• Feed RSS
There was an error in this gadget
0

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
0







 

 

 

 


August 23, 2007

Who Is Allah?

By Soeren Kern

Europeans love to mock the salience of religion in American society, but they won't be laughing for very long. The de-Christianization of Europe in the name of "tolerance" is rapidly driving the spiritually shiftless continent into the arms of Islam. And now, amidst the postmodern theological confusion that defines contemporary Europe, even Catholic clergy are jumping on the Islamomania bandwagon.

 

The latest post-Christian theological spectacle comes to us from the Netherlands (of Ayaan Hirsi Ali fame), where the Roman Catholic Bishop of Breda, Tiny Muskens, says he wants Christians to start calling God "Allah" because he believes such a gesture would promote "rapprochement between Christianity and Islam". Appearing on Dutch television, the 71-year-old cleric said:

"Allah is a very beautiful word for God. Shouldn't we all say that from now on we will name God Allah? ... What does God care what we call him?"

 

Inquiring minds want to know: If the bishop really thinks the names "God" and "Allah" are interchangeable, why doesn't he ask Muslims to start calling Allah "Yahweh", the biblical name for God? But he won't, because he knows they won't.

 

Indeed, just because Christianity, Judaism and Islam are called "monotheistic" faiths, it does not follow that Christians, Jews and Muslims pray to the same God. So for those pre-postmoderns who believe that words still mean something, a quick survey of archaeology, history and theology-accompanied by a dose of common sense-can answer the question of whether the Allah of Islam is really the God of the Bible.

 

What Archaeology Says about Allah

 

Muslims claim that in pre-Islamic times, "Allah" was the biblical God of the Patriarchs, prophets and apostles. Indeed, the credibility of Islam as a religion stands or falls on its core claim of historical continuity with Judaism and Christianity. No wonder, then, that many Muslims get uppity when the claims of Islam are subjected to the hard science of archaeology.

 

Because archaeology provides irrefutable evidence that Allah, far from being the biblical God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, was actually the pre-Islamic pagan moon-god. Indeed, it is an established archaeological fact that worship of the moon-god was the main religion of the ancient Middle East.

 

But what about the Arabian Peninsula, where Mohammed (570-632) launched Islam? During the last two centuries, prominent archaeologists have unearthed thousands of inscriptions which prove beyond any doubt that the dominant religion of Arabia during Mohammed's day was the cult of the moon-god.

 

In fact, for generations before Mohammed was born, the Arabs worshipped some 360 pagan gods housed at a stone temple in Mecca called the Kabah. According to archaeologists, the chief deity of Mecca was the moon-god called al-ilah (meaning the god or the idol), which was shortened to Allah in pre-Islamic times. Pagan Arabs even used Allah in the names they gave themselves: Mohammed's father (Abdallah), for example, had Allah as part of his name.

 

What History Says about Allah

 

Historians say that pre-Islamic Arabs worshipped the moon-god by bowing in prayer toward Mecca several times a day. They would also make a pilgrimage to Mecca, run around the Kabah seven times and throw stones at the devil. And they fasted for one month, which began with the appearance of the crescent moon and ended when the crescent moon reappeared.

 

These same rites form the core of Islam today: Muslims bow in prayer toward Mecca; they make a pilgrimage to Mecca and run around the Kabah seven times; and they still throw stones at the devil. They also observe the fast of Ramadan, which begins and ends with the crescent moon.

 

Moreover, the ancient symbol of the pagan moon-god, the crescent moon, is the official symbol of Islam; it appears on the flags of Muslim countries, as well as on the tops of mosques and minarets everywhere.

 

Historians say that Mohammed, who as a traveling trader was exposed to Judaism and Christianity during his visits to different parts of the Middle East, tried to mimic those monotheistic faiths by taking Allah, the main deity within the Arabian pantheon, and making it the only god. Indeed, the basic confession of Islam is not that "Allah is Great" but that "Allah is Greater". Greater than all the other idols, that is.

 

But Islam also draws from other pagan traditions. For example, the tale of Mohammed's night journey into heaven parallels the Zoroastrian story of Arta Viraf. Zoroastrianism also inspired the Islamic belief that dark-eyed virgins await every man who enters heaven. And the Islamic ritual of praying five times a day? That, historians say, originates with the Sabeans, Syrian pagans who practiced an ecumenical mixture of Babylonian and Hellenic religion.

 

No surprise, then, that some scholars refer to Islam as monotheistic heathenism.

 

What Theology Says about Allah

 

Muslims claim that Islam is Judaism and Christianity reformed. They say the Koran confirms the truth of the Torah and the Gospels. But since those texts did not jibe with Mohammad's beliefs, they accuse Jews and Christians of changing and distorting the original versions. Muslims therefore assert that the Koran "clarifies" the Bible.

 

Even if that were the case, the Koran and the Bible present ideas about God (especially about His character) that are so diametrically opposed that any reasonable observer would conclude that each book refers to a distinct deity.

 

The Koran, for example, states unequivocally that Allah is an unknowable and non-personal deity. By contrast, the God of the Bible allows Himself to be known and desires fellowship with human beings on a personal basis. Indeed, the Bible says that Abraham (the same Abraham whom Muslims say they venerate) was the "friend of God."

 

The Koran also portrays Allah as a vindictive deity who hates sinners and desires to afflict them. But the Bible says God is love.

 

Moreover, the New Testament teaches that God loved humanity so much that He came to earth to pay the debt for man's sin, and that that act of grace is available for free to anyone who believes Jesus Christ is their personal Savior. But Islam denies that Christ was God or that He died in order to save humanity. Indeed, Allah does not provide any way for man to be reconciled to God.

 

And the theological differences go on and on, so much so that the God of the Bible cannot possibly be the Allah worshipped in Islam. Unless, of course, a Dutch bishop says so.

 

Allah and Eurabia

 

Mohammed thought the Jews and Christians of his day would receive him as a prophet. But the Bible says that any new revelation must agree with what is already established in Scripture (Isaiah 8:20). So they rejected his Allah as a false god. And Mohammed replied by setting his Islam on a permanent warpath against Judaism and Christianity that continues to this day.

 

The Dutch bishop and other Muslim fellow travelers think they can buy a fake peace with Islam by playing relativistic word games as a part of an "inter-faith" dialogue. But Muslims understand much better than do post-modern Europeans that ecumenical appeasement is a symptom of a Judeo-Christian civilization that is weak and dying.

 

The irony is that the real danger from Islam stems not so much from ordinary Muslims as it does from sickly Europeans who have subverted their Judeo-Christian heritage in search of secular hedonism. Because they live only for the moment, they are willing submit to anything, including Islam, as long as it doesn't interfere with the pursuit of pleasure today.

 

It has been more than 50 years since the late Christian apologist C.S. Lewis first warned about Western Civilization's disastrous lurch into post-Christianity. But even he would be surprised to see how quickly Islam is filling the religious and cultural vacuum that is post-Christian Europe.

 

It's not that Europeans haven't been forewarned. It's that they couldn't care less.

 

Soeren Kern is Senior Analyst for Transatlantic Relations at the Madrid-based Grupo de Estudios Estratégicos / Strategic Studies Group.

Recent Articles

The Return of the Old Gods: A Challenge to Green Evangelicals

Iraq Anti-War Movement: A Pop Quiz for Americans

Courage, Cowardice and the Wordsmiths

Libs Say the Darndest Things

A Palestinian Star is Born

Shooting Michael Moore

Who Is Allah?

The Future of Western Civilization Depends on Two Things

Testing Congress: Faith and Face

Mullahs and Opiates

Blog Posts

The floods hit home

Going green, really fast

Investigator Urges Charges be Dropped Against Marine in Haditha Case

Cornering the West's energy supply? (updated)

New York Times Blames Democracy For Iraq's Woes

Global warming alarms not worth their salt

The Times They Are A-Changing

Are the Brits getting serious ... ?

Fired US Atty signs book deal

In Iran, 'Reform' is in the Eye of the Beholder

Monthly Archives

August 2007

July 2007

June 2007

May 2007

More...

 

 

 


--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
 







http://tinyurl.com/7c7mynq

 

The Idiot Cousin Theory of Government

Thursday, 23 February 2012 05:00 Daniel Greenfield

The first and foremost purpose of government is to create government jobs. Going back to the early days of American history a time honored tradition of newly elected politicians was to obtain positions for their friends, their nephews and assorted cousins. In those more innocent times appointing someone an inspector of something was a cordial way of repaying a favor. But the problem with inspectors is that they inspect things.

There are only so many idiot cousins you can hire to stamp papers and frown at things until you have to create an entire new department and then a division and then an agency to give them something to do. And that leads to budget drains and an expansion of government authority that interferes with the lives of people who work for a living.

A few centuries later we live in a country where every place that has more than three people living within three miles of each other is overseen by a multitude of agencies with overlapping levels of authority beginning from the locals to the staties and all the way up to Washington D.C. where the swamps were paved over to construct massive buildings full of agencies all descended from the day someone's idiot cousin got a sinecure, a government horse and an inkwell in a city that no one used to take seriously.

Many of us would gladly trade off those buildings and those bureaucrats in return for a few dozen idiot cousins drinking in Washington taverns on the public's dime in a country with no income tax and no one pounding on your door every five minutes because you don't feed your kids arugula, don't recycle your trash and don't care about the latest trendy cause already being written into the state religion.

Unfortunately like rabbits, idiot cousins lead to more idiot cousins. Corruption doesn't stop at a set line, it pushes as far as it can, and when a man with some big ideas gets hold of it, then bar the door because it's DOE/EPA/HUD/DOL time.

The idiot cousins are satisfied to think small. Their ambitions reach as high as a government salary for doing nothing and a few taverns and ladies of the evening to spend it on. A hundred thousand of them can be a problem, but a million of them organized under a creed that has set out to seize power using an unelected bureaucracy is one of those moments when a society must realize that its corruption has become a liability to its own survival.

We are of course far beyond idiot cousin territory. Idiot cousin jobs were handmade, much like Solyndra or other recent examples of crony capitalism. It's mass production that turns a problem into a plague and the mass production of government jobs began around the same time that many other industries were discovering that they could make money cranking out vast numbers of identical copies of things.

The cities were the perfect mold for a new mass produced bureaucracy. Not only did they have social problems and political machines galore, but they also had massive numbers of immigrants who came up the hard way in the industrial age and wanted their kids to have something better than they did. Drop the kids into the mold, then mold them and plop them into mass produced government jobs with the mission of managing the unmanageable aspects of overcrowded cities.

The parable of the industrial age is that of the man who turns on a machine that won't stop. The modern nightmare begins and ends with the question, "What if we can't stop what we're doing?" While this question has been applied to such diverse areas as factories, nuclear weapons and mass culture, it's rarely directed at government. Not government as a vehicle for exploring the bomb, the surveillance state or any of the trendy abuses of authority-- but government itself. What we might ask will happen if the machine doesn't turn off, if government just doesn't stop growing?

It's not a question that concerns those who preoccupy themselves with trendy anti-authoritarianism, marking down the number of surveillance cameras and denouncing some new government program to listen in on people's phone calls, but they never seem to make the connection to the source of the problem. Somehow they imagine that it is possible to have a society where people are compelled to purchase health insurance, where meters determine how often they recycle and where light bulbs are banned not because they are toxic but because they "waste energy"-- that won't put up surveillance cameras or listen to their phone calls.

Government isn't Baskin-Robbins. You can't choose the flavors of totalitarianism that you want. And idiot cousins aren't very good at making fine distinctions. Give them a script and they'll follow it to their deaths. Ask them to use common sense and you might as well ask them to build a moon rocket, which happens to be one of those things that we can't do anymore, ever since the idiot cousins took over major chunks of the space program.

Over the last century the idiot cousins have turned red and they are often no longer cousins, just college graduates looking for a job in the unreal world, but that hasn't made them any less dumb. Ideological programming is to creativity and flexibility as rat poison is to a fine luncheon. People who are taught to think in political formulations are just reading from another kind of script and it's often a script that they don't even understand.

There's a certain amount of hope in that. When no one in the Soviet Union understood what the point of Communism was, there was little resistance to being done with it. It wasn't so much the courageous struggle of dissidents that brought down the Soviet Union, it was the incomprehension of the ranks of idiots who parroted dogma and slogans that had been coined by men and women who were smarter than them by virtue of receiving a pre-Communist education in an independent educational system.

By the time the Berlin Wall fell, most of the men and women who made up the system did not see any point to all this stuff about Communism. They knew a hundred slogans, but not how they related to their lives. They were all for maintaining the bribes and bureaucracy culture, they just didn't see why it couldn't be done in a totalitarian state with the same standard of living as the West.

The good news is that if the left ever seizes complete control, their system will collapse within two to three generations because at some point no one will understand why everyone has to live without heat or listen to inspirational stories about Caesar Chavez.. The bad news is that by then it will be too late to ever rebuild the country into a workable place to live.

The beauty of the machine is still embedded in the fascist undercoating of progressive government. It is a vision of a dozen wise men pulling the switch while ten million overseers mechanically drive three hundred million people to their tasks. The plan is formulated, the blueprints are drawn up, the smart men look it over through their monocles and then the whole thing is fired up and it falls over a cliff because the theory is all wrong.

The left has rejected the industrialization of mechanical things, but it remains deeply in love with the mechanization of human beings, the mass production of impulses and the programming of their souls. It is constantly drawing up five year plans to achieve one social goal or another, and if the five year plans never succeed, then that just means that it's time for an even more ambitious ten year plan to fight people who use too much water or don't teach their children tolerance.

But the reasons why machines work is because people design them. Machines however cannot design machines. When the average functionary is as devoid of autonomy and innovative thinking as your Windows PC, then the society will begin crashing as it encounters errors not in its programming. Deploying masses of asses to tackle social problems while following a rigid script filled with inflexible assumptions is a surefire way to fail and use that as an excuse to throw more men at the job.

Failure is built into the system. Large armies of men following orders is a good way to grind down equally large armies. It's not a way to run a country. Human industrialization creates bureaucratic hives which worsen everything they touch. It fills the country with functionaries following scripts that require them to confiscate our freedoms for our own good, a good that even in their limited definition they cannot achieve.

The very inflexibility of the idiot cousins guarantees their tenure. The more they fail, the more of them are needed. If we spent X amount of money to achieve Y without achieving it, then next time we must spend X+2. It's the linear mechanical logic of the idiot who can only think in terms of tackling every problem with more resources until it finally cracks. If our last machine didn't do it, then our massive EDUTRON 2000 which is twice as big and costs twice as much will surely educate all our children properly.

We have been throwing idiot cousins are the war on poverty, at discrimination and at overeating. And now we're poorer, more bigoted and fatter than we used to be. Given another generation we'll have trouble getting up out of bed at the homeless shelter long enough to carry out hate crimes. That's not the official progressive party line which says that we are more tolerant than we used to be, even as they discover five new kinds of bigotry over the weekend. And as for poverty, it's tempting to say that the only people who got rich fighting poverty were the idiot cousins, but even they are worse off in a country which is poorer than ever and which can only afford fattening food.

Like the Soviet Union, the progressive agenda never fails, it just succeeds so much that it moves on to fight new challenges, like racist babies, the imminent destruction of the planet and understanding how right wing talk show hosts brainwash people into hating all their programs. There are never defeats, only strategic retreats. Each setback is an opportunity to create a new agency full of idiot cousins with a 40 billion dollar budget in order to "invest in our future".

We have been investing so much in our future lately, that we may not even have a future anymore. Forget peak oil, we are rapidly reaching peak government. Our exploitation of our human resources is unsustainable. Eventually we will have bankrupted the future due to all our investing in the future in such promising present day stocks as Idiot Cousins Inc, better known as the entire monumental structure of government and its assorted camp followers looking for a chance to wash clothes, hold a fundraiser or make off with a fat government contract.

Hoover promised two chickens in every pot, but while the price of chicken is rising, our current leaders offer us two bureaucrats, inspectors, managers, disarrangers and assorted euphemisms for unelected but impossible to get rid of miniature tyrants, to every family that works for a living.

The human machine that the left keeps building in our backyard doesn't work. It can never work and it refuses to go away. It only keeps getting bigger and bigger. The builders don't understand that it's not the fault of the machine, it's the fault of the theory. The machine does what it's designed to do which is carry out a linear process. It will not however transform humanity. Nor will it clean up after itself.

A machine of ten million human parts is far dumber than any single human being. It is far less competent, far less capable and far more cruel. It will fail at all but the simplest tasks because it has no soul, it has no conscience, it has no mind and it has no common sense. Its very operation creates more problems than it can hope to solve. It is not a solution. It and its operators, the idiot cousins who fill its metal chambers, are the problem. They are our problem

 


 


--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
0
"In order to prevent another Hitler, it is necessary to know how Hitlers are made. The National Socialist recipe is in the public domain, available in any historical cookbook. Let's go into the kitchen with master chef Woodrow Wilson and watch the Nazi soufflé rise."

Stopping the Next Hitler
by Bill Walker

The US is about to launch yet another undeclared war on yet another eastern front, this time against Iran. Supposedly our permanent state of war is necessary to "stop the next Hitler"…. in other words, the way to prevent a Nazi regime from arising is to launch surprise attacks on small countries, round up Semitic scapegoats and put them in secret camps, spy on our own people with 17 Gestapo-style intelligence agencies, build a series of invincible robot wonder weapons… wait just a darn minute here. I think our foreign-policy cooks are using the wrong recipe book.

In order to prevent another Hitler, it is necessary to know how Hitlers are made. The National Socialist recipe is in the public domain, available in any historical cookbook. Let's go into the kitchen with master chef Woodrow Wilson and watch the Nazi soufflé rise.


Hitler: Created by US Intervention, Kept in Power by England and France

Germany and France had fought a war in 1870. Some expendable soldiers died, a few civilians were collateral damage, and a couple border areas changed hands. Overall, the war changed nothing, and after the war Europe returned to peace and business as usual.

In 1917 World War One was on track to burn itself out in similar fashion. Both sides were war-weary; common people had been reminded that being gassed and ripped apart by artillery isn't really as fun as it sounds. Another peace of exhaustion was in the cards, helped along by military technologies which favored the defender. Trench warfare and railbound supply lines made successful aggression difficult. Millions of troops died without changing the front lines very much.

Woodrow Wilson saved the War To End Wars with a major media campaign and 2.8 million drafted Americans. Funded by the recently created Federal Reserve, the US poured fresh troops and money in to support the British and French empires. This allowed Clemenceau and Lloyd George to launch a total war against the German civilian population.

The Germans signed an Armistice on November 11, 1918. However, the Allies didn't stop fighting. They used their fleets to blockade (nowadays we would say "to impose sanctions") Germany until July 1919. At least a quarter of a million Germans were killed by starvation and disease during the blockade.

Backed by their invincible US mercenaries, the French and British looted Germany. The Versailles Treaty prevented economic recovery and any return to normal trade for Germans. The Weimar government tried to pay its impossible foreign debts by inflating the mark, destroying the middle class and discrediting capitalist values like honesty and saving. Socialism of different stripes became the only ideology in Germany.

Without the Versailles Treaty, Hitler would have become a house-painting contractor or maybe a minor artist. Under the Treaty, he became a Messiah. People are evolved to live in tribes, and their default setting is xenophobic tribalism. Germans simply reset to the default setting, as other peoples from Japan to Rwanda have done under economic stress.

After Hitler came to power, the other powers jumped in to… help him. Britain and France pressured the Czechs to cede a strip of land (which coincidentally contained the Czech defense fortifications). After the Czechs were rendered defenseless, Poland and Hungary annexed parts of Czechoslovakia, helping Germany finish it off.

The interventionist policies of the other world powers also helped Hitler make Europe Judenfrei. Britain and France refused to allow most Jews to escape. Even in 1938, at the Evian Conference, the nations of the world continued to restrict Jewish immigration. The US used its navy and coast guard to turn back ships full of escaping Jews. Without these active government interventions, most of the Jews of Germany could have escaped the Holocaust.

So Hitler was created by interventionist foreign policy and war, then enabled by more interventions. After he finally attacked his benefactors in open warfare… they still worked hard to keep him around. The Springfield-toting sniper in Saving Private Ryan asks a simple question: why not send him to shoot Hitler, instead of shooting one German draftee at a time? It's a very good question.


Saving Corporal Hitler

Did the heroic Allies actually try to remove Hitler and save the Jews, as our current mythology implies? Or did they treat him as just another member of the club, a good ol' boy engaged in the gentlemanly arts of demagoguery, war, and tax collection? Roger Moorhouse has collected all the attempts on Hitler's life into one volume. The book is fairly short for lack of material; in general, governments made no serious attempts to kill Hitler. We know they could have, because one construction worker almost succeeded with no assistance.

In 1938, an ordinary German carpenter named Georg Elser was convinced that Hitler was going to plunge Germany back into war. Elser decided to kill Hitler and save the world.

First, he traveled to Munich for the observance of the November 8th anniversary of the 1923 Beer Hall Putsch, an important Nazi holiday. Hitler was obliged to give a speech at the Burgerbraukeller for these festivities. Elser simply went in afterward and bought a beer. He observed the position of the speaker's lectern and the structure of the hall. Then he went home and got a job in a quarry that used explosives.

In August 1939, Elser moved to Munich. Every evening he bought dinner in the Burgerbraukeller. After each dinner he hid in a storeroom until the employees left. Then he emerged and worked all night, constructing a hidden cavity in a pillar behind the speaker's dais. On the 2nd of November 1939, he installed a large homemade bomb. On November 5, he set the timers for the evening of November 8 (remember this is a punctual German bomb, it had a backup timer).

On the evening of November 8, Hitler entered the Burgerbraukeller and gave his speech. Unfortunately he was an hour early. Due to bad weather, he had decided to use the train instead of displaying his high-tech flair by flying. So he left the hall at 9:07. Elser's bomb went off exactly at 9:20, not only blasting the lectern but bringing the whole gallery down onto the dais. Instead of killing Hitler and other high-level Nazis, he got only a few low-ranking supporters.

Elser missed… but not by much. He demonstrated that any individual who put a few months of their time into killing Hitler would have a pretty good chance of success. Unfortunately, as the rest of Moorhouse's book shows, the major governments of the world never spared as much as one full-time carpenter to kill Hitler. Stalin put elaborate assassination nets in place, but then carefully avoided any harm to Adolf, probably fearing that a less crazy leader would make Germany more powerful.

The democratic Allies did no better. The British demonstrated that they could assassinate even the highest-ranking Nazis deep inside Eastern Europe, by killing Reinhard Heydrich. They produced James Bond weapons like the Welrod pistol and distributed them to resistance movements, and assassinated Nazi small fry all over Europe. But though they did a feasibility study ("Operation Foxley") on shooting Hitler at his retreat in the Alps, they too left him strictly alone. On April 25, 1945, the British finally made some PR shock and awe by sending 375 bombers to blast Berchtesgaden. The results were the same as the attacks on Saddam Hussein at the beginning of the Iraq War; the dictator was nowhere nearby.

The American war leadership followed the British lead. They preferred to spend billions on bombing ordinary German civilians rather than sending in one sniper to Berlin. (Killing Hitler makes it plain that Hitler drove openly around Berlin until quite late in the war; he would have been no harder to hit than Heydrich). Hitler was left to pursue his campaign against the Jews to the very end.

Governments, whether "democratic" or openly totalitarian, are all driven by the same evolutionary laws. They gain power by maximizing the length and cost of wars.

"War is the health of the State" is a truism because it is true. Governments create and maintain Hitlers; if they remove one it is usually only to install another. (Ask the Poles and the Czechs how much they "benefited" from World War II… unlike switching to Geico, switching to Stalin didn't save them hundreds of thousands of lives).

Hitler only died as an accidental byproduct of the financial and political machine that was World War. If he had actually used the WMDs that he had built to win on D-Day and/or at Kursk, he might have come to a Cold War accommodation of his own and lived on to die of old age. As it was he simply failed to be a strong enough bogeyman, and was replaced by Stalin and Mao… each of whom killed far more people in peacetime genocides than Hitler.

Mao alone killed around 77 million Chinese according to historian R.J. Rummel. Maybe Mao should take Hitler's place as the generic epithet for politician… but he won't, since he didn't lose. In fact, he went on to enjoy his palaces and harems and die at a ripe old age, much to his own surprise.


After World War Two: Let a Thousand Hitlers Bloom

Since 1945, the US has given foreign aid to most of the world's genocidal dictatorships. Pol Pot was on the US dole, even after achieving the all-time record for "proportion of population killed". Castro was given massive aid after the Bay of Pigs…. and the biggest job security boon to a Latin American dictator ever, in the form of US trade restrictions that kept Castro economically dominant and most Cuban homes free of VCRs.

Ho Chi Minh got a chunk of change from the US after the Vietnam War, although most of his support before that came from Warsaw Pact countries that borrowed the money from US banks. Idi Amin, Julius Nyerere, Robert Mugabe, Mobutu, Charles Taylor… you can just call the roll of dictators and not risk hitting one that wasn't on the take from official US foreign aid.

Official foreign aid, like the current official US national debt, is just the tip of the iceberg. Unofficial aid can't even be easily tracked. All a dictator has to do is borrow money from a US bank; with a wink and a nudge from the Federal Reserve, he's on foreign aid that won't be on the books for twenty years, and even then not without a real audit of the Fed. This is how "socialist" regimes can exist with no visible means of support; they don't need a domestic market economy as long as they have their foreign-aid credit card.

So let's drop the pretense that US intervention is about "stopping the next Hitler". Our taxes and borrowings and printings and flat-out imaginary wild promises support a worldwide network of little Hitlers, from the ex-Soviet Afghan warlords to the nuclear-armed god-kings of North Korea.

If we want to "prevent the next Hitler", we first have to stop US foreign aid to all the little Hitlers of the world. Then we have to stop our home-grown Goebbels and Goerings from bankrupting our country with wars on every front. The "next Hitler" is us.

http://lewrockwell.com/walker/walker45.1.html
0
"U.S. intelligence reports in 2007 and 2010 came up with no evidence that Iran is currently attempting to build or acquire nuclear weapons. The International Atomic Energy Agency and UN inspectors have confirmed it. The chief of Israel's Mossad, Tamir Pardo, "doesn't think a nuclear Iran is an existential threat to Israel." James Clapper, the U.S. director of National Intelligence, recently told the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, "We assess Iran is keeping open the option to develop nuclear weapons, in part by developing various nuclear capabilities that better position it to produce such weapons, should it choose to do so. We do not know, however, if Iran will eventually decide to build nuclear weapons." According to Pentagon spokesman George Little, "We have no indication that the Iranians have made a decision to develop a nuclear weapon.""

Nuclear Hypocrisy
by Laurence M. Vance, February 22, 2012

Republican presidential candidates and officials in the U.S. government from the president on down have turned up the rhetoric against Iran.

In his State of the Union address, Barack Obama stated, "America is determined to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, and I will take no options off the table to achieve that goal."

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton reiterated that "it is the policy of this administration that Iran cannot be permitted to have a nuclear weapon and no option has ever been taken off the table."

U.S. State Department spokesman Mark Toner maintains that the Obama administration "is absolutely committed to preventing Iran from getting nuclear weapons."

During a recent campaign stop in Cleveland, Newt Gingrich warned about the dangers to Cleveland, Columbus, Cincinnati, and New York from an Iranian nuclear strike. Said Gingrich, "Remember what it felt like on 9/11 when 3,100 Americans were killed. Now imagine an attack where you add two zeros. And it's 300,000 dead. Maybe a half million wounded. This is a real danger. This is not science fiction. That's why I think it's important that we have the strongest possible national security."

Meanwhile, while campaigning in Missouri, Rick Santorum warned Missourians about Iran: "Once they have a nuclear weapon, let me assure you, you will not be safe, even here in Missouri. These are folks who have been and are at war with us since 1979. This is a country that has killed more troops in Afghanistan and Iraq than the Iraqis and Afghans." (Funny that the Reagan administration facilitated the sale of arms to Iran in 1985 and 1986 ­ when we were supposedly at war. And funny that Santorum said 1979 instead of 1953 ­ the year that the United States overthrew the democratically elected government of Iran and installed an authoritarian puppet in the shah.)

Mitt Romney has said that if you elect him, "Iran will not have a nuclear weapon" because "a nuclear-armed Iran is not only a threat to Israel, it is a threat to the entire world." If sanctions fail to halt Iran's nuclear ambitions, "there's nothing else we could do besides take military action."

The charge has been made that Tehran's UN-inspected nuclear power program is a front for the development of nuclear weapons to target Israel and the United States.

There are several things that negate that charge that the Republican presidential candidates seem to have missed.

U.S. intelligence reports in 2007 and 2010 came up with no evidence that Iran is currently attempting to build or acquire nuclear weapons. The International Atomic Energy Agency and UN inspectors have confirmed it. The chief of Israel's Mossad, Tamir Pardo, "doesn't think a nuclear Iran is an existential threat to Israel." James Clapper, the U.S. director of National Intelligence, recently told the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, "We assess Iran is keeping open the option to develop nuclear weapons, in part by developing various nuclear capabilities that better position it to produce such weapons, should it choose to do so. We do not know, however, if Iran will eventually decide to build nuclear weapons." According to Pentagon spokesman George Little, "We have no indication that the Iranians have made a decision to develop a nuclear weapon."

But whether or not Iran is developing nuclear weapons, and whether or not Iran develops nuclear weapons in the future, there are seven ways in which the U.S. government is guilty of nuclear hypocrisy.

First, it is the United States that helped Iran to start its nuclear program. In 1967, under Dwight Eisenhower's "Atoms for Peace" program, the United States sold the government of Iran a 5-megawatt, light-water-type research reactor. In 1978, Jimmy Carter made a deal with the shah of Iran to send up to eight U.S.-made light-water reactors to Iran, but the deal fell through after the Iranian revolution of 1979. A recently declassified 1974 Defense Department memorandum notes that should the shah fall from power, "domestic dissidents or foreign terrorists might easily be able to seize any special nuclear materials stored in Iran for use in bombs." The memo concludes that "an aggressive successor to the Shah might consider nuclear weapons the final item needed to establish Iran's complete military dominance of the region."

Second, by a vote of 4 to 1, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission recently approved licenses to build two new nuclear reactors in Georgia at an existing nuclear site. The applications were submitted seven years ago. That was the first time in more than 30 years that the U.S. government has approved the construction of new nuclear reactors. The reactors that began operation in the last decades received their initial licenses before 1978. With all the talk about clean energy, green energy, climate change, and the pollution from coal-fired power plants, it is strange that the U.S. government has stifled the construction of new nuclear reactors for peaceful use.

Third, besides the United States, the countries of Russia, China, France, Israel, and Great Britain, and, to a lesser extent, India, Pakistan, and North Korea, have nuclear weapons. Why are these countries not considered to be more of a threat to the United States than Iran? Especially Pakistan, which is very unstable, seeing that it borders on Afghanistan. And what about Russia and China? Director of National Intelligence James Clapper just stated in his Worldwide Threat Assessment that "Russia and China are aggressive and successful purveyors of economic espionage against the United States." The controversy regarding Iran is less about nuclear weapons and more about the "sea of oil" that Iran sits on and the struggle for hegemony in the Middle East.

Fourth, of the 195 countries in the world, 189 of them ­ including Iran ­ are signers of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. North Korea signed and then withdrew; India, Pakistan, and Israel never signed; and the new countries of Kosovo (2008) and South Sudan (2011) have not signed yet. Non-nuclear signatories of the treaty agree "not to receive the transfer from any transferor whatsoever of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or of control over such weapons or explosive devices directly, or indirectly; not to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices; and not to seek or receive any assistance in the manufacture of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices." Article IV of the treaty allows countries to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes: "Nothing in this Treaty shall be interpreted as affecting the inalienable right of all the Parties to the Treaty to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination and in conformity with Articles I and II of this Treaty." Why doesn't the United States pressure India, Pakistan, Israel, and North Korea to sign and abide by the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty instead of condemning Iran ­ a signer that hasn't manufactured, acquired, or received any nuclear weapons?

Fifth, Iran is surrounded by U.S. military bases. There is a new U.S. special operations team known as Joint Special Operations Task Force–Gulf Cooperation Council at work near Iran, and the U.S. military has aircraft carrier battle groups near Iran's shores. Yet the United States and Iran signed the Algiers Accords in 1981 to end the hostage crisis. The first point, "Non-Intervention in Iranian Affairs," reads, "The United States pledges that it is and from now on will be the policy of the United States not to intervene, directly or indirectly, politically or militarily, in Iran's internal affairs." If words have any meaning, that would have to preclude investigating Iran's nuclear program.

Sixth, who is the United States to say that a country should or shouldn't have nuclear weapons? When did all the other countries of the world appoint the United States to be the world's policeman, inspector, and guardian? As much as officials in the U.S. government may not like it, even if Iran had nuclear weapons that would still not give the United States the right to do anything about it beyond diplomacy. The United States has more than 5,000 nuclear warheads that are a threat to the entire planet. Every country in the world ­ not just Iran ­ would be justified in obtaining nuclear weapons to protect itself against the country that was the first to develop nuclear weapons, the country that has the largest stockpile of nuclear weapons, and the only country to ever use nuclear weapons in battle ­ the United States.

That brings us to my last point. There is only one country in the world that had a secret program ­ the Manhattan Project ­ to develop nuclear weapons for offensive purposes and then used them. On August 6, 1945, "Little Boy" was dropped on Hiroshima. Three days later, "Fat Man" was dropped on Nagasaki. Perhaps 200,000 people died, most of them Japanese civilians, some of them Korean conscripts, and a few of them Allied POWs. But wasn't dropping atomic bombs on Japan necessary to end World War II? First of all, World War II was an unnecessary war. Second, World War II needs to be rethought. Third, thanks to the recently published book by the former president Herbert Hoover titled Freedom Betrayed: Herbert Hoover's History of the Second World War, it has now once again been confirmed that Franklin Roosevelt lied about keeping America out of war even as he took one deliberate step after another to take it into war. And fourth, no it wasn't, at least according to then-General Dwight Eisenhower, who said, "The Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing."

Is Iran "guilty" of secretly developing a nuclear weapon? Perhaps. But one thing is certain ­ the United States is guilty of nuclear hypocrisy and there is nothing secret about it.

http://www.fff.org/comment/com1202p.asp
0
Israel dismisses warnings from US about attacking Iran
By Jeremy Herb - 02/22/12 12:39 PM ET

Israel's foreign minister on Wednesday said it's not the business of
the United States whether his country decides to attack Iran.

Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman said that warnings from the United
States and Russia about an attack would not affect Israel's decision-
making.

"[It] is not their business," Lieberman said in an interview with an
Israeli TV station Wednesday, according to The Associated Press.

"The security of the citizens of Israel, the future of the state of
Israel, this is the Israeli government's responsibility," he said.

Lieberman's comments come after Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Martin
Dempsey said Sunday that an Israeli attack would be "destabilizing"
for the region.

President Obama has said that the United States will not allow the
Iranians to obtain a nuclear weapon, but Israeli officials say their
country's existence is threatened by a nuclear Iran. The Israelis have
suggested they might attack Iran to stop its nuclear program with or
without U.S. assistance.

Iran says that its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes only, but
Israel, the United States and their allies believe Iran is striving to
create a nuclear weapon.

U.S. officials have pushed Israel to wait for sanctions against Iran
to have an impact on the country that could convince the Iranians to
abandon their nuclear pursuits.

U.S. National Security Adviser Tom Donilon just returned from a visit
to Israel, where he met with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and
other top Israeli officials.

Netanyahu and Obama have a meeting scheduled March 5 at the White
House while Netanyahu is in the country for the AIPAC convention.

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.