The "international community" persists in attempting to limit the Israelis in their attempt to prevent missiles from raining down on half of Israel. Such journalists as Jim Muir of the BBC persist in turning their reports into al-Jazeera-like propaganda fests, with just a touch of TASS and Der Stuermer not very far beneath the surface -- in the hysteria of the claims, the language chosen, and the complete gullibility in both the photographs: go to EU Referendum and look at the careful analysis of photographs coming from Qana. Once you have thoroughly digested that material, take a look at the photograph from Qana of that Israeli "atrocity," that "carnage," that "agony" inflicted for no apparent reason, just out of the blue, by those bloodthirsty Israelis, that can be found on the front page of -- you guessed it -- The New Duranty Times.
If this kind of thing goes on, that "international community" -- or for that matter a panicky Bush-Rice administration, really believing this nonsense about "winning Arab hearts and minds" and creating a "new Middle East" – will do all it can to compel Israel to stop resisting the Jihad. They are hallucinators. They don't know where to put their feet and hands. Even when they get a policy right, it is always for reasons that are incoherent and are not part of any larger and more intelligent scheme of things or based on any deep understanding. In that case the Israelis, being sensible, will have to consider much more seriously than they ever have before the demonstrative use of a nuclear weapon or two, whether in Iran or along one of its borders (say, in the Sinai) in order to create a permanent no-man's-land, and to signal to other neighbors that the days of nonsense and negotiation and surrendering territory and being willing to be so prodigal with the lives of its citizens, or to live in a permanent state of maximum peril -- are over, and for good.
The Lesson of Darura -- Darura is not a town, but rather a concept -- has to be learned by the Arabs and Muslims. But it cannot be learned if the Israelis themselves do not start, at long last, drawing some conclusions. And there is one obvious conclusion that should be drawn from this war with Hizballah: the forces arrayed against Israel are more formidable in their weaponry and training than the Israelis have dared to realize. Therefore they cannot take those famous "risks for peace" that the dumber among them keep prating about. There should be no further discussion of ever leaving a single dunam of the West Bank. The possibility of that West Bank turning into Hizballahland should by now be obvious. Israel cannot take that risk. Nor can it simply have military "occupation." It must not only remain as both a civilian and military presence, but had best go back and draw attention to the intent, and precise provisions, of the Mandate for Palestine. Israel should draw attention to the border adjustments that have marked every major war (see the Alto Adige formerly known as the Sudtirol, see Czechoslovakia, Poland, Germany, Alsace-Lorraine, Koenigsburg/Kaliningrad see all kinds of places) and make clear that the innocence about the limitless demands of Islam is over. Israeli officials should point out that Islam does not tell its followers to "compromise with Infidels" or "leave the Infidels some territory in which Islam will not dominate" -- no, not at all.)
Whether or not the moral idiots now reporting from Lebanon, and being echoed by their press in Western Europe, will sympathize with this, will even begin to understand it, does not matter. What the U.N. or the E.U., both thoroughly infiltrated by agents of the only bloc remaining, the Islamintern International, think about this, doesn't matter.
Whatever else the world's nauseating reaction has shown, it -- and the behavior of Hizballah that has been given a pass -- offers one more, this one a decisive reason, for never again even thinking about giving up more territory. There has to be a learning curve. For the Israeli elites in government and the media, that curve has been virtually flat. Not now, one hopes. Now one hopes that one will be able to detect signs of a curve, ever upward. And if the Israelis can start to exhibit some common sense, then perhaps some of that common sense about Islam and its demands will actually spread to Western Europe and to an Administration that thinks only of fighting a "war on terror," side-by-side with the members of the Da'wa and Sciri parties in wonderful, true-blue Iraq.
So much nonsense. A clearing of the mental air in Israel would help.
"demonstrative use of a nuclear weapon or two"
I recently suggested here that going surgically for the Islamic "Al-CPU" would be the only possible way for civilization to survive in the long term (although this suggestion got, ahem, nuked by the admins). I don't think we are quite there yet, the Israelis would lose whatever they have left among those who should know better. There must be a widespread perception in the West of being up against the wall before such a thing can be contemplated, even if this may be the option with the fewest casualties.
Winning their hearts and minds can be accomplished by a significant emotional event that goes BOOOOOOOOM! followed by a stern warning that if you don't straighten up you will hear another BOOOOOOOM! IMMEDIATELY. AND so on and so on. No more irrevelant talk and false promises.
Pardon the vulgarity (ahem), but as we used to say in SAC ... when you've got 'em by the balls, their hearts and minds will follow. (Agreeing with exsgtbrown here!)
The nuclear 'option' is not, in reality, an option. It is, and always will remain (for many reasons), a court of last resort.
Only when there are no other methods of combating moslem supremacism left for us to try or to use can we possibly contemplate the use of nuclear weapons because using them would, indeed, guarantee our victory but the price we would pay would be very high. The world's weather systems would ensure that deadly radioactive particles would be strewn all over the planet, including the oceans; the middle east together with the territories and oceans immediately adjacent, would be no-go areas for many centuries, perhaps millennia; and the level of radiation related diseases and birth defects would soar, even in countries such as the UK and the USA situated far from the conflict zone.
Remember Chernobyl! The UK is still living with tens of thousands of acres of farmland contaminated by the fallout from one small reactor thousands of miles away catching fire. Crops and livestock from the farms so affected have to be monitored and, depending on how much radiation they have absorbed whilst growing, frequently are not allowed into the food-chain but destroyed on the farm.
If one small, badly built, badly run reactor can do this to a country thousands of miles away think how much worse the situation would be if nuclear weapons were to be deployed. (Iran, of course, knows this and one of the reasons that they want the technology is to ensure that when the moslem world has finally driven us to use such weapons because we have nothing else left to do then we will not be able to win because they will be able to destroy us as well.)
Cinder Earth circling the sun - a monument to barbarian moslem stupidity and civilisation's moral cowardice. Is that what you want? I don't! So count me out of your mad nuclear 'option' dreams. It's not an option - it's a death sentence for all of us. But it is also a court of last resort - and I stress the 'last'.
Dominic.
Your fondness for the expression 'New Duranty Times' will confuse the casual reader.
What is scarey is that the developers of Chernobyl sold the nuclear plans and materials to the Islamic thugs.
I recall an old story. The Japanese purchased the design of a railroad steam engine from the US manufacturer. THe engine plans were faulty and engines built from these plans had a history of tradgety. Consequently all the engines built in Japan from these plans were destroyed one by one in train accidents all across Japan.
Chernobyl, what a sad event. And the people at Chernobyl claimed. :"At least we are not Union Carbide"
Aha! The first mention of the possibility that this may turn to nukes that I've seen in 1000 online articles (excepting millenialist nutcases). I'd been speculating about this scary topic, and if it ever could be justified, and what would I do if I were Truman, etc. Then in your wisdom and Gandhian revulsion in the face of mass suffering, you suggested a 'demonstrative' weapon in the Sinai. Now that's thinking. However, I doubt it would work with millenialist fanatics like Ahmadinejad. It would only encourage them. And Hezbollah doesn't seem much different. And those guys smell blood now that Israel is suffering its first major setback - a huge psychological victory. They are very clever; I think they anticipated all this when they kidnapped the soldiers. And you are right that winning the hearts and minds of the Muslims is futile, unless we are prepared to scarifice Israel. Even if I suddenly became a total pacifist, I would continue to believe that. The 'peace process' has always been clutching at straws by tender-hearted diplomats who desperately want to believe there is a humane solution. How can you negotiate with people who have your extermination in their charter and in their fiery sermons? Yet, so few major foreign policy leaders and experts look this squarely in the face. Quite remarkable!
necessitasnonhabetlegem, the option I hinted at is not necessary nuclear, there is no need for it to be so other than perhaps render certain places inaccessible for a long time. Even when going nuclear, the Sinai Desert or anywhere else, this is nowhere near the classic strategic scenario with nuclear winter, worldwide fallout, etc. Warheads come in a variety of flavours with respect to fallout and brute force.
I'm certainly not advocating anything, much less in the current situation (as I said above), but given the alternative being some kind of global victory for Islam, with everything this entails of death, sharia and dhimmitude, I do think that any, any alternative would be preferable.
Here's an informative article, including talks with Hezbollah leaders and Muslims on the ground in Lebanon:
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060807fa_fact
Dominic, just what "radiation free" scenario do you see playing out once the civilized world allows the barbarians to acquire/expand their nuclear arsenal? Should rational people prempt that possibility so as to preserve civilization?
When farming, sometimes your crops become diseased, you must destroy the entire crop to ensure the safety of the people who consume your crops. You then treat the soil and replant. You take the proper precautions to ensure the replanting is successful.
It may become necessary to rid the world of the disease known as Islam.
anti-uffe,
I note what you say about "warheads com[ing] in a variety of flavours with respect to fallout and brute force", but I repeat what I said about the damage an elderly and relatively small nuclear reactor at Chernobyl did to the UK thousands of miles away when things went wrong. If a lightly flavoured (unseasoned?), so to speak, device were to be used can we really be sure that the damage would remain localised to the site of the explosion. Air-burst nuclear testing, for example, on the Bikini atoll by the French contaminated the entire planet. USA underground testing is far more sensible but that leaves the surface still relatively usable, which, I presume, would be, in your scenario, pointless. I remain unconvinced. Any nuclear scenario is, in my opinion, the very last thing we resort to and only when we are in extremis.
Infidel33/
I never said, nor do I advocate, that we should do nothing about the development of nuclear arsenals by barbarian states. Yes, rational civilised people should pre-emptively deal with the putative acquisition of such arsenals by barbarian states and organisations. However, we do not necessarily have to use nuclear weapons in order to do so. Conventional weapons and the willpower to use them will do - at the moment.
Hugh/
As usual, a cogent summary. I wholeheartedly agree with your viewpoint.
Dominic.
The Israeli and American people need to face the facts - the feckless "international community" and "Arab street" already hate our guts. Does anyone actually believe that implementing an immediate ceasefire will change this dynamic? Will stopping short of imposing a punishing physical and moral defeat upon Hizb'Allah suddenly produce adoring throngs of cuddle-partiers in Europe and the Middle East? No, it won't, it will only embolden Nasrallah, Assad and Ahmadenijad, and THAT is the dynamic that has to be dealt with here.
As for the "international community" that licks the OIC's jack-boots, and the "Arab street" that is centuries late for its civilizational rabies shot, they can get enjoy a nice cup of STFU in the clear mental air.
Mike
There is no such thing as the 'international community' any more than there are wild slutty womens, and the Arab street has no power - can't do a thing to alter the policies of Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and the rest of the Arab empire.
The evil ones have spun a web,
woven a black magic spell
over all the infidels.
Their helpers sow dischord
throughout the land,
spreading fear and hate,
confusing us by their lies,
with blood-lust in their eyes.
But slowly an energy spreads,
the knife of knowledge cuts the threads
of ignorance and the web is broken.
Ideas are written and spoken,
dogma flees in the face of death
and with each breath we breathe
the spell begins to lift . . .
Knowlege is the key,
read the Trilogy
the koran the words of allah,
the hadith, the words and deeds
of the perfect man,
and the sirah, his biography.
Learn and then teach,
telling all who can listen
about the crazed pedophile
who joined the forces of darkness
and his barbaric hate-loving moon god
who lives on his followers blood.