Search






Jeff's Amazon.com Wish List

Archive Calendar

November 2024
M T W T F S S
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
252627282930  

Archives

An Islamic Declaration of War?

From LGF:

Only a few blogs (and almost no mainstream media) have realized the truth about Iranian madman Ahmadinejad’s letter to President Bush. It was not an offer to negotiate, and it was not simply a lunatic’s rant. It was a calculated invitation to convert to Islam, a da’wa—an Islamic requirement (commanded by Mohammed) before waging war against unbelievers.

Speaking in Jakarta, Indonesia, Ahmadinejad himself confirmed this reading today, as reported by the Islamic Republic News Agency: President says his letter to President Bush was invitation to Islam. (Hat tip: Jihad Watch.)

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said here Thursday that his letter to President George W. Bush did not concern the nuclear dossier, but rather was an invitation to Islam and the prophets culture.

He made the above remarks in reply to a reporter while attending press conference on his letter to President Bush in Jakarta in the afternoon of the third day of his stay in Jakarta. Stressing that the letter was beyond the nuclear issue, the chief executive said that in principle, the country’s nuclear case is not so significant to make him write a letter about it.

“We act according to laws and our activities are quite clear. We are rather intent on solving more fundamental global matters.”

“The letter was an invitation to monotheism and justice, which are common to all divine prophets. If the call is responded positively, there will be no more problems to be solved,” added the president.

The president said that the letter actually contained a clear message of invitation to human beliefs, adding that its response will determine the future.

There is some debate over Ahmadinejad’s actual mindset—some analysts believe he uses the wild-eyed fanatic routine as a bluff, and that in fact he is far more pragmatic than rapturous, while others are convinced he is a true believer who is bent on trying to bring about a end-game battle between Islam and the West.  Now, the former may be true.  But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t prepare ourselves for the latter.

Which is why I find it baffling that some have gone so far as to suggest that Iran poses no threat to the US whatsoever—unless, that is, the US tries to stop Iran from finishing its nuclear weapons program.  Under this description, though, the international community’s fear of a nuclear armed Iran can only be assuaged by allowing Iran to become nuclear armed. Because any attempt to stop them makes them more dangerous than they otherwise would be should they, er, become nuclear armed.  Which is what the international community believes will make them dangerous to begin with.

I know—the mind reels.

But whether or not Ahmadinejad (and the mullahs) are pragmatists playing chess, or else crazed religious fanatics poised to unleash some sort of devestating weapon on the world, what is unquestionable is that Ahmadinejad has positioned his pieces so as to appear ready to go to war.

Which, for those who have observed our poisoned partisan atmosphere, means that Iran has forced us to consider our options—many of which will be politicized, delayed, demonized, or used opportunistically by politicians trying to take the electoral pulse (Seymour Hersh’s story about the US being prepared to nuke the Persians a shining example)—all of which works in Iran’s favor if their aim is to buy time to complete their nuclear program.

Of course, it is also possible (and far more frightening) to think that our intelligence has once again failed (remember, Israel believes Iran to be much closer to completing the program than does our infallible intelligence apparatus), and that Ahmadinejad’s letter augurs something far more disastrous and, dare I say it?—imminent.

And that is why we simply must be prepared to react with dispassionate resoluteness to any aggression by Iran; better, of course, would be were we to act to prevent that aggression in the first place—even if that means nothing more than letting Iran know that, given their President’s unprecedented letter, any near-term attacks with WMD will be laid at their doorstep, and that we have a policy for responding to such attacks—but one wonders if our diplomats (and an increasingly rogue element in the CIA) wouldn’t fight that strategy tooth and nail.

Many foreign policy realists inside the beltway are betting we can keep a pragmatic Ahmadinejad within his box.  But are the rest of us willing to take that bet?

After all, we don’t have the luxury of underground bunkers to retreat to should those beltway thinkers be wrong…

(h/t Charles Johnson; more from Allah)

57 Replies to “An Islamic Declaration of War?”

  1. Vercingetorix says:

    Dude, it’s Iran; they get to declare war an infinite number of times before they are taken seriously.

    Israel believes Iran to be much closer to completing the program than does our infallible intelligence apparatus

    rolleyes

    They are five years away from getting nukes, with a standard deviation of 50 years. I want my money back on the CIA; give me the black-ops brown-people’s-government-overthrowing Gestapo we were promised!

  2. ultraloser says:

    According to this earlier LGF entry, the next and last precursor to an attack would be for Ahmadinejad to demand a tax.

    Perhaps Homeland Security should consider raising the terrorist threat alert a little bit.

  3. marcus says:

    If Ahmadinejad is a “pragmatist” in the same vein as his jihadist bretheren, we are on deep goat poo.

  4. marcus says:

    “in” deep goat poo

  5. M.Capulus says:

    Israel must strike first, and in the right way. A brilliant mission like Entebbe, which provokes or causes a nuclear ‘accident’ – a Chernobyl-type event – would be ideal. Or an all-out attack like the one at Natanz in 1983, which knocked out Saddam’s nuke reactor project. We can’t afford the PR problem, but Israel has nothing to lose, and its survival is at stake. Israel’s real friends will never blame them.

    We should offer them all the help and support they need.

  6. Steve in Houston says:

    The rhetorical battlefield has already been shaped, and we lost.

    If we get hit, well, we deserve it, plus probably President Cheney ordered it.

    If Israel gets hit … well, a lot of people will see that as a nasty little problem efficiently solved.

    If anyone else gets hit, it’ll be because we destabilized the entire planet and no one else did that because we are all powerful except when it comes to preventing something terrible from happening in which case we are inept bunglers who probably ordered the hit.

  7. Artist Formerly Known as Fred says:

    Anybody else sort of suspect that Bush is saving all of his political capital (stop laughing!) for a military confrontation with a suddenly belligerent and aggressive Iran?

    Hell, something has to explain this administration’s supine posture with respect to any political fight whatsoever.

  8. Mo says:

    Israel’s real friends will never blame them.

    Besides the US, who is Israel’s “real friends?”

  9. Pablo says:

    Vercingetorix sez:

    I want my money back on the CIA; give me the black-ops brown-people’s-government-overthrowing Gestapo we were promised!

    And the oil? Hello! Remember the oil we lied our way into an illegal war for?

    I’ll take my cut any freaking time now. 92 Octane, if you please. Be it Iraq’s or Iran’s, I cannot be bothered. I have places to go to at a high rate of speed. I’d like to leave immediately, so that I can get back faster. Chop chop.

  10. Even “declaration of war” is, in part, a misnomer.  For it suggests there has been a contract among democratic nation-states that has been violated.  But this is the mullahcrats (speaking through Ahmedinejad) rather reiterating in a contemporary context, for dhimmi-fellowtravelling-consumption, their centuries-old commitment to jihad.

    So it’s a reiteration of jihad more than a “declaration of war”.

  11. Imhotep says:

    Ahmadinejad is nutz and bush is nutz and they are both irrelevant. Put your guns away, because we are on track to reestablishing full diplomatic relations with Iran. That will solve the Iraq problem and the Israeli issue. It will also,in the long term, create a nuclear weapons free zone from the Mediterranean Sea to the Bay of Bengal and beyond. Peace

  12. MayBee says:

    Bush can always just leave this problem for the next (most likely Dem) President, like Clinton left Iraq and AlQaeda for Bush to deal with. 

    He should.

    History seems to start over on Inauguration Day, and maybe the Iran problem will be more honestly debated in the US if you take the “Bush is a war-mongering liar” playing card off the table.

  13. DANEgerus says:

    Iran declared war against America almost 3 decades ago…

  14. The CIA was surprised by both India and Pakistan. Had no idea their nuclear programs were as far along as they turned out to be.

    Even worse, the CIA has spent the last few years focusing on the domestic political war against Bush; they’d likely ignore or bury any evidence that went contrary to the stories they’ve been peddling to the press.

    I have a really bad feeling about what Iran’s up to.

    Oh, you said:

    But whether or not Ahmadinejad (and the mullahs) are pragmatists playing chess, or else crazed religious fanatics poised to unleash some sort of devestating weapon on the world…

    Are the options truly exclusive? They could be religious fanatics going about unleashing armageddon in a calm, rational, pragmatic way.

  15. History seems to start over on Inauguration Day, and maybe the Iran problem will be more honestly debated in the US if you take the “Bush is a war-mongering liar” playing card off the table.

    Won’t happen if the inaugurated president is a Republican. The vacation from history only applies to Democrats; that’s why Clinton could ignore the UN and go into Bosnia and sign a law declaring the removal of Saddam as official US policy without being called an imperialist.

  16. After all, we don’t have the luxury of underground bunkers to retreat to should those beltway thinkers be wrong…

    We don’t want the smoking gun to come in the form of a mushroom cloud!

  17. davod says:

    It is terrible that the West (Can someone suggest a better term) will forgive an aggressor any rhetoical transgressions until it is too late.

    It is one thing to be two sided and say one thing to your friends and another to everyone else.  It is quite different to be openly calling for the destruction of a country.

    Since when is it tolerable for one UN member to openly call for the destruction of another country.

    The letter, with its offer to convert to Islam, appears to be part of the traditional formal preparation for Jihad. Will the the West’s usual offer of bribes be considered by Iran to be payment of a tax.

    The West should go after the tentacles not the head.  Attack the Iranian backed terrorist groups like Hamas and Hezbolah.

    It will be bloody but this is a win-win approach.  Either the Iranians openly back the groups with force committing acts of agression against countries, or Iran will be seen as impotent.

  18. mojo says:

    Submit or die.

    Love, Mahmoud

    “Take aletter – Dear Mahmoud, FUCK YOU.”

    SB: woman

    don’t go freudian on me now

  19. The rhetorical battlefield has already been shaped, and we lost.

    Indeed, and the further predictions laid out are exactly what will be said.  As a nation we’ve proved we have the nads to step up and strike back… provided it can get done in a matter of weeks, then we move on to more important matters, like gay marriage and making mines safer.  Just ask Tom Daschiell.

  20. If Bush and his advisers have brains and balls, they’ll make sure there is a decisive, military strike on Iran this year, sooner rather than later.  Doesn’t have to be American.  Along with it, I’d like to see a “My Fellow Americans…” sit-down televised address to the nation.  Clinton struck Iraq in the 90s, and spoke to the nation about it.  He blew up the pharmaceutical factory in Sudan during the Monica scandal.  So don’t no one go saying Bush don’t have the “political capital” do order, or orchestrate a strike on Iran.

  21. capt joe says:

    Clinton could do it because he was a democrat. 

    Sure, he could easily do it but there would be a massive push from the chatterati to try shut down all government.  And even before it happened, the same CIA bastards who were involved in the keystone cops activities like the sudan aspirin factory would be leaking it.

    TW word: brown as in bomb them

  22. Tim P says:

    Uhm, M. Capulus, I might as well point it out since nobody else has….

    Regarding your quote above

    Or an all-out attack like the one at Natanz in 1983, which knocked out Saddam’s nuke reactor project.

    Saddam’s nuclear site was at Osirak and the Isreali Airforce knocked it out in 1981.

  23. – As a hunter of Big type bangs, I can only hope they get it on Vid in full color when the enevitable happens. Sky cam, 3 angle shots, HD-DVD, the works, of Ahmadinejad’s head exploding like an over-rip tomato under the wheel of a ten ton earth mover, as the cam pans in and you see his lips form in his last “A-rrrr-la-rr-gh A-kkkk—-bbbbarrrrrrr”. then a cut to a commercial from the Iranian version of Geico, Dromidary Camel insurance…..

  24. B Moe says:

    I’m personally gonna keep an eye out on the local mosgues for the moonbat appeasers to start lining up to convert.  I mean are they serious about a peaceful resolution or not?

    CHICKENPACIFIST!

  25. B Moe says:

    The mosques too, going to also watch the mosques. >.<

  26. – Newt is on FOX H&C right now a little tipsy, slurring his words, and doing a side shuffle from his morning appearence where he vehemently defended BushCo. WTF is up with that?

  27. Clinton could do it because he was president.  That’s the only legitimacy required.

  28. Patricia says:

    I think it’s dawa, mainly because it’s oviously directed at Muslims worldwide as they alone (besides Robert Spencer and us wingnuts) would get the import of the letter. 

    Prez A is already in Jakarta pumping up the faithful and ensuring support when he tosses one at a US base, which I think he will do before tossing one at Israel.  I hope the CIA can tear themselves away from leaking to USAToday long enough to get some, um, spies into Iran, even though that would be sneaky and violate the mullahs’ civil rights and all.

  29. lee says:

    Hey, who cares if Iran gets nukes? So what if they wipe out Israel, and assume control over half the worlds oil supplies?

    What does it matter if fanatical Islam takes control over Europe, southern Asia, and most of Africa? So what if 3/4 of the worlds population is forced to obey shira law?

    The important thing is, WE MUST STOP THIS ILLEGAL AND IMMORAL DOMESTIC WIRETAPPING!!!

    I, for one, and I think I speak for every thoughtful American, cannot concsience the thought of Chimpy McHaliberton the FASCIST warmonger personally listening with glee to my every word and thought when I dial those 900#’s….uh, I mean when I speak with my dear sainted mother on the phone.

    Impeach the president NOW! Help stamp out the REAL terrorist in the world! VOTE DEMOCRAT!

  30. Tom M says:

    In light of all this, isn’t it astonishing that the left and the MSM is still making a huge deal of “domestic” wiretaps? If (and when) the hit does come, will the right be blamed for not being agressive enough with intel, so as not to discover this to act preemptively?

  31. MarkD says:

    Kind of like Pearl Harbor.  You know it’s coming, but not where or when. 

    The answer, of course, is to load up the boomers with all the warheads in our arsenal and let Iran know they are ALL headed their way at the first sign of hostilities.  No hesitation, no restraint. 

    These guys might not be bluffing.  They might not be afraid to die.  But they are certainly not planning to commit national suicide in a losing cause.

  32. lee says:

    MarkD said

    “But they are certainly not planning to commit national suicide in a losing cause.”

    Are you really so certain about that? I’m not. Appearently there are millions of virgins in heaven.

  33. – Actually there are 1 million happy goats, and one 72 year old virgin whos really pissed.

  34. Jeff,

    Well, we’ve technically been at war with Iran for almost 30 years.

    My guess is that the shooting starts in twenty.

  35. capt joe says:

    Jeremayakovka, you missed my point.  THe point was yes he could do it and yes it would be as legitimate as when Clinton did it.

    However, the CIA, the MSM, and the left (was I repeating myself?) would make sure that they tried to paralyze him and the government so that nothing could go forward.

  36. Remember:

    these nations are a danger to all humanity and imperialistic monsters who should get rid of their nukes:

    United Kingdom

    Israel

    United States

    these nations are peaceful and only have nukes to defend against American hedgemony and imperialism:

    Iran

    Iraq (but only under Hussein, not now)

    China

    Thus the logic of the left.

  37. Darleen says:

    we are on track to reestablishing full diplomatic relations with Iran

    You know, Chamberlain had an excuse because Hitler didn’t let on what his real plans were. The Islamists have been telling us for years.

    That will solve the Iraq problem and the Israeli issue

    Now, that sounds kind of ominous.

    Imahophead is antisemite?

    Yep. I’d say so.

  38. – Naw….just a drughead…. The hukah jockie’s hide among the left, because they figure no one will notice them…..Just one big happy lunitic farm….

  39. Scot says:

    Iran is somewhere between three and ten years from producing enough weaponized uranium for a single bomb. It has no intercontinental delivery system. No long-range bombers. No nuclear subs.

    At the same time Iran is assuredly targetted by hundreds if not thousands of ICBMs, cruise missiles and tactical nuclear weapons. On many sides.

    Nearly half of Iran’s neighbors don’t trust it. It has a few nominal allies outside the region. Perhaps some Russian defensive weapons.

    Given this, Iran’s chances of a successful campaign against the West are effectively zero. Even a single strike would be followed by a retaliation many times worse, destruction almost assured.

    And yet, somehow, it would take a Neville Chamberlin to not see that we are surrounded. And appeased! Compromised from within.

    The Iranian president has declared war on the U.S. In Indonesia, no less. Home to millions of fanatics.

    Pearl Harbor, Sept. 11 … worse, are imminent. We sit here getting soft as The Caliphate rises.

    Oh, the melodrama.

  40. Cat's Yawn says:

    I think Ahmadinejad just called us the Axis of Evil or something. Definitely escalation. My guess is the Iranian intelligence services are reporting that a US attack is imminent and Ahmadinejad took the only option he had available in accepting the inevitable to inform his country that the war was coming.

  41. Spiny Norman says:

    DANEgerus

    Iran declared war against America almost 3 decades ago…

    Great minds think alike.

    wink

  42. Bubba-Hotep says:

    Imhotep,

    Dude, whatever you’re smoking is non-regulation and can’t be good for you… LOL

  43. Beth says:

    The rhetorical battlefield has already been shaped, and we lost.

    Extra-special thanks to the useful idiots right here at home. Lee pretty much covered it in the 9:33 post. 

    I’m starting to think that for the sake of my health, I should probably start believing Iran has nothing close to nuclear, and they’re just talking shit.  Like waving around a plastic gun.  (God, don’t I wish.)

    Are the options truly exclusive? They could be religious fanatics going about unleashing armageddon in a calm, rational, pragmatic way.

    Sounds about dead right to me.  Dead.  I made a funny.  Har har.

    long face

    /I vote we mail Ahmadinejad & the mullahs a nice fat pig

    //bacon bits will do

  44. lonetown says:

    I love these guys who blather endless bravado about how we should nuke them and turn the desert to glass but fail to acknowledge the leftist/MSM cabal that goes all Philly lawyer over previously acceptable practices when carried out in the name of fighting for our way of life.

  45. My trackback for my post did not go through.

  46. Just Plain Frank says:

    Don’t worry. Think EMP. That’s the answer and the big boys know it.

  47. jeehad-smeehad says:

    How many islamic leaders would be willing to trade their life and the lives of their countrymen for the chance to destroy Israel? 

    As long as they get the first punch, Iran fears no reprisal.

  48. Lost Dog says:

    “Don’t worry. Think EMP. That’s the answer and the big boys know it.”

    Unfortunately, so do THEIR big boys. This whole country could be paralyzed by about ten EMP’s set off in the right locations.

    Of course, that would be “bye bye” Iran, but do they care? I know I do, because I can’t afford to replace all the electronics in my life…

  49. Imhotep says:

    Darleen,who’s a semite? Like, what group of people’s are semites? Is that different from being anti-Zionist? Had it read Israeli “problem” and not “issue”, it may have been sinister. Be thoughtful about what words “say”,thanks. Peace Peace

  50. SPQR says:

    Imhotep,

    The anti-semites show themselves quickly, no matter how hard they try to conceal themselves.

  51. Eric says:

    EMP?  Dude, only way EMP would factor is if WE set off a nuke in the upper atmosphere.  Odds of that?  Right around zero.

    Deterrence always works better when the other guy actually cares about casualties; somehow I doubt Iran is going to really care that much

  52. Boss429 says:

    The Japanese didn’t care about casualties prior to Hiroshima either, they did after Nagasaki.

  53. There has been a good deal of speculation that Mutual Assured Distruction doesn’t work against Jihad. A modified version that goes something like “Assured destruction for you, survival for me” might work. We need to increase our nuclear arsenal and also increase our use of peaceful nuclear power. In other words, start worrying and love the bomb.

  54. nnivea says:

    I think the mullahs very much DO care if they turn into clouds of charged particles.  Sure, they talk about the joys of (or after) “martyrdom” a lot, but they sure get pissed every time one of them goes to see Elvis. So, methinks that although this martyrdom shtick may appeal to to the poor shlep who hasn’t had sex with any biped in his life, those mullahs who actually know it’s a crock generally opt for getting mud for their turtles in THIS life.

    That being said, I’d bet that they don’t think we’d actually have the national will to use our nuclear capability to counter an Iranian strike – not cricket, you know.

  55. Jeff, I linked your article <a href=http://reversevampyr.blogspot.com/2006/05/religion-of-peace-update-irans.html target=new>here</a> but the trackback wouldn’t work.

    Interesting discussion here. I don’t think we need to increase our nuclear arsenal. We just need to get used to the idea of using it when necessary.

    And it’s starting to look like it might be necessary again.

  56. Merovign says:

    Darleen,who’s a semite?

    Thanks for clarifying for us what you are, Imhotep.

    You knew fucking well what Darleen meant, you are just trying to score pathetic semantic points to avoid admitting openly what you are.The catch is, the dodge is the confession in this case.

    Knew a Jordanian once in college. Nice girl. Kinda quiet. Until the word “Jew” or “Israel” cropped up, and then it was time to go unless you like 45 minutes of spittle-flecked ranting about the evil of the Jews, from Blood Libels to stolen organs to anything else her fevered brain could recall.

    No amount of information, debate, or counterpoints could get through to that woman. Never a substantive response, just more invective. There was no point in arguing because Jew-hatred was her starting point – if that was successfully challenged, she’d have to start over at the beginning.

  57. Pablo says:

    Had it read Israeli “problem” and not “issue”, it may have been sinister.

    Now, there’s a Stupidest Comment Ever candidate. How do you do it, imhotep?

Comments are closed.