The Obvious

Obama’s Ground Zero Mosquery

Many Americans now believe Barack Hussein Obama to be Muslim.  Yet most Americans simply do not know if Obama is secretly Muslim.  They cannot know.  And that’s what sounds to be ringing the greatest alarms.

CNN pundits, for instance, breathily extol religious freedom as an American sacrament.  Every next breath, though, they bemoan how much campaigning — so-called educating — will be required to persuade Americans that Obama is no secret Muslim.  From one breath to the next — totally oblivious to their superlative hypocrisy.  Yes, it’s fine being Muslim in America.  But no way should anyone ever think Barack Obama actually is Muslim.  God forbid anyone even think Obama isn’t Christian.

Not in my back yard.  Not with my daughter.  Not my elected President.

It isn’t mere hypocrisy.  It’s hillarity.  As when the White House declared Obama must be Christian – since he prays twice daily.  That’s right — only twice.  Not five times.

But of course everyone already knows all about constitutionally guaranteed religious freedom.  Even on CNN — surely that can’t be news.  Not in this century.  So what, really, is the issue?

Actually, there would not have been any issue.  The subject would never have come up if only Obama had not been heard to gratuitously endorse the Ground Zero mosque.  Americans did not know Obama’s religion — and would have been perfectly content to continue neither knowing nor much caring.  Why should Americans have given a first, nevermind second thought to Obama’s religion?  Obama was elected President — not Pope.  Not Ayatollah.  There would have been no issue or subject to debate.

But Obama was heard to gratuitously endorse the Ground Zero mosque.  And even though Obama clarified the very next day he was not commenting on the wisdom but merely the right to place that mosque at Ground Zero?  Americans just can’t believe it.  Because if Obama was just generally pontificating America’s religious freedoms — to contrast, say, Iran’s — then why particularly, specifically only mention that Ground Zero mosque?

That’s what Americans cannot understand.  How and why the Ground Zero Mosque can figure as Obama’s example in chief when it comes to religious freedom.  Since no one can really believe that placing that mosque precisely at Ground Zero is about religious freedom.  Since everyone already knows how placing that mosque precisely at Ground Zero is about religious hatred.

Everyone knows it.  Not just because Hamas is backing it.  Or because there are no legitimately practicing Muslims requiring such a place of worship at Ground Zero – a commercial district.  Or because, as Abd Al-Rahman Al-Rashed, director-general of Al-Arabiya TV wrote, legitimate Muslims would not even want there to be a mosque at Ground Zero – “.. it will become an arena for the promoters of hatred, and a monument to those who committed the crime.”

We know placing that mosque precisely at Ground Zero is about religious hatred because we understand the difference between legitimate Muslims and Islamists.  Because we get the meaning of militant Islamic fundamentalism – Islamism – in the West.  And it wasn’t 9/11 that taught us the difference, either.  It’s a spurious and pernicious myth that we’ve become Islamophobic since 9/11.  In the tolerant West we do not mistake all Muslims for militant fundamentalists.  We know far better.

It was the days after 9/11.  Whenever we’ve seen the dancing in Middle-Eastern Islamist streets.  Seen it on T.V.  Seen it on Al-Jazeera and CNN.  The collective Islamist rejoicing.  And we even tried laughing it off – with the (non)Muhammad cartoons, for instance.  We tried laughing Islamism off as we would Christian fundamentalism.

There’s no laughing Islamist hatred off, though.  We get it.   In New York and in London.  In Madrid, Moscow and Mumbai.  In Africa, Asia, Europe, America and, of course, the Middle East.  Nobody laughs off Islamist hatred.  Everyone gets it.

Islam is a great religion of peace – increasingly hijacked by militant Islamic fundamentalists.  By Islamists.  And nobody can ignore how evil Islamists are.  Because, by this day and age, only Islamist societies remain sufficiently fundamentalist to righteously enslave women, terrorize every other culture there is and proudly declare their genocidal ambitions.

The Ground Zero mosque is not for legitimate Muslims.  Legitimate Muslims don’t want a mosque at Ground Zero.  Placing that mosque at Ground Zero is for the Islamists.  Because only at Ground Zero will that mosque become destination 1 for Islamists to come celebrate 9/11.  Only at Ground Zero can that mosque become Islamism’s holiest site.  Only at Ground Zero will that mosque stand legacy to Islamist supremacy.

That’s the real reason Obama’s religious beliefs have become such an issue.  Because after endorsing placing that mosque at Ground Zero as if doing so were about religious freedom – rather than religious hatred?  We can no longer conceive what Obama was thinking.

Why would Obama support placing that mosque at Ground Zero?  There’s no issue whether Obama be Muslim or Christian.  The real issue is how Obama really feels about every Islamist cause that Ground Zero mosque will so immaculately serve.

Perhaps, just maybe, Democratic pundits and mainstream media commentators should cease blaming anti-Islamic sentiments for the ire Obama has roused.  Because our ire is anti-Islamist — not anti-Islamic.  Because most people can tell the difference.  Because, among those that cannot, pundits and commentators are themselves fanning Islamophobic flames.

Instead of blaming anti-Islamic sentiments and educating how truly Christian Obama is?  Why not reassure that Obama can harbor no Islamist sympathies?  That Obama fully understands how Islamism contradicts everything America stands for – and how Islamist sympathy can mean nothing but enmity for freedom and democracy?

Last modified on 2010-11-22 06:54:16 GMT. 98 comments

Slouching to Armageddon

Iran’s Ahmadinejad has often stated that the “fuss” over Iran’s nuclear program is only a “political pretext” and is an indication of Westerners’ double standards.

The Iranian leader certainly seems to score on that point.  Because everyone hates double standards.  Everyone detests unfairness.  And when it comes to Iran’s nuclear program, the double standard does seem glaringly unfair.

If there’s some problem with potential Iranian nukes — then there must equally be a problem with, for instances, Indian, Pakistani, North Korean and Israeli nukes.  And, just the same, if there’s no great problem with Indian, Pakistani, North Korean and Israeli nukes – then there should be no greater problem with Iranian nukes either.  Not unless there is something glaringly different about Iran’s potential nukes to justify how internationally singled out Iran is.

That, precisely, is what our survey was designed to address.  Whether there’s any perceived difference between nuclear weapons of different nationalities.  And while the survey question was deceptively simple – Which nukes frighten you most? – the response turned out surprisingly edifying.

In last place, the fewest positive responses – 1% each – indicated fear of either Israeli nuclear weapons or no fear of nuclear weapons whatsoever.  Thus, it was certainly encouraging to find the lunatic Dr. Strangelove fringe – Nukes don’t scare me.  Bring them – dead last.  How to account, however, for the lack of fear concerning Israeli nuclear aggression?  Particularly given the ongoing condemnation of Israel as a ruthless military warmonger?

It appears that denouncing Israel as a military warmonger entails no genuine fears as such.  To the contrary.  Regardless whether fully supporting or denouncing Israel in the most extreme possible terms – either way, the tacit underlying consensus seems to be that there is nothing to fear.  Despite overwhelming discord concerning Israeli aggression, all seem to in fact agree that Israel always only fights in self-defense.

Second least frightening were American and European nukes – tied with 2% positive response each.  These results were likely confounded by responses originating mostly from North America and Europe – in the English language.  Nevertheless, in light of arguments that only the U.S. has ever utilized nuclear weapons, it was surprising so little fear was expressed concerning prospects of American nuclear aggression.  Perhaps the counter-argument has become more credible that other powers, under identical circumstances, would not have exercised restraint remotely similar to the U.S.

What if, in the context of a world-war, Germany had first produced and possessed nuclear weapons?  What if Japan had first produced nuclear weapons?  What if only the Soviet Union had possessed nuclear weapons?  There’s not much doubting what devastation and totalitarian domination would have ensued.  Thus, even though dispute persists whether American nuclear weapons ought never have been used under any circumstances – yet consensus reflects perception of American nuclear aggression as almost least frightening.

Third least frightening were Chinese and Indian nukes – tied with 3% positive response each.  No surprise.  Whatever unease concerning India and China emerging as economic super-powers, there seems little to fear.  No indication Chinese or Indian nuclear weapons could serve military aggression instead of defense and deterrence.

Russian nukes received only 4% positive response.  Suggesting that very few individuals lose sleep due to fearing Russian nuclear aggression.  And while this isn’t precisely surprising, it certainly is startling to note how diametrically perception of Russian aggression has altered since the Cold War.

The grim and sober view that nuclear weapons are unacceptable regardless what nationality – All nukes are totally & equally frightening – received 7% positive response.

North Korean nukes were considered third most frightening – with 8% positive response.  Is this relatively moderate result surprising – given the belligerent language, sabre-rattling, military aggression and outright nuclear threats issuing from North Korea?  Perhaps not.  However threatening, reiterating Cold War rhetoric and ideology may no longer seem relevant.  Perhaps North Korea does not get taken seriously enough.

Second most frightening were Pakistani nukes – with 10% positive response.  Rather startling – since Pakistan is putatively allied with the United States.  However, the relatively elevated level of fear may not be unreasonable when taking into account how ambiguous Pakistan’s national identity is.

Is Pakistan a free and democratic society?  Is it a military dictatorship – in order, like so many other Islamic nations, to keep Islamism at bay?  Or is Pakistan inevitably destined to become an Islamist society?  Few prospects can be more frightening than nuclear weapons falling under Taliban’s Islamist control.

Last, and most frightening by far – more than all others combined with 62% positive response – were Iranian nukes.  Making it difficult to account so much dread while Iran is not known yet to possess nuclear weapons.  As if the mere thought of a nuclear-armed Iran were more terrifying than all other nations’ real nuclear arsenals combined.  Why would that be?

Much has been made by mainstream media concerning Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s alarming fundamentalism.  Whether he is paving ways for the 12^th Imam – or sees in himself the living embodiment of that apocalyptic, messianic figure.  How he has called for Israel to get wiped from the map.  And thus the question persists whether Ahmadinejad could prove so unhinged as to execute nuclear first strikes.

Perhaps that’s the completely wrong question, though.  Since it’s somewhat puerile to think Iranian nuclear aggression could hinge on Ahmadinejad’s private frame of mind.

More likely, most individuals feel terrified at the thought of Iranian nuclear weapons because they have some understanding or intuition how devastating irreconcileable ideological differences always become.  Irreconcileable ideological differences not just between individuals – but far more-so between cultures.

The real fear factor is not Ahmadinejad-specific.  Rather, it may follow from awareness how commonplace the call for genocide is in Islamist societies.  Indeed, there is one Islamist society quietly constituted on genociding Israel.  Another Islamist society loudly and proudly charters itself on genociding Israel.  It seems as if every Islamist leader and imam worth his salt must call for the genocide of Israel.

There is nothing uniquely special about Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.  Quite the opposite.  He speaks rather well for Islamist culture.  He is an imam worth his salt.

Terrifying clashes of cultural ideology have been historically ongoing, of course.  But in nuclear terms, the most terrifying ideological clashing used to be during the Cold War.  That protracted era during which the survival of humanity and all life on earth hung by the thinnest fraying thread.  And not just in 1962 during the Cuban missile crisis.  Yet nothing before or since can remotely compare in extremity to Islamist ideologies of genocidal hatred.  Hence, when nuclear weapons are added to that mix?  When it comes to Islamist nukes?  No wonder more people are terrified.

There may seem to be a glaring nuclear double standard.  In reality, however, the very idea of Islamist nukes becomes unthinkable.  For although Islam is a great religion of peace?  The more Islam gets hijacked by militant Islamic fundamentalists – Islamists – the more terrifying the idea of Islamist nukes becomes.  And while the worst Islamist terror may target Israel – by no means do Islamist societies restrict themselves from other targets.

That’s why even more moderate Muslim nations cannot imagine a nuclear Iran.  That’s why Yousef al-Otaiba, the ambassador from the United Arab Emirates, bluntly said: “A military attack on Iran by whomever would be a disaster – but Iran with a nuclear weapon would be a bigger disaster.”  Because Iran has become the leading Islamist society.  Because only Islamist societies remain sufficiently fundamentalist to righteously enslave women, attack and terrorize every other culture there is – while proudly hailing genocidal ambitions.

There is no question whether, if allowed in the first place, Islamist nukes might be used.  The question is how conceivably could Islamist nukes not be used – with genocidal intent sanctified by god?

Last modified on 2011-08-16 07:24:06 GMT. 76 comments

Ultimate Double-Standard

It seems like the global Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) talks are about to collapse.  At least according to the bold Reuters headline declaring nuclear treaty talks on brink of failure.

How come?  Because, obviously, not everyone can agree what nuclear non-proliferation is meant to accomplish.  Egypt and even more-so Iran, for example, would rather not focus too much on NPT-signatory problem states.  Problem states such as North Korea and Iran.  Instead, Egypt and especially Iran would much rather focus on those nuclear-armed states that never signed NPT.  India, Pakistan and – presumptively nuclear-armed — Israel.

Except, of course, that India and Pakistan were not mentioned as problem states.  India and Pakistan were only mentioned as NPT non-signatories.  Far as Egypt and Iran appear at all concerned?  The only real problem is Israel.

And how can anyone particularly blame Iran?  Why should Iran not distract international focus and pressure from itself and onto Israel as the problem state?  Above and beyond Iran’s nuclear aspirations and Iran calling for Israel to get wiped off the map — is there not a matter of principle involved?  Is there not an issue of fundamental fairness?

Indeed.  If there’s some problem with Iranian nukes — then there must equally be a problem with Israeli nukes.  And, just the same, if there’s no problem with Israeli nukes – then there can’t be any problem with Iranian nukes either.  Like Ali Asghar Soltanieh, Iran’s envoy to the U.N. nuclear watchdog in Vienna, said: “”We will not compromise on principles.”

Good on you, Mr. Soltanieh.  Everyone hates double standards.  The international community and each of us personally should thank you for reminding that we must reject double standards.  Especially when it comes to the ultimate, most glaring double standard of all.

Right?  People keep saying how Israel has more nukes.  And whether false or true — does anyone even seem to care about Israeli nukes?  Hardly.  Yet mere suspicion Iraq had WMDs.  Mere anticipation when Iran will have a few nukes to throw around.  Whoa.  Nellie.  Just thinking about Islamist nukes gets the non-Islamist world up in arming.

How and why can there be such universal double standards?  Clearly.  Too obviously.  We can’t get morally worked up about Israel not participating in NPT.  Not after India was granted that waiver from NPT.  Due to insecurity, tensions and longstanding border disputes with China — including a border war in 1962. There can be no moral outrage when, in Israel’s case, the existential issues are so infinitely more grave.  When, in Israel’s case, what gets disputed by Islamist societies is not just one border — but how soon Israel must be wiped from the map entirely.

And yet far more importantly still.  We cannot get viscerally worked up about Israeli nukes.  We simply do not feel terrified should Israel have nukes.  Regardless how anyone hates jews — there is no looming urgency concerning Israeli nukes.  There is no genuine excitement.  There is no honest fear.  If only tacitly, the whole world knows Israel always fights only in self-defense.

But Islamist nukes?  Dude — don’t ever go there.  Because even though we hate to admit it?  Even though we try and pretend otherwise?  We can’t go on pretending when nukes are involved.

When nukes become involved?  Nobody can ignore what everyone already knows.  How only Islamist societies remain sufficiently fundamentalist to proudly declare their genocidal ambitions and terrorize every other culture there is.

There can be neither resting nor sleeping with possibilities of Islamist nukes.  For while we lose a little sleep worrying about North Korean nukes — we stand losing far more should Pakistani nukes fall into Taliban hands.  And nothing can ever strike us waking or sleepless like the very idea of Iranian nukes.

We do hate double standards.  But since Islamist societies can never stop attacking Israel?  Railing against Israel defending herself instead of just dying already?  Worrying about — presumptive — Israeli nukes?  Alright then — we must admit it.  There’s the ultimate, most glaring international double standard.

Totally justified.

Last modified on 2011-08-16 07:31:52 GMT. 2 comments