Posted on 02/18/2006 3:51:29 AM PST by Aussie Dasher
IN a recent article on this page about the possibility of peace between the Hamas Government and Israel, I concluded: "There is only one way Israel can be destroyed, and that is by a nuclear bomb. Which brings us to the real problem - Iran."
A letter to the editor responded that while the article was generally a fair assessment of the situation, could I please explain: "How can Iran destroy Israel without destroying Palestine as well and without being destroyed in return by Israel and the US?"
It is of course the key question and the one that needs to be asked by those seeking to avoid World War III.
"Ban the bombers" have been around since Hiroshima but gained momentum only when the Soviet Union got theirs. "Peace" organisations, funded by the Soviet Union, restricted their mass demonstrations to Western societies.
Although a political activist throughout a major portion of the Cold War, at no stage did I fear a nuclear holocaust. This was not prescience, inside information or bravado but merely a gut feeling the Soviet leadership, all of whom were atheists, would prefer staying alive than sacrificing themselves to maintain the workers' paradise. All were aware that in a nuclear war tens of millions of people would perish and they had a good chance of being among them.
Similarly, while most Americans claimed to be devout Christians, one sensed they had some doubts about the hereafter. It is difficult to imagine any of their recent presidents, particularly Richard Nixon, envisaging themselves strumming a harp from here to eternity. And that is why "Mutually Assured Destruction" (M.A.D.) worked, and it is why I have a soft spot for devout atheists.
It is also why everything changed on 9/11. When 19 relatively affluent, well-educated young men blow themselves up because of real or imagined grievances against the West then, to coin a phrase, "we have a problem".
Few who now prattle on about treating the "root causes" of Islamic fundamentalism and the willingness of jihadists to die to make a point seem to have considered the difficulty of convincing any of their own friends to sacrifice their lives for a cause - any cause. It's one thing to be prepared to lay down one's life to defend freedom, but it is quite another to want to die a martyr for 72 virgins. This is when the average Westerner realises he is dealing with fanatics who are at best barking mad.
September 11, 2001, was only the beginning. Bali, Jakarta, Spain, Israel, Afghanistan, Chechnya and Iraq have produced hundreds of young men and a few women willing, nay enthusiastic, to blow themselves up. Thousands, we are told, are ready to follow. This mindset is best illustrated by the newly elected Hamas MP who "boasted" that three of her sons had been suicide bombers and she hoped the other three would follow. She gives a new twist to the phrase "family planning". No one seems to ask: "If suicide is such fun, why are the leaders not showing the way?"
Which brings us back to the original question. A nuclear bomb dropped on Tel Aviv would undoubtedly destroy a very large part of Israel, the West Bank and Gaza. It would also do irreparable damage to Jerusalem, the third most important site for the world's Muslims. About four to five million Israelis and Palestinians would die.
With the best intelligence service in the world, Israel would be well aware of what was about to happen and, while it may be able to interdict Iranian missiles, it wouldn't be waiting to see if it was successful. I wouldn't want to be an Iranian when it responded.
One of Iran's leadership's most endearing qualities is their honesty when talking about Israel. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad leaves no one in doubt about his views.
"The Holocaust is a myth; Israel should be moved to Europe and/or wiped off the face of the earth," are just a few of them.
Former president Ayatollah Rafsanjani - described for years as a moderate - claimed recently: "The Muslim world would win a nuclear exchange with Israel", and "an atomic bomb would not leave anything in Israel - but the same thing would just produce damage in the Muslim world".
Put simply, he considers the death of millions of Iranians and Palestinians a small price to pay for the obliteration of Israel. And Rafsanjani is considered a moderate.
The fanatics don't care if they die. On the contrary, many will welcome it. At the risk of being repetitive - we have a problem.
I dont beieve for a moment that we were protedted before because Russia was atheist and that Americans werent sure of their religion. I do believe that now we are dealing with a fanatical bunch of religious cultists that dont care how many die as long as they can kill infidels--thats us pal. We are the infidels. In fact every person in the world not Muslim are infidels so nowhere is safe from these crazy lunatics. The world better wake up before its to late, get these people out of your midst and for the sake of humanity dont allow them to get a nuclear weapon.
What we need is a world bounty on muslims, .50 would be sufficient to offset the cost of materials, If it gets over $3 I may use a heavier caliber...reloading is getting expensive ya know!
Tolerating Islamist intolerance
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1581023/posts
Live by the atom, perish by same.
AS in WWII, we Aussies will be right beside you!
Never doughted that for a second my friend!
We have your back as well! The United States of America has never had a better friend, who has stood unwavering with us in all wars!
God Bless the Aussies!
You bad.
Excuse me, but Europe is the land that wiped the Jews off of the face of Europe and parts of Asia.
Without Europe an Israel never would have been created!
What Jew would want to live there?
I'm a Catholic, and I wouldn't want to bloody live there!
I just set your isotoons as my background for my computer.
Funny as hell!
Bwaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahaha
Exercising our First Amendment Rights!
Oh please, please, please islamofacist, please show up at my door and demand I take them off my computer! Please, please, please put a contract on me - give me a reason to put a 10mm round through that turbin, oh please, please, please!
Bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahaha
I think he misreads the American attitude during the Cold War. Rather than lingering doubts about the hereafter, the American attitude was summed up quite well by Patrick Henry, "Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God."
Please realize the author was a Minister in a Labor Government.
I'm amazed he got as much right as he did!
>>
Put simply, he considers the death of millions of Iranians and Palestinians a small price to pay for the obliteration of Israel. And Rafsanjani is considered a moderate.
<<
A nuclear weapon is, at the very least, an "area weapon" that leaves a large footprint of ground contaminated for years with radioactive dust, not to mention what is destroyed by blast damage.
Islam seems to want it both ways: Jerusalem is the location of one of their "holiest" sites on the Temple Mount and they are willing to destroy Israel to do what, protect their "holy" site? If they are willing to do this even as they contaminate it, then just how "holy" is this site to them? Really?
The real goal is to destroy Israel at any price. What theological or ideological values are being expressed here by these advocates of the Religion of Peace? Blind hatred that knows no satisfaction. Is this religion being misrepresented by its advocates and the 'useful idiots' in the western media? It sure looks like it.
Except that Ahdiditinmahjeens, or whatever his name is, is an end-of-worlder.
It would be cool to him to see the whole middle east explode.
He's not rational, at all.
God bless The Great Ronald Reagan!
Maybe God was trying to tell us something when in Genesis He spoke of Atom and Leave.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.