69 million page views

Okay Harrak, here you go.

Reader comment on item: White House Nonchalance toward the Middle East
in response to reader comment: Diplomatic Efforts?!

Submitted by Pat (United States), Mar 24, 2006 at 17:22

You obviously don't get it. I (I can't speak for others) couldn't care less about Iran. 1979 is ancient history. I don't stew over what happened decades ago the way some Muslims seem to harbor grudges for millenia-old events. I have better things to do than worry about people who crave despotism. If Iranians want to live under despots, that's their right.

What they DON'T have is the freedom to attack others without cause. If they want to go nuclear let them. It's Muslims and not infidels who see nothing wrong with killing ten million Muslims just to destroy Israel. Isn't the Dome of the Rock the third holiest shrine in all of Islam? That "third holiest shrine" can't be too holy, if you see nothing wrong with reducing it to dust. Do you feel the same way about Mecca? Would you wipe out Saudi Arabia if it meant that Israel or the US would be permanently destroyed?

Before you go on about American attacks on Islamic countries, please ask yourself what precipitated them. I tried to engage you in discussion. I asked you a very reasonable question (at least I thought so) about Iran in 1953. All I got in return was a rant. You keep refusing to answer a direct question. What will satisfy you? Obviously the answer is nothing. So why should the West care at all what the Islamic world thinks? No matter what we do, we'll never please you, so why even try?
It doesn't matter, Harrak. Your rants are STILL funny.

I don't care that you refuse to conduct discussions and answer questions. All you do is show everyone how little you have to defend your hatred. Keep evading mine and other people's questions. That won't stop me from asking them.

I'll just give you a few more facts (and watch you rant against them, too).

For anyone who's interested, this was found in the March 23 issue of The New Republic. The title of the article is "The New Threat" and the subtitle is "the radical politics of Islamic fundamentalism".

1. Those cartoons that Muslims took umbrage at are tame, by the Islamic world's own anti-Semitic and anti-American standards and they bothered no one until Iran was about to be referred to the Security Council for sanctions over its nuclear weapons program. Suddenly, a "spontaneous" explosion of protest broke out across countries and continents. This was to let the West know that political Islam could disrupt Western societies.

2. The protests started in political Islam's hotbeds:

a. Gaza - where Danes and other Europeans were assaulted and their diplomatic mission taken over by gunmen (so much for international law) on January 30.

b. Syria - a police state where demonstrations are normally controlled. A demonstration in Syria is about as "spontaneous" as it was in the former Soviet Union. Here a protesting crowd torched the Denmark and Norway embassies (an attack on those two countries, since embassies are sovereign) on February 4. Bashar-al Assad did zip. Again, so much for international law.

c. Lebanon - still the province of Iranian controlled Hezbollah. On February 5, the day after the Syrian attack, the Danish consulate was set afire.

d. Iran - the epicenter of political Islam saw mass protests and attacks on Western embassies (lucky for us, the US no longer has diplomatic relations), the boycott of European goods (what did the French do to Iran?) and the denial of visas to all Danes (what if the US denied visas to ALL Muslims?). We still let Iranians into this country, even though their govenrment's official policy is to seek our destruction.

Here's a quote from your latest reply:

"The second problem they are facing is the future of Israel. What will happen if we attack Iran to Israel? does Hizbollah own Fajr and may be Shihab Missiles. How far is the Daymona Nuclear reactor is from the hands of Hizbollah? How hard is it for Iran to strike that reactor? How about Iranian alleged nuclear war heads bought from the declining USSR?"

My answer:

Here is where you just don't get it and, judging from your postings, you probably never will (unless you're just playing mind games with all of us).

Iran plans to attack Israel all by itself. They're not waiting for a US strike as a pretext. Ahmadinejad has declared he wants to "wipe Israel off the map" and he's not the first Iranian to do so. Three successive Iranian presidents have called for Israel's annihilation and they're willing to kill ten million or more Muslims in the process. I guess you don't care if the West Bank and Gaza are wiped out. What about yourself? Are you ready to die for Israel's destruction?

Then there's the man our media called "moderate": Rafsanjani. In December, 2001 Rafsanjani said "If, one day, the Islamic world is also equipped with weapons like those that Israel possesses now, then the imperialists' strategy will reach a standstill because the use of even one nuclear bomb inside Israel will destroy everything. However, it will only harm the Islamic world. It is not irrational to contemplate such an eventuality."

Rafsanjani says that one tiny bomb dropped near Tel Aviv will destroy Israel and he is gleeful, even though the cost will include hundreds of thousands, maybe millions of Iranians dead from Israeli retaliation. He sees nothing wrong with causing the death of millions of his own citizens in a nuclear exchange in order to destroy Israel for the greater glory of Islam.

He would destroy Islam in order to save it. Are you ready to die with him or would you seek sanctuary in the West?
Now Iranian clerics have issued a fatwa justifying the use of nuclear weapons.

Ahmadinejad thinks the US will crumble as the Soviet Union did. What he doesn't realize is that his pronouncements sound more like those of Nikita Khrushchev who pounded his shoe on a desk and shouted to his American counterpart: We will bury you!!
We all know what happened then. The US and its Western allies went through tough times, but in the end the USSR was buried and without a shot being fired or a missile being launched.

A great religion shouldn't need force or threats to propagate itself. It shouldn't condemn to death anyone within its environs who doesn't believe. Why does Islam? (And please don't point to the Inquisition. That was centuries ago. The rest of us are living in the 21st century. When will Islam join us? It's really not so bad, here.)

Just admit it, Harrak. Political Islam, with Iran as its godfather, is not interested in coexistence. It wants total wordlwide domination. It's not "peaceful" by any means.

That's why I think all diplomatic efforts on Iran are wasted and we should just read them the riot act. Any attempt to destroy the West will backfire, bigtime.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".

Follow Daniel Pipes

Facebook   Twitter   RSS   Join Mailing List

All materials by Daniel Pipes on this site: © 1968-2024 Daniel Pipes. daniel.pipes@gmail.com and @DanielPipes

Support Daniel Pipes' work with a tax-deductible donation to the Middle East Forum.Daniel J. Pipes

(The MEF is a publicly supported, nonprofit organization under section 501(c)3 of the Internal Revenue Code.

Contributions are tax deductible to the full extent allowed by law. Tax-ID 23-774-9796, approved Apr. 27, 1998.

For more information, view our IRS letter of determination.)