Sunday, April 16, 2006

 

Hitler Was Not This Crazy

This article is scary as hell. I know it's wrong to compare anyone to Hitler, but just in terms of Jew hatred Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad compares unfavorably with Hitler. That is to say, Ahmadinejad is worse. I'm not the only one who is making the comparison. Others have said that Hitler told us what he was going to do. I have to disagree (although I quit reading Mein Kampf in disgust just a hundred pages in). There was talk before and at the beginning of the war about the Endlösung of the Jewish question, but the answer was not death on an industrial scale until Reinhard Heydrich decided on death at the Wannsee Conference in early 1942, which decision was kept imperfectly secret. Unlike Hitler, isn't Ahmadinejad making his intentions clear, by saying there was no Holocaust, but there will be if Iran develops nuclear weapons. Is there any reason to disbelieve him about the latter?

Money quotes from the article by Amir Taheri:

According to this analysis, spelled out in commentaries by Ahmadinejad's strategic guru, Hassan Abassi, known as the "Dr Kissinger of Islam", President George W Bush is an aberration, an exception to a rule under which all American presidents since Truman, when faced with serious setbacks abroad, have "run away". Iran's current strategy, therefore, is to wait Bush out. And that, by "divine coincidence", corresponds to the time Iran needs to develop its nuclear arsenal, thus matching the only advantage that the infidel enjoys.

[...]

Ahmadinejad has also reactivated Iran's network of Shia organisations in Bahrain, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Yemen, while resuming contact with Sunni fundamentalist groups in Turkey, Egypt, Algeria and Morocco. From childhood, Shia boys are told to cultivate two qualities. The first is entezar, the capacity patiently to wait for the Imam to return. The second is taajil, the actions needed to hasten the return. For the Imam's return will coincide with an apocalyptic battle between the forces of evil and righteousness, with evil ultimately routed. If the infidel loses its nuclear advantage, it could be worn down in a long, low-intensity war at the end of which surrender to Islam would appear the least bad of options. And that could be a signal for the Imam to reappear.

At the same time, not to forget the task of hastening the Mahdi's second coming, Ahamdinejad will pursue his provocations. On Monday, he was as candid as ever: "To those who are angry with us, we have one thing to say: be angry until you die of anger!"

If Ahmadinejad will continue to waste the West's time with duplicitous decisions and faux negotiations which are designed only to wait out the rest of President Bush"s term in office, isn't the pressure on to do something decisive right about now?

The article also mentions the return of the Mahdi. I'm confused. Didn't the Mahdi take Khartoum and kill Chinese Gordon in 1885? Or is the distinction between a person calling himself the Mahdi and the real Mahdi? At least Ahmadinejad is not yet calling himself that.

(h/t Hugh Hewitt)

# posted by Roger Fraley @ 7:14 AM
Comments: Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?