Denying the Holocaust, Planning a Second One
Matthias Küntzel wrote a highly interesting article for The Weekly Standard:
On December 12, 2006, Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad personally brought to a close the infamous Holocaust deniers’ conference in Tehran. A strange parade of speakers had passed across the podium: former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke, the nutty followers of the anti-Zionist Jewish sect Neturei Karta, and officials of the neo-Nazi German National party, along with the familiar handful of professional Holocaust deniers. Frederick Töben had delivered a lecture entitled “The Holocaust–A Murder Weapon.” Frenchman Robert Faurisson had called the Holocaust a “fairy tale,” while his American colleague Veronica Clark had explained that “the Jews made money in Auschwitz.” A professor named McNally had declared that to regard the Holocaust as a fact is as ludicrous as believing in “magicians and witches.” Finally, the Belgian Leonardo Clerici had offered the following explanation in his capacity as a Muslim: “I believe that the value of metaphysics is greater than the value of history.”
If this motley crew had assembled in a pub in Melbourne, nobody would have paid the slightest attention. What gave the event historical significance was that it was held by invitation, at the Iranian foreign ministry: on government premises, in a country that disposes of the world’s second-largest oil reserves (after Saudi Arabia) and second-largest natural gas reserves (after Russia). And in this setting, the remarks quoted above provoked not dismissive laughter, but applause and attentive nods. On the walls hung photographs of corpses with the inscription “Myth,” and others of laughing concentration camp survivors with the inscription “Truth.”
The Tehran deniers’ conference marks a turning point not only because of its state sponsorship, but also because of its purpose. Up until now, Holocaust deniers have wanted to revise the past. Today, they want to shape the future: to prepare the way for the next Holocaust.
In his opening speech to the conference, the Iranian foreign minister, Manucher Mottaki, left no doubt on this point: If “the official version of the Holocaust is called into question,” Mottaki said, then “the nature and identity of Israel” must also be called into question. The purpose of denying, among all the Nazis’ war measures, specifically the persecution of the Jews is to undermine a central motive for the establishment of the state of Israel. Auschwitz is delegitimized in order to legitimize the elimination of Israel–that is, a second genocide. If it should turn out, however, that the Holocaust did happen after all, Ahmadinejad explains that it would have been a result of European policies, and any homeland for the Jews would belong not in Palestine but in Europe. Either way, the result is the same: Israel must vanish…
In his closing speech, Ahmadinejad formulated it with perfect clarity: “The life-curve of the Zionist regime has begun its descent, and it is now on a downward slope towards its fall. . . . The Zionist regime will be wiped out, and humanity will be liberated.”
He goes on to explain that the Mullahs seem to be willing to sacrifice Iran for the ‘greater good’ – meaning the destruction of Israel / the victory of what they consider to be true Islam.
An example:
Khomeini: “We do not worship Iran, we worship Allah. For patriotism is another name for paganism. I say let this land [Iran] burn. I say let this land go up in smoke, provided Islam emerges triumphant in the rest of the world.”
Former Iranian president Hashemi Rafsanjani also said something nice about this (back in 2001) – in short, using a nuclear weapon against Israel will destroy Israel, ‘whereas the damage to the Islamic world of a potential retaliatory nuclear attack could be limited: “It is not irrational to contemplate such an eventuality.” While the Islamic world could sacrifice hundreds of thousands of “martyrs” in an Israeli retaliatory strike without disappearing–so goes Rafsanjani’s argument–Israel would be history after the first bomb.’
Mohammad Hassan Rahimian, representative of the Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, said in November 2006 that “the Jew is the most obstinate enemy of the devout. And the main war will determine the destiny of mankind… The reappearance of the Twelfth Imam will lead to a war between Israel and the Shia.”
This article is a must read. Küntzel carefully explains the extremely anti-Semitic ideology of Iran’s leaders and, by doing so, the danger Iran poses to Israel (and the region and the world). He rightfully describes Ahmadinejad as the most anti-Semitic state leader since World War II… but, the other Iranian leaders aren’t much better.
He concludes:
The alarm cannot be sounded loudly enough. If Iran is not put under pressure without delay and forced to choose between changing course and suffering devastating economic sanctions, the only remaining alternatives will be a bad one–the military option–and a dreadful one–the Iranian bomb.
Meanwhile, One Jerusalem posted the audio of a bloggers’ conference call with former Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu. According to Scott at PowerLine Netanyahu focused on this very subject as well (why “according to Scott” you ask? Because for some reason my computer refuses to play the audio).
opinions powered by SendLove.to
43 Responses to “Denying the Holocaust, Planning a Second One”
Khomeini: “We do not worship Iran, we worship Allah. For patriotism is another name for paganism. I say let this land [Iran] burn. I say let this land go up in smoke, provided Islam emerges triumphant in the rest of the world.�
There are no terrorists in the world. There is no Jihad. There is no Caliphate. There is no Shia led desire to conquer the world. GWB made it all up.
UpInSmoke: I am quite sure that my post did not imply that “there are no terrorists in the world. There is no Jihad. There is no Caliphate. There is no Shia led desire to conquer the world. GWB made it all up.”
Boom-boom-boom. The drum of war continues to be beat by MVG.
Diplomacy, I guess, is not worth the effort.
Boom-boom-boom.
Telling the difference between what leaders in a country do to play to their base, and what they are capable of, is not looked at.
Boom-boom-boom.
The thought that violence will save the day. That 50 years of war and violence in the region (after 2,000 years of it before that) isn’t enough and if only a few more people die, then their will be peace.
Boom-boom-boom.
The Israelis need to deal head-on with the issues they have been ignoring for 50 + years. Water rights, land rights and the right of return. Dead Iranians will not solve those issues.
Boom-boom-boom.
MVG seems to be lusting for violence at this point. Blood. Dead kids and an endless rage where no parites actually solve the issues they have to solve. If Iran wants to act stupid and deny the Holacust, I pity them ( I lost famly, so I know it wasn’t an illusion if they want to ask anyone) but I don’t see it as illegal anyomre then far-right folks saying that the earth is only 12,000 years old.
A violent encounter with Iran will do nothing to solve the problems of the region. What will it bring? A few thousand dead people, a few million destroyed lives, sales for arms manufacturers will be good and oil will go up (more profits for Exxon). But solve the issues at the root of the dispute…it will not and I’d think you could figure that one out.
What’s the plan MVG? Install Dick Cheney as President in Iran? Mke them pass a ‘everyting America wants to do is OK with us’ clause in their new costitution? Are you going to build a thriving and beautiful Democracy like you have done in Iraq? Can you offer to the readers here how this plays out? How a military intervention works in the way you think?
I’ve pointed out here before, Iran is not the major problem. Their Persian population is not even interested in a debate about Israel, and the Arab population has their own problems. Their support of terror groups (Is The John Birch Society one of them?) is historical in nature and usually is acted on to put pressure on Saudi Arabia. I just wish you’d expose some more of the history of the region and not just put up sound bites that only add to confusion and hatred.
“why “according to Scottâ€? you ask? Because for some reason my computer refuses to play the audio”
Well, I have to ask again, “why “according to Scottâ€?”? Couldn’t you find a more reliable source?
m, I think you need to update your information. In a recent post on this same subject, MvdG specifically condemned the notion of an attack on Iran in the near future, stating unequivocally that diplomacy is the better option at this time.
The fact that MvdG doesn’t pretend that Iran is harmless doesn’t automatically mean that he wants to “beat the war drums”. I think that it would be best if comments were based on what contributors actually say rather than being based on things that are falsely attributed to them.
“What’s the plan MVG?”
Good question, ‘m’.
Indeed, what’s the plan, Michael?
Jason, thank you.
Gray: I have commented on that in the past already.
How does one go from Holocaust denier Second Holocaust perpatrator. The Israelis have nuclear armed cruise missiles on land, air, on the sea and under the sea. The Israelis also have ICBM and short range missiles. If(Big if) Iran attacked with one or two crude fission bombs the Israelis response would be devastating(they probably have H-bombs), MILLIONS of Iranians would die. I see that Nutanyahhoo responded to the Iran Holocaust conference, talk about nutty kettle calling the crazy pot black.
A tiny minority ranting like children aren’t a serious problem, and thats what the group at that “conference” was. They have no popular support unless Israel/US reacts to them violently, and adds to their minority. Dismiss them, and treat the majority with some respect and they’ll never be more than dreamers with rediculious dreams.
We have neo-nazi’s/KKK/ white separtists here but they are viewed as what they are…nuts. The more we attack those not involved, invade their countries the more these whackjobs score points. Kill terrorists the majority populations of the ME don’t like terrorists either and understand. Invade whole countries not threatening you, the more these types mentioned in the discussion gain support….pretty simple.
Rudi, what if anything is the source of your information on Israeli nuclear armaments?
…I ask because your reports are far in excess of anything I know of about Israeli capabilities and I would like to update my information if, in fact, you actually have better info.
I find myself agreeing with those who think Michael is a bit paranoid about radical Islam. I’m suspicious too, but not to that degree.
However, I have a thought as to why this might be, based upon my impressions of European Christianity and Islam. Tell me if the following seems accurate, or simply delusional ( a distinct possibility since I’m off my medication
):
European Christianity is primarily focused on private belief on an intellectual level. Most European Christian would not be comfortable practicing or discussing their faith in public, and any discussions of religion would focus on which belief are correct–which is known as orthodoxy, the focus of western Christianity since the Reformation.
Muslims, on the other hand, focus on the correct expressions of faith rather than specific beliefs–this is known as orthopraxy, and it was characteristic of western Christianity prior to the Reformation. Muslims would be much more comfortable practicing or discussing their faith in public than European Christians…indeed, their faith requires this of them.
So here’s the summary of my thesis: Europeans have problems with Islam because their faith is private and intellectual, while Muslims have a faith that is public and practical.
So, is this good or total BS?
Alan, I think your distinction is analytically useful, but also that it does not lead to the conclusion that MvdG’s concerns about radical Islam are “paranoid”. The very public nature of Islam is what makes it easy to coopt for political purposes and that cooptation usually takes an anti-Western form. It would be folly to pretend that there is zero threat from radical Islam absent our reaction to it.
Jason, all one has to do is Google “Israel cruise missile” and “Israel ICBM(or missile)” and look for reputable scientific or global security thinks tanks or groups. None of my sources are DU, ThinkProgress or Anti-War. I imagine that hate grups like NationalVangard will make these same claims, but reputable sources are out there.
Other key words to look for or Google:
Jerico 2
Popeye Turbo
Shav
Reputable Israel Nuclear capability sources
1) Center for Nonproliferation Studies
2) Federation of American Scientists
3) Global Security (John Pike)
4) Nuclear Threat Initiative
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1061381,00.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A54225-2002Jun14?language=printer
What are your sources, Ynet doesn’t count without links
.
MEMRI is a bad source also. A partisan hack site, taken with a dose of sceptisism like Juan Cole.
Jason this is also available at CATO:
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=5518
Dubious Assumptions about Iran
by Ted Galen Carpenter
Care to debate the hyperbole of the ‘Weakly Standard’ against these sources named above. Just because Fred Barnes claims the world is flat…..
Jason–
The Wikipedia has a page about Isreal’s weapons. It has a fairly large list of sources at the end. I think you’ll find Rudi’s description is reasonably accurate, given the built-in ambiguity of the situation.
Upinsmoke–
There is, in fact, no Caliphate. The Caliphate ended in 1924. Re-establishment of the Caliphate is among the goals of al-Qaida. You can read about this at the Wikipedia.
GS – In a related note, compare the history of tank developemnt in Israel and Egypt. After Camp David Israel and Egypt were supplied with the US Abramhs tank(M1A1). Today Israel produces it’s own tank, I wonder how much was shared and stolen from the M1A1? Israels cruise missile developement probably follows a similar pattern.
Another source of Israelis weapomns is a site called israel-weapons.com, I believe it is a US or Israelis site.
Does anyone know of any books or studies about how to make policy based on enemy rhetoric? Off hand I can think of four classes: 1) propaganda the speaker doesn’t actually believe used to garner support 2) propaganda the speaker doesn’t believe but in a specific circumstance might be forced to actually act on in order to maintain power 3) the speaker is genuine but doesn’t have the power to make it happen so he rationally doesn’t try (and the flip side, irrationally does try) 4) the speaker is geuine and has the power to make it happen.
The actual verbiage and even actions are probably extremely similar for all types but obviously the end result will be drastically different. In some cases it seems like the line between propaganda and actions unfold relatively slowly (like Kristallnacht/forced relocation into ghettos under Nazi Germany were clear signs Hitler was going to actually do what he said) but in other times, the line is fuzzy and the tipping point is extremely fast (like in Rwanda where most people thought the rhetoric was just the same until one day everything snapped).
The problem of course is that if we took all propaganda at face value then not only would we be constantly in battle but it could actually make “benign” propaganda become a reality, while the times where we don’t and it does actually happen it’s a travesty.
Rudi, what if anything is the source of your information on Israeli nuclear armaments?
Jsaon, Please excuse me, but by this statement I inferr that you think I am either lieing(if anything) or making a wild assertion. I supplied resources for my statement, please show your sources for a less substatial nuclear arsenal. GS and myself are am waiting.
The corallary of course is to ask, “What is the true target of the propaganda?”
Just as Al Qaeda issues statements directed to America(ns) but contains allusions and structure that make it clear it’s really for their followers or North Korea does its thing (alternating between propaganda targeted at us but directed towards our allies or visa versa, as well as propaganda directed towards their populace but in reality containing messages for us) one has to think about the intent of Iran’s messages.
I don’t know enough about Iran to make a definitive statement, but it’s my understanding that most Iranians are pretty urbane, relatively secular and rational. They look at Israel as competitors and “bad” but don’t think they are driven by Satan or anything.
On the other hand, most Arab populaces blame Israel for all their problems and their governments have been using this to their advantage for decades. Now that most of the main Arab governments seem to have exhuasted their scapegoating and Iran is trying to really move in on the stage, I think it could be a perfect time for them to try to inflame Arab sentiment so they turn against their governments. Since many of the countries have huge Shiite underclasses, the usage of that rhetoric would be particularly apt. I have not nearly enough understanding to do this, but it would be interesting to see someone analyze the speeches looking for things that apply to Arabs but not Persians, Sunnis but not Shiites, etc.
I don’t think the “true target” necessarily reveals one way or another the answer to my previous post, but it would provide some framework.
Mikkel: many people turn off the computer when someone brings the following up, but it has to be repeated nonetheless: many, many, many people thought that Hitler was just ‘talking’ as well. They thought that he didn’t really mean it, they thought that he couldn’t do it (all the restrictions for instance), etc.
Guess what? He did it and he didn’t care whether the German people would be wiped out. At the end of the war, he purposefully sacrificed Germans, not to win but because he considered them to be ‘unworthy’ since they lost the war.
I think that an important lesson to be drawn from all that, is that when state leaders start calling for wiping out entire populations / religious groups / wiping an entire country off the map we should take it extremely serious especially when that country is busy developing nuclear
weaponsenergy.Are your points relevant? Yes very much so, however, we have to be careful not to dismiss certain propaganda just because we consider it to be far-fetched.
Rudi: sure, Israel would – if able to – strike back incredibly aggressively but what would the result of that be? The entire Middle East in flames and probably the entire world. And what did certain Iranian leaders have to say about that scenario?
Here is Khomeini:
And, again from my post:
Again, I am not saying that Iran should be attacked immediately. In fact, I recently wrote that Iran should not be attacked any time soon, that I favor other means right now since they seem to have quite some impact, etc.
What I do want to point out is that this regime in Iran is dangerous. Very dangerous. That this regime is highly anti-Semitic. In fact, that it’s anti-Semitism seems to be equal to Hitler’s anti-Semitism. The nature of the ideology of the Mullahs has to be known by all of us if we want to be able to act like good / effective and active politically engaged citizens.
Michael if you re-read my post you’ll notice I was specifically asking how much formal study there has been in trying to ascertain the difference between the types of propaganda. That’s why my second post was so explicit in pointing out that a lot of the keys rely on knowing the context in which the propaganda takes place and what it says in cultural terms (I know Noam Chomsky has lots of stuff about the second part but I don’t think he was too concerned with answering when people actually mean it and will try).
When I said “In some cases it seems like the line between propaganda and actions unfold relatively slowly (like Kristallnacht/forced relocation into ghettos under Nazi Germany were clear signs Hitler was going to actually do what he said)” I mean that in hindsight, there was no way that people should have denied he was serious and going to try to do it after those events occured. From the German Jewish standpoint of course they assumed it’d be like all the progroms of the past and they just had to weather through it, but from an external perspective I don’t see how people could try to dismiss it.
Now as was pointed out a few days ago, considering it’s a human rights crime for a leader to even threaten genocide, even if someone thinks Iran doesn’t mean it they should still be held accountable.
But it doesn’t do much good to point out retroactively the times when propaganda was put into action without pointing out that most of the time it’s not. The “Hitler did do it” response doesn’t help much for figuring out what we should do unless you can point out specific things he did that should have caused us to act and how those weren’t present in other cases.
I’m curious to see if there’s been much study on this, and am actually concerned that it might be impossible to figure out when something is seriously going to happen or not until it’s already too late.
It still amazes me, even as a Jew, that this country and this Blog are more concerned about Israel and Jews than any other peoples in the world, including Americans. We have genocide ocurring in Darfur – how many posts have been made on that subject? Michael in his last comment(#23) made it perfectly clear that Iran is all about Jews and Israel. Meanwhile, in Iraq hundreds of thousands of those brown people are killed – how many tears are shed and how many posts outlining the pure Hell that Iraqis’ have to deal with everyday.
Michael quite graciously opines that we’ll give those Persians a bit more time to come groveling at our feet. No groveling, no problem – we’ll just kill’em. I hope all of us are mature enough to understand our bias. Most people here value American and Israeli lives on a scale that far exceeds the life of those dirty muslims. At least Bibi is open about his contempt for muslims. In November, I heard him give a speech at a synagogue in Ariel which he stated, “all the lives in Iran are not worth one Jew”, and he was greeted with whistles and joyous clapping. In his speech he said a military offensive that just tried to take out their nuclear sites would be ineffective since they would reconstitute it quickly and they would create havoc in the region like a wounded animal. No, he said, Iran would have to be completely destroyed so it would “never again” pose a threat to Israel. He then said – we have just the weapons for the task. Think about what this really means.
Bibi is currently the front runner in the next Presidential polls – it’s a race to see who is the scariest, Netanyahu or Ahmadinejad. Don’t under estimate what a frightened and paranoid Israel might do.
Mikkel –
It’s always good to try and understand who propaganda targets.
I’m not sure I agree totally with the generalization of Iranians, though, as “pretty urbane, relatively secular and rational”. I understand that to be true of the folks in Tehran, but I have a more parochial impression of the less urban areas / villages.
Which is not to say that Iran wouldn’t be hoping to rally Arab support (or at least neutrality) if they end up in a war with the US — all by itself, a reason for propaganda.
But I’m also not sure this is Iran’s propaganda…
Well Polimom I hope someone knows better than us and I wish it was discussed more widely. I’ve heard the villages are completely different but I have no idea what the relative power structure is between the villages and city or other such information. For instance, Ahmadinejad got in on economic populism aimed at the poor, and their economy isn’t doing that well but I have no idea whether his base is blaming him or the suburbanites or Israel or whatever.
It’s funny how there are many calls about not taking our perspective for granted, but how little discussed their perspective is outside the national propaganda. It’s akin to thinking our politicians ever represent our citizens’ perspective.
Rudi, thank you for the information.
George, Wikipedia doesn’t really count as an authoritative source for anything.
Jason–
You don’t have to like the Wikipedia, but, as I said, the article does have a long list of sources at the end.
My bad, I stopped reading your comment as soon as I saw “Wikipedia”. That thing is the bane of professors everywhere. :+)
Michael that quote was just too good to pass up. Of course your article did not imply that. I was using his words to chastise the antiwar crowd who are so convinced that they believe Bush and Chenny make all this up just so they can have wars to amuse themselves daily.
No actually I stand amazed at your posts most of the time. I didnt realize there were Moderate/Conservatives in Europe. Will Miracles never cease.
Pyst its one thing to have the KKK chanting in the back woods of a southern state.
It would be quite another thing to Have GWB leading the chant would it not? To have a man like the Iranian president hosting this conference is a little bit more then your comparison to a backwater meeting of a few whackos in Alabama.
Rudi read post one……especially the quote. This is the Grand Ayotollah saying hey we dont care if we are annhiliated.
You guys continue to use western logic, and reasoning on eastern Nutjobs.
He is basically saying lets nuke Israel, take a whalloping and force the entire world to rise up against the USA, west and what little is left of Israel. In other words he wants WORLD WIDE JIHAD in its ugliest form and his president is mindfully voicing his leaders wants and desires over and over again.
Its the Mullah running the show. The Mullah wants Nukes. Read post one for his quote. The Mullah Wants to use those nukes and does not care if his country smoulders because he believes its his destiny to lead the world into Total Annhilation for the sake of the Caliphate.
Actually I forgot to interject this thought so that you could follow my reasoning. The presidents of Iran march to the beat of the Grand Ayotollah and they would not say something like this if it was not permissible from the Grand Ayotollah himself. Even though I recognize that they Ayotollah himself did not directly say this quote it is I trully belive said with his blessings.
UIS You cofuse rhetoric with what would actually happen. Given todays nuclear arsenals: Iran >1,000,000 dead, Israel no Second Holocaust 0 dead.
The future and a worse case scenario of nuclear arsenals: Iran >1,000,000 dead, Israel attacked by 2 or 3 fission weapons 100,000 dead.
This isn’t MAD it is Iran being anilatted by a vastly superior Israelis nuclear force after an Iranian first strike. It would be a Holocaust – for Iran, not Israel based on the nuclear arsenals. The rhetoric of the Weakly Standard doesn’t measure up to sane analysis from CATO. Israel has nuclear weapons capable of delivery from land, sea and air, Iran is much more limitted in their lauch capabilties.
Rudi, thank you for the information.
George, Wikipedia doesn’t really count as an authoritative source for anything.
Your welcome, the sources I gave also are listed at the GS Wiki link, Wiki isn’t that far off.
Upinsmoke said:
You guys continue to use western logic, and reasoning on eastern Nutjobs.
Bingo. So many people look at another country and try to apply the same values. Female genital cutting would be considered barbaric here. One would think a parent would never do such a thing to a child. BUT THEY DO! The theory of mutually assured destruction worked in the cold war between the US and Russia. But you would be foolish to make that gamble with some countries in the East.
UIS – Where did you get your quote from Khomeini?
Was it from WorldNetDaily, this quote is dated back to 1981.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=50065
If this quote is from 1981, how is it pertinent to today?
Rudi, are you disagreeing with the translations provided by MEMRI, or just unhappy that they don’t fit your worldview?
Just sceptical of MEMRI context, MEMRI is a very biased source of info. The “Iran will burn” was made in 1979 as rhetorical threat to the US after the Embassy takeover, to conflate it to the current day situation is a streach. Sounds good in print at TJP to rile up Iran propaganda. If Iran attacks with a bomb or two, Iran will be the ones burning.
[...] p>This trend is bad enough without Iran’s Ahmadinejad piling on. [...]
I have read 100′s of articles on the internet Rudi Attributing to Khomeni and Hackaloogiejon all kinds of vile and world ending rhetoric.
Again John Howard speaks up and says a little nitpicky bad thing about everybodys favorite Obama and you guys are up in arms as the LEADER OF AUSTRAILIA is this that or the other. BUT if this insane president hosts a anti semite, holocost denying festival then “AHHH peshaw its just some idiots havin fun.”
WE are all guilty of using the OCCAM RAZOR with our facts, figures and rhetoric. ALL OF US.
Rudi I suggest you are trying really hard to Institute Occams here because you just dont want to face the fact that the man in charge is a RADICAL NUT….not dissimilar to the ones who are packing trucks full of explosives and blowing people up willy nilly. This supports for me not denys the existence of a mentality that they would sustain 30,000 dead to destroy 4 million jews and radiate Israel to the extent that it would not be able to be inhabited for the next 50 years.
The Ayotollah’s hope is that Israel in its outrage would nuke Syria, Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and a whole host of other Muslim countries as well…..thus effectively setting the state for a world wide war of god awful proportions. The outrage would be at Israel, the US and anyone perceived as sympathetic to ISRAEL. The Muslims In these countries would riot in the streets, rise up and start bombing mothers in malls or whatever carnage they could prevent.
Am I using Occams razor here…….prolly. But I am also trying to think ahead, think like the Iranians, and then project that look at what a few simple cartoons did. Imagine what smoldering Muslim Cities would do to the Muslim Population of the world.
Yes If we trully want Armageddon then perhaps we should do nothing, Listen to Hillary and have fireside Chats, or Listen to Obama and pull out and make the Sunnis and Shia then sue each other for peace.
My scenario is exactly why the Governments in Europe have climbed on Board with the USA over this issue. They know what the stakes are. They know they have a lot of Radical and irrate Muslims living in their countries now and they dont want to be fighting in their own streets because of some nitwit in IRAN.
Put down occams razor a minute and think this thru. When France thinks Iran is a threat despite what their leader has said…….”I look at what the Americans do and then do the opposite, that way I know Im right.”……then I would be very afraid of this man and his intentions.
“Pyst its one thing to have the KKK chanting in the back woods of a southern state.
It would be quite another thing to Have GWB leading the chant would it not? To have a man like the Iranian president hosting this conference is a little bit more then your comparison to a backwater meeting of a few whackos in Alabama.”
Ah got a dig in on Alabama, I live in Alabama and infact was referring to places like Idaho since the KKK has no home here anymore. You need to update your knowledge of the US as well apparently. I won’t go on any further since you are only really pissing me off with your lack of knowledge of your own backyard, and ignorance based in 1960′s thinking.