The Iranian counterrevolution: a good start

From AbuYehuda.com Posted on December 31, 2017 by Vic Rosenthal

Because something is happening here
But you don’t know what it is
Do you, Mister Jones? – Bob Dylan, Ballad of a Thin Man

Since Thursday, December 28, something has been happening in Iran.
Anti-regime demonstrations have broken out all over. Although the nuclear deal with the West brought huge amounts of cash into the country, instead of improving the economy it’s been used to support the war in Syria and parceled out to Hezbollah, Hamas, the Houthi rebels in Yemen, Iraqi Shiite militias, the ballistic missile program, and many other things that I don’t know about but that serve the imperial goals of the regime.

Much of the economy is controlled by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), a branch of the Iranian armed forces which is involved in both internal security for the regime and its foreign adventures. People connected with the IRGC are doing well, while those who aren’t “hooked up” are suffering from the severe inflation and unemployment that plague the rest of the nation.

There are about 125,000 members of the IRGC and it controls the basij militia with several hundred thousand additional fighters in reserve. The IRGC operates Iran’s missile and nuclear programs .
Apparently, many Iranians are tired of the corrupt regime and don’t see the point of its adventures in Syria and elsewhere. I would like to believe also that they see the regime heading for a direct collision with Israel and other regional powers, and they would prefer to avoid an unnecessary and bloody war.
Although the immediate irritants are economic, the demonstrations are strongly political and aimed at the regime. Posters of Supreme Leader Khamenei, General Qassam Solemani of the IRGC’s “Quds Force” (a sort of foreign legion), and President Rouhani have been destroyed. Chants of “death to the IRGC” and “death to the dictator” have been reported.

Is it possible that the revolutionary Islamic regime established in 1979 could be overthrown?
In 2009, the so-called “Green Revolution” – a protest against what many believed to be a rigged presidential election – was brutally put down by police and the basij militia. Then demonstrations were primarily in the capital and on behalf of a reformist candidate, not directly aimed at the regime. Today’s demonstrations are both more widespread and clearly challenge the regime. There’s no reason to think the regime would hold back in its use of violence. At least two demonstrators have reportedly been killed already.

In 2009, President Obama chose not to encourage the demonstrators. Today, President Trump has expressed his support and warned the Iranian regime against violating the protesters’ rights. But it’s not clear what actions the US could take at this point to aid them. What might really make a difference could be support from the Iranian army, which is significantly larger than the IRGC, although probably a less effective fighting force.

At this point we don’t know if the demonstrations are the beginning of a planned putsch with an organization behind them, or just a spontaneous explosion of frustration. If the latter, the regime will probably succeed in shutting them down by the escalating use of force. But if the former is the case, then regime change is a possibility.

This raises so many questions! Could Iran get a non-Islamist regime? Could it get one that is not committed to imperial conquest? Could it even dream of a democratic government?
Iran is a relatively advanced country with a well-educated population. It was at one time one of the most Westernized countries in the Middle East. The 1979 revolution imposed an atavistic, medieval regime on a people that has chafed under its rule ever since. There is certainly popular support for a counter-revolution.

The consequences in the region if the Iranian regime were replaced by one which prioritized economic development over foreign adventures would be immense. If the demonstrators got their wish and the millions sent to Hezbollah and the Iraqi Shiite militias stayed in Iran, the air would go out of Bashar al-Assad’s plan to re-conquer Syria. The best he could hope for with plenty of Russian air support would be to survive in a small enclave. The Sunni resistance to his regime would be reenergized.
Needless to say, Israel would be overjoyed. Hezbollah is Israel’s most dangerous immediate enemy, with its 150,000 rockets aimed at us. Without Iranian support, the process of disarmament, which was called for by UNSC Resolution 1701 at the end of the Second Lebanon War, but never implemented, could finally begin. Lebanon could begin to think about becoming an independent sovereign nation again, instead of a country-sized human shield for Hezbollah rocket launchers.

Subversive and murderous activity against Jews and Westerners all over the world would suffer a severe blow. Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and countless other terror groups would lose their greatest source of funds for weapons and terrorism. Antisemitic propaganda would decline. Without support from a sovereign state, Hezbollah would just be another international narco-terrorism group, and the world’s police agencies could pursue it and prosecute its leaders.

Would the Islamic State and Al-Qaeda try to expand back into the vacuum? Probably. It would not be the end of terrorism or even the end of extremist Islamic terrorism. Iraq’s Shiite majority would not suddenly decide to share power with its Sunni minority, even without Iranian prodding to violent confrontation.
The Palestinians would not turn around and recognize a sovereign Jewish state in any borders, nor would the Europeans stop trying to subvert Israel for their own dark reasons. Just as all the problems of the region didn’t grow from the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, they aren’t all related to Iranian expansionism.
If Iran stopped exporting revolutionary Islamism, it wouldn’t create a new, more peaceful world all at once.

But what a good start it would be!

Islam is not a religion

From AbuYehuda.com Posted on July 17, 2016 by Vic Rosenthal

Today in a 647-word editorial the New York Times has strikingly exemplified the West’s misunderstanding of and impotent response to the threat posed to it by a resurgent, expansionist Islam:

Each new attack, each new convulsion of fear, horror, grief and anger is a progressively greater test of enlightened civilization’s commitment to its core values. …

But whoever struck the blow, whatever its malevolent purpose or toll, the response cannot be to abandon the respect for human rights, equality, reason and tolerance that is the aspiration of all democratic cultures. Though it has become almost a cliché to argue that the goal of terrorists is to bring their victims down to their moral level, it is also a truth, and it must be reaffirmed after every attack.

First, the misunderstanding. The perpetrators of these murderous attacks can’t be “trying to bring us down to their moral level,” because they believe they are on a higher moral level than we are. They are not trying to make us give up our moral principles, which they think are stupid anyway. Rather, they are trying to demoralize us, to terrorize us, to paralyze us so that we will not strike back. To create chaos. To make us see how powerful they are. To make us appease them. To make us submit.

The editors of the Times would have us stress ‘tolerance’, according to the perception that Islam is a religion like any of the attenuated religions with which we are familiar, a sort of liberal Protestantism or Reform Judaism where they go to mosque on Friday. And if this were a correct characterization of Islam they would be right. But Islam is not a religion in that sense. It is a religion-based ideology, and two of its fundamental principles are that Islam must a) spread throughout the world, and b) become politically dominant wherever Muslims live.

Marxism-Leninism and Nazism were also expansionist ideologies that had a hold on large numbers of people, although without involving religion. The religious basis of Islam only makes it much more effective in gaining and keeping adherents, a task at which it is unmatched. The collection of ideas that make up the Islamic ideology has possibly been the single most effective ‘memeplex’ in human history.

The wave of Islamic conquest that began in the 7^th century was a straightforward military campaign. Defeat the infidels’ armies, kill their leaders, enslave or convert the population to Islam, impose shari’a (Islamic law), and move on to the next conquest.

Today the balance of military power is such that the infidels can’t be confronted head-on. But the jihadists understand the weaknesses inherent in Western societies. They believe that they can be cracked into pieces over time by terrorism and taken over by subversion. And the Western leadership often plays directly into their hands

For example, there is no recognition on the part of Western elites that Islam is anything more than a ‘religion’ in the most trivial sense; and therefore it would violate our ideal of freedom of religion to interfere with it in any way. So, although they admit that there is such a thing as ‘radical Islamism’ which engages in terrorism, it is considered wholly separate and distinct from ordinary Islam, which is peaceful and harmless.

They refuse to see that the ideology that is Islam is pervasive; the difference is just that for whatever reason – temperament, practical considerations, degree of commitment – ‘moderate’ Muslims do not engage in violent activities. Nevertheless, there is a great deal of support in the overall Muslim community for extremists, who are often seen as ‘more devout’, better Muslims because of their zeal.

Religion in the West is exempt from criticism, and in the US it receives exemption from taxation as well. Ideology and politics are not so protected. It isn’t considered bigotry to oppose Marxism or Republicanism, and political contributions can’t be deducted from income on American tax returns. The problem is that the pernicious political ideology of Islam rides along with its religious underpinnings.

Criticism of Islam is systematically suppressed by being called ‘hate’, ‘bigotry’ or even ‘racism’. Organizations like the ADL or the Southern Poverty Law Center see ‘Islamophobia’ as a form of ‘hate’, along with anti-black racism or Jew-hatred. Although it should be obvious that one can be opposed to the ideology inherent in Islam without hating Muslims, and certainly without being a racist, this distinction is never drawn.

Because it ignores the ideological nature of Islam, the West does really stupid things. For example, the US allows foreign interests in Saudi Arabia, the Gulf states and Iran to pump huge amounts of money into mosques and Islamic centers in America. These institutions teach both the religion and the ideology – they are inseparable – convert Americans to Islam, engage in ‘educational’ enterprises in their communities, support friendly politicians, squelch criticism of Islam, and so forth. And of course they pay no taxes.

Foreign money also goes into educational institutions, endowing Middle East Studies departments that are little more than mouthpieces for pro-Islamic propaganda, giving grants to academics for helpful  research, and – to a shocking degree – influencing the content of textbooks used by American grade school and high school students.

In what must rank as one of the most foolish acts in history since that Greek horse was allowed to enter Troy, US prisons provide taxpayer-funded Muslim chaplains who teach Islam, organize worship services and help inmates convert to Islam. Thus some of the most violent elements in society are indoctrinated with an ideology that lends itself to violent extremism!

So what should the Western response to Islamic terrorism be?

• First and most important, we must recognize that Islam is not merely a religion that should be given the benefit of ‘tolerance’. It is an ideology that is opposed to the basic principles of the democratic, enlightened West, and should be treated as an enemy.
• We should stop shutting down criticism of Islam, an ideology, on the grounds that such criticism is the same as irrational hatred of a person because of his ethnicity or race. Criticism of ideologies is entirely legitimate.
• We should treat Islamic institutions as (anti-Western) political institutions, not religious ones.
• We should understand that foreign money supporting Islamic causes in a Western country constitutes subversion, and take steps to control it.
  
• We should ensure that the history and philosophy of Islam as an expansionist ideology is taught in schools in an honest way (e.g., the primary meaning of ‘jihad’ is not ‘an inner struggle against evil’).
• We should monitor Islamic institutions for subversive activities.
• We should not encourage immigration of Muslims to the West.
• We should eliminate Muslim chaplains in prisons.

The Times concludes thus:

What threatened nations and their leaders can do is to firmly instill the idea that the only sure defense is to stay true to what democratic societies really stand for.

What the editors of the Times intend, of course, is that the West should not allow Islamic provocations to cause us to treat Muslims any differently than anyone else. And they are correct that we should always protect human rights.

But it is not a human right in the West to espouse an ideology that embraces conquest and destruction of Western civilization. Such an ideology contradicts “what democratic societies really stand for,” and tolerance for it is no more justified than tolerance for smallpox or polio. It is suicidal.

High Capacity Magazines are the Killers

 
After the massacre in Tucson the left blamed prominent conservatives and talk show hosts. There was not an iota of evidence but they did their best to make conservatives responsible. This also removed responsibility from the actual murderer. That is how things usually work: if conservatives caused the insane murderer to kill, than he couldn't be responsible.
These accusations finally petered out, especially after it became known that the murderer was not only mentally disturbed but also a leftist and a Bush hater. But you can't let a good crisis go to waste and definitely can't make people responsible for their deeds. Both these progressive imperatives are well satisfied by a call for more gun control.
Since it is not feasible, for now, to introduce more gun control legislation, several members of Congress decided to try to prohibit high-capacity magazines. Representative Carolyne McCarthy (D-NY) brought up this proposal and others are trying to run with it. Her proposal defines a new villain: high-capacity magazines. It is obvious to that it was the crazy murderer's magazine that killed an injured all these people in Tucson. Jared Loughner had nothing to do with the murders.
The danger in this kind of thinking is that superficially it makes sense: only a murderer would need a hand gun magazine that holds more than 30 rounds. But if you think for a moment it is clear that limiting the capacity of magazines that are being sold legally will change nothing, except legitimize more government control.
Here are the reasons why:

1. Like everything else, if an item is restricted it doesn't mean it's unavailable. Just look at prohibited drugs, criminals buying guns, people driving with suspended licenses or no licenses at all.
2. High capacity magazines have the potential to make a murderer less effective. Sounds counter intuitive, but think: if a crazy killer has only 10 round magazines available he (or she) will choose a caliber that will make most of these 10 rounds. Why use 9mm? He could use .40cal or a .45cal. If he did that, Rep. Gifford would be dead. It was luck and the fact that Loughner used a 9mm round that saved her life. The same is probably true for some of the other survivors.
3. Another factor to consider is that a 34 round magazine makes the gun heavy, unbalanced and unwieldy. There is a reason law enforcement carry spare magazines but not these ridiculous high-capacity ones.
4. Which brings us to the next point: what is to prevent our crazy murderer from reloading? It is cumbersome to reload with a high-capacity magazine but with the normal 14-19 round ones or 10 round magazines reloading take only a couple of seconds.

So by banning "high-capacity" magazines we will do two things: shift the blame, again, to on inanimate object and do nothing to reduce the chances of a maniac killing lots of people. We may even increase the danger.

If the progressives really wanted to increase public safety they would promote gun ownership and concealed carry. After all one armed person in that crowd in Tucson could have stopped the murderer. He was, indeed, stopped by two men who wrestled him to the ground. One of those had a concealed carry permit and was armed. He said later that he would have shot the killer if the killer resisted or posed any further danger. A pity that this man was some distance away, in line at the grocery store and didn't arrive in time to save more lives

To Profile or Not to Profile

 
The attempted attack on New York's Times Square gave us another glimpse of a deadly disease eating away at our society: Political Correctness. The PC problem is exacerbated by the left's desire to have the "right wing crazies" (their definition) responsible for acts of terror plaguing us.

This time it was New York's Bloomberg that supplied the gems: he was ready to bet that the terrorist was somebody "who disliked President Obama's health-care reform" or somebody similar. When a Pakistani Muslim was arrested Bloomberg warned us not to discriminate against New Yorkers of Pakistani descent or Muslims in general.
Did he hear any talk of discrimination? Did he apologize for his previous statement? Of course not.

The situation is even worse than I expected. The Department of Homeland Security issued a warning that the terrorist may try to escape through an airport and put him on the no-fly list. He was apprehended - on board an Emirates airliner that had to be recalled from the runway at JFK. The Department explained that from now on airlines will have to update their lists every two hours so that such a situation doesn't happen again. What wasn't explained is how did the terrorist go through all the other security checks unmolested.

He did everything to attract attention: bought a one way ticket to Dubai for cash, bought the ticket at the last moment and used his own passport with his own, now banned from flying, name on it. I am sure that the baby waiting in the TSA line with him was inspected, he likely took off his shoes and the grandma behind him in line was frisked. Everybody was so busy doing stupid stuff that they never paid any attention to who was going through to the gates.

I hope that all this was just plain stupidity, but I have this sinking feeling that it's not. If you put together how the underwear bomber got on the flight to Detroit this Christmas and how Major Niddal Hassan wasn't even called a terrorist, and still isn't, you may arrive at one of several conclusions:
Either there is a widespread conspiracy to coddle Muslim terrorists and enable their activities or Political Correctness is deeply embedded and encouraged.

I think that it is the second choice. It is quite unlikely that all of Hassan's colleagues in the Army wanted to enable him in his quest to be a good Muslim. It is more likely that PC, encouraged all along the chain of command, was the culprit. The same PC that makes our government bent over backwards to accommodate Muslims, including looking the other way when obviously suspicious activities are underway. The same mentality was likely at work when the latest terrorist was granted entry into the US and later citizenship. He wasn't alone. His brethren were admitted before him and will continue to be admitted into the US.

We really need profiling. We had one crazy guy that attacked a Federal building in Oklahoma City. Since that event the left is all for profiling. Profiling against the right, which is anybody who doesn't agree with them.

The time is right to start profiling against Muslims. Not all Muslims are terrorists but all terrorists, except that one, are Muslims. We really need to take a good look and keep looking at observant Muslims who are compelled by their religion to impose Islam on all of us. Not all of them display the obvious accouterments of their religion, but a close look at their background, friends and activities will disclose their loyalties.

If I'm correct, without profiling we will see a string of more or less successful terror acts until a big one like 9/11 happens again. Hopefully that one will wake this country up. If not, we are royally screwed.