Introducing The Angel Of Death

Crowds of people have congregated as if in anticipation of experiencing a miraculous religious vision - but instead a grotesque dead chicken lies slumped across the cliff-top in front of them. The crowd's inability to recognize the inanity of the object they are venerating, emphasized the futility of their mission.
"Chihuahua" by David Alfaro Siqueiros 1947, Museo de Arte Alvar y Carmen T de Carillo, Mexico City

 

Mohammad-Ali Ramin's looks are deceptive.

He's good looking with his soft, well manicured beard. His looks are either German or Scandinavian, blue eyes, light hair. Nothing threatening, charming smile; you'd invite him to your dinner party without a moments hesitation. Well almost....

Little would you know that you'd be wining and dining the very reincarnation of Heinrich Himmler, Joseph Goebbels, Adolf Eichmann, Dr Josef Mengele dubbed 'Angel of Death', you name it, take your pick, improved only in looks and finesse. Pure, unabashed, soft-spoken evil. Measured in tone, deliberate and utterly confident in everything he says. He's not a psychopath, but someone who is absolutely convinced to occupy the moral high ground, certain of his convictions being sanctioned by Allah himself.

In response to Russian President Putin's remark, "..we have enough nuclear weapons to destroy the whole world 7 times over, but [we] do not talk like Iranian leaders do, so why do [they]?", he says:

"[We have] just woken up after 16 years of forgetting God. [...] Only 11 countries in the world [are] against Iran whereas there [are] some 150 states supporting Iran."

“We will acquire this [nuclear] technology and export it to all the 150 countries,” he threatened, adding that “this is the power we have not yet used”.

Ramin claimed that Ahmadi Nezhad's presidency [that's how 'Thug-in-Chief' Ahmadinejad is affectionately called by his close friends and admireres] had created a new global wave and that many world leaders had lined up to speak with him. He also stressed that Europe and the US were entirely incapable of threatening Iran.

Who is Mohammad-Ali Ramin and why should we pay very close attention to what he has to say?

He is what Joseph Goebbels was to Hitler. He is the brain behind "Thug-In-Chief" Ahmadinejad, his hardline presidential advisor.

He is the editor-in-chief of Emamat monthly, a founder of the Association of the Islamic Path in Europe, and director of the Holocaust seminar in Tehran.

Like Ahmadinejad, he too is a member of the Shi'a branch of Islam, that rejects the first three Sunni caliphs and regards Ali, the fourth caliph, as Muhammad's first true successor.

He is Ahmadinejad's architect of the Caliphat, charged with the careful planning and realization of the global Dar-al-Islam, the time when Islam has subjugated the whole world, the time when Islam will be 'tolerant' for there will be none left to oppose or differ.

Born 1954, it is an eerie irony, that he was brought up and educated in the 'Vaterland' ; only after  completing his major in Mechanical Engineering and after founding the "Islamische Gemeinschaft in Clausthal e.V." (Clausthal is an hour's drive from Hannover, Germany) as well as other unspecified 'political activism', did he move his wife and three children back to his native home, the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Apart from bringing about the global Dar-al-Islam, his passion and academic work is dedicated to the revision of the Holocaust 'Myth'. Ramin was the one who initiated the idea of the "relocation of Israel" and also the idea, that "Holocaust is a myth". Ahmadinejad was just the messenger.

He himself accepted the full responsibility of this action. In an interview with the Financial Times (German version), Ramin stated that he has also initiated the "Holocaust commission" and that he is the founder of the Conference on Holocaust in Tehran.

His logic is as simple as it is evil: Should his committee determine that indeed 6 million Jews had been killed by the Nazis, then another committee must be assembled and determine a just punishment for Germany, which, oh quelle surprise, must include the transfer of German territory so as to establish a Jewish State.

Should it however establish, that Holocaust was a 'Myth', Ramin would have successfully vilified the Jews and exonerated the Nazis. He would then hope to re-open the debate questioning the legality of the State of Israel and bring him one step closer to return Israel's territories to Arab rule. Destruction of Israel is only the last resort option. Much preferred is to usurp Israel 'peacefully', and hand control over to Arab leaders. I wonder what he'd call the new nation...

Having first coached his eager pupil Ahmadinejad, Ramin later praised the President for having voiced his doubts over the Holocaust and the need for relocating the Jews to Europe if Europeans really did the massacre during the Second World War. Ramin then suggested publicly that Ahmadinejad establish a committee for clarifying the "real extent" of the Holocaust.

To those, who criticize Ramin and his government's position on denying the Holocaust, and the serial murders of Iranian intellectuals by the Ministry of Intelligence, he responds:

"The Islamic Revolution has already shaken the world and [...] the unexpected epidemics such as the Asian Flu and AIDS [are] emerging [...] The world [is] too envious to witness the success of Iran’s young generation."

To all of you, who reflexively dismiss these clearly stated goals as hype and hysteria, I say, it is with historical curiosity and fascination, that I appreciate your stance, for it allows me to time-travel some 70-75 years into the past and experience first hand what it must have been like for those, who saw the writing on the wall.

I am much more concerned about Ramin than about 'Thug-in-Chief' Ahmadinejad. After all, thanks to the President's forthrightness, Iran has managed to mobilize the whole world against itself in just 6 months.

Mohammad-Ali Ramin appears moderate, calm and reasonable. Yet his views are the same that led without fail to the biggest atrocities and genocidal crimes committed by man-kind. My translation of a short passage from a German interview in June 2004, well before the election of extremist Ahmadinejad, shows why this soft-spoken ideology always ends in disaster:

"We have never claimed to be a democratic system fashioned after the Western model, nor that we even seek to establish one. We don't believe that Western democracies are the ideal governing system, but believe that other people ["Völker"] with different cultures are able to establish better systems which are truly governed by the people and much more humane ["menschlicher"]. We don't want a system where people like George Bush can be elected as their leader, but instead want a system where the selection is ensured by reasonable and wise individuals."

UPDATE: Quite the operator our Ramin--so much for trustworthiness and credibility. Read his indignant assurances made a few months before Ahmadinejad's kindly informed us of Ramin's true intentions. What a stark difference to, “We will acquire this [nuclear] technology and export it to all the 150 countries,” he threatened, adding that “this is the power we have not yet used”.

Comments

[DavidByron]

Atheism, we have concluded, can not be proven to be right. Thus every atheist who comes to certain moral values through atheism, has some sort of belief.

No atheist comes to conclude moral values through their atheism. That's the difference which means the atheist is the only person who can claim their morals should be imposed. The absence of a God isn't what drives an atheist's morals like the assumption of a god is what drives a christian or a muslim.

The atheist relies only on the common human condition --- not on some holy book or belief, not even the non-belief in god.

[Michael (van der) Galien]

you remind me of the Wiener Kreiss. They thought everything should be proven to be right it resulted in... destroying themselves. The Wiener Kreiss ceased to exist.
You should do some reading about them.

[Michael (van der) Galien]

Byron your reasoning is fake yet again.

Atheism, we have concluded, can not be proven to be right. Thus every atheist who comes to certain moral values through atheism, has some sort of belief.
Atheism cannot be proven to be right, thus their 'morals' (:S) cannot be proven to be right scientifically. This means that atheists pushing their morals on others is phylosophy-wise not different than say a Muslim pressing his or her values on others.

Thus, no man should press his beliefs / morals on others. Instead of that we should have a difference in 'personal morals' and social morals. The latter means what we legislate. The key for that should be 'hurting others' (too much).
Of course 'hurting others' is a difficult line: We 'hurt' someone else by getting that promotion. Thus we should try to make that line better visible.
In other words, social morals should be that we make everything illegal that hurts someone else unreasonable. For instance: rape.

[DavidByron]

Atheists are the only ones who CAN justify imposing their morals. After all their morals are based on the human common denominator. They are not based on a prerequisite of belief in some sort of holy book. How can anyone justify pushing their moral beliefs that are dependent on religion upon people who don't hold that religion?

[Deva]

Atheists believe in their own morals, but they can't ask any one else to abide by them. There is no reason to. The jihadist applies his religious morals to unbelievers. How does an atheist support that?

[DavidByron]

This sort of statement, as I said above, just shows the prejudice of the person saying it.

you are an atheist; atheists don’t have morals, they don’t believe in morality

[slowtrain]

No that's the bigot's definition.

The word means a struggle of a moral nature. A jihadist is someone who struggles for what is right.

Don't tell me your only source of information and reference is the SoundBits those who rationalize the murderous acts of terrorist have been glibly tossing out on cable television. If you believe that, you are either more naïve than I thought or you are too lazy to actually find out the facts.

The word means a struggle of a moral nature. A jihadist is someone who struggles for what is right.

Oh yes! This is the other Jihad, which none of your terrorist friends has ever given much thought about, because they can't get past the first jihad, because it is easier to kill people than engage in a struggle with their inner moral nature. Even the guy who came up with the idea couldn't even get past the first one as to get to the second jihad.

I recall David, you are an atheist; atheists don’t have morals, they don’t believe in morality, because they don’t believe in a moral lawgiver: God. So, David, as a “jihadist atheist” what moral nature would you be struggling against. As I said before, you are not an atheist, you are something else, you are not even only a skeptic; you are a dishonest skeptic.

[Alexandra]

Byron,

You need some orientation in all aspects it seems. You must be a Muslim Jihadist to think that, or else completely delusional. Simply misinformed does not seem to cut it any more.

Here is a quote form one of my previous posts:

"Recently, apologists in the West have asserted that Jihad means primarily "spiritual struggle." There are several things to be said about this. First of all, the tradition to which they are referring is a late Sufi tradition, of the eleventh century, which divides jihad into a "Jihad of the Sword" and a "Jihad of the Spirit," stating that the former is the "lesser" Jihad and the latter is the "greater." This tradition is not contained in any of the canonical volumes of Sunni traditions, however, and has occupied, historically, only a very minor place in the Islamic tradition.

How do we know this to be so? There have been thousands of books composed on the religious duty of Jihad throughout the 14 centuries of Islamic history. Every last one of those books was about the "Jihad of the Sword" but one - and that one was composed only in the 20th century, by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, a Shi'ite, and not exactly a pacifist. Second, and far more important: all that this tradition states is that the "Jihad of the Spirit" is the greater Jihad; it does not in any way abrogate the "lesser Jihad," the "Jihad of the Sword"- on the contrary. It is not accidental that the word for a Sufi monastery and for a fortress of volunteer border warriors (ribat) is identical in the Islamic languages; the same people who were "struggling in God's path" in the Jihad of the Spirit were simultaneously "struggling in God's path" in the Jihad of the Sword; even the Sufis who invented this tradition saw the two types of Jihad as being complementary, not mutually exclusive. Moreover, even had the late Sufi tradition actually been the dominant one in Islam, it would in no way abrogate the militaristic Qur'anic verses which order the believers variously to "fight' or to "kill" the unbelievers.

Every classical treatise on Islamic government has viewed the primary duty of a ruler as essentially that of ordering the world according to God's will. The world is divided into two mutually antagonistic parts: the "Abode of Islam" (Dar al-Islam), in which God's rule has already been established, and which is ruled according to Muslim law; and the "Abode of War" (Dar al-Harb); that portion of the world which is not yet under God's rule, but which the Muslims must eventually bring into the Islamic oecumene by force or by persuasion. What the apologists are not revealing when they talk of Islam as a religion of peace is that the "peace" they are referring to is a Pax Islamica."

[DavidByron]

No that's the bigot's definition.

The word means a struggle of a moral nature. A jihadist is someone who struggles for what is right.

[slowtrain]

Slowtrain: I am almost tempted to say that David has Jihadist mentality

David: Go ahead. I'd be proud to be called that since I know what the word actually means.

Slowtrain: Obviously you feel gratified by this 'compliment' and rightly so. Perhaps, it will heighten your indulgence to know what it "really" means; military struggle to further a twisted Islamic cause and in your case verbal abuse to further your frequently silly arguments. The common element is the warped disposition.

[DavidByron]

I am almost tempted to say that David has Jihadist mentality

Go ahead. I'd be proud to be called that since I know what the word actually means.

[slowtrain]

Thanks Alexandra.

I am almost tempted to say that David has Jihadist mentality or syndrome — if you don’t say what he wants to hear, you are a liar or racist. But, he is really one of those people who only wants to be made to feel good at all times, whether realistically or not. David is not a realist; he is not even an atheist. An atheist believes there is no God. David is more than that, he does not believe in truth or in the concept of truth. He is a compulsive skeptic. He has problem dealing with and accepting truth, whether it is truth about God, truth about the danger people may face in a restless and complicated world or truth about anything. He is one of those people who would like the weatherman to say it is going to be sunny and pleasant, even when it is overcast and cold, else they will label the weatherman as antisocial or selling fear and hatred.

The reality is that people want to hear the weather report, whether or not they are going to like what it says. The point is not whether or not we are going like what the weather report says; it is so we can be adequately prepared. Yes, the weatherman sometimes misses, but that does not make him malicious, hateful or wicked.

David’s skepticism inclines him to choose the opposite of any claim or any argument. I predict that if I called David and said to him “guess what I have in my hand” or say to him “I am eating an orange”. Because of his inclination to doubt, David would instinctively say something like “you don’t have anything in your hand” or “no, you are eating an apple”.

David’s problem is largely epistemological. Epistemology (the study of theories of knowledge) has two main goals. First, we want to find as much truth as possible. And second, we want to avoid as much error as possible. The only way to achieve the former is through complete gullibility, and the only way to achieve the latter is through complete skepticism. Unfortunately, neither is a viable option in any human condition. We must balance our need to avoid error with our desire for truth. David needs to develop an understanding of epistemology that goes beyond skepticism and obstructionism.

[Alexandra]

DB,

You're selling hatred, fear and violence. I'm not buying.

To dismiss two lengthy and thoughtful scholarly comments from "slowtrain" with that remark simply discredits you. But then I lost interest after you dismissed half the libertarian readers on this blog as being racist on the Israel Lobby thread.

[Washington]

DB - As you are an anti-Semite - and as you think everyone opposing you is wrong-it is your task, if you are up to it, to provide factual information to support your claims. YOU NEVER PROVIDE ANY. SOPHIST!

[DavidByron]

And if you feel that answer was too short tell me what you think fascism is and I'll tell you why I think what your are peddling is pushing America towards it.

[DavidByron]

You're selling hatred, fear and violence.
I'm not buying.

[slowtrain]

DavidByron, I suggest you lookup the definition of fascism; you have clearly misapplied it in your comment.

I believe it was Julius Caesar that said, "Man does not learn from history". What he was trying to say was that, in folly people disregard history and end up only learning by experience—repeating past mistakes, falling into and climbing out of the “same ditch” over and over, frequently at terrible costs.

At the beginning of every millennium somebody starts a “fire” that threatens to consume the world. The fire for this millennium is about to be lit. Perhaps, at no time in history is the “fire” more dangerous than what Iran has committed to. Someone said a few days ago, of this crisis, "this is not a clash of civilization; it is a clash about civilization"—the Western civilization. It could very well turn out to be the most difficult and dangerous challenge the world, particularly the west has ever been confronted with. The world cannot afford to respond to this “fire” the same way it did at the “fire” that greeted the beginning of the last millennium. The stakes are much too high. Think of it this way, if the previous millennia fires were lit with matchsticks, this one could be lit with a flamethrower. A flamethrower in the hands of child is not the same as a flamethrower in the hands of a madman. You must agree that different approaches would be required to take it away from them.

This is not a drumbeat for war; it is not even a call to arms, but every rational person or society owes it to himself or themselves to understand the challenges it may face, to even have a chance to respond effectively. Prior to September 11, 2001, it was far from many people’s thoughts, perhaps inconceivable, that such incidents as took place in New York City, Washington, D.C., and Pennsylvania, could happen in this country. I wish to emphasize that inconceivable should not be misconstrued as improbability or impossibility.

“If Americans had really thought about the prospects, they would have known that it was possible (perhaps imminent), and in all likelihood, they would have prepared for it, at least mentally. Prior to September 11, 2001, most Americans perceived terrorism as something that happened in other countries and in Hollywood movies. This perception persisted, in spite of harbingers such as a series of bombings that destroyed a couple of American embassies in Africa, American military barracks located in Europe and the Middle East, a U.S. Navy warship, and a previous attempt to destroy the World Trade Center in 1993.”

On that day of infamy, it became clear that the intelligence profile of Middle Eastern terrorists was a misperception—an imaginary and essentially feel good notion. The West remains unprepared and vulnerable, individual countries are too self-absorbed and seeking economic self-interest, hence the inability to cope with this particular situation, let alone ideologies and actions that contradict the expectations and assumptions on which its stability rests. This in itself is perhaps a greater danger.

[brian]

That's just dumb, DavidByron, the Boneless Wonder.

[DavidByron]

What slowtrain says makes me think America is nearer to fascism than I'd thought. Pure racist screed aiming to stir up a violent military response against a middle eastern group of people. Oh yes, you've learned from history alright. Just remember: don't invade Russia in the winter this time.

What's more frightening though is the response by others to this racism.

[brian]

This is just too priceless, and relevant to the discussion as well, again from American Thinker:

Boneless wonders

On January 28, 1931, the inimitable Winston Churchill said this about Ramsay MacDonald, Britain’s Prime Minister at the time:

I remember when I was a child, being taken to the celebrated Barnum’s Circus, which contained an exhibition of freaks and monstrosities, but the exhibit on the program which I most desired to see was the one described as “The Boneless Wonder”. My parents judged that the spectacle would be too demoralizing and revolting for my youthful eye and I have waited fifty years, to see The Boneless Wonder sitting on the Treasury Bench.

One is struck just how fittingly this could also be said about today’s American liberals. Unable (or unwilling) to say what they stand for, they must hold meetings behind closed doors to figure out what their ‘true’ convictions are. When asked what they believe, they blink furtively like criminals caught in the act before seeking refuge in a cesspool of lies and specious accusations. Deceitful and mendacious, they have no agenda, no integrity, no principles, and no shame.

Devoid of a moral or intellectual backbone, these people truly are boneless wonders.

Vasko Kohlmayer 3 24 06

Winston Churchill is still a font of wisdom for our times.

[brian]

[The Iranians have long said that a few nuclear bombs on Iran would still leave an awful lot of Muslims in the world- even in Iran- whereas one nuclear bomb on Israel would render the state completely unviable, since most of its population would have been already wiped out. Iran would gain enormously in stature in the Muslim world if they could pull such a thing off, even if it meant the deaths of several million Iranian "martyrs."]

I thought this scary statement from Alexandra deserved repeating in light of the above posts. Fasten your seatbelts, the ride could get alot rougher than anyone seems to be prepared to admit right now. First strike doctrine doesn't sound so bad anymore, eh? Thank God for the B-2 Spirit.

[brian]

Case in point, look what Mr. Ramin is about to get his hands on, from the American Thinker:

While Tehran’s diplomats are bogging down US efforts to stop its nuclear program, Iran is assembling centrifuges at a faster and faster pace, according to the UK Guardian.

According to diplomats, the Iranians are in the process of achieving a “technological leap” by making operational a cascade of 164 centrifuges to enrich uranium for power plants or warheads. A fortnight ago they were known to have assembled only 34 centrifuges. They are believed to be rushing to assemble dozens more at a time when western negotiations with Tehran have collapsed and big power attempts to develop a coherent policy are deadlocked. ... The operation of 164 centrifuges would leave Iran able to process only minute volumes of uranium. But experts and diplomats say the real value lies in the know-how acquired in running highly delicate machinery. The Iranians appear determined to configure six rigs of 164 centrifuges at Natanz for what they call a “pilot enrichment plant”. They have also told UN inspectors they intend to assemble 3,000 centrifuges by the end of the year. [....]

“The Iranians are pushing ahead, marking out their intentions clearly,” said a European diplomat. Another added: “It will be almost impossible to get them to give up, to come back down to zero.”

Meanwhile, Russia and China are running interference for Tehran, blocking any progress at the UN. Behind the scenes, the French may be sabotaging us as well. Dominique de Villepin, who ambushed Colin Powell at the UN in the runup to the Iraq War, is now Prime Minister of France. Jacques Chirac is still head of state. But the French may be content to let the Russians and Chinese take the heat.

Nobody wants Tehran to have nukes. Russia is easily within range of its missiles, as are Paris and London. But Putin has apparently decided to help the Iranians to develop weapons, in return for their promise to stop helping the Chechen rebels against Moscow. Plus the money, of course. Saddam was able to buy influence in France, Russia, China and the UN. Iran must be paying off many of the same people.

Look for trouble ahead.

James Lewis 3 24 06

Yes yes, Koffi Annan and the IAEA are doing a bang up job with the future of our children, no?

[brian]

Very well said, slowtrain. I agree %100, and I fear that Europe is lost to post-modernity, and America will not be fully mobilized until the threat manifests itself in some sort of 9-11x10, or x100, or even worse which is not inconcievable. The more nuanced debates going on here at ATB are quite interesting, but I keep returning to force of arms as the ultimate solution. The political will to escalate beyond what is currently happening won't appear except in the face of another direct attack right here, and on a scale no one has seen since 1945. By that I mean a major American city, perhaps more than one, being immolated completely. That's what it will take to sweep aside once and for all these pacifists and apologists influence on the will to act. I'm afraid all compassion and humanity might vanish with it, unfortunately. Unless some really suprising positive things happen within the Islamic world itself, I fear this is where we are headed. And folks, it won't be pretty.

[slowtrain]

A Clear and Present Danger

Going by the response to the revival of the Islamic agenda that is unfolding, many people in Western societies, including some of those who have commented on this issue here and elsewhere have little understanding of Islam. It appears the West in general have no idea what it is up against. Even the leaderships of many Western societies are clueless and just cannot grasp the seriousness of the gathering threat the unfolding global Islamic revolution possess to the West. To understand fundamental Islam one has to know the essential elements (core beliefs) of Islam and one has to think like a fundamental Muslim.

In the book Tribalizing America: A Social Evolution of the American Society, the author, well acquainted with Islam, noted that Islam in the West; will have the equivalent effect of the combined deleterious power of a deadly parasite and the autoimmune disease on the West.

Since the end of the cold war the Western societies have taken in massive waves of Arab and Muslim immigrants, that rivals the great migration of Europeans to the new world. The danger is that these immigrants are determined to have nothing to do with integration let alone assimilation into European societies. At the same time Islamic countries and Muslims all over the world are increasingly becoming hostile to the West. All around the world Jews and Christians are only permitted to live under Islam, as long as they keep their religions invisible and accepted humiliation and Islamic superiority.

I recommend that some of the commenters take sometime and think about the situation objectively and critically. Off handed comments are frequently like hot air, they evaporate as quickly as they came, with little or no relevance and leaves us no closer to a better understanding or any effective solution to a problem.

The fact is that many in Western societies have chosen to forget or ignore history. But doing so is like forgetting or ignoring very important instructions when disabling a bomb. Those who forget history and those who ignore the lessons history offers, magnify the risk of peril. Think about the situation for a moment. As Arabs and Muslims immigrants flood the Western societies, Westerners are fleeing Arab and Muslim lands. Moreover, Non Muslims and Muslims who convert to Christianity are tortured, driven out or killed. As is the case even this week, with the Afghan man who is to be put to death under Islamic law, for “abandoning his faith”. His crime is that he converted to Christianity.

If some of the intelligent and astute people that comment on this blog and elsewhere could just take leave from sounding off, just to be heard and just to engage in argument for the sake of doing so, and examine the essential elements of Islam of today and Islam of AD 622, they will see that Islam remains virtually unchanged, not only in its aspirations to take the world, but also in its approach.

There are those who would rather ignore the problem, so they can get on with their merry life, as has become customary in Western societies in this existential age. They believe they can dispel and escape their fear of the emerging Islamic threat to world peace by appeasement and by offhandedly invoking the “sins” of Constantine and the errors of the Crusaders, as if to say that radical Islam and Islamic terrorists have the right to engage in murder and mayhem just because the Crusade went awry many centuries ago. While I do not condone the atrocities committed in the name of the crusade, we must not forget that the crusade was a reaction provoked by the brutal Islamic expansion of the era, which committed far greater atrocities. More and more, fundamental Islamists are blackmailing and mollifying the west on the crusader, while they diligently revive the same acts that prompted the crusade in the first place. History is an account of the past to guide and shape the future. I am not a fan of Friedrich Nietzsche, but I do agree with the statement, “Whoever battles with monsters had better see that it does not turn him into a monster. And if you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.” Nevertheless, battle evil we must or we be destroyed by evil.

There is no question that Iran is emerging as the ideological leader of the Islamic world. In fact, it is determined to position itself as the leader of the Islamic world. The Islamic world feeling impotent and humiliated by the West is desperately in need of a leader like Iran and earnestly desire this. Already Iran’s influence is spreading across the Middle East, from the West Bank to Lebanon, from Iraq to Egypt.

The Supreme Islamic Council and the radical Islamists they have positioned all over Europe, see the unprecedented decline of Christianity and morality in the West, not only as a sign of weakness but also as leaving a void in the soul of the society and they are going to fill that void. In the book Tribalizing America, the author wrote “encouraged by the complete, perhaps irrational, embrace of secularism and the unprecedented decline of Christianity and morality in the West, Islamic leaders, now convinced that the ‘war’ for Europe is all but completed and won for Islam, have turned their attention to America as the next and the final frontier for Islamic domination. So far they have done very well, until the events of September 11, 2001. Many observers believe that those events albeit committed in the name of Islam were as much a setback to Islam in its pursuit to dominate America, as they were to America. This is because while those events brought economic setback to America and limited the freedom and sense of well-being Americans once had, they also (inadvertently) slowed the Islamization of America by limiting immigration and conversion (the preferred approach).”

A society without religion cannot remain so for too long, soon or later it will be taken over by one, especially a proselytizing religion. In this world there are unintended consequences riding the heels of misconceived actions, hence we see terrorist organizations like Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood sweep into power essentially by hijacking the sometimes naïve and misguided efforts of the West to transform the Middle East; Islamic fundamentalists poised to takeover power by hijacking our efforts in driving out a dictator in Iraq, Islam poised to takeover Europe as Europeans not abandon Christianity but have virtually stamped it out. So far in naiveté the West has inadvertently managed to play into the hands of the Islamic fundamentalists or to do all the heavy lifting that ended up benefiting the fundamentalists and counterproductively working against west.

Nazism and Islam have one thing in common, hatred of Jews and have always been collaborators in their quest to destroy the Jews. Mohammad-Ali Ramin and Iran ought to be taken seriously.

[DavidByron]

When have the Jews threatened to make the world Jewish?

Not the whole world; just Plalestine (or "Greater Israel").

[Washington]

Mr. Byron:

When have the Jews threatened to make the world Jewish? Trying to draw comparisons between what occured with the Jews in the 20th century and what is happening now is intellectual dishonesty. There was a systematic attempt to destroy Jews. They were not at war with the west when they were subjected to the horrors of the previous century - militant Islamism has declared war on the West - You are trying to draw comparisons in much the same way that the Nazi's did-which is not surprising given your earlier statements.

[DavidByron]

“What inevitably is the answer to this planet’s growing threat of Jews?”

Asks Edd, and Alexandra answers this serious question --- except it's not Jews who are considered a "threat" that have to be dealt with of course. Other people at other times felt that way about Jews. Today it's the muslims. The risks are the same as they were for the Jews at the beginning of the 20th century, which Alexandra reminds us of,

thus collectively suspending most compassionate sentiments otherwise extended to a fellow human being

The responses here have had indicated a similar suspension of compassion towards a different group.

[RL]

an interesting new book concerning this very topic, interfaith- relations, is discussed/reviewed in today's brief and interesting breakpoint.org commentary.

"As long as most media will lie, peace won't be possible in the Middle East." Pierre Rehov

John 14:6, Acts 4:12

jihadwatch.org
secularislam.org
tellthechildrenthetruth.com

[Alexandra]

Edd,

“What inevitably is the answer to this planet’s growing threat of Islam?”

Whatever events unfold, our ability to respond appropriately in our effort to defend our way of life, our secular democracies and our religious freedom, depends first and foremost on a proper understanding of Islam in its current, unreformed state; the truth not being sugarcoated by Islamic propaganda, apologists and appeasers alike.

That is fortunately slowly taking place, with a very long way to go, until a large majority of the Western World is fully aware of the problem and its implications. My guess however is that Nostradamus' terrible predictions regarding Islamists will come to pass a lot sooner than that.

The Iranians have long said that a few nuclear bombs on Iran would still leave an awful lot of Muslims in the world- even in Iran- whereas one nuclear bomb on Israel would render the state completely unviable, since most of its population would have been already wiped out. Iran would gain enormously in stature in the Muslim world if they could pull such a thing off, even if it meant the deaths of several million Iranian "martyrs."

[epaminondas]

Mr Byron, searching your "quote" of Kastner
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22%22I+believe+that+%5Bhe%5D+would+have+sacrificed+a+thousand+or+a+hundred+thousand+of+his+blood+to+achieve+his+political+goal.%22&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official}
reveals, LIKE A COMPASS FORCED TO POINT NORTH ..
the usual panoply of zundel, codoh, jewwatch ..and ONE result in Amazon a book by Khaled Dawoud, which SOURCES these sites.
Adam Lebor who was a reporter for the Independent, thought Kastner might be a hero ..but couldn;tmake up his mind...either way the oughts of Eichmann on Kastner are at best USELESS. Just as Ramin's future ruminations on Cheney will be.

You state you have many of these quotes.
I find that revelatory. Those are your 'allies in truth' - at best characterized as the David Irving industry.

Enough.

ATB's point here is about a functional descendant of a nation which believes in using it's science to kill people who believe the way the believe. ATB's point is that such people with their alien morality set, and inner desire to prove true what is false in order to make racism rational ( an idea out of a 1926 best seller ..which remain a best seller in most of the middle east) are on the edge of getting nuclear weapons. ATB's point is that such regimes have philosophical underpinning, and this total gavone Ramin is a main cog.

And that under no circumstances will racist religious zealots circling a well waiting for the mahdi to emerge after they do their part by creating armageddon make a better world with nuclear weapons, especially when their philosophical underpinning is the Stone and the Tree, and that best seller.

[Edd]

Alexandra, I want to thank you for a most informative post and allowing even the cacophony of sounds from DB’s comments although severely lacking in hard-fibered facts. I am in no way an intellectual and because of other medical facts can no longer debate a good argument. After reading the post and all the comments I still have the nerdy question, “What inevitably is the answer to this planet’s growing threat of Islam?”

[Alexandra]

Steve,

I think he's even more dangerous than a psychopath--hard to imagine, I know ;-).

Ramin is not a person who is suffering from any mental disorder, displaying abnormal or violent social behavior, because according to his faith, his actions are not only sanctioned socially, but ordained by Allah.

You see, just as deeply-rooted anti-Semitism in 18th and 19th century Europe evolved into its most extreme form, and as such, paving the way for the final phase of the complete dehumanizations of German Jews in the 20ies and 30ies, thus collectively suspending most compassionate sentiments otherwise extended to a fellow human being, the Qur'an and Shari'a law not only extol the notion of superiority amongst the Muslims (an important requisite as was Arian dogma of "Rassen Reinheit", promoted by the Nazis), but in addition, explicitly and expressly command the complete subjugation of the Infidels by force. As such, the teachings of Islam have been dehumanizing all Infidels in the psyche of the 'believers' for an equally long time.

As with the Nazis, the effect on those, confronted with the 'Infidel Question' is therefore largely identical, with all the gruesome consequences.

[Steve M]

Alexandra, thank you for your excellent article. One thing puzzles me though...

If Mohammad-Ali Ramin is 'not a psychopath', who is?

[Washington]

MarcH:

Great comparison with Boris Ponomarev - his name rarely surfaces but he was ruthless.

As to doing something about Iran I think we will - despite the inevitable outcry from the usual people who are impotent on the world stage. Not to mention the anti-Semites and pro-Islamism gang.

What's vital is not decapitating Ahmadinjad only. It is vital to remove Ramin for he sets the tone as Alexandra has pointed out so well.

[MarcH]

DB references an analysis by Adolph Eichmann in order to support DB's attack on the Zionist movement. I'd say that DB has jumped the shark.

Fine rebuttals by Washington, Saul, NNW, etc.

An excellent short history of the heroic and moral Zionist settlement of the Land of Israel is available in an article by David Meir-Levi at FrontPage Magazine (Occupation and Settlement: The Myth and Reality, http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=18543).

It's too bad that DB's antics seem to have taken some attention from Alexandra's essential post on Ramin (perhaps that was DB's intention?). I knew of Ramin before, but Alexandra really pulled together alot of new (to me) and important material on this very dangerous man for this post.

Ramin reminds me somewhat of the the late and unlamented Boris Ponomarev (the ice cold USSR strategist of the 1950s to 80s). It's ironic that DB cited Eichmann above, as Rahmin also reminds me of Eichmann in his appearence and outlook.

I wish that every member of Congress, every SES and above in the national security branches of the executive, every news editor and producer, and every university department head would read this post and explore the links ... but I might as well wish that I'll win the lottery.

G_d willing we will settle for Ahmadinejad, Ramin and their evil crew before it is too late.

[section9]

Okay, did we run the representative of the Illinois Nazi Party out? David Byron, are you still there?

[Saul Davis]

Mr. Byron: Did you even bother to try to understand my comments; of course there were Jewish collaborators; that is an historical and deplorable fact; but the vast majority of "Zionists" and other Jews who dealt with the Nazis to save Jews from annihilation were not, under any stretch of the imagination, collaborators; to broad sweep all "Zionists" because of Kastner and his ilk is simply wrong; to state that ethnic cleansing occurred in Israel is abhorrent and simply renders the term meaningless -- Darfur is ethnic cleansing; Ruwanda is ethnic cleansing; Iraq, Egypt, Syria, Iran and every Muslim country that expelled virtually all of their Jews is ethnic cleansing; you have well over a million Arabs in Israel who have a lifestyle that would be the envy of the vast majority of Arabs in the middle east -- that is NOT ethnic cleansing; you completely disregard virtually all objective reports of the time of the '48 War that clearly state that it was the ARAB nations that PUBLICLY advised Arabs in Israel to run away in order to permit the invading Arab armies free rein to massacree the Jews without the possibility of collateral damage to Arabs in Israel; what is particularly disconcerting is the fact that you refuse to recognize that the Arabs during World War II were, by a vast majority, not merely collaborators but cohorts -- brothers-in-arms -- with the Nazis; they shared the same perspective; that is very different from even the indefensible conduct of the Jewish collaborators. The point of this article by Alexandra, at least to me, was to analogize Ramin to Goebbells; she did that very well; your rhetoric is simply intended to cause readers to lose sight of that fact -- and the well documented fact that from the time of al Banna and the Grand Mufti to the present time, the Islamists still share the perspective of the Nazis.

[Washington]

Let me weigh in for a moment.

I believe in healthy debate. However, debate ceases to be productive when no facts are presented. Period. Mr. Byron, after urging by the very eloquent Saul, shows his position by citing the author that he cited. Thus, there is no doubt where Mr. Byron stands. It will be easier to dismiss his comments now for he has been found out. For myself I will only address the post and people who comment using the standard fact/opinion style of debate. That leaves DB out.

Further, I am not suggesting that anyone will leave. Why would anyone go now??? The posts are well written and the blog is an artistic masterpiece.

Now-enough about...that guy.

Cheers!

[DavidByron]

Well Saul seems to be freaking out. Here's another quote - I got a million of these it seems....

Eichmann said this about Kastner, the Zionist representative, "I believe that [he] would have sacrificed a thousand or a hundred thousand of his blood to achieve his political goal. He was not interested in old Jews or those who had become assimilated into Hungarian society. `You can have the others,' he would say, `but let me have this group here.' And because Kastner rendered us a great service by helping keep the deportation camps peaceful. I would let his groups escape."

Sounds like one group of genocidal maniacs helping another. As above there's already evidence that Zionist leaders wanted to fight under the Nazi flag against Britain.

The sad thing is this all means something to you. No wonder your head's about to explode. To you the justice of the Israeli occupation and ethnic cleansing depends on how much slime you can throw at the Palestinians and how much you can shine the turd that was the leadership of the Israeli terror gangs. People don't sit easily into two groups angels and devils Saul. But you're not the only one who thinks that way around here I can see.

To me this is just a funny footnote of history -- funny ironic, not funny ha-ha. Who'd have thought Zionists helping out Hitler? And vice versa of course. But I suppose it's logical.

To you who see all moral questions in terms of who is the "bad guys" it becomes absolutely necessary to promote racist slurs against the Palestinians and you see me as trying to do the same to the Jews. That's why you are mad.

Look I don't think this freakish behaviour by the Zionist leaders during war reflects badly on the Jews as a people. It does inform us of their leaders' attitude to the Palestinians though. They were mosters just as surely as Hitler was but the proof of that is in the fact that they did the same things to people as he did -- genocide -- by killing and by ethnic cleansing (more the latter in the case of the Zionists, more the former in the case of Hitler).

They were all fanatics who would stop at nothing. They were not the angels you pretend.

[eteraz]

saul's theory about more debate attracting smarter people is valid.

for i am here.

[eteraz]

ps - ottomans were not arabs. though they were only the title-holders of the lands leased to feudal arab lords.

[eteraz]

'Palestinians' have not been in 'Israel-Palestine' since the 12th century.

Arabs, however, have been there since the 8th. For the large part it was Ottoman land.

Make of that what you will.

[Saul Davis]

A Commenter stated: "My view is different-As long as he comments I am going to listen and respond...otherwise he wins. I would never avoid this blog because of David. I have too much respect for Alexandra"

"You seem to be implying that Alexandra will loose readers due to people like Byron. Sure there are some people who do not like a blog to have an actual debate, but on the other hand, it will attract people from both sides. Why? Because intelligent bloggers like a healthy debate, even with people who they clearly disagree with. The best blogs with the best comment sections have people with extreme views from both sides."

I would like to clarify a possible misunderstanding of my comments on the other thread that may have led to this comment. I do not advocate leaving Alexandra's blog because of people like Mr. Bryon -- her blog is too interesting to avoid for anything like that; I do NOT advocate precluding Mr. Bryon from presenting his thoughts -- that would be abhorrent and completely against the principles of blogging, as I view them; I am NOT against the statement of opposing opinions or arguments; I will reiterate my problem, with due deference to Alexandra: I find it abhorrent when a debator states opinions as FACTS, yet completely fails to support the purported facts stated; I find it abhorrent when a debator castigates an entire group of people based upon not only unsupported rhetoric, but the enunciation of unsupported facts that are commonly known to be propaganda and not true; to accuse the Israelis of "massacres" without true empirical support is abhorrent; to basically state that the Israelis do not have an historic connection with Israel, and have not had a significant presence in Israel is simply disregarding fact; I reiterate to Mr. Byron, PLEASE provide citation to reputable authorities and/or reports that demonstrate that there has been no continued presence of Jews in Israel since the time of the Roman exile; PLEASE cite to reputable sources for the proposition that "Palestinians" have had a continued presence in Israel in significant numbers from the 12th century through the 19th century; I have been waiting for such citations for two days now; an added request: PLEASE explain, with authoritative citation, why Arabs or Muslims possess a greater "right" to Israel when the Koran itself recognizes that Israel is the land of the Jews.

[North by Northwest]

Thanks for the additional clarification, Saul.

I've just read Alexandra's 2nd update and Ramin's attempt to pull yet some more wool over the Western eyes. He clearly spoke with a forked tongue.

[Saul Davis]

Mr. Bryon: You state: Saul Davis, checkout this book, on Zionist - Nazi collaboration.

I do not understand what that has to do with this thread posted by Alexandra, and I would like to explain why. I apologize if the explanation is somewhat longwinded, but your response to my comment deserves proper analysis.
Initially Mr. Brenner's reputation precedes him -- and it is not one that is recognized as objective; rather, it is one with a well known agenda; but that probably is also irrelevant here; while I have never found anything that authenticates the documents upon which he relies, I do know that some of the facts stated are correct. There is no question that there were many Jews, Zionists and virulent anti-Zionists, who were in regular contact with the highest echelons of all 3 parts of the fascist axis. They all had one central focal point -- to save as many Jews as possible; the contacts with the Japanese saved thousands of north eastern European Jews who had barely escaped the Nazi onslaught through Lithuania, Poland and Russia. Without that contact, those Jews would have been massacred, per the instructions/demands of the German Nazis; the contacts with Mussolini were not as successful, and really only delayed the inevitable; I am not clear whether that delay actually saved any Jews in the Italian sphere of influence; it may have, but I do not know and do not have clear evidence regarding that sphere. But the reasoning was the same -- to save Jews from annihilation. The contacts with the Nazis themselves -- the dealing with the devil, the personification of evil -- was the proverbial necessary evil. One cannot save millions of Jews who are about to be massacred in the most violent manner without attempting to deal with those who are going to do the killing; whether that justifies the association/dealing with the Nazis is in the eyes of the beholder. If you are a Jew trying to save other Jews, after millions had already been brutally murdered, and other millions were in the process of being murdered, you may decide that dealing with the devil is a necessary evil; does that make them collaborators? Not in my eyes; does it make them collaborators in the eyes of the Communists -- definitely. Those Jews who dealt with the Nazis, hated them with a passion, and would have done anything in their power to wipe each and every Nazi off this earth. That, I do not believe is collaboration, in the common, objective, non-agenda understanding of that term. And that is why your post to me is completely irrelevant to this thread, and to my comment -- without even attempting to analyze your motives (they are more apparent than you imagine).

Now the following is quite important, and really the essence of the distinction between the Zionists who dealt with the Nazis, and the Grand Mufti, al Banna, and the rest of the Arab world at that time. [For those who want to delve into evidence of the Arab/Nazi connection, simply Google the following: 1. Grand Mufti and Nazis (you will get well over 100,000 hits) and 2. al Banna and Nazis (you will get well over 40,000 hits).] The Grand Mufti and Banna were active participants in the Nazi cause against the Allies. They were feted by the Nazis, and considered themselves brothers in the Nazi cause; they had a common hatred for Jews, the British and the Americans; al Banna did his utmost to assist the Nazis against the British in Egypt. The Grand Mufti affirmatively recruited the Bosnian Muslims for the Wafen SS [see, for example, http://www.srpska-mreza.com/library/facts/hanjar.html]; based upon the history of the association of Islamists with the Nazis, there is a direct connection between modern Islamists in Iran with the Nazi philosophy, thinking and hatred of Jews. This simply cannot be said of those Jews who dealt with the Nazis and other members of the Axis, solely to save other Jews. Those "Zionists" hated the Nazis and everything they stood for. The Arab and Muslim Islamists were brothers-in-arms with the Nazis. That is why Mr. Byron's comment to me is totally irrelevant to this thread, and to Alexandra's article. In contrast, my comment provides an historical perspective to Iran's Islamists' association with Nazi thought.
My apologies for the length of the comment, but it was necessary to bring the distinction home.

[RunningRoach]

Alexandra,

Thank you for another very informative article. I have been aware of this fellow Ramin, and his association with Ahmadinejad. I was not aware that he may very well be the author of the Iranian political/religious strategy. I wonder how much of their rhetoric is wholly supported by the Mullas. At any rate it sounds to me that this strategy may very well turn into a march to meet Alla.

This has been an extremely interesting and informative thread. Your readers certainly demonstrate (With one possible exception so far.) a fondness for lively debate and a great deal of depth and insight within their posts.

Regards, JCC

[DavidByron]

No I am not keen on getting into a mud throwing match again. I don't like ad-hominem arguments any more when they are racist comments aimed at Palestinians than when they are insults hurled at me.

I posted the source about Zionist collaboration with the Nazis because the racist comments about Palestinans deserving to be thrown off their land was getting out of hand. All I'm saying here is there's enough mud to throw on both sides, so cut it out.

Having said that I was actually surprised at the depth of the collaboration between Zionists and Nazis. New information to me and I may get that book. Frankly you expect in a war where someone's trying to wipe out your people that you'd seek aid from their greatest enemy - as the Palestinians did. But to seek aid from the very people who are trying to wipe you out, as the Zionists did, that's just freaky.

Well that's war for you. People go insane in war. Evil acts are commonplace and that is why those who start wars should be held accountable.

Let's quit this racist nonsense that one side or the other were angels and the other side were demons as a people.

[Dr Victorino de la Vega]

“Like Ahmadinejad, he too is a member of the strictly orthodox Shi'a branch of Islam, that rejects the first three Sunni caliphs”???

Well, last time I checked, the “Shi’a branch” of Islam was actually viewed as being “heterodox” by a majority of Western (from Ernest Renan to Samuel Huntington) and Sunni Arab historians…

Early Shiite theologians were actually heavily influenced by classical European philosophy: to that day Aristotle is called “Al-Ustaz Al-Qabeer” in Shiite parlance, which literally means “The Great Professor”.

During the Crusades, most Near-Eastern Shiites sided with the Frankish crusaders against their “fellow believers”… whereas the rabbis of Aleppo, Cairo and Jerusalem called on their flock to help the Arabs against “bloodthirsty European gentiles”.

In Azerbaijan, Eastern Turkey and Iran, many Shiite families even have icons of Jesus and Saint George (whom they call “Our Lord Al Khodr”) in their temples, whereas mainstream/Sunni Muslims AS WELL AS MAINLINE PROTESTANTS actually ban the worship of icons…

[epaminondas]

But speaking of Palestinians i.e. Arabs as Nazis, maybe you need to see the letters written by Haj Amin Al Husseini to eastern euro puppet regimes asking for cooperation and resources in transporting jews from the levant across europe to Auschwitz and other vacation spots?

Hello?

http://www.jerusalem-archives.org/images/3-25b.jpg
http://www.tellthechildrenthetruth.com/gallery/images/mufti_jpg_jpg_jpg.jpg
http://www.masada2000.org/mufti-hitler1.jpg

whoopsi !

Want a shovel?

[epaminondas]

Byron, dude ..pulling up literally exceptional quotes frmo leaders is something my arab friends love to do, both with american and jewish leaders, SORRY but that's bunk.

But go ahead.

MAKE MY DAY

Line up ALL you have of Ben Gurion, or Irgun morons, go for it and lets compare what was the exception (Stern gang and jabotinsky) to the commonplace (Altalena), and run that up against the OFFICIAL POLICIES of the racists surrounding israel.

WHy not quote Smedley Butler as relevant today?

What a farcical technique!

But if you want to think...
ONE PALESTINE COMPLETE, Tom Segev, replete with all the quotes you probably WISH you had. Every negative quote you ever dreamed of ..