Sunday, November 19, 2006

Not so idle threats.

Thursday, 9 March 2006

Headline from the Lekarev Report:

Iran Threatens the West

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said today that Western countries were vulnerable and would suffer more than Iran if they continued to try to impede its attempts to develop nuclear technology. Speaking a day after it became clear that the U.N. Security Council would take up Iran's nuclear case, Ahmadinejad said Tehran would not be bullied or humiliated.

"They (Western countries) know that they are not capable of inflicting the slightest blow on the Iranian nation because they need the Iranian nation," the semi-official ISNA students news agency quoted him as saying in a speech in western Iran. "They will suffer more and they are vulnerable," he said, without elaborating.

A senior Iranian security official warned on Wednesday Iran could inflict "harm and pain" to match whatever punishment Washington persuaded the Security Council to mete out for Iran's refusal to heed calls that it halt atomic fuel research.


Well, let's see, the nuclear technology was only supposed to be for generating power, wasn't it? Well then, how are they going to cause "harm and pain" to the West? Iran alone refusing to sell us oil would be annoying, but it would not cause "harm and pain." No, he's referring to terrorist attacks, class - nuclear terrorist attacks.

This was the entire point of the nuclear program to start with, of course. There never was any need for nuclear power to generate electricity - how could there be? Oil will be a viable source of power for them long after it is no longer viable to the West when the automobile culture has expired. Or, once alternative fuel cars dominate the market, they will have plenty of oil left and no where to sell it, in case no one has noticed. So kindly disabuse yourself of that lie. The only reason for any radical Islamic state to have nuclear power is to build weapons for the purpose of furthering the Muslim religious duty to subdue all infidels and set up a world-wide caliphate.

I can't understand why it is so hard for liberals in the West to realize that they cannot adopt rules of engagement against an enemy who has no intention of honoring any. That they have no such intention is made clear every day all over the Islamic press. The liberals just can't imagine that being "nice" to people and "tolerant" won't just miraculously make the stated militant aims of Islam disappear. It can't and it won't.

And when nukes start detonating in Western cities, the blame should be put squarely where it belongs - on the "appeasement" and "engagement" crowd. Naturally, they will be amazed, astonished, and "disappointed" when the first bomb goes off - unlike the rest of us. But that won't bring the dead back to life, or asauge the suffering of those burned by the blast and poisoned by the fallout.

And they will say they "had no idea" this would happen, too. Now, class, when you give a psychopath a box of matches, it's not rocket science that you're going to end up with a fire. But will these people take responsibility for their failure to act? No, they will not. To them, action is a sin. To try and save people in advance is a sin - hence the wailing and gnashing of teeth about our efforts in Iraq. Standing around and letting people suffer and die, however, is perfectly ok. After all, we have to "tolerate" (read "Accept") everyone else's ideology, no matter how neurotic, sociopathic, and damaging to innocent people it is. (They're just poor Arabs, after all, just like the people in Sudan are just blacks, after all. And the Israelis are just Jews, after all. Nothing to do with us rich white people, now is it? None of our business, apparently.) No, it won't be "their" business until Western white people die (Westerners visiting Israel don't count, since they're aiding and abetting "that shitty little country.") and, more to the point, not until rich white people's stock options are in danger. Then you'll see some action, class.

Mark my words.

No comments: