January 12, 2010
An Interview with Christopher Hitchens, Part II
Journalist and author Christopher Hitchens visited my hometown of Portland, Oregon last week, and I interviewed him at Jake's Grill downtown over glasses of Johnnie Walker Black Label. My old friend and sometimes traveling companion Sean LaFreniere joined us and contributed a few questions of his own. You can read Part I here.
MJT: The big story in 2010 will be Iran. We have this revolution there—I'm not afraid to call it that.
Hitchens: You're right, I think it is one.
MJT: We have Iran's terrorist proxies in Gaza and Lebanon. And we have the regime's nuclear weapons program.
Hitchens: Also, in each case, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard—the Pasdaran—is the controlling force.
MJT: Hezbollah is the Mediterranean branch of the Revolutionary Guards.
Hitchens: We have the same bunch overseas where they're not wanted, in Lebanon and even among the Palestinians, conducting assassination missions abroad, shooting down young Iranians in the streets of a major city, and controlling an illegal thermonuclear weapons program. We do have a target. All this has been accumulated under one heading.
MJT: Yes.
Hitchens: I thought that was worth pointing out. It's not "the regime" or "the theocracy." It's now very clear that the Revolutionary Guards have committed a coup in all but name—well, I name it, but it hasn't yet been named generally. They didn't rig an election. They didn't even hold one.
MJT: They never counted the votes. There's no "recount" to be done.
Hitchens: The seizure of power by a paramilitary gang that just so happens to be the guardian and the guarantor and the incubator of the internationally illegal weapons program. If that doesn't concentrate one's mind, I don't know what will.
MJT: If the Obama Administration calls you up and says, "Christopher, we need you to come in here, we need your advice." What would you tell them?
Hitchens: I would say, as I did with Saddam Hussein—albeit belatedly, I tried to avoid this conclusion—that any fight you're going to have eventually, have now. Don't wait until they're more equally matched. It doesn't make any sense at all.
The existence of theocratic regimes that have illegally acquired weapons of mass destruction, that are war with their own people, that are exporting their violence to neighboring countries, sending death squads as far away as Argentina to kill other people as well as dissident members of their own nationality—the existence of such regimes is incompatible with us. If there is going to be a confrontation, we should pick the time, not them.
We're saying, "Let's give them time to get ready. Then we'll be more justified in hitting them." That's honestly what they're saying. When we have total proof, when we can see them coming for us, we'll feel okay about resisting.
MJT: They don't think about it that way.
Hitchens: They don't know that's what they're saying, but it actually is.
MJT: They're crossing their fingers and hoping it never has to happen at all.
Hitchens: Unless an Obama Administration person can say to me, "No, the confrontation can be avoided, there isn't really a casus belli here," unless they could persuade me of that, I'd say that once we've decided this, the fight should be on our terms. We should not allow them to get stronger and acquire more of the sinews of warfare.
They'll say I'm asking for war, but I'll say no. I'm not. I'm recognizing that someone is looking for war. We should be firm enough to say "Alright." We didn't look for it. We've tried everything short of war for a long time. Everything. We went to the International Atomic Energy Authority and found them cheating everywhere. Their signature on the Nonproliferation Treaty is worthless. We have the names of members of the Iranian government who are wanted for sending assassins to Europe and Argentina. We know what they've been doing to subvert Lebanon, to make trouble in Iraq.
MJT: Let me take the Obama Administration's side. I'll be the Devil's Advocate.
Hitchens: Sure.
MJT: If we actually strike Iran, it is a near-certainty that they'll instigate violence in Lebanon, in Iraq, and in Israel. That's at a minimum. There will be violence in Iran, too, obviously, because we'll be attacking sites in Iran. It's a near certainty that there will be terrible violence in all of these countries. If we cross our fingers and hope for the best, there's a real possibility that there won't be much violence in any of these countries. Within a year or two, the Iranian government might not even exist.
It's a gamble no matter what we do, but it's actually possible that we can avoid war altogether. The administration isn't crazy for thinking we can muddle through this thing.
Hitchens: I know how to do that Devil's Advocate calculus, as well.
MJT: I don't even know that I'm playing Devil's Advocate. I don't know what we should do.
Hitchens: There are two clocks running in Persia. One is the emergence of a huge civil society movement—which, by the way, I think was partly created by the invasion of Iraq. The Shia authorities—in Iran, Montazeri, and in Iraq, Sistani—don't take the Velayat-e Faqih view of Khomeini. National minorities like the Kurds and Azeris are also very impatient with the regime.
MJT: Forty-nine percent of Iranians aren't Persians.
Hitchens: In the long run, the regime is doomed. The other clock that's running is that of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, which is actually the counter-revolution. These are people who go out into the street and rape and blind and kill young Iranians. They control the nuclear clock, which is running faster. They hope that by acquiring the weapons of mass destruction they can insulate themselves from regime-change. At least this helps us to narrow the target a bit.
How many Iranian dissidents are really going to be nationalistically upset by an intervention that comes in and removes the Revolutionary Guards?
MJT: I don't think very many, but I could be wrong.
Hitchens: Would we have the nerve to say that was the objective, or would we simply say we're only talking about sites and don't care about Iranian freedom? We'd need to have a generous view of the situation, and we'd need to coordinate it with NATO.
The people who most want this to happen are the Sunni Arab governments.
MJT: All of them. The only Arab country that doesn't want it is Syria, but it isn't Sunni. It's an Alawite government.
Hitchens: If the Iranian Revolutionary Guards get the bomb, they won't use it on Israel. They're not so stupid. They certainly won't use it on us.
MJT: I agree.
Hitchens: But they'll use it to blackmail Bahrain first, then Qatar.
What's the point of being a superpower if we say to our allies there's nothing we can do about this, that they're on their own?
LaFreniere: Can I say something?
MJT: Sure.
LaFreniere: I lived for a while with some Iranian students in Copenhagen. We had some conversations about regime-change, how they felt about their government, how they felt about America. They aren't in favor of their government, but they have a deep sense of pride. They were partly able to overlook the hideousness of their regime, especially when it came to nuclear weapons. If Iran acquired them, the world would have to take Iranian opinion seriously. They really liked that idea. These weren't thuggish kids. They were nice students in Denmark. They were of two minds about this situation.
MJT: That was before last June.
LaFreniere: It was.
MJT: I don't know how much that matters.
Hitchens: Their enemy, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, conducted a military coup in Iran last year. It is the author of all the atrocities against women, political prisoners, students, Kurds, and the like. It is identifiably the incubator of the nuclear program, so we can disaggregate things a little that way.
Second—although it's a sad thing—there is international law.
MJT: What does that even mean?
Hitchens: If Iran is found to have broken every single one of its agreements, the legal case exists. It may not be a casus belli, but it may be enough for a blockade.
Unfortunately, the votes of the people inside don't count. We know in Burma, as we knew in Iraq and South Africa, that the people are not with the regime. But if they all had been, it wouldn't have made any difference unless international law is determined by the people in the target regime, which it can't be. They don't get a vote.
I sat with some Iranians in Isfahan, with a family I was staying with. They were secular and they served me booze with one of their cousins who was there visiting. She wasn't wearing a full burkha, but a veil. She said the least during our discussion, but at the end she said the most eloquent thing, and she was obviously very tortured about it. She said, "Do you think the Americans could come just for a couple of weeks, remove the regime, and then go?"
And I said, "Oh, darling." Well, actually I didn't say that to her. [Laughs.] I said, "If only." If she could have her wish, she would have it both ways. She didn't want the Americans in her country, but she did want the regime taken away, as if on a magic carpet. I couldn't tell her I could help. It's the same with your block neighbors in Copenhagen.
LaFreniere: If we told them we were just going to do a regime-change and leave, they might have been fine with it.
Hitchens: Which is it they feel most strongly about? Their patriotism, or their allegiance to the regime?
MJT: This is almost like a philosophical bull session in college. It's not going to happen. It's just not.
Here's the real question: What would be your advice to the Israelis? They might actually do something. We won't.
Hitchens: It comes to the same thing.
MJT: If Netanyahu asked you personally for advice, would you give him the same answer that you'd give Obama?
Hitchens: In terms of the repercussions, it doesn’t matter. The United States will be accused of doing the work of the Jews no matter what.
MJT: And vice-versa. All the same negatives apply in each case.
Hitchens: The Israelis blew up the Iraqi reactor, and thank God they did.
MJT: Yes, no kidding.
Hitchens: They overflew Jordan for about ten minutes. The Turks aren't going to let them use their air space. They'll have to overfly Iraq. Everyone will know.
There was a great moment in Doctor Zhivago
Destroy the Revolutionary Guard and some people will complain forever that it was a terrible intervention in Iranian internal affairs…
MJT: …but the Iranian Revolutionary Guard would be gone.
Hitchens: It's not as bad as having them running Iran and its nuclear program and stoning women and blinding girls. They rape boys in jail.
We can simply say, "We're not going to stay. We're handing the country over to you. We're not occupying. We don't want to stay. We can't wait to get out. And you've been de-Revolutionary-Guardized. Cry all you want."
We will have done them a favor, and ourselves. We have rights, too. The international community has rights. The U.N. has rights. The U.S. has rights. The IAEA has rights. The Iranians made deals with all of them, and they broke them.
MJT: You supported Bush to some extent, and you also support Obama to some extent.
Hitchens: Yes. I think Obama is tougher than he looks, by the way.
MJT: You should be able to compare their foreign policies honestly, without being a partisan hack. I know it's a bit early—you've got eight years of Bush policies to compare with one year of Obama's—but let's hear it. What do you think?
Hitchens: There's something everyone has forgotten, and Obama has never tried to remind them. He doesn't get credit because he's never asked for it. Do you remember when the American crew was taken by the pirates off the coast of Somalia? It's the same country of origin of the axe-wielding maniac who just tried to murder Kurt Westergaard in Denmark.
Someone went to the Oval Office and said, "Mr. President, you have three choices. We can have a standoff with the Somali government, we can negotiate with the pirates, or you can order the Navy SEALs to fire four shots."
I wouldn't like to be a newly elected president and have that dumped on my desk. He must have said, however long it took him, "Use the SEALs."
But that's not what impresses me. The point I'm making is not the one you thought I was going to make. What impresses me is that he didn't give a speech later about it. If Reagan had done that, everyone would remember it. There would be hubris. "They can run, but they can't hide."
I like his nature. Those who need to know, know. We don't have to make a big fucking circus out of it.
MJT: Well, let me ask you this: If you're a terrorist hiding in Afghanistan or wherever, who would you be more afraid of? Bush or Obama? Who do you think would be more likely to get you?
Hitchens: I think it would be a mistake to assume you'd be safer with Obama.
MJT: Obama doesn't exactly look like Mr. Tough Guy to me. He isn't as much of a weenie as some conservatives think he is, but I remember when you said one thing you liked about Bush was you just knew that when he woke up in the morning he asked himself what he could to fight Islamist terrorists today. Obama doesn't do that. You know he doesn't. He really wishes the problem would just go away.
Hitchens: I don't think he wishes that. Did you read the Nobel speech?
MJT: Yes, I was impressed with it.
Hitchens: I thought it was pretty good.
MJT: I thought it was great.
Hitchens: It was very solid and thorough.
MJT: I was surprised he said that to that crowd.
Hitchens: I think he's someone whom it's a mistake to underestimate. I think he wants it to be made clear that he tried everything, that they pushed him to this. That's what we're doing with Iran now. We let them walk over us, spit on us, and laugh at us, but this can't go on forever.
Even with the Major Hasan thing—which I thought was terrible—when he said, "Let's not rush to judgment." That wasn't only itself an awful thing to say. I wish he'd said that about the Cambridge Police Department.
MJT: He did rush to judgment against the Cambridge Police Department, and he made himself look like an ass.
Hitchens: It wasn't a presidential question at all. You know what happened, by the way?
MJT: Of course, although I don't know exactly what you're thinking of at the moment.
Hitchens: Charles Ogletree, a great lawyer in that hood, is a friend of Skip's. And he said, "Don't you worry, I'll call the First Lady." He did, and she got him to say something rather dumb.
He should have said, "I'm the president of the United States, and this isn't even a local event." I'll bet he won't do that again, though. He's learning.
It comes better from someone who has tried everything.
MJT: I agree. It does.
Hitchens: It's not that he wishes it would all go away. He thinks, still, that a lot of international disagreements are not the product of objective reality, but the result of misunderstandings.
MJT: I think it is the result of misunderstanding in a small number of cases. I've talked to lots of Lebanese, for instance, who support Hezbollah because they truly believe Israel is going to attack them no matter what and that Hezbollah is their only defense. They don't understand that Hezbollah is a magnet for Israeli invasions rather than a deterrent. They really don't get it.
Hezbollah's leadership doesn't have this problem, however. They know damn well what they're doing. When they say they're going to "liberate Jerusalem," they know what that means, and it is not based on any misunderstandings.
Hitchens: Look at the Cairo speech where he basically said, "If only we could all get along."
MJT: The Middle East doesn't work that way.
Hitchens: No. Nor does anywhere else.
LaFreniere: Can I ask a question?
MJT: Yeah.
LaFreniere: Right now I'm reading The Great Game
Hitchens: He also wrote a great book called Like Hidden Fire
MJT: Did the Ottomans actually call it jihad?
Hitchens: That's what they called it. It was announced in Constantinople by the caliphate that every Muslim in the world must fight against the British Empire. It was one of the biggest historical flops that has ever been. At least when the pope said you had to go on a crusade, he made you. The caliphate said every Muslim must now rise against the British, but they didn't.
We are both too much afraid of these people, and too little. They overstate their strength. At the airports we treat them as though they are everywhere, yet we don't realize what a deadly thing it could be and sometimes is. All the proportions are wrong. They threw Joan Rivers off a plane because her passport didn't look right.
MJT: She was trying to fly from Costa Rica to New Jersey.
Hitchens: "No, ma'am. You can't do it." That's a pity. That was the Costa Ricans doing it.
MJT: It was Continental Airlines staff. It wasn't the TSA, but it was an American company.
LaFreniere: Here's what I wanted to ask: Russia was removed from the scene…
Hitchens: …semi-removed…
LaFreniere: …and there's the possibility that it will come back. It seems the game is played very differently when we have a clear adversary. When the two sides are clearly delineated as they were during the Cold War and the Great Game, the local players don't seem to matter as much. The great powers are playing their game, and the locals are just subjects. Today, now that one of the great powers has been removed, the former subjects are now "the game," so to speak. If Russia gets back in…
Hitchens: Imagine if India had been colonized by the Russians. Call me chauvinistic if you will, but I think India would be better under British rule. That's what Karl Marx said. He said, don't imagine that India will not be colonized. It would be invaded by either Iran, Russia, or Britain.
MJT: Well, you know what Karl Marx thought of Russia.
Hitchens: He hated Russia. He loved America.
MJT: How counterintuitive that is if you don't know it.
Hitchens: Karl Marx's best writing is on America. He said it was the great new country for worker's equality. There was free land for the peasants. It was republican, not monarchical, and it was anti-imperialist. If you look at Henry Adams' memoirs, when his father was at the embassy in London, the Times of London was in favor of the Confederacy. Gladstone helped the Confederacy build a navy. Karl Marx, meanwhile, said Lincoln is our man. The United States is our future. That's not what they teach you in school about Marx.
MJT: That's not what the communists taught their kids, either.
Hitchens: Well, that's true to an extent.
MJT: I mean the schools in the Soviet Union.
Hitchens: For Marxists, Russia was the heart of darkness.
You can purchase Christopher's book God Is Not Great
You tip waiters in restaurants, right? I prefer not working for free, so if you haven’t donated in the past, please consider contributing now.
You can make a one-time donation through Pay Pal:
Alternatively, you can make recurring monthly payments. Please consider choosing this option and help me stabilize my expense account.
$25 monthly subscription:
$50 monthly subscription:
$100 monthly subscription:
If you would like to donate yet don't want to send money over the Internet, please consider sending a check or money order to:
Michael Totten
P.O. Box 312
Portland, OR 97207-0312
Many thanks in advance.
Cheers,
Jason
"I wouldn't like to be a newly elected president and have that dumped on my desk. He must have said, however long it took him, 'Use the SEALs.'
"
My understanding is that the local commander undertook a fine parsing of the rules of engagement and that the administration was actually not happy with the action taken. But my information is hearesay.
Otherwise, great content. Thanks.
Ah, how easy war is for those who dont have to do it. I wonder wich magical trick Hitchens has to procure troops for a "two-week occupation" of Iran. Or how he thinks a war in Iran may affect the troops stationed in Iraq and Afghanistan. Or how he expects logistics, already strained to the max, to sustain a third front. Or how he expects china to react to the invasion of its designated oil-producer.
Its classical "Lets march for Moscow" advice, where the disconnect between material reality and holistic ideas becomes total. The worstcase scenario is not discussed, their capacity to strike back is not discussed, its all "we will be greeted with flowers" optimism.
Also, from part 1, I find it disconcerting that he doesnt ackowledge the very real and rising islamophobia. Im a atheist myself (or more correctly, an animist), and I have no heart for religion, but you only need to go to sites like Gates of Vienna or Jihadwatch to see that a lot of people are monomanicaly focused on demonizing all aspects of Islam. I find it scary that he only acknowledges insanity on the one side.
Oh, and what was that quip on my neighbour, Mullah Krekar? The precise reason he is still in Norway is that the kurds would kill him if he got sent back, since we dont send folks away to be killed. Is that appeasment? No, its equality to the law. We even have an old hippie from Oregon living here who was sentenced to life in the US for smuggling 10 tons of weed. The norwegian court found it cruel and unusual punishment, and he is now sentenced to live forever in Norway.
Also, I dont see that a regimechange or not is linked to a nuclear project. Its not as if they would nuke their own people. In fact, it may decrease the paranoia of the Revolutionary Guard if they reach that treshold of defensive capacity.
That is not what he said. Do you think he believes Lebanon, Iraq, Israel, Gaza, and the West Bank would be unaffected by Iranian nuclear weapons? Seriously?
I would love to hear your thoughts on how it would change the game, though.
What of Chavez' and Kim Jong Il's encouragement if they see no repurcussions from Iran's nuclear development? This is the sort of "collateral damage" I worry about; those repurcussions could spread worldwide, with long lasting and devastating consequences.
But then, I'm a pessimist (or maybe a realist?) by nature.
about other countries' reactions to United States' actions. We should concentrate on our own immediate defense needs and let the chips fall where they may. That's not to say that we should ignore others' reactions; but it is to say that others' reactions should not be paramount, as seems to be the case in our government's thinking right now.
What other country in the world's history has ever wrung its hands so much about its own "image" abroad?
He's a Trotskyite, oops, I meant Trotskyist. With them, whether they are still on the left or have become neocons, ideology trumps reality.
Meanwhile yet another Bosnian Muslim, Adis Medunjanin has been charged with a terror plot against the US. From Madrid to Fort Dix one has to wonder how many Balkan Muslims will be involved in anti-Western terrorism before the Serb-haters will admit to being wrong.
Offtopic: I sincerely hope that Obama has the smartness of making Haiti an example of american goodness and do Aceh #2. Thats IO.
of assassination against the Guard,
and to occupy the nuclear facilities.
The US has the capability now.
Use it or lose it, when Iran
goes nuclear, and the Guard
gets immunity from persecution;
Rule0 for avoiding Nuclear war:
Never pose an existential threat
to the government of a nuclear
power.
I’ve always thought that Obama’s policy regarding Iran was to go the extra mile and then some in order to show the world that every non-military option was exhausted. Currently we are going the extra mile with negotiations and at the same time hoping that the regime will fall—which isn’t beyond the realm of possibility. The best case scenario, then, would be for the Iranian people to do the job for us—and themselves. But, if in sometime in the near future negotiations and sanctions don’t work and the Iranian people can’t get rid of the mullahs, the military option will have to be seriously considered.
So, let’s look at what that might entail. We don’t need boots on the ground to halt Iran’s nuclear program. We have airbases in Iraq, Afghanistan and air craft carriers parked off the Iranian coast in the Persian Gulf. Iran’s air defenses are no match for American air power. The U.S. would control the skies and be able to target installations at will with total impunity.
So, the next question is, how will Iran retaliate? They’ll launch missiles at Israel, but Israel will be able to intercept many of them, but, of course, not all of them. However, Iran can’t maintain a prolonged missile assault; they only have so many. And recall, they’ll be getting pounded from the air. They can activate Hezbollah and Hamas, but Israel can take care of them as well. They’ll try to cause problems in Iraq, but these days we have a cooperative Iraqi government that has an interest in combating this threat. They’ll try to cause trouble in Afghanistan, but frankly I don’t know how much influence they have with the Taliban. Perhaps somebody can enlighten me. They’ll probably cause some terrorist attacks abroad—and that will be horrible—but it’s not going to be a game changer.
It will be regrettable if the Iranian masses rally ‘round the regime, but it seems to me that a nuclear armed Iran with the mullahs in charge is the greater concern. Finally, I think Iran is somewhat of a paper tiger—and that’s why it roars so loudly.
Enjoyed the interview.
As an Iranian, I do not want ANY US military intervention. Notwithstanding what is plainly visible from the failure that ensued following the US' earlier invasion of Iraq to depose Saddam's government, Hitchens spins his case into one that Iranians would welcome with open arms. I can speak on behalf of Iranians when I say, Christopher Hitchens -- go f yourself. Iran is a country 4x the size of Iraq with a population far larger and more cosmopolitan and educated than Iraq. It's the 14th biggest GDP in the world, has military experience in the recent years thanks to an Iraqi invasion probably touted by Hitchens in the 80s, and has continually armed itself in the 30 years since the revolution. It's no Iraq...there will be no shock and awe.
Hitchens also makes light of the Israeli Osiraq bombing as if it were an incredible achievement. If you read the interviews of the pilot who flew in one of the jets conducting the raid, you would find out the truth, that it was really a cake-walk for Israel. Israeli Mossad had found out (probably through the same channels that helped Saddam build the reactor in the first place) that the Iraqi guards who were watching the radar and defense systems for the reactor would not only go on lunch at a very specific time period each day, but that they would, like morons, shut off the systems entirely! Israel flew in without a problem in that time frame -- it was no major feat.
Try that on Iran. Hitchens is making a case to send thousands of US soldiers to a country that, from the most educated anti-government dissenters down to the rank and file, annihilate anyone who attacked the country. No one wants to see American soldiers die at the behest of Hitchens and the Israeli Lobby which he undoubtedly supports and is tied with. No one will call Hitchens and ask him for advice...well maybe John Bolton. Birds of a feather, after all. Not to mention the US citizens that would be in danger of any retaliation whether it manifest physically or economically.
Hitchens can do everyone a favor and be a man of integrity and principle. Rather than constantly preaching what is self-serving (he is lining his pockets no doubt), why doesn't he do what is best for the American people and tell the truth (or jump off a cliff)?
Ghorboonet,
The Persian Lion
Anyway, if I may play the opposition, to your assessment of Irans capacity:
" They’ll launch missiles at Israel, but Israel will be able to intercept many of them, but, of course, not all of them. However, Iran can’t maintain a prolonged missile assault; they only have so many."
Thats a classic projection straight out of 2006. Remember the whole IDF discussion?
And recall, they’ll be getting pounded from the air.
Do you have any idea how big Iran is?
They can activate Hezbollah and Hamas, but Israel can take care of them as well.
Hezbollah in all out mode? Hmmm... I think it safe to say that they are capable of pretty good soldiering. Enemy vote and all that. Hamas I dont rate, they are teenagers with guns.
" They’ll try to cause problems in Iraq, but these days we have a cooperative Iraqi government that has an interest in combating this threat. "
Yeah, they can really stand against serious mlitary ops inside Iraq aimed at the US. You folks underestimate the oppos capacity for conducting strikes all the freaking time? Didnt anyone learn anything in 2006?
"They’ll try to cause trouble in Afghanistan, but frankly I don’t know how much influence they have with the Taliban. "
Dont need to. They have Hekmatyar.
"They’ll probably cause some terrorist attacks abroad—and that will be horrible—but it’s not going to be a game changer. "
How do you know? Thank you for being willing to waste european lives for Benjamin nethanyahu. And Avigdor Lieberman, who just declared my country anti.semitic. And made the turkish ambassador a puppy in a play.
You can think of Iran as a paper tiger, but any US military analyst you speak to will tell you a different story. We know they have sunburn missiles sold to them by China years ago. They can down our aircraft carriers in a very asymmetric way (and, unfortunately, very easily because of the geography). There is no defense to a sunburn missile launched -- it's a done deal as soon as the lock is on and the trigger is pulled. Besides that, Iran has been arming itself to the teeth and with a lot of money to do so.
As for "roaring", your view is one-sided. You disregard that Israel's officials have been threatening unilateral war on Iran for 10 years now. This includes even the ex-transportation minister, Shaoul Mofaz, who's comment about Israel attacking Iran sent oil prices up $11/barrel in one day! THE TRANSPORTATION MINISTER (he's in charge of the buses!!!!!!) You also forget that the US has bases ALL around Iran and that we have invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, and continue to occupy those countries. Who is roaring? Who is simply saying: play with fire and you will get burned?
Better luck with your arguments next time!
Regards,
The Persian Lion
I’ve always thought that Obama’s policy regarding Iran was to go the extra mile and then some in order to show the world that every non-military option was exhausted. Currently we are going the extra mile with negotiations and at the same time hoping that the regime will fall—which isn’t beyond the realm of possibility. The best case scenario, then, would be for the Iranian people to do the job for us—and themselves. But, if in sometime in the near future negotiations and sanctions don’t work and the Iranian people can’t get rid of the mullahs, the military option will have to be seriously considered.
So, let’s look at what that might entail. We don’t need boots on the ground to halt Iran ’s nuclear program. We have airbases in Iraq , Afghanistan and air craft carriers parked off the Iranian coast in the Persian Gulf . Iran ’s air defenses are no match for American air power. The U.S. would control the skies and be able to target installations at will with total impunity.
So, the next question is, how will Iran retaliate? They’ll launch missiles at Israel , but Israel will be able to intercept many of them, but, of course, not all of them. However, Iran can’t maintain a prolonged missile assault; they only have so many. And recall, they’ll be getting pounded from the air. They can activate Hezbollah and Hamas, but Israel can take care of them as well. They’ll try to cause problems in Iraq , but these days we have a cooperative Iraqi government that has an interest in combating this threat. They’ll try to cause trouble in Afghanistan , but frankly I don’t know how much influence they have with the Taliban. Perhaps somebody can enlighten me. They’ll probably cause some terrorist attacks abroad—and that will be horrible—but it’s not going to be a game changer.
It will be regrettable if the Iranian masses rally ‘round the regime, but it seems to me that a nuclear armed Iran with the mullahs in charge is the greater concern. Finally, I think Iran is somewhat of a paper tiger—and that’s why it roars so loudly.
A "third front", fnord? Have you looked at a map? Ah, how easy the word "front" is for people who have never looked it up!
I find it a bit odd that you think the IRGC will be busy trying to engage American troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, when they've got American troops to engage right there in Iran. Is that some kind of clever Norwegian tactic? Ignore the guy breaking into my house, and go after the guy breaking into my neighbor's house? As far as logistics, weren't you saying on another blog how important it is for the mission in Afghanistan to be able to move material through Iran? But I suppose you only believe that to be true while the IRI is in power. You're special that way, right?
I don't really want to do any speculation about how this could play out if the Obama administration decided to go that route. I just wanted to point out that your sneering critique looked like a bunch of horse manure, to me.
Source: IMF, figures for 2008.
Unfortunately, almost the only reflective part of the interview. Except that in a bull session, someone might have challenged Hitchens's rosy scenario proclamations about an American invasion of Iran:
1. Wouldn't this action undermine opponents to the regime in what would likely amount to an American mediated civil war in Iran?
2. Whose side do you propose taking in the event of an Iranian civil war?
3. Might not the Kurds try to break away again like they did in 1979? Might this not risk destabilizing Iraq and Turkey? No matter how wonderful the Kurdish people are and how deserving of their own state they may be, how, exactly, does this risk play to U.S. advantage?
Look, I really like Hitchens—he's an unsurpassed writer and journalist often in the best sense of his self-proclaimed heroes. But when I see stuff like this—intended to be more than just tossing b.s. around—it just makes me think back on several comical, half-baked notions I've watched come from Hitchens. A partial list:
A. In answer to his own question “Who are the Revolutionaries In Today’s Middle East?” at a talk at AUB in Beirut, Hitchens's only specific answer was his host at Beiteddine Palace, Lebanese Druze leaderv Walid Jumblatt. Now Jumblatt may indeed be a careful steward of the interests of the Druze in Lebanon, but to show the sheer ridiculousness of Hitchens's answer and his failure to learn or grasp the political nuances of a region he is prescribing solutions for, just six months after Hitchens named him as a "Revolutionary In Today’s Middle East," Jumblatt switched sides to the Iranian-aligned Syrian Alawites, telling Hezbollah's Al-Manar media, "If he had once spoken ill of Bashar Assad, it was only in the heat of emotion." This episode makes me treat any issues involving Middle Eastern political judgments from Hitchens with care.
B. Hitchens says his friend Ahmad Chalabi, a "mathematical genius", could have broken Iranian codes himself(!), rather than just telling the Iranians that the U.S. broke their code at the time he was working with the U.S. To anyone with just a little technical knowledge, the idea that someone with could break strong cryptography, or was a genius no less because they published a couple of abstract algebra papers, is really out-loud laughable. This episode makes me treat any issues involving technical judgment from Hitchens with care.
C. In the much discussed "Battle of Beirut", Hitchens shows up in a potentially dangerous new city and within hours impulsively decides to deface a sign that he can't even read, with the obviously immediate consequence of endangering himself and his party—fortunately, no one was badly hurt or worse. Hitchens thought he was striking a blow against the little swastika logo that the sign had, but that wasn't the sign's purpose: it's a war memorial commemorating a locally famous act of resistance to the 1982 Israeli invasion. Not something you'd recommend defacing in downtown Beirut. This episode makes me treat any issues involving actions requiring nuanced understanding of unintentional consequences from Hitchens with care.
In the question of an American attack on Iran, all of these are very relevant: Middle Eastern political judgment on the question of whom to back, technical judgments on the nuclear capability issues, and a nuanced understanding of unintentional consequences that such an attack might bring. Nothing in this interview makes me any more confident about Hitchens's recommendations.
Persian Lion, the Basij is not seperate from the Pasdaran. The Basij is part of the Pasdaran. Are you sure you are Persian? Because I thought this was common knowledge.
You're both in the ballpark, depending on gdp definition. Per capita is much lower than this:
iran gdp:
GDP at exchange rate | $346.6 billion per year (2008) (world rank: 27th)
GDP at parity | $843.7 billion per year (2008) (world rank: 17th)
GDP per capita | $4727.91 per person (2008) (world rank: 124th)
Israel would never threaten Iran were it not for Iran's leadership trying to start off where the Nazis ended with their threats to destroy Israel. You really think after WWII the Israelis are going to take Iran's genocidal threats (as it denies the Holocaust out of the other side of its mouth) laying down? Think again. What has Israel ever done to Iran? Nothing, but meanwhile Iran has been killing Israelis (and Jews in Buenos Aires) by proxy via Hezbollah and Hamas. Iran is already at war with Israel and you have the temerity to cry about Israeli threats. Cry me a river.
The U.S. military beat Iraq--twice--in mere weeks. Meanwhile, Iran fought Iraq to a standstill for 8 years. Wake up and smell the coffee. If the US decided to bomb Iran, there's not a damn thing Iran can do about it.
And Fnord, what makes you think Iran is going to attack Norway? And if you'll read what I wrote, I spoke of US air strikes against Iran, so why do you then go and blame Israel for some dreamed of Iranian terrorist attacks against Norway? Get a grip, man.
Would you prefer that in ten years you live under an Iranian nuclear shadow? Their missiles can already reach eastern Europe.
P.S. I find it hard to believe Mr Hitchens's comment that "Obama is tougher than he looks." I wonder how this assertion can be put to the test.
This is another case of Middle Easterners grand standing and boasting (like Saddam did, like Nasser did) in an attempt to scare others (and it's working on that Euro-wussy Nordf). In they believe you're own bellicose threats, but to their own detriment.
Meow.
You are disregarding truth completely. You claim that Iran's leadership has threatened "to start off where the Nazis ended with their threats to destroy Israel." You, likely, are repeating the mistranslation used as propaganda in this regard based on Ahmenijad's speech in October of 2005/2006. It is now widely known and accepted that this was a complete mistranslation by Miss Falthi of the NY Times of what Ahmadinejad actually said and has been used ad nauseum by Zionists and Neocons to paint Iran as a war-bent country. The threats from Israel preceded Ahmadinejad's inauguration as President. No other evidence has been proffered by you or your colleagues to show that Iranian leadership wants to destroy Israel. In fact, there have been countless retractions made by Iranian officials, including Ahmadinejad, regarding Ahmadinejad's mistranslated quote and any aims by Iran to attack anyone (Jew or Israeli alike). Would you like to me cite these or can you do the google yourself? In the meantime, do a little research on the mistranslation and you will find that I am 100% correct. It's unfortunate that not everyone speaks Farsi, because in plain Farsi, Ahmadinejad says he agrees with Khomenei's speech 20 years earlier, that the Israeli ----REGIME---- (using the Farsi word for regime, "rejim" lol) must be done away with. The word map is never even used and we don't have such an idiom "to wipe off the map" in Farsi.
Finally, you suggest that Iran is engaged in a unilateral proxy war with Israel when there is (1) not a scintilla of actual, credible evidence recognized by the international community of ANY probative value suggesting that Iran actually funds and arms these groups; and,
(2) an abundance of evidence (mostly admissions by Israel itself) that Israel is putting the pressure on Iran via espionage, the targeted assassination of its leadership and scientific leadership, and the funding of groups regularly engaged in terrorism in Iran.
Why would Israel commit terrorism? Westerners are not really educated about the USS Liberty and the Irgun gang... basically terrorist acts committed by Israel against the UK and USA. To achieve their goals, the Zionists have used deception, propaganda, black flag operations, and terrorist acts in the past (and this is all widely acknowledged and scantily refuted).
As for your fearmongering, Iran's leadership may be religious, but they are not stupid. They won't risk self-destruction by attacking Israel or Europe. They're not Saddam Hussein or Benjamin Netanyahu. Need we forget that amidst personal integrity issues involving bribery criminal charges and a very low popular rating, that Israel's outgoing PM engaged in a literal blood spree on the Gazans without achieving any objectives Israel had set out to achieve? He timed it so that the US would be in the middle of a Presidential shuffle. He did it for his own personal political gain, or at least his administrations, and to distract from his issues. So who really is the country most likely to do something crazy? Iran or Israel?
To Craig:
The Basiji are not a part of the Sepah, although they may coordinate many actions between them. They are a separate entity altogether. As for me being Iranian, I will write to you in Farsi using an English phonetic: "Bale, man Irooni hastam. Shoma kodoom khari hastid?" :) Get that translated, don't be surprised if your translator laughs.
1. I am not for an invasion of Iran, I am in favor of air strikes if all options fail and the Iranians are unable to overthrow the regime.
2. I don't know what will happen if the U.S. attacked Iran's nuke sites; I simply made a number of guesses based off of what I know.
Who cares if Iran is bankrupt or oil-rich? The point is, Iran is not Iraq by any means. The people are far more educated and Iran, whether anyone would like to admit or not, is setup up as a democracy (there can be many versions). Iran is the size of UK, Spain, France and Germany combined. In Iran, there are lush forests, snow-capped mountains, plateaus, deserts and beautiful beaches. If anything, Israel and Iraq are more sand and camels than Iran, probably by 100 fold.
Iran also hasn't engaged in countless wars to the detriment of its treasury and its army's morale. Saddam was one military failure after another. Even with the entire world's support, he couldn't successfully invade Iran at a time when Iran didn't even have a real government! Indeed, after the Gulf War, Saddam faced so many sanctions and dearming that by the time Shock and Awe came around, the US was invading a brittle nation with an army that would abandon its posts instead of fighting. Even then, after all that, the mission for the US has been an enormous failure. Our economy failed, in part, due to the enormous cost of that war. Now, we have Hitchens describing Iran as a cake-walk. Is Hitchens, or you, Semite500, going to send your children to war on our behalves? Or is it someone else's child that will do the dying on your behalf because you are SOOOO entitled to that?
As for the first part of this response, I honestly question why you think you're the only one who knows that Israel has over 300 WORKING nuclear warheads and 2nd strike capability at this point? You don't think Iran's leadership knows that?
If we're talking about boasting and being a paper tiger, need I remind you that a ragtag group of militiamen successfully repelled the full brunt of the Israeli army? Israel setup committees to digest the failure. You can posit however you want, the entire world considers Hezbollah's defense to have been superior to that of Israel's offense in that case. Now Israel wants to take on Iran? We know it's not actually serious. How? Israel has been yelling from rooftops that it's going to attack Iran in this or that way at this or that location at this specific time (which continually ends up being later when nothing happens) for ---10 years---. Like Cast Lead, Israel would not announce such an offensive unless they are planning to give the enemy a considerable advantage. Israel is the one boasting, and its leadership knows, analysts know, it can't take on Iran alone.
Us stupid people call it in-depth defense.
Oh, and what was that quip on my neighbour, Mullah Krekar? The precise reason he is still in Norway is that the kurds would kill him if he got sent back, since we dont send folks away to be killed. Is that appeasment? No, its equality to the law.
No, that has nothing to do with equality. Citizens and noncitizens are inherently not equal due to the former's belonging to the national community. Letting foreign terrorists and criminals live on the dole may be something of which your Norwegians are proud, but spare us for your condescending claptrap about Norway being morally superior for hosting criminals and terrorists. In Denmark, we have not yet forgotten your dhimmi government's grovelling apology for cartoons printed in a Danish newspaper.
Hitchens is right. Self-defense must always preempt the regard for the enemy population.
"Middle Eastern political judgment on the question of whom to back, technical judgments on the nuclear capability issues, and a nuanced understanding of unintentional consequences that such an attack might bring."
Reminds me of a strategy the current American commander-in-chief said wouldn't work, couldn't work in Iraq---until it did. As General Petraeus said though, tell me how this ends. The What if..., Then what? questions need to be pre-thoughts, not after thoughts.
Now the Lion from Persia will roll out his stats and Zionist conspiracy theories. Save it for fellow believers.
I'm in full agreement with you that the current US leadership would prefer that this just "go away" and that it's not likely to DO anything. (Though, to be fair, I'm sure any president of any stripe would love to wake up one morning and discover one of his/her worst problems had vanished.) I assume that what you mean is that apart from hoping the problem goes away, there is no plan B, apart from learning how to live with a nuclear Iran.
Yes, it did. Hitch had to leave and deliver a lecture.
Sheesh.
"You are disregarding truth completely. You claim that Iran's leadership has threatened "to start off where the Nazis ended with their threats to destroy Israel...No other evidence has been proffered by you or your colleagues to show that Iranian leadership wants to destroy Israel."
http://www.memri.org/clip/en/0/0/0/0/108/0/2342.htm
"Senior Iranian Official Mohammad Hassan Rahimian: Our Missiles Can Cause "Big Holocaust" in Israel"
Semite: Im sorry if I misunderstood you, didnt realize you were talking about a soloproject for Israel. Wich is pretty absurd, since it would involve using Iraqi airspace, and so would make the US complicit. Wich again would bring NATO into the equation, with all the complexities that will entail. I fear, as seen in the recent spat with Turkey, that Israel is becoming a irrational actor.
Israel is not an irrational actor because of one diplomatic blunder regarding Turkey. Make no mistake; Israel has every right to be concerned by the rampant anti-Semitism creeping into Turkish popular culture, but Liberman and Ayalon acted like fools in conveying their concerns to Amb. Celikkol. Peres smoothed things over and the incident is behind us.
Persian Kitten (meow):
First of all, Ahmadinejad and Iran have made many more genocidal threats against Israel then the one instance you site, and in any event I've heard from Iranians who have disputed your whitewashing. I guess all of those decades of blood curdling screams of "Death to Israel" really meant "We like Israel," huh? You've pretty much destroyed your credibility in my eyes with that stupid assertion.
Further more, your rank Jew-hatred shows by the fact that you doubt my Jewish origins by putting "Semite" in quotes, as though myself and millions of other Ashkenazim are impostor Jews, ergo have no right or historical connection to Israel. If this is your heartfelt view, it means you believe Israel has no right to exist. Hmmm ... sounds like what your country has been chanting for decades.
What do you propose to do?
I've laid out what I think the military action might look like, which should be the ultimate last resort. You've responded with near-hysterical accounts of what you think will happen, even trying to blame Israel (which is like blaming the victim owing to Iran's never-ending threats to its existence) for the fallout that you imagine military action would entail. Fine. But it's easy to criticize. I want to know what Mr. Nford would do.
As to "near hysterical", I guess I would have been called that back in 2003 for warning against the fallout of an invasion of Iraq. Im still happy and grateful that Saddam didnt have a international wing, but it sure turned out to be one costly mistake. And as for irrationality, I must say that the siege of Gaza seems to me to be utter and completely irrational, its as if youve (I assume you are Israeli) designed a scenario for the world to demonstrate a total lack of compassion for children. Add to this the new diplomatic offensive of demanding editorial rights over other countries media (not just Turkey, but also Sweden, Norway and Spain at last count)and the humiliation of president Obama. Its like Bibi has designed to fight the world all alone.
As for me being Iranian...
Well, I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt. Now, I must assume that your attempts to characterize the Basij as not being part of the IRGC looks like deliberate misinformation on your part. No skin off my nose, but I'm not sure what you are trying to accomplish in this discussion if you are just going to tell obvious lies.
Us stupid people call it in-depth defense.
I see. And who has it worked for? Or are you just trying to scare people with "I lose" options that accomplish nothing, but cause the maximum amount of headaches for third parties? Haven't you been claiming Iran wouldn't be stupid enough to use nuclear weapons on the US or Israel? It seems now like you are saying: "Yes, the IRI is actually that stupid!".
Hitchens is right - Marx is not as bad as his reputation in the US would have you believe and there are some nuggets of wisdom in his writing. As one of my professors used to say - "Marx had some very profound insights about the nature of capitalism, but none about communism." The ideology of the USSR, of course, was Marxism-Leninism, with emphasis on the Lenin. Any thinker today calling himself a "Marxist" can usually be safely ignored, but that should not reflect on old Karl.
MJT: Yeah.
Heh. Oh this is mean...
But I love how poor Sean keeps asking MJT's permission to speak.
Priceless.
Sean joined us for lunch. He wasn't part of the interview. But he had questions he wanted to ask, and he didn't want to be rude by just barging in.
I would like to see more of this ... with Hitchens and others. I think a few interesting interviews might be Yon, the War Nerd, someone from Google arguing expansion to the Middle East .... I could see this as a cottage niche. You clearly have a flair for it.
Congratulations
John
What you should do? Allow immediate rebuilding of gaza, making a show out of it. Ask Indonesia if they want to do it with their military, and pay for it. thats about the best way out of the corner youve painted youself into I can see. Or hire the Chinese.
Show some fricking compassion, instead of sunglasses-on "youre all anti-semite" militant fascist attitude. Seriously.
By the way, off topic, but if I were you I'd consider livening up your blog a little bit.
I find the written content excellent, especially because you add appropriate historical context. But I find it hard to read because of the color/font scheme.
Lots more pictures would be good, too.
Anyway, not my place to give you advice, but for what it's worth, I think the blog would be top notch with a bit of eye-candy. The quality of writing is already way better than most blogs out there.
Are you joking, fnord? Or are you a teenager or something? Exactly how much more over-the-top do you think the hostility in the ME could possible get, as compared to... say... the early 1980s? Do you truly believe it's even possible to have the fire get bigger just by throwing more gas on it, after decades of people deliberately doing just that? If you're talking about the youngest generation of Arabs you might have a point but that's only because they weren't around to personally experience all the previous incidents. Just like young Americans know about terror attacks on the US prior to 9/11 but they don't really "get" how angry people my age already were when 9/11 happened.
I think your recommendations about what Israel should in Gaza are obviously well-intentioned, but naive.
Israel's primary responsibility is to its own citizens, not Gazans. If somebody behaves violently towards you, then you subdue them and put them in restraints, are you going to let them out if, while restrained, they continue making threats? Didn't think so.
I suppose you couldn't resist labeling Israel fascist, but we're off topic.
The Gazan leadership doesn't want a reconstruction.
If they did it would have happened years ago. They have had plenty of opportunities and plenty of money (but hey, whose counting!). But why build a society when your whole raison d'etre is destroy another country. Oh yes, resisitance...right!
What they want is what the Indonesians can't give them, or anyone else, for that matter: the destruction of Israel and the death and/or subjugation of its people under their brand of Islam.
You continuously pick and choose those events and the interpretation of the facts that fit your own animus and trumpet them here as the sine qua non of truth.
Its truly amazing to read your quasi-educated meanderings, doubtlessly typed while looking in a mirror. But unfortunately you are not the worst. At least you can spell and use words with more than one syllable. Your like-minded Persian mouse is simply a mouth-piece for the Iranian Ministry of Propaganda, you know sort of like Goebbels's dog.
You may have noted, Fsnort that there are fewer people responding to you and those that do are responding in a much more abbreviated form. Hmmm...I wonder why?
Could it be that they are disinclined to waste their time. Perhaps?
And btw, it should be done ruthlessly and without warning. No deadlines, no ultimatums, no negotiations, no Jimmy-Carter-on-a-peace mission.
Just think of the ending to 'Godfather I'
And: if it's the Israelis who have to do it, arrange with the Saudis to let them overfly. Leave Iraq out of it. Over Saudi is the shortest route + they can always deny it after. Hell, they can even declare 'jihad' afterwards (lol) and that way everybody'll be happy. Even Ahmadinajad and the basij, who will have attained the martyrdom they are always whining about.
Of course you would. Because you want them to use it on Israel and annihilate the Jews.
When have you ever shown compassion for the millions of Arabs and Iranians who live in bloody abominable human rights hellholes? Not ever, as long as there is a Jew to demonize.
Right. Fnord was jim dandy with the Arabs when they said before the *1967* war "we're gonna finish what Hitler started".
Ah, the accusations of dhimmitude! How horrible. Not like in Denmark, eh, where riotpolice storm churches and drag children away into the night.
I suppose you refer to the police enforcement of the Aliens Act against the Iraqi refugees having sought sancturary in the Brorson Church. Churches aren't exempt from enforcement of neutral and generally applicable laws. The refugees had had their cases adjudicated in accordance with law and could not demonstrate any individual well founded fear of persecution in Iraq.
Invoking the plight of children and the time of the raid is a red herring, since children no more than adults have a right not to be subject to law enforcement conducted in accordance with the law.
And to the rest of you: Is there a hasbara school that teaches that you win arguments by insulting those who disagree with you? Are you incapable of discussing without using invectives? Being told that I wish to anihilate the jews? Wtf?
The friendly government now in Iraq could suffer the same fate. A new, friendly government in Iran, as well.
The root of the problem, as much as reactionary Islam, is Oil Money. As long as the west is pumping many dozens of billions of dollars into the oil patch every year, they are going to build up their ability to make trouble. Nuclear trouble or terrorist trouble, or something new. Their culture, due to reactionary Islam, is hostile; But that wouldn't matter without oil money.
The key is stopping the flow of wealth. Terrorism is caused by prosperity, not poverty. If military action is needed, it would be better to simply steal the oil and destroy their military capability from the air. If that had been done in Iraq, fewer people would have died, and we wouldn't have to worry about future regimes in Iraq. True, Iraq would be a poor country without oil money; But let them earn it like everybody else.
Am I the only one who thinks it's a crazy world when a guy like Fnord who supports real fascists in countries like Iran, instead chooses too apply that label to a democracy that for the most part complies with international laws % standards, like Israel?
What the hell are they teaching kids in Norway?
That's an oxymoron.
On what, exactly? Where?
Warfare is not 'democracy in action'.
Emphatically - no - in war my enemy does not get a vote.
From AM's old blog. Were you not suggesting that Obama should make some sort of alliance with the Islamic Republic? Did you not defend Hezbollah, and the IRI's other proxies?
For the record, I think the Iranian regime is a truly fascist bunch of thugs, and if they all suddenly died I would be happy.
Well, you've got an interesting way of showing it. Seems like you're always advocating that people should play kissy-face with the mullahs, and should adopt a hostile attitude towards Israel.
fascism is a mindset, its when you decide that power trumps humanity, when you decide to kill x number of children in order to achieve your political aims, even though you could live with the outcome of a different solution.
Actually, that's not what fascism is. That's just generic despotism. Fascism is an ideology.
Fascism is a mindset, where the "other" becomes less valuable than your own tribe.
That's an element of fascism, yes.
It is a nationalistic stance, and a us vs. them stance. This is a disease wich can be found all over the world.
Ethnic/Sectarian nationalism is an important element of fascism. That alone does not make a system fascist, though, Fnord. For somebody who throws that word around so much, you don't seem to have a very good grip on what it means.
I have no problem discussing Israel. However, that's not what this thread is supposed to be about. It's about Iran. Israel factors into it by virtue of Iran's threats to destroy Israel, but this thread has nothing to do with Gaza.
People like you always hijack threads and turn them into Israel bashing sessions. I am sure Mr. Totten will post something more directly related to Israel soon enough. When that happens, feel free to bash Israel at that time. Or go to another forum. Or can you just not help yourself?
Thanks to the others who replied to Fnord and saved me the effort.
No. Obama said, "Don't shoot, no matter what. Work it out peacefully." And there was a 2-day standoff, with the SEALs sighted in on the pirates the whole time, no doubt with itchy trigger fingers.
And then the warship captain stretched a loophole in his rules of engagement, and the next time one of the pirates made a move that could be interpreted as "immediate grave danger to the life of an American citizen", he let the SEALs loose. And it was over in seconds.
The only smart thing Obama did was to choose not to argue with the results, afterward. It's still not clear whether that captain has another promotion in his future.
Yet you persistently and consistently condemn only the Jewish state of Israel for this, then whine about being called an antisemite.
The same thing they taught Vidkun Quisling decades ago - suck up to fascists and to hell with the Jews.
There is a minority opinion that jihad as a holy war only existed in the time of the khilaafat an nubuuwa, or the times of theocratic rule; i.e., the rule of the Prophet(saw), Abu Bakr, 'Umar, 'Uthman, and 'Ali.
When the Umayyid dynasty began, Islam became a "mulk" or kingship, and a jihad was a war like any other war.
It must be nice to live in a world where everyone who disagrees with you are evil anti-semite monsters. Wish I could be that black and white.
Oh, and: Never a good dialogue without WW2 references, eh, Gary Rosen? What is quite funny is that I have been active fighting neo-nazis up here, both physically and on the net, as Hitchens used to do. And they argue surprisingly much like the lot of you. You folks supporting Israel are without any grace at all, just like your foreign minister. Tssk Tssk.
...........cool it man, go back and take your swivel-seat on the Nobel Committee of Smugitudinous Excessibus et Billiousissimus.
Sure, but every post you've made here could have been endorsed by David Duke.
Oh well, guess that makes me an anti-semite who wants to exterminate the Jewish people too.
Among Israel's "anti-Zionist" enemies:
Iran sponsored an international conference promoting Holocaust denial.
The Hamas charter calls for the murder of Jews - not Israelis or Zionists, but Jews.
Hezbollah blew up a Jewish community center in *Argentina*.
Believe it or not, there *are* people who want to exterminate the Jews. Of course, it's not like something like that has actually happened. Oh wait ...
And the fnords of the world compulsively make excuses for the above thugs while demonizing Israel. You don't have to call it "antisemitic". But I *will*.
