Saturday, February 11, 2006


United States
Is Preparing
Military Strike
Against Iran


The London Telegraph is reporting that America is preparing to attack Iran's nuclear sites:Strategists at the Pentagon are drawing up plans for devastating bombing raids backed by submarine-launched ballistic missile attacks against Iran's nuclear sites as a "last resort" to block Teheran's efforts to develop an atomic bomb.

Central Command and Strategic Command planners are identifying targets, assessing weapon-loads and working on logistics for an operation, the Sunday Telegraph has learnt.

They are reporting to the office of Donald Rumsfeld, the defence secretary, as America updates plans for action if the diplomatic offensive fails to thwart the Islamic republic's nuclear bomb ambitions. Teheran claims that it is developing only a civilian energy programme.

"This is more than just the standard military contingency assessment," said a senior Pentagon adviser. "This has taken on much greater urgency in recent months."

The prospect of military action could put Washington at odds with Britain which fears that an attack would spark violence across the Middle East, reprisals in the West and may not cripple Teheran's nuclear programme. But the steady flow of disclosures about Iran's secret nuclear operations and the virulent anti-Israeli threats of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has prompted the fresh assessment of military options by Washington.

The most likely strategy would involve aerial bombardment by long-distance B2 bombers, each armed with up to 40,000lb of precision weapons, including the latest bunker-busting devices. They would fly from bases in Missouri with mid-air refuelling.

The Bush administration has recently announced plans to add conventional ballistic missiles to the armoury of its nuclear Trident submarines within the next two years. If ready in time, they would also form part of the plan of attack.

Teheran has dispersed its nuclear plants, burying some deep underground, and has recently increased its air defences, but Pentagon planners believe that the raids could seriously set back Iran's nuclear programme.

Iran was last weekend reported to the United Nations Security Council by the International Atomic Energy Agency for its banned nuclear activities. Teheran reacted by announcing that it would resume full-scale uranium enrichment - producing material that could arm nuclear devices.

The White House says that it wants a diplomatic solution to the stand-off, but President George W Bush has refused to rule out military action and reaffirmed last weekend that Iran's nuclear ambitions "will not be tolerated".

Sen John McCain, the Republican front-runner to succeed Mr Bush in 2008, has advocated military strikes as a last resort. He said recently: "There is only only one thing worse than the United States exercising a military option and that is a nuclear-armed Iran."


Has Ahmadinejad
Given Us
The Smoking Gun
We Need?


Via Drudge, the Bangkok Post is reporting this morning that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has gone on another one of his trademark tirades, including a promise to "remove" Israel:


Tehran (dpa) - Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said on Saturday that the Palestinians and "other nations" will eventually remove Israel from the region.

Addressing a mass demonstration in Tehran - one of many organized throughout Iran to commemorate the 27th anniversary of the Islamic revolution - he once again questioned the Holocaust "fairy tale".

"We ask the West to remove what they created sixty years ago and if they do not listen to our recommendations, then the Palestinian nation and other nations will eventually do this for them," Ahmadinejad said in a ceremony marking the 27th anniversary of the Islamic revolution.

"Do the removal of Israel before it is too late and save yourself from the fury of regional nations," the ultra-conservative president said.

"How comes that insulting the prophet of Muslims worldwide is justified within the framework of press freedom, but investigating about the fairy tale Holocaust is not?" Ahmadinejad said.

"The real Holocaust is what is happening in Palestine where the Zionists avail themselves of the fairy tale of Holocaust as blackmail and justification for killing children and women and making innocent people homeless," Ahmadinejad said.

The president said that the results of the parliamentary elections in Palestine and the victory of the Hamas group "clearly showed what the people really want."

The president also referred to the cartoons and called it a "Zionist plot" against not only Muslims but also those genuinely committed to Christianity and Judaism.

"Those who insulted the prophet should know that you cannot obscure the sun with a handful of dust. The dust will just get back and blind your own eyes," he said. The crowd replied to his remarks with "Death to Denmark" slogans.


In talking to friends about Ahmadinejad, I am always careful to explain that he has never come right out and said that he will destroy Israel. He has said, Israel should be wiped off the map, and that it needs to be removed.

This is the first time Ahmadinejad has said that it will be removed.

Has he now given us the smoking gun we need to destroy his regime, by any means necessary?

What do we need to have happen before we understand that we are confronted with a modern-day Hitler, and that we are in the position Europe was in in the late-30's, when Hitler could have been stopped?

If we don't act very soon, we will once again have the blood of tens of millions, if not hundreds of millions of people on our hands.

Friday, February 10, 2006


Oh Oh,
Is Someone About To Have
A Very Public Breakdown?


Rapper Kanye West is exhibiting clear symptoms of an impending Schizophrenic breakdown. From Contact Music:


Cocky rap star KANYE WEST is calling for a revised edition of THE BIBLE, because he thinks he should be a character in it.

The JESUS WALKS hitmaker, who picked up three Grammy Awards last night (08FEB06), feels sure he'd be "a griot" (West African storyteller) in a modern Bible.

He says, "I bring up historical subjects in a way that makes kids want to learn about them. I'm an inspirational speaker.

"I changed the sound of music more than one time... For all those reasons, I'd be a part of the Bible. I'm definitely in the history books already."


Really, people ought to get the word out to his handlers. If what I suspect turns out to be true, this is not going to be pretty.


Pope Says
Science No Threat
To Faith


Christians would do well to understand that science is simply another way of studying the Mind of God. True, some scientists are anti-Faith, and try to make the Scientific method an approach to life in the political and domestic sphere as well as the sciences, but there are bad apples in all professions.

Faiths across the world need to learn to bridge the chasm between the sciences and their relationship to God. The Pope leads the way:


VATICAN CITY (Reuters) - Science made such rapid progress in the 20th century that people may sometimes be confused about how the Christian faith can still be compatible with it, Pope Benedict said on Friday.

But science and religion are not opposed to each other and Christians should not be afraid to try to understand how they compliment each other in explaining the mystery of life on Earth, he told the Vatican's doctrinal department.

The Pope made his comments at a time of heated debate, mostly in the United States, about intelligent design arguments challenging evolution. A Pennsylvania court ruled in December that intelligent design could not be taught as science in school.

"The Church joyfully accepts the real conquests of human knowledge and recognizes that spreading the Gospel also means really taking charge of the prospects and the challenges that modern knowledge unlocks," he said.

The dialogue between religion and science would actually help the faithful see "the logic of faith in God," said the Pope, speaking to members of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

He headed this Vatican department for nearly 25 years until his election last April.

Scientific discoveries sometimes came so rapidly "that it becomes very complicated to recognize how they are compatible with the truth revealed by God about man and the world," said the German-born Pontiff, 78.

The Church, however, should not fear the challenge of reconciling faith and reason because God was "in fact, the Lord of all creation and all history."


Israel Call Putin's
Hamas Invitation
A "Knife In The Back"


It's really a knife in the back for all of Western Civilization:


JERUSALEM (AFP) - Israel was left fuming over Russian President Vladimir Putin's decision to invite Palestinian poll winners Hamas to Moscow, slamming the move as a "knife in the back" from a key negotiator for Middle East peace.

The invititation was later backed by France as potentially positive for the peace process.

But it puzzled Washington and delivered a blow to the Jewish state's appeal to the international community to isolate the radical movement as it prepares to form a new Palestinian government.

"This initiative is a real knife in the back... because it aims to give international legitimacy to a terrorist group and we must oppose it with all our means," Education Minister Meir Sheetrit told public radio on Friday.

"What would Moscow say if we invited Chechen representatives (to Jerusalem) in response?" the minister asked.


Yes, if we talk with Hamas, maybe they will change. If we talk with Chavez, maybe he will change. If we talk with Ahmadinejad, maybe he will change. If we had talked with Hitler, maybe he would have changed.

Thursday, February 09, 2006


Putin Says
Hamas Not
A Terrorist Group


There's something a little off about this guy.

From Little Green Footballs:


“Maintaining our contacts with Hamas, we are ready in the near future to invite the Hamas authorities to Moscow to hold talks,” Putin told a news conference in the Spanish capital Madrid where he was on a visit.

Hamas, considered a terrorist organization by the United States, won a crushing victory over the long-dominant Fatah group in an election on January 25.

Haniyeh said Hamas leaders meeting in Cairo agreed to seek a unity government with other factions.

Speaking through a Spanish interpreter, Putin said: “We haven’t considered Hamas a terrorist organization. Today we must recognize that Hamas has reached power in Palestine as a result of legitimate elections and we must respect the choice of the Palestinian people.”


Playing Air Guitar
In The Valley
Of Megiddo


Legend has it, Nero played his violin while Rome burned to the ground. One can imagine him watching the flames dance while playing a tragic melody. Today, we don't seem to have the sense to be sad, or the sense of tragedy with which to understand our fate, if we continue marching down the road we are on.

Here is an article about the Iranian nuclear situation, by Kenneth Timmerman:


The prospect that the Islamic Republic of Iran could acquire nuclear weapons ought to be too serious for it to succumb to political spin, especially from within the U.S. intelligence community.

But leakers seeking to embarrass the Bush administration have been furiously spinning the extraordinary information obtained over the past eighteen months from an Iranian walk-in about Iran’s nuclear intentions, seeking to downplay its importance and suggesting that the intelligence community is divided over how to interpret it..

Here is what we know about the extraordinary documents provided by the walk-in on a laptop computer. They include:

-design information for modifications to the re-entry vehicle of Iran’s Shahab ballistic missile, to allow it to carry a nuclear warhead to Israel;

-drawings of a deep underground shaft, fitted out with remote-controlled sensors and a distant control booth, which analysts acknowledge has all the hallmarks of a nuclear weapons test shaft;

-a complete set of drawings, worked up by an front company in Tehran for Iran’s Revolutionary Guards Corps, for a small, clandestine uranium-conversion facility that could replace the large, commercial plant in Isfahan should the U.S. or Israel take it out in a military strike.

Last Thursday, the IAEA Board of Governors examined an extraordinary report from the agency’s chief inspector in Iran, that twice cited “nuclear weapons” work in Iran. Foreign diplomats who heard the report said it was “astonishing,” and was the first time the Agency had ever openly referred to evidence of an Iranian weapons program.

“No one doubts any longer what the Iranians are up to,” a Bush administration official tracking Iran’s nuclear development told me yesterday. “Even the Russians and the Chinese know exactly what the Iranians are doing.”

The only ones who don’t understand what Iran is up to, it seems, can be found in the U.S. intelligence community - at least, those members of it who are furiously leaking to the Bush-bashing press.

A front page analysis in yesterday’s Washington Post, for instance, claimed that “U.S. and allied intelligence analysts” estimate that Iran could be “as much as a decade away” from nuclear weapons capability. Even that rosy projection assumed that the project “encounters no major technical hurdles.” Beyond that, the Post asserted, whether Iran’s leaders have actually decided to pursue a weapons program and the “concrete progress” they have made “remain divisive questions among government analysts and U.N. inspectors.”

Proof of how iffy the intelligence obtained from the defector’s laptop, according to the Post, was the fact that “nowhere, for example, does the word ‘nuclear’ appear” on the test shaft and control room drawings. “What do expect them to do,” a Bush administration official said, “write ‘nuclear-weapons document’ all over these things?”

The intelligence spin-meisters convinced the gullible Post reporters that “other suggestive evidence is cloaked in similar uncertainty.” For example: “U.S. intelligence considers the laptop documents authentic but cannot prove it….

CIA analysts, some of whom had been involved only a year earlier on the flawed assessments of Iraq’s weapons programs, initially speculated that a third country, such as Israel, may have fabricated the evidence.” Now there’s a novel spin. If the world is concerned that Iran is developing nuclear weapons, it’s all because of the Jews!

That such nonsense passed muster at the Post shows yet again just how far a once great newspaper has fallen.

It took eighteen paragraphs of spin for the Post to include the view of "some policymakers" in the administration who "have begun pushing back, suggesting that the CIA is demanding an unrealisitcally high standard of evidence before reaching conclusions that the White House believes are obvious."

Must be those pesky "neo-cons" again. Perhaps Vice President Cheney has been hanging out at Langley again, asking questions - heaven forbid! - of CIA weapons analysts.

But the most damaging thing about the leaks to the Post was this piece of intelligence:

“Experts at the Sandia National Laboratories in New Mexico ran the schematics [for the Shahab-3 nuclear-capable warhead] through computer simulations. They determined two things: The drawings were an effort to expand the nose cone of the Shahab-3 to carry a nuclear warhead, and the modification plans, if executed, would not work.”

Now, developing the intelligence and the computer capabiltities to come that conclusion cost the United States hundreds of billions of dollars and fifty years of nuclear weapons expertise to develop. Thanks to a dumb reporter at the Washington Post, we just gave it to the Iranians for thirty-five cents.

The United States provided the documents taken from the defector’s laptop to the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna, which shared them with the Iranians last fall. The Iranians understood immediately that the jig was up, and didn’t need to caveat that conclusion. In response, they hardened their tone, cut off negotiations with the IAEA and the EU-3, and made a variety of dire threats, including unilateral Iranian military action against the United States, Israel, and our Middle East allies.

And now for the really bad news. A U.S. intelligence official, who has reviewed intelligence reports from Europe, tells me there are source reports from Iran that suggest the Iranian regime is preparing for a nuclear-related test before March 20 - the date of the Iranian new year.

Separately, an Iranian defector, who held a senior position in the intelligence office of the Supreme Leader until July 2001 and maintains face-to-face contact with top intelligence and military officials inside Iran, told me recently that Iran has conducted “more than four” tests of non-nuclear components for a nuclear explosive device in recent months.

That suggests that Iran is attempting to build an implosion device, a sophisticated design that can be made small enough to fit on top of a ballistic missile. An implosion device uses specially-shaped high-explosives, packed around a hemispherical core of highly-enriched uranium, to trigger the nuclear chain reaction.

If so, Iran would need to test the weapon to validate the design, according to a former senior U.S. intelligence official, since the high explosive charges must be shaped with extraordinary precision to compress the HEU core rapidly enough to explode. Any mistake in the design could cause the weapon to “fizzle.”

So why would Iran go to the trouble of designing a 400-meter deep test shaft, complete with submerged precision instruments to measure the blast and a remote monitoring site? Is Iran really ten years - or more - away from being able to conduct such a test? Or are they just six weeks away? Or six months? Or six years?

Getting the answer to that question right may be the single-most important task facing the U.S. intelligence community.

More on the Fate of Europe...

Here is a provocative piece by Theodore Dalrymple on the future of Europe....Hat tip to Gates of Vienna

Is Old Europe Doomed?
by Theodore Dalrymple
Lead EssayFebruary 6th, 2006

The late Professor Joad, a popularizer of philosophy rather than a philosopher in the true sense, used to preface his answer to any question by saying, "It depends on what you mean by…"—in this case, "doomed."

The word "doomed" implies an ineluctable destiny, against which, presumably, it is vain for men to struggle. And this in turn implies a whole, contestable philosophy of history.

Historical determinism has two sources: first the apparent ability of historians, who of course have the benefit of hindsight, to explain any and all historical events with a fair degree of plausibility, even if their explanations of the same events differ widely, thus giving rise to the impression that if the past was determined, the future must be determined also; and second the tendency of people to assume that current statistical or social trends will continue, or in other words that projections are the same as predictions. One has only to consider the exponential growth of a bacterium on a Petri dish, which if continued would mean that the entire biosphere would soon consist solely of that organism, to realize that projections do not necessarily give rise to accurate predictions.Nevertheless, it is undeniable that a pall of doom does currently overhang Europe. In retrospect, the Twentieth Century may be considered Europe’s melancholy, long withdrawing roar (to adapt Matthew Arnold’s description of the decline of religion). And just as, according to Disraeli, the Continent of Europe would not long suffer Great Britain to be the workshop of the world, so the world would not, and did not, long suffer the Continent of Europe to dominate it, economically, culturally and intellectually. Europe’s loss of power, influence and importance continues to this day; and however much one’s material circumstances may have improved (just take a look at photographs of daily life in France or Britain in the 1950s and compare them to daily life there today), it is always unpleasant, and creates a sense of deep existential unease, to live in a country perpetually in decline, even if that decline is merely relative.

...

The principal motor of Europe’s current decline is, in my view, its obsession with social security, which has created rigid social and economic systems that are extremely resistant to change. And this obsession with social security is in turn connected with a fear of the future: for the future has now brought Europe catastrophe and relative decline for more than a century

....

The dependent population does not like the state and its agents, indeed they hate them, but they soon come to fear the elimination of their good offices even more. They are like drug addicts who know that the drug that they take is not good for them, and hate the drug dealer from whom they obtain their drug, but cannot face the supposed pains of withdrawal. And what is true of Britain is true, with a few exceptions, everywhere else in Europe. In the name of social justice, personal and sectional interest has become all-powerful, paralyzing all attempts to maximize collective endeavor.

...

Doom or further decline is not inevitable, however, though avoidance of it requires active effort. The auguries are not good, not only because of the political immobilism that elaborate systems of social security have caused in most European countries, but because of the European multinational entity that is being created against the wishes of the peoples of Europe (insofar as they can be gauged).The European Union serves several purposes, none of which have much to do with the real challenges facing the continent. The Union helps Germans to forget that they are Germans, and gives them another identity rather more pleasing in their own estimation; it allows the French to forget that they are now a medium sized nation, one among many, and gives them the illusion of power and importance; it acts as a giant pension fund for politicians who are no longer willing or able successfully to compete in the rough and tumble of electoral politics, and enables them to hang on to influence and power long after they have been rejected at the polls; and it acts as a potential fortress against the winds of competition that are now blowing from all over the world, and that are deeply unsettling to people who desire security above all else.Apocalyptic thought is curiously pleasurable. Doom is too strong a word, in my view; I think it would be more accurate to say that Europe is sleepwalking to further relative decline. But we should also modestly remember that the future is, ultimately, unknowable.


Read the Rest

Wednesday, February 08, 2006


Brian Eno

The Plateaux Of Mirror























Not Yet Remembered




















A Clearing
























The Chill Air


Denmark Takes
Note Of
Muslim Taqiyya


Denmark has noticed that many Imams speak with forked-tongue, saying one thing in Danish media, and another thing in Arab media. Thus, they have eliminated many of these double-speaking Imams from the political dialogue.

The Danes should be examples for us all in the West:


Political criticism of local imams in recent days has led the integration minister to exclude the muslim clerics from discussions of the integration of Muslims into Danish society.

Some imams have reportedly offered statements to media in Muslim countries that harmed Danish interests in the on-going row over the Mohammed cartoons, the integration minister, Rikke Hvilshøj, said on Monday.

'I think we have a clear picture today that imams are not the ones we should look to if we want integration in Denmark to work,' Hvilshøj told daily newspaper Berlingske Tidende...

One incident involved imam Abu Laban telling television station al-Jazeera that he was happy about the Muslim boycott. Later the same day, he said to Danish television station TV2 that he would urge Muslims to stop the boycott immediately.


Michelle Malkin notes:


The Danish prime minister, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, also disinvited a group of radical imams for an anti-terror conference at his Marienborg residence in September. The conference sought to find ways of preventing Islam from being used in the name of terror attacks.


Founder Of CAIR
Is
Leader In Hamas


Mr. Marzook also does volunteer work every weeken, cleaing up on the sides of freeways.

For anyone who has trouble understanding why the Council on American-Islamic Relations is not a moderate human rights organizations, here's an interesting little bit of trivia.

Mousa Abu Marzook is now one of the top terrorists with Hamas. He is also the founder of CAIR:


Mousa Abu Marzook was deported from the United States in 1997, due to his activity with Hamas, a group that is on the State Department’s terrorism list. Before leaving the country, Marzook had founded three Hamas-related organizations, the first being the Islamic Association for Palestine (IAP). The IAP was terminated in 2005, shortly after the group had been held liable for the murder of American teenager, David Boim, during a Hamas terror operation in Israel.

In 1994, three leaders of the IAP created a spin-off organization called the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). One of the three was Nihad Awad, an individual who is today the Executive Director of CAIR. That same year, Awad publicly stated his support for Hamas, and just two years later, in May of 1996, CAIR would coordinate a press conference protesting the extradition order of Marzook.

Joe Kaufman, Chairman of Americans Against Hate (AAH), stated, “If it were not for Mousa Abu Marzook, a man who has just said that his organization will never recognize Israel’s right to exist, CAIR would not be around today. Because of CAIR’s connection to this individual and the organization he represents, we call on the United States government to act immediately to shut down CAIR and place the group alongside Hamas on the State Department’s list of terrorist organizations.”


Nowadays, Mr. Marzook writes columns for the Washington Post, and says Israel doesn't have a right to exist (From AP:


CAIRO, Egypt - A top Hamas official said the militant group will not recognize Israel but will abide, for now, by past agreements Palestinian leaders made with the Jewish state. He also lashed out at the more moderate Fatah party for refusing to participate in a national unity Palestinian government.


And, of course, he's towing the party line, because the Hamas Charter itself says Israel has no right to exist, and that Hamas will eventually kill all Jews.

Yes, the founder of CAIR is also in an organization that has as its stated goal the desire to kill all Jews.

That passes for a moderate viewpoint ...

in hell.

Tuesday, February 07, 2006


Spirit


Bush Bashed
While Attending
King Funeral


The Left continues to get more and more unhinged. This latest is so disgusting that I am physically sickened:


Today's memorial service for civil rights activist Coretta Scott King -- billed as a "celebration" of her life -- turned suddenly political as one former president took a swipe at the current president, who was also lashed by an outspoken black pastor!

The outspoken Rev. Joseph Lowery, co-founder of Southern Christian Leadership Conference, ripped into President Bush during his short speech, ostensibly about the wife of Martin Luther King Jr.

"She extended Martin's message against poverty, racism and war. She deplored the terror inflicted by our smart bombs on missions way afar. We know now that there were no weapons of mass destruction over there," Lowery said. The mostly black crowd applauded, then rose to its feet and cheered in a two-minute-long standing ovation.

A closed-circuit television in the mega-church outside Atlanta showed the president smiling uncomfortably."

But Coretta knew, and we know," Lowery continued, "That there are weapons of misdirection right down here," he said, nodding his head toward the row of presidents past and present. "For war, billions more, but no more for the poor!" The crowd again cheered wildly.

Former President Jimmy Carter later swung at Bush as well, not once but twice. As he talked about the Kings, he said: "It was difficult for them then personally with the civil liberties of both husband and wife violated as they became the target of secret government wiretaps." The crowd cheered as Bush, under fire for a secret wiretapping program he ordered after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, again smiled weakly.

Later, Carter said Hurricane Katrina showed that all are not yet equal in America. Some black leaders have blamed Bush for the poor federal response, and rapper Kayne West said that Bush "hates" black people.


The only good thing you can say about this is, it just goes to show that our right to Freedom of Speech is alive and well here in America.

Olmert
Reveals His
Sneaky Plan
To Give
The Palestinians
A State


Hopefully, every reader will understand that the use of the word "sneaky" in the title is satirical. In fact, Olmert could not be more upfront. He's giving the Palestinians the state they've always said they wanted, and always turned down, when offered.

The thing I have always loved about the Separation idea is that, while allowing Israel to draw back to defensible borders, it will force the Palestinians to take responsibility for themselves. There is a sense in which the plan gives them enough rope to either save themselves, or, uh, hang themselves.

Obviously, they are, at this point, working on hanging themselves.

The election of Hamas revealed, in stark contrast, the moral differeence between the Israelis, who want peace so badly, they give land away without negotiation, and the Palestinians, who simply want to kill Jews.

So, here's Olmerts plan:


JERUSALEM - Acting Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said Tuesday that Israel plans to separate from most of the Palestinians in the West Bank and this would require withdrawing from some of the territory.

It was the first time Olmert, who took over from ailing Ariel Sharon a month ago, has spelled out his thinking for future policy if he wins March 28 elections. The Kadima Party he inherited from Sharon, who is comatose after a stroke, is far ahead in the polls.

"We will disengage from most of the Palestinian population that lives in Judea and Samaria," Olmert told Israel's Channel 2 TV, using the biblical names for the West Bank. "That will obligate us to leave territories under Israeli control today."

Under questioning, Olmert listed West Bank four areas Israel would keep under his vision: Maaleh Adumim, a settlement of 30,000 next to Jerusalem; Gush Etzion, a bloc of settlements south of Jerusalem; Ariel, a settlement of 18,000 deep in the West Bank; and the Jordan River valley.

About three-fourths of Israel's 244,000 West Bank settlers live in the areas Olmert delineated in the TV interview, according to government figures and estimates by the Peace Now settlement watchdog group.


Of course, we'll probably never hear any apologies from those who have villainized Israel all these years. Almost every move Israel has ever made in the Palestinian territories has contained within it a logic towards peace. Those who do not seek to villify Jews can see this logic. Those who love to hate Jews, can not see any logic when it comes to Israel.

But, now, the veil of diplomacy and strategy has been removed by Olmert, because Israel has found that diplomacy and strategy will not work with a Palestinian people who are simply bent on killing Jews.

And now that the veil is removed, what do we find? Israel wants to give the Palestinian people a state, at any cost.

Israel would be well within their rights to have declared Al-Aqsa/Fatah, and Hamas the Palestinian military, and thus rendered any attack by either group the act of one nation upon another, giving them the right to destroy the Palestinian regime. That is what I have advocated. But, no. Israel wants peace.

Let us hope the world will work with Israel to help ensure that this move by Olmert will lead to peace.


Israel Will
Surprise
The World


I believe Israel will surprise the world in how they deal with the Iranian nuclear threat. If the United States doesn't get up off their butts soon, and massively bomb the Iranian nuclear facilities, then Israel will do it.

Many naysayers have been opining about how it will be impossible for Israel with the equipment they have. But, these people are not taking into account Israel's history. Everytime Israel is threatened existentially, their victory is swift and shocking and is a leapfrog in the history of military strategery.

Atlas has a great post up today about some of the ingenious tactics Israel may use in destroying the Iranian facilities:


It looks like the Iranians are proceeding full speed ahead with their Manhattan Project, and it is now in the hands of the UN Security Council to stop it. The likelihood of that happening is slim, I believe. It took us 12 years and endless resolutions to deal with Saddam, who was actively violating UN sanctions, shooting at our pilots, and killing his own people.

If it took us that long to deal with Saddam under the auspices of the UN, Iran will get the bomb, period.

While this may be an academic exercise for the UN, it isn’t for Israel. Even the United States may not be able to muscle the political maneuvering room to launch the kind of attack on Iran that would be necessary to knock out its reactors.

This crisis comes down to how long Israel feels it can wait for Iran to acquire its WMD and delivery capability. This timeline may be running out more quickly than people realize. If state-sponsored uranium enrichment has truly begun in earnest, and delivery capability is being researched, Israel may be forced to act sooner rather than later.

The attack would definitely be a single, massive air strike the likes of which the MidEast has never seen. Here is how I think it would go down.

It is widely believed that Iran is out of range of Israeli fighters and bombers. The range problem could be ameliorated by mid-air re-fuelers, but that would cause problems. Israel only has 5 KC-130 re-fuelers, and the idea of refueling over enemy airspace would complicate an already complicated plan.

The solution to this problem is to establish forward landing areas close to Iran, in order to “leap-frog” into Iran. This would, of course, be an act of war against (speculating here) either Saudi Arabia or Syria.

I believe that the Israelis would attempt to bypass Turkish, and Iraqi airspace. They would have to either seize an airfield, or construct one themselves. Paratroopers would insert into the area, secure the airfield, and set up a defensive perimeter. Then the transport aircraft would begin to land and set up a FARP (forward area re-arm/re-fuel point). I assume we’ll have passed the “international incident” by this point, and all out war will be declared by one (or many countries against Israel.

If the FARP is established in Syria, it would have to be set up in the northern hinterlands, the bulk of Syrian forces (including their ADA assets) are located in the south near the Israeli border. Such a move would undoubtedly initiate a direct attack on the Israeli defensive positions by Syrian troops, possibly employing their WMD capability.

I doubt that this would interfere with the airlift to the FARP, and I base that from judging the last Israeli duel with the Syrian air force/air defense system.

The other option is to establish the FARP in the Saudi desert somewhere near the Kuwaiti border. This approach would violate the airspace of Jordan, as well as Saudi Arabia, but would provide a more direct flight path across the Persian Gulf to Iran. Establishing the FARP in Saudi Arabia may be a less dangerous course of action than in Syria, but Syria may very well attack Israel anyway once the cover of the operation is blown.

That being established, Israeli aircraft would land at the FARP, re-arm, reload, and then begin the assault on Iran. This would include forward EW craft like the EC-707, IAI-201, and the Do-28D B1 (ELINT). These aircraft would identify and jam Iranian ADA, and would have to proceed with a fighter escort to deal with the Iranian Air Force.

Behind the EW craft would be the main strike force. Each target would have to have multiple strike waves, but the timing of the attacks and the vulnerability of the FARP would necessitate a massive “shock and awe” strike against each target.


Such an attack would become the stuff of legend, if Israel manages to pull it off.

However, such an attack really uses technology which is already known to exist. The thing about Israel is they tend to be ahead of the curve technologically. I believe there is a strong possibility that they have something in their arsenal that is completely new. Like, for instance, this:


THE first well-known strategic weapon was the Trojan horse, which allowed the Greeks to capture Troy without damaging the city's walls. If comments last year by Donald Rumsfeld, America's defence secretary, are to be believed, new electromagnetic weapons may yet allow America to do the same to Baghdad. This would, some think, represent the first combat use of such weaponry.

Using different types of electromagnetic energy (the same stuff as radio waves, X-rays and light), these weapons are able to destroy electronic systems and temporarily incapacitate people, all without the mess of explosions and gunfire. Although the systems are still said to be experimental, the recent use of armed, unmanned drones in Afghanistan and Yemen has shown that America's armed forces have become good at applying new weapons technology in the field.

It all started in 1962, when America first exploded a nuclear bomb 30km (19 miles) up in the atmosphere. The energetic gamma rays caused by the explosion triggered an electromagnetic pulse that disrupted radio stations 1,200km away. Although the pulse lasted for only a fraction of a second (and thus was harmless to humans) it was enough to seed the idea that electromagnetic pulses were possible, and potentially useful.

Luckily, an electromagnetic pulse can be generated without a nuclear explosion. America's efforts are centred at a research laboratory at Kirtland Air Force Base in New Mexico. A spokesman from Kirtland refuses to comment on the research, but according to a study done for the Australian air force, the most likely way of creating weaponised high-powered microwaves (HPMs) is through a device known as a vircator.

A vircator works by discharging stored electricity into a coil of wires wrapped around an explosive. The flowing electricity creates a magnetic field, which is then compressed as the (relatively small) explosive goes off. This causes a low-frequency electromagnetic pulse that is used to accelerate electrons to high energies and punch through a sheet of foil. The electrons form an unstable bubble of charge that oscillates in a cavity designed for the purpose. The oscillation creates HPMs that are then emitted from an antenna that guides them towards the target.

Because the source of the energy is a compact explosive, a vircator could fit inside bombs or cruise missiles. Deployed, they could disrupt a variety of enemy systems, from missile targeting and launch electronics, to command-and-control systems. It is possible that they could penetrate hundreds of metres below the ground and reach underground bunkers built for protection against explosives. Larger, reusable weapons are also being developed for use on ships to disable incoming missiles such as China's Silkworm.


It is possible that such a weapon could give the Israelis the ability to actually land in Iran, and attack the nuclear facilities from the ground. I do not think that the Iranian military, thusly immobilized would be able to put up much of a fight. The Israelis military might be able to actually walk into each facility individually, and plant explosives which would absoltuely obliterate Iran's nuclear dreams.

Let us see. You never know.

Monday, February 06, 2006


Free Socities
Vs.
Fear Societies


UPDATED at bottom of post.

The Cartoon Jihad brings the issue of Free Speech to the forefront, obviously. We watch in sadness while many of our leaders, and pundits in the American MSM speak of tolerance, and "respect for Islam," when what they really mean is we have reason to be afraid of Muslims, so we'd better not get them riled up.

The same leaders and pundits have repeatedly supported much harsher criticisms of Christianity, and of America, and I think that's a fine thing. Harsh criticism is the lymphatic system of Democracy. If it isn't exercised, then the lymph won't flow, and our society will become sick.

Here, in an interview with Front Page Magazine, Natan Sharansky explains exactly what happens when people are afraid to speak their mind:


FP: You distinguish between "fear" and "free" societies. Briefly explain to our readers what you mean by this paradigm.

Sharansky: Free societies are societies in which the right of dissent is protected. In contrast, fear societies are societies in which dissent is banned.

One can determine whether a society is free by applying what we call the “town-square test.” Can someone within that society walk into the town square and say what they want without fear of being punished for his or her views? If so, then that society is a free society. If not, it is a fear society.

People may believe that there can be a society where dissent is not permitted, but which is nonetheless not a fear society because everyone agrees with one another and therefore no one wants to dissent. But as we show in the book, such a monolithic society, which may occasionally emerge, will not last very long.

Because of human diversity – different tastes, ambitions, interests, backgrounds, experiences, etc. - differences of opinion will be inevitable. Then the society will be confronted with the fundamental question. Will dissent be permitted?

The answer to that question will determine whether the society is a free society or a fear society. Of course, there can be serious injustices within free societies. They can have all sorts of problems and abuses of rights. But by having a right to dissent and having institutions which protect that right, free societies also have mechanisms to correct those abuses.

In contrast, fear societies are always unjust and have no corrective mechanisms. Fear societies are inevitably composed of three separate groups:

True believers,
dissidents
and doublethinkers.

True believers are those who believe in the ideology of the regime. Dissidents are those who disagree with that ideology and are prepared to say so openly. Doublethinkers are those who disagree with the ideology but who are scared to openly confront the regime.

With time, the number of doublethinkers in a fear society inevitably grows so that they represent the overwhelming majority of the population. To an outside observer, the fear society will look like a sea of true believers who demonstrate loyalty to the regime, but the reality is very different. Behind the veneer of support is an army of doublethinkers.


This is the situation we see in the Muslim world today. It is true that they will march in lockstep shouting Death to America, and Kill the Jews, but many do so because that is what is expected of them.

But, what really concerns me here is that there are forces in our society who are trying to shut up the dissent against Islam. Truth is, no one has gotten arrested or tried here in America, as happened to Orianna Fallaci in Italy, and as has happened in Australia and Britain. Maybe I shouldn't worry, but when the White House is urging "respect" - which is really just a catchphrase meaning, "Don't speak your mind" - then, we have to be vigilant in protecting our inalienable right to Free Speech.

I would urge everybody to find a way to speak out on this issue. If Muslims around the world are burning and threatening, and even killing over cartoons, then we have the right to cariacature their malignant behavior.

In fact, I would say we have the responsibility to our own system of Governance to criticize Islam, and to criticize any member of our government who urges tolerance in the face of threat.

UPDATED: John Sobieski of Pedestian Infidel commented that we don't know that Muslims are merely walking around paying lip service to the idea of Islamofascism.

I need to clarify that, in my mind, doublethinkers don't even themselves know what they want anymore. Being doubleminded means being confused. A human being who is confused for a long period of time, gradually does not know his own mind anymore.

I think this is where Muslims are.

One thing we have to remember is Muslims are human beings. Why would human beings in one part of the world want anything different than human beings in another part of the world? The answer is, they would have different desires because they are living under a totalitarian ideology.


Sign
The Petition
To
Support Denmark


Thanks to Eyes All Around for letting me know about this. Click the link and sign the petition, if you agree.

Sunday, February 05, 2006


Ban The Burqa


If we really want to get serious about this war, we need to understand that Islam needs to fundamentally change. After World War II, we banned certain tenets of the state-religion of Japan; Shinto-Buddhism. We decreed, unilaterally, that no more would the practice of Emperor-worship be allowed.

Winning this war is not, simply, a matter of defeating Jihadis. It is a matter of ending certain tenets of Islam.

No more preaching of Jihad.

No more strict Sharia (if Muslims want to redefine Sharia, that is fine).

And no more Burqas.

Burqas are an abomination.

The burqa is the chains of female slavery.

Burqas need to stop.

If I had my way, this would be our rallying cry.

People think that women have the right to wear burqas. No, we must understand that some slaves would have chosen the chains. Many slaves stayed on with their masters after the Civil War. Does that make it slaver ok?

Hell no!

Many slaves, mired in the midst of their slavery, would have said they would choose the chains. Does that make it right?

The Case For Democracy by Natan Sharansky, explains how this kind of self-deceit happens. Coercion through threat of violence makes people become double-minded. They profess one thing in public, and think another thing in their heads. This leads to confusion, and after awhile, people will forget who they are and what they want.

The Burqa dehumanizes women. It is a tool which instantly turns a living, breathing human being into a slave. When the shroud goes over the face of a human being, they are dead to the world. The human being, so enshrouded, can see out through the veil darkly, but no one can see in.

She is windowless, and alone.


From Act International:


"Women you should not step outside your residence. If you go outside the house you should not be like the women who used to go with fashionable clothes wearing much cosmetics and appearing in front of every men before the coming of Islam."
--- Edict (religious decree) announced by the Taliban’s "Religious Police".

Two months back, I was on an assignment in Afghanistan. Defying another Taliban edict - this one banning taking photographs of "any living thing" - I looked for ways to illustrate how three years of drought and 22 years of war had affected the lives of men, women and children in Afghanistan. In an environment created by the edicts restricting the behaviour of women it was difficult to get a single picture of women. Basically, I had to "steal" such pictures while pretending to be tying my shoelaces, looking the other way or trust my luck in accidental drive–by snapshots from car windows.

In the end, I tried another approach; one I felt more comfortable with. This approach did not force me to try to cheat the women within range of my lenses and, it even appeared truer to my own experience of travelling as a male in Afghanistan.

Over 14 days, I had next to no interaction with Afghani women and saw only three women’s faces directly. As a sort of compensation, I started focusing my lenses on some of the traces of the women I glimpsed or sometimes just missed where ever I went – villages, streets, bazaars, hospitals, clinics or restaurants and mosques. Traces of the millions of Afghan women concealed by the rules of the Taliban, the cloth of the head to toe long blue Burqa, local traditions and in some cases the 4 to 5 meter high mud brick walls surrounding their own homes.


One day we will look back on the burqa and we will wonder how it is that our civilization allowed such cruelty to human beings.