Article

2007-01-31 Israel-Palestine-Jordan

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Fred & Brett 2007-01-31 00:00|| || Front Page|| [11129 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Sunnis and Shiites are mortal enemies. Secular modernism was once thought to be the solution to that conflict. Now killing is like breathing to local savages.

Posted by Sneaze Shaiting3550 2007-01-31 03:58|| 2007-01-31 03:58|| Front Page Top

#2 In 1973, former Israeli Ambassador, Abba Eban said: "The Arabs never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity"

One of my all time favorite quotes. Excellent article! Thanks for posting Fred.

Posted by Besoeker 2007-01-31 04:26|| 2007-01-31 04:26|| Front Page Top

#3 The writer definitely reads Rantburg.

gromgoru, is that you? :-)

Somewhere in the old testament it is written that muslim arabs will be a thorn in everyone's side until the last one is killed. I don't agree with this statement [ yet :-) ], but I can certainly see where it comes from. Some things don't change with time. Does anyone know the exact quote?

Posted by gorb 2007-01-31 06:13|| 2007-01-31 06:13|| Front Page Top

#4 Ummm, I'm not sure how the Old Testament could reference Muslims at all, seeing as it was written several centuries before Muhammad was born.

Posted by exJAG 2007-01-31 06:51|| 2007-01-31 06:51|| Front Page Top

#5 St. Nostradamus of the Old Testament

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2007-01-31 07:06|| 2007-01-31 07:06|| Front Page Top

#6 Numbers 33:55
But if you do not drive out the inhabitants of the land from before you, then it shall come about that those whom you let remain of them will become (A)as pricks in your eyes and as thorns in your sides, and they will trouble you in the land in which you live.

Joshua 23:13
13know with certainty that the LORD your God will not continue to drive these nations out from before you; but they will be a (A)snare and a trap to you, and a whip on your sides and thorns in your eyes, until you perish from off this good land which the LORD your God has given you.

Judges 2:3
3 Now therefore I tell you that I will not drive them out before you; they will be thorns in your sides and their gods will be a snare to you."

Posted by Besoeker 2007-01-31 07:12|| 2007-01-31 07:12|| Front Page Top

#7 The last book to be included was written about 130 BCE, just before the Maccabees. Mohammed came along at the tail end of the seventh century, I think. Could've been about the descendents of Ishmail, though.

Posted by trailing wife 2007-01-31 07:14|| 2007-01-31 07:14|| Front Page Top

#8 The writer's courage to challenge the politically correct view of the Arab world as misunderstood or victimized allows him to make many valid points. One line he wrote especially stands out to me: "But, at the very least, we in the modern Western Democracies governed by the secular rule of law, should all work as hard as we can to find ways to totally disengage ourselves from the Arab world." It seems to me that we should correspondingly massively increase funding for research on alternative energy sources and consider caps on immigration from majority Muslim/Arabic countries to Western nations until Islam undergoes a true Reformation which allows for its coexistence with the values of the modern world (assuming it happens at all).

Posted by Sic_Semper_Tyrannus 2007-01-31 07:38|| 2007-01-31 07:38|| Front Page Top

#9 Islam and the Arabs will never go through a reformation until enough have them have died and their lives are hell enough to want too. Once the Middle east nukes up, they might have their chance to do that. I still think the first real nuclear attack in the ME will be between arab states.

Posted by DarthVader">DarthVader 2007-01-31 07:46|| 2007-01-31 07:46|| Front Page Top

#10 gorb might be thinking of the Amalakites who are, in the bible, descended from a marriage between an Ishmailite woman and Edomite man.

Posted by mhw 2007-01-31 09:06|| http://hypocrisy-incorporated.blogspot.com/]">[http://hypocrisy-incorporated.blogspot.com/] 2007-01-31 09:06|| Front Page Top

#11 Ariel Sharon was absolutely right when he decided to separate Israel from the Arab Palestinians by building the barrier and leaving all of Gaza.

Um, WRONG. You don't placate evil by rewarding it with land. You destroy evil before it destroys you.

Posted by mcsegeek1 2007-01-31 09:17|| 2007-01-31 09:17|| Front Page Top

#12 DV is right, the only question that remains is: who will be on the receiving end, Iran or Saudi Arabia? Hopefully it will be Iran, as it's hard to drill through radioactive glass. You know, one thing that seems to be missing from the argument of what to do in Iraq, AFAIK, is what WILL happen if we pull out. I think this is a major point that should be made. HEre is what I think will happen: Iraq will obviously slip into full-on civil war. That in and of itself isn't that big a deal, really who cares if muslims are killing each other. But I strongly believe the conflict will quickly become regional. Again, who cares if muslims are killing each other, the problem is they will be fighting on top of oil that the whole world needs. Oil supplies will be compromised terribly. I can foresee China invading Iran afterwards to secure some oil for themselves, then what? Do we invade Saudi? Does it escalate into a world war with muslims killing each other and everyone else trying to grab some oil? To be honest, a regional civil war is inevitable, we have got to find alternatives to oil. And while drilling ANWR and producing more ethanol are good short-term help, we need to be thinking about a post-oil world. It's the only way to ensure our national security.

Posted by AllahHateMe 2007-01-31 09:23|| 2007-01-31 09:23|| Front Page Top

#13 Assuming that all this about Arabs and testosterone is true, will the world sit by and allow the Arabs to sabvage each other behind a king kong wall, and live happily ever after ?
I think not. We will continue to engage them, and therefore continue to allow them access to bomb us and continue this conflict ad nauseum.
Kill them all without delay. They are nothing more than a disease. They are the tooth decay in the skull of earth. Why do we need Arabs ? Why do we need democrats ? Some kind of handicap in the great human race ?

Posted by wxjames 2007-01-31 10:40|| 2007-01-31 10:40|| Front Page Top

#14 #12 -- Bravo for bringing up the necessity of planning for a post-oil world. It is a complicated subject, and many have a vested interest in ignoring it.
One of the civilizational dangers in the Persian Gulf area is the simple trashing of the oil drilling & export facilities. Leaving out Iraq, the other Muslim-controlled oil fields are leveling out their production, or in decline, as best I can tell. It is almost impossible to find a graph displaying world oil production through the year 2006. The time for complete disengagement of the rest of the world from the Middle East will only be after Middle Eastern oil is no longer available to the rest of the world, for one reason or another. Until then, we're all in this together.

Posted by Anguper Hupomosing9418 2007-01-31 10:43|| 2007-01-31 10:43|| Front Page Top

#15 Actually, wxjames, I'd bet the world could wall off the savages and let 'em go at each other. I'm fine with that. Look at how much press and attention the Paleos are getting (while they slaughter each other)...not NEAR as much as when they're killing our allies.

While the MSM may show the savages killing each other, if we really walled them off and let 'em go mongol on each other, I don't think the world opinion™ would care. Note how much press Sudan gets. Or Somalia (except for recent intervention by the U.S. and Ethiopians), or Rwanda (until AFTER the massacre happened). And, with the possibility of nukes, that "wholesale darwin effect" could go off even quicker than Rwanda did. Just my $.02.

Posted by BA 2007-01-31 11:00|| 2007-01-31 11:00|| Front Page Top

#16 Muslim Arab depravity knows no bounds...

Uh, I'm trying to get my surprise meter to budge.

Posted by JohnQC 2007-01-31 11:02|| 2007-01-31 11:02|| Front Page Top

#17 AllahHateMe, it's highly unlikely the Chinese could ever invade Iran. They would have to go by sea and face the US Navy or they would have to cross Afghanistan which is unfriendly terrain. In either case they do not have the logistics ability. Will not happen, unless the US helps (which would be interesting).

Posted by rjschwarz 2007-01-31 13:41|| 2007-01-31 13:41|| Front Page Top

#18 Kill them all without delay. They are nothing more than a disease. They are the tooth decay in the skull of earth. Why do we need Arabs ? Why do we need democrats ? Some kind of handicap in the great human race?

Yes! Kill them all. I reached that conclusion a number of years ago. These savages have been doing the same crap over and over for 1,400 years. There is NO reason to think they'll ever change. Arabs in general and Muslims in particular are a failed sub-branch of humanity. Time to prune the tree.

I'd bet the world could wall off the savages and let 'em go at each other.

Why? Why do that, just get rid of them. And while we're at it, lets deport everyone of them from all Western nations. Islam has to go, there is no escaping this conclusion. Try if you must, but sooner or later the hard decision will be forced on the civilized world.

Posted by Chuck Darwin 2007-01-31 14:03|| 2007-01-31 14:03|| Front Page Top

#19 D'oh. You are right they couldn't directly invade Iran. But it does beg the question, what would the rest of the world do as the ME falls into complete chaos, threatening world wide oil supplies? While the Chinese may not be able to invade Iran, at least without preemptively attacking our naval forces in theater, I guarantee they would not sit idly by while their economy hits the shitter. And in that kind of scenario, what *is* to stop them from preemptively striking our naval forces so that they could secure some oil? Could they do it successfully? I think the answer to that would be yes, if they really really wanted to. Then again, maybe they would look towards the Russian oil fields. Regardless, the point that is NOT being made in regards to our involvement in Iraq, is that it is critical that we avoid a regional shia/sunni war, at least until after we have a viable alternative energy source. And by leaving Iraq too soon, we all but guarantee a regional conflict that could escalate to a nuclear conflict. We wouldn't be worrying about $100/barrel oil, there just wouldn't be any available oil.

Posted by AllahHateMe 2007-01-31 14:53|| 2007-01-31 14:53|| Front Page Top

#20 What can we do about this Middle Eastern sickness, other than building impenetrable walls between them and us? I don't know.

For one thing, we could take the oil. It is useless to pretend any government in that part of the world represents its people and useless to think the people are represented by anything except a depraved dark ages cult. All the talk of Arab science - lies - is hardly a fig leaf for the fact the oil would never have been put to use without Western technology, Western markets and Western industry and still would not to this day. It is our oil. We found it and we put it to use. It is an historic madness and civilization-spanning shame that we should have turned it over to the local barbarians for their sport of rape and slavery and mindless warfare.

Posted by Excalibur 2007-01-31 15:44|| 2007-01-31 15:44|| Front Page Top

#21 For one thing, we could take the oil.

Isn't that what the Strategic Petroleum Reserve is for?

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2007-01-31 15:47|| 2007-01-31 15:47|| Front Page Top

#22 I can foresee China invading Iran afterwards to secure some oil for themselves, then what?

ROFL. I'd love to see the Chinese in an Iranian guerilla quagmire. Warms the cockles of my cold, black heart just thinking about it.

Posted by Ebbang Uluque6305 2007-01-31 16:29|| 2007-01-31 16:29|| Front Page Top

#23 But, at the very least, we in the modern Western Democracies governed by the Secular rule of law, should all work as hard as we can to find ways to totally disengage ourselves from the Arab world.

Bravo! The lady get it. I would add this includes outlawing all forms of islam in the western world.

Like the Chinese would ever stand for guerrilla warfare. That's a western luxury and conceit. The Chinese would execute all the males and carry off the women for the millions of unmarriagable Chinese bachelors.

Posted by ed 2007-01-31 17:30|| 2007-01-31 17:30|| Front Page Top

#24 EU: ROFL. I'd love to see the Chinese in an Iranian guerilla quagmire. Warms the cockles of my cold, black heart just thinking about it.

The Chinese don't do quagmire. They cull the conquered population until it starts snitching on the guerrillas - they don't simply say "you are for us or against us"; they actually practice it. During their punitive expedition into Vietnam in the late 1970's, they are said to have massacred entire villages. They had no problem with Chinese villagers supporting their guerrilla efforts (with food and funds) - but when Vietnamese villagers supported Vietnamese troops, that's when they put their foot down - on the Vietnamese villagers. Guerrilla warfare is seldom a problem for a conquering army that is truly without pity.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2007-01-31 17:30|| http://timurileng.blogspot.com]">[http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2007-01-31 17:30|| Front Page Top

#25 gorb might be thinking of the Amalakites who are, in the bible, descended from a marriage between an Ishmailite woman and Edomite man.

I'm not sure what I'm thinking, but I am sure that I am thinking something! :-) I thought muslims claim to have descended from Abraham's second wife or slave or whatever. I thought Sarah got P.O.'d at here for some reason and kicked her out of the house, which started everything, and it's all the evil Jews' fault, of course. Which is very convenient. Anyway, I thought it was these descendants who set up shop somewhere else, and eventually the Jews were commanded to go wipe them out to the last man, woman, and child or they would forever be a thorn in their side.

But that was long ago and my memory sucks, so I could have several things all mixed together.

Posted by gorb 2007-01-31 17:52|| 2007-01-31 17:52|| Front Page Top

#26 Arabs claim descendency from Ismael, Hagar's son by Abraham.

Genesis 16:12 "He will be a wild donkey of a man, with his hand against everyone and everyone's hand against him, living his life at odds with all his kinsmen."

Posted by Xenophon 2007-01-31 18:12|| 2007-01-31 18:12|| Front Page Top

#27 #3 Gorb you flatter me, but no.
#12 World is full of oil---it isn't just as cheap to pump as Persian Gulf's. However, Persian Gulf's oil is associated with some hidden costs which work out to > 10$ per gallon.

Posted by gromgoru 2007-01-31 20:25|| 2007-01-31 20:25|| Front Page Top

#28 Technically Ishmael would have been Abraham's first born son, and no doubt his heir until his wife Sarah bore Isaac... and the son of the wife outranks the son of a slave-concubine, whatever the chronology. According to Isaac Asimov's Guide to the Bible, the Ishmaelite tribes dwelt on the border of th Arabian desert south and southeast of Canaan.

Posted by trailing wife 2007-01-31 20:28|| 2007-01-31 20:28|| Front Page Top

23:39 Anguper Hupomosing9418
23:36 49 Pan
23:29 Alaska Paul
23:14 tipper
23:11 DMFD
23:00 DMFD
22:58 DMFD
22:47 Ricky bin Ricardo (Abu Babaloo)
22:45 Mike N.
22:45 anymouse
22:35 BA
22:26 BA
22:21 Elmert Crosh5077
22:15 JosephMendiola
22:07 USN, ret.
21:58 USN, ret.
21:48 Phemp Uneger3592
21:48 JohnQC
21:45 USN, ret.
21:45 Three Wise Monkeys
21:27 occasional observer
21:26 occasional observer
21:16 Mike N.
21:15 Jackal