously sneer.
The now emotionally wounded westerner continues her own feelings-jihad with, “I try my hardest to sympathize with people who may be different to me, and it’s this tiny minority …”
Ah yes, dear, please say again for the cameras how broadminded and accepting you are. I am sure that that will make the desired impression on the marchers. Once they are sure, you know, that you mean no harm and will respect them.
Hoping then to score rhetorical points along this line by appealing to a male marcher with the concept of “fairness”, she is informed in short order that it is indeed OK to shout that British police should burn in hell. Because you see, Britain has free speech. And further, in response to your question dear lady as to whether Koran-observant Moslems ought to respect the laws of the country that hosts them?
Well, the answer is, “No”.
Eventually, she encounters some scholar type who informs her Koranic-like chapter and verse that Moslems need not observe non-Moslem law in their host countries, and, that she is going to hell to boot.
She responds with, “It hurts me to think that you think that of me because you don’t really know me …” As if that would make a difference.
To which the scholar-type replies that he knows quite enough. He knows she is not a Moslem.
Well, she tried to be understanding and fair and considerate of everyone’s feelings. What else is there to say?
A little, apparently.
She sets the tone of the wrap-up of her video adventure with a voice-over wherein she announces she, “finds it sad that anyone would preach such a damning message”.
Then, tremulously facing the camera: “To sum up in words to tell you how I’m feeling now … I feel … gutted, completely gutted that this is happening ….”
Words failing her she goes silent; and saying no more, turns her head away from camera and toward the protesters.
A pause …. to let the profundity of the feelings sink in ….
Feelings … hurt … feelings … are her frame of reference. Along with mutual sympathy and respect for all differences; emphasizing the notion of a tolerant and accepting “fairness” among presumed “equals”.
But she is obviously not their equal. Not in physical fact clearly, and not according to the moral theory they announce.
And what does she have in her ideological armamentarium with which to respond to them?
Feelings. She has feelings. And she wants to tell you about her feelings and how hurtful you are being to them.
I guess she imagines the Moslems must care about her feelings. Or that they should care. It is almost as if she sees her feelings as some great scale by which moral principles ought to be weighed and evaluated.
But the Moslem marchers obviously don’t care. And I don’t see how they could care, given her pathetic intellectual performance. I certainly don’t care, and like her, I am a westerner myself.
Western culture, the postmodernist, modern liberal portion of it, is not only skeptical of religious dogmatism, it is skeptical (and increasingly outright nihilistic) regarding moral knowledge in general, and quite often about the possibility of solid or enduring knowledge concerning reality itself.
Positive, empirical science, the one practice that is still thought by some of this ideological stripe to yield what can be called certain knowledge, is held by these same persons to be value free, and incapable of yielding any “is” information, which leads to “ought” conclusions.
When it comes to moral questions then, all this kind of person can do when confronted by other some person having dogmatic and insistent views is, just as C.S. Lewis and others before him long ago observed, to remark on the state of their feelings.
Of course “way back when”, when Lewis laid out the implications of such relativism and skepticism, and then described its inevitably hapless and pathetic end-point, his reductio ad absurdum depiction had a certain flavor of the comically ironic about it. Certainly, and whatever their 20th century progressive opinion leader rhetoric, no broad segment of any society would actually embrace skepticism and relativism to a point wherein they would wind up quite so stupid and hapless in the face of a strident and mocking challenge to their assumed “values”, as we saw here?
Well, with enough propagandizing social affirmation and encouragement, they obviously can.
What then, Lewis and others presented as a warning via their careful exercises in hypothetical logic, and the inevitable conclusions of their chains of reasoning, this young woman is now living out in fact.
She embraced the skeptical milquetoast meta-values presented to her. She internalized them. She then lived comfortably among similar enabling others who had no motivation to rock or test their relativist boat, exposing its virtually non-existent freeboard, and lack of seaworthiness.
Now however, she confronts hostile and vehement others who, in an act of modern values sacrilege, sneer at her feelings and test her values with their life and death commitments.
And all she can do is announce to the world how THAT makes her feel; and theatrically shake her head with sadness as a means of trying to elevate herself to her lost honor and dignity. After all, she’s “above that” other stuff.
Yes … I guess she is. Just as long as those vestiges of western moral ideals more potent than the relativism and skepticism and values emotivism which she represents and lives out, continue to hold the moral barbarians somewhat at bay.
[Update note. I’ve made some wording changes in the first 2/3rds “narrative portion” of the post. Changing word order, tightening up slightly, checking punctuation and coherence, and doing the things real bloggers do when they write a draft before posting. The more analytical remarks about postmodern culture are unchanged.]
Posted in Culture, Islam, Law, Liberal, Philosophy, politically correct, politics, Religion, society, terrorists, Uncategorized | Tagged: feelings, Liberal emotivists, progressive values, self-destructive stupidity | 7 Comments »
Posted by Dana Pico on 2012/11/11
From Cassy Fiano, six days ago:
by CASSY | NOVEMBER 5, 2012
Three years ago today, there was a jihadist attack on Fort Hood perpetrated by Major Nidal Hasan. Michelle Malkin has the names of those murdered, which included one soldier’s unborn baby:
- LTC Juanita Warman, 55, Havre de Grace, Md.
- MAJ Libardo Caraveo, 52, Woodbridge, Va.
- CPT John P. Gaffaney, 54, San Diego, Calif.
- CPT Russell Seager, 41, Racine, Wis.
- SSG Justin Decrow, 32, Plymouth, Ind.
- SGT Amy Krueger, 29, Kiel, Wis.
- SPC Jason Hunt, 22, Tillman, Okla.
- SPC Frederick Greene, 29, Mountain City, Tenn.
- PFC Aaron Nemelka, 19, West Jordan, Utah
- PFC Michael Pearson, 22, Bolingbrook, Ill.
- PFC Kham Xiong, 23, St. Paul, Minn.
- PVT Francheska Velez, 21, Chicago, Ill. and her unborn baby
- Michael G. Cahill, Cameron, Texas [civilian]
It still breaks my heart thinking of Pvt. Velez especially, who cried out for her baby as she lay dying.
A pregnant soldier shot during a rampage at a Texas Army post last year cried out, “My baby! My baby!” as others crawled under desks, dodged bullets that pierced walls and rushed to help their bleeding comrades, a military court heard Monday.
A soldier had just told Spc. Jonathan Sims that she was expecting a baby and was preparing to go home, when the first volley of gunfire rang out Nov. 5 in a Fort Hood building where soldiers get medical tests before and after deploying.
“The female soldier that was sitting next to me was in the fetal position. She was screaming: ‘My baby! My baby!’” Sims said.
It’s pretty much a known fact for anyone with more than two brain cells in their head that the attack on Fort Hood was a terrorist attack. Hasan had plenty of evidence against him there. He defended suicide bombings and said that Muslim service members were justified in killing US troops. He was in contact with Anwar al-Awlaki, one of the world’s most notorious terrorists. And what did they discuss? Carrying out jihad in the United States.
Yet Barack Obama continues to classify this attack as “workplace violence”.
Shame on him.
How can there be shame on someone who is shameless?
If there was ever a time for the Commander-in-Chief to change the designation away from the idiotic “workplace violence” tag to something which would allow the award of Purple Hearts to the victims of Nidal Hasan’s deliberate attack on American soldiers, Veterans’ Day would be that time.
I do not understand why he does not; it isn’t as though doing so could somehow inflame passions of the Muslims around the world against the United States more; we are at war against the Islamists, and are actively killing them in Afghanistan, directly, through combat, and in Pakistan via the occasional drone attack against al Qaeda leaders. We sent SEAL Team 6 into Abbottabad, Pakistan, to eliminate Osama bin Laden, and we used unmanned drones in Yemen to kill Anwar al-Awlaki and then his son,Abdulrahman al-Awlaqi, though the actual target at that time was (supposedly) Ibrahim al-Banna, an Egyptian al Qaeda operative. The Muslims know that we are at war with the Islamists, and the American people know that we are at war with the Islamists, and there is really no reason at all not to designate the Fort Hood massacre as an Islamist attack on our soldiers.
THE FIRST STREET JOURNAL salutes our veterans on Veterans’ Day, and as much as I can speak for our host here, TRUTH BEFORE DISHONOR does as well.
Cross-posted on THE FIRST STREET JOURNAL.
Posted by John Hitchcock on 2012/11/07
We tried and failed. We on the Right worked hard to rid our government of the man who would deign to utter the words “The Future Must Not Belong to Those Who Slander the Prophet of Islam”, in complete rejection of our First Amendment and complete rejection of Judaism and Christianity. We tried and failed.
And just as we Christians and the practicing Jews here in the US are having our Religious Freedoms stripped from us by the Obama administration are left further unprotected and unsafe and unfree, so are you, Israel. You’re on your own. For the next four years, you cannot count on the US to help keep you safe from the Mohammedan terrorists surrounding you who want nothing less than your total annihilation.
You are now “a nation of unwalled cities” and only Providence can help you now. You have no friendly nations to come to your rescue.
But you still have many millions of people here in the US who are praying vehemently to Adonai on your behalf. The US will fail you, and just did. But Yahweh will not. Even as the followers of the evil, genocidal, pedophiliac, burning in Sheol Mohammed redouble their efforts to destroy you, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Joseph will be there for you. As He promised.
Posted by Dana Pico on 2012/10/18
John Hitchcock has informed me that Lee DeCovnick of the American Thinker picked up and referenced my article, The Fort Hood Massacre victims: no Purple Hearts for them!, published on TRUTH BEFORE DISHONOR. It was published on THE FIRST STREET JOURNAL as well, but the link was to the article on Mr Hitchcock’s site.
It’s interesting that that link came today; Sister Toldjah tweeted:
— Sister Toldjah (@sistertoldjah) October 18, 2012
Here’s the story:
Published October 18, 2012 | Associated Press
FORT HOOD, Texas – An Army appeals court has ruled that the Fort Hood shooting suspect can have his facial hair forcibly shaved off before his murder trial.
The U.S. Army Court of Criminal Appeals’ opinion issued Thursday upheld the military trial judge’s decision to order Maj. Nidal Hasan to appear in court clean shaven or be forcibly shaved.
It also ruled that Col. Gregory Gross, the judge, properly found that the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act doesn’t give Hasan the right to have a beard while in uniform at trial.
Hasan has said the beard is an expression of his Muslim faith. His attorneys say they’ll appeal the ruling.
I wonder: do they have to use lather and hot water, or is a dry straight razor acceptable? :)
Of course, I’m sure that they will use an electric razor on this fine example of the religion of peace.
I suspect that Major Hasan’s insistence on wearing a beard is less “an expression of his Muslim faith” than it is of doing what little he can to spite the Army and the United States again. If it were truly his Muslim faith, after having launched a martyrdom attack, he would proudly plead guilty and ask for a sentence of death. Perhaps he thinks that he’ll be able to use his court martial to issue some kind of grandiose statement, but the presiding officer will quickly squelch that.
I don’t recall discussing the death penalty much on THE FIRST STREET JOURNAL, but readers of my old site will recall that I am opposed to capital punishment. Major Hasan could be sentenced to death if found guilty, and part of me would like to see that, just so we could see how the brave Islamist warrior shrinks from such a fate and appeals the sentence. But, in reality, the best sentence would be life in prison, deprived of all of his religious materials, with a crucifix hanging on his wall, forever out of his reach, and a promise to throw his body to the pigs when he finally dies. Let him languish, remembering every day as he urinates and defecates in his diaper¹ that while he may have killed fourteen people who were better than him, he is really a small and unimportant
man creature, headed only for Hell.
¹ – Major Hasan was paralyzed from the waist down by fire from the security guards who finally stopped his rampage.
Cross posted on THE FIRST STREET JOURNAL.
Posted by Dana Pico on 2012/09/29
By Isabel Kershner and Rick Gladstone | Published: September 28, 2012
JERUSALEM — When the prime minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, drew his red line on a cartoonish diagram of a bomb from the podium of the United Nations General Assembly on Thursday, he intended to illustrate in simple terms the point at which Iran’s uranium enrichment program must be stopped, at least in Israel’s view, to thwart a final sprint to a nuclear weapon.
Instead, the attention-grabbing performance seems to have created confusion in, of all places, Israel.
Mr. Netanyahu’s bomb was divided into sections marked 70 percent and 90 percent, representing the progress Iran has made, and is expected to make, toward amassing enough enriched uranium for a bomb, Israeli officials and experts said. Mr. Netanyahu drew his red line at 90 percent, asserting that the Iranians would be 90 percent along the way by next spring or summer.
But on Friday, Yediot Aharonot, a popular newspaper, published a drastically different interpretation. It assumed, erroneously, that Mr. Netanyahu had been referring not to progress made by Iran, but to actual percentages of uranium enrichment in his diagram, now known as the “Bibi Bomb,” a reference to Mr. Netanyahu’s nickname.
Much more at the link.
Whether Prime Minister Netanyahu meant that the Iranians were 70% on the way to being able to build an atomic bomb, or he was referring to 70% enrichment having been achieved, either is worrisome. Current guesstimates have Iran with a stockpile of uranium enriched to about 20% U235, which is considered weapons usable, for a crude bomb, but as the enrichment levels get lower, the amount needed to reach a critical mass grows very large. Uranium enriched to 85% U235 is considered weapons grade. However, once 20% enrichment has been achieved, further enrichment to 90% does not take that long.
Haaretz claimed that the Prime Minister’s speech was meant much more for the Israeli public:
By Aluf Benn, Editor-in-Chief | Sep.29, 2012 | 4:01 PM
In his wildest fantasy, after going up to the podium to deliver his speech at the United Nations General Assembly and voicing predictable warnings about the Jewish historical plight, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu likely pictured himself pulling out a note from his blazer and reading the dramatic message:
“IDF Chief just informed me of the successful completion of an operation against Iran’s nuclear facilities. Our soldiers are on the way home with no reported casualties, holding enriched Uranium Iran has harbored in recent years. The threats on Israel, the Gulf States and the global economy have been removed. I want to take this opportunity to thank all IDF combatants for their remarkable achievement, and join me in applauding them.”
But this wild dream did not come true. IDF soldiers remained in their bases, and the enrichment of uranium persists. Netanyahu settled for the thick red marker, which he used to draw a red line on a bomb diagram he brought from home, and tried to explain to the international community where and when to stop Iran before it’s too late.
Placing Iran at the top of his agenda serves Netanyahu’s political goals well ahead of a campaign cycle in which he will be running for his third term as Israel’s premier. He is perceived by the public as the only statesman capable of confronting the Iranian challenge, and his focus on the issue has only catapulted him to the top of the polls.
Netanyahu is, as usual, attentive to his public, catering his UN speech on Thursday to polls at home, which indicate that Israelis are concerned about Iran, but think the U.S. is the one that should take the country on, not Israel. Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak have not succeeded in convincing public opinion that the IDF can handle the Iranian threat on its own. The public has spoken: Not now and not alone.
Netanyahu’s speech was precisely suited to this position: He called on the international community to determine a red line on Iran – or in other words to threaten it with war – and did not proclaim that Israel would go it alone if “the world” disappoints it. Netanyahu wanted to sound resolute, just like viewers at home love, but without barking up a tree he will have a hard time climbing down from.
Mr Benn states that the Israeli public prefer that the United States take the lead on this issue, and are not inclined to support a go-it-alone position on the part of Israel.
But when facing an existential threat, Israel may not be able to afford to rely on others. The generation which survived the Holocaust is mostly gone now, and the few survivors remaining who were older than toddlers at the time are at least in their seventies, but the history is clear: when the Jews of Europe depended on other people for their survival, half of them were slaughtered, and the other half would have been had the Third Reich won the war.
Cross posted on THE FIRST STREET JOURNAL.
Added (admin): Also see Dana Pico’s Binyamin Netanyahu: “Do you want these fanatics to have nuclear weapons?”
Posted by Dana Pico on 2012/09/16
From Karen, the Lonely Conservative:
September 16, 2012
We now have to look to foreign leaders to hear some common sense. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu appeared on Meet the Press this morning, saying things that make sense. I’m surprised his comments weren’t cut.
Continuing his calls for the United States to join Israel in imposing “red lines” threatening military action if Iran continues to pursue weapons made from enriched uranium, Netanyahu told David Gregory that “Iran is guided by a leadership with an unbelievable fanaticism.”
“It’s the same fanaticism that you see storming your embassies today,” he added. “Do you want these fanatics to have nuclear weapons?”
He then lamented that some in the American press have vocalized opposition to Israel’s desired end to an Iranian nuclear program: “I mean I heard some people suggest, David — I actually read this in the American press — they said, ‘Well, you know, if you take action, that’s a lot worse than having Iran with nuclear weapons. Some have even said that Iran with nuclear weapons would stabilize the Middle East, stabilize the Middle East.”
“I think the people who say this have set a new standard for human stupidity,” he said of those opponents.
No wonder Obama doesn’t want to meet with him.
The Other McCain has more.
Bob Woodward made a very important observation on Meet the Press, that our intelligence information, that everyone’s intelligence information, is often not as accurate as they’d like to believe it is. The most well-known failure of intelligence was when the United States believed, wholeheartedly, that Iraq retained old, and was building new, chemical weapons in 2002, but it was hardly the only one. Mr Woodward stated that any claims that anyone knew, for certain, exactly how far along Iran was toward building nuclear weapons were foolish; their intelligence estimates might happen to be dead-on accurate, but they could also be very far off.
That, of course, brings up the very old military question: do you prepare for what you believe is the worst your enemies could do, or for what you believe they are most likely to do? For Israel, a nuclear-armed Iran is an existential threat, and the answer, for most intelligent people, would be that they must prepare for the worst Iran could do; if it turns out that they overprepared, then they will have wasted time and effort and money, but their nation will endure. If they decide to base their preparations on what they think their enemies are most likely to do, and they guess wrong, the consequences could be devastating.
And that is why, to Prime Minister Netanyahu, the notion that there is anything worse than an Iran armed with nuclear weapons “set(s) a new standard for human stupidity.” Armchair strategists who have the responsibility for nothing have the luxury of theorizing about what might or could or should or probably will or will not happen; the men with the actual responsibility of protecting their nations’ actual survival don’t have that luxury.
Cross-posted on THE FIRST STREET JOURNAL.