...it's not dark yet, but it's gettin' there...
Was something that scared me very much. And since I feel like I'm being a little paranoid, I thought I'd throw it out to you all.
You may have heard about the Danish Imam Abu Laban, who has decided to leave Denmark because of that country's supposed intolerance of Muslims. I first read about it from the Baron at Gates Of Vienna. (Now of course, the radical Imam appears to have called off the emigration.)
The Baron thought Laban's announcement was a good sign. My initial reaction was quite the opposite. I asked myself why now? This is a guy who has basically enjoyed enormous success waging jihad inside Denmark. (See Sugiero for a rundown on his nefarious activities.) He doesn't sound like the kind of guy who would skedaddle over a few rough words. Might there be some other reason Laban wants to leave Denmark now?
Remember, the major news story from last week was Ahmadinejad's letter to President Bush. Some have described this letter as a "call to Islam," which is step one in the process of declaring jihad against the west. (See Robert Spencer, Elder, IBA, LGF, etc.) I think this interpretation is correct. Especially since Ahmadinejad has acknowledged that his letter is, in fact, a call to Islam.
Remember, Iran is run by religious fundamentalists and end-of-the-world nut-jobs. They are not motivated by the same things that motivate modern rational states. Iran views itself as the vanguard of a pan-Islamic movement. They hate the U.S., they hate Israel, and they hate Denmark. (They're not too crazy about the rest of Europe either, but everything in due time.) Iran is also lying about their nuclear ambitions. They are unashamedly playing a delaying game against the west, in order to string us along until they can develop a deliverable nuclear arsenal.
I should add that Iran is executing their strategy beautifully, with a sophistication and a knowledge of its enemies' weakness that I only wish we could duplicate from our side of the conflict.
I should also add that Iran may already have one or more nuclear devices, from some other source. They could have a black market bomb (one of the missing Russian ones) or they could have bought one through a friendly nation.
Anyways, the question I'm getting at is this: Am I paranoid for thinking that the Danish Imam is making plans to leave Denmark because he knows something bad is going to happen there? And soon?
Keep your powder dry.
Update: AP reports that traces of weapons grade uranium have been found in Iran! Hat tip to California Conservative.
[c/p A Western Heart; technorati: Iran]
Something rotten in Denmark?
Posted by: shelly on May. 13, 2006Uh excuse me? Is this the same AnnikaBananika who sent me that piece last week from that Mexican dude. Oh the Iranians may scrape up a nuke, but gimme a break, we invented the mofo's.
I suspect that the mullah is returning to the holy land because he misses the really quality camel ass, and young boys. Perhaps he's heard that MJ lives there now.
Posted by: Casca on May. 14, 2006>Iran is run by religious fundamentalists and end-of-the-world nut-jobs.
For some reason, this made me think of fundamentalist Republicans that are end-times nuts as well. And remember the end-times talk from Reagan? But I diverge from the thrust of your post...
>They are unashamedly playing a delaying game against the west, in order to string us along until they can develop a deliverable nuclear arsenal.
Undoubtably. I would think they are some ways away from a deployable nuclear weapon. It's nipping it in the bud that's important, however.
Posted by: will on May. 14, 2006Will, I don't remember Reagan doing a lot of "end times" talk. The Gipper was religious more in theory than practice. So, I'm curious as to what he said and whether is was said for illustrative purposes or meant literally.
Now to your other point: To compare American evangelical Christians and conservative Catholics to the Islamo-fascist fundamentalist is show absolutely no understanding of any of those groups. How can you possibliy listen to the ramblings of the Iranian President and make a point that "fundamentalist Christians" in positions of political power are somehow similar?
Posted by: Blu on May. 14, 2006"Will, I don't remember Reagan doing a lot of "end times" talk. The Gipper was religious more in theory than practice. So, I'm curious as to what he said and whether is was said for illustrative purposes or meant literally."
For obvious reasons, it's difficult to obtain primary links to news from the 1980s. However, here's a few that reference Reagan's end-times discussions; (for some reasons, it doesn't allow me to post some links, so here's one)
http://ask.metafilter.com/mefi/30877
"Now to your other point: To compare American evangelical Christians and conservative Catholics to the Islamo-fascist fundamentalist is show absolutely no understanding of any of those groups. How can you possibliy listen to the ramblings of the Iranian President and make a point that "fundamentalist Christians" in positions of political power are somehow similar?"
I merely said that the reference to fundamentalists who talk about end-times reminded by about Christian fundamentalists who do the same. I did not mention conservative Catholics. I have a close relative who is a Christian fundamentalist and this relative used to discuss how the end-times would come about. The scenario changed over the course of 20 years as each flare-point became the next trigger point for armageddon, including Y2K.
Note that there have been many Christian fundamentalists in the past that have called for the US to be recognized as a Christian nation and lead by Christians who will reinstitute Christianity as a State religion. If such a situation were to occur, we could see ourselves devolve to a governmental structure not unlike Iran's.
A full discussion of this topic is best had after both sides read Karen Armstrong's "The Battle for God". I can't recommend it highly enough.
Posted by: will on May. 14, 2006"the next trigger point for armageddon, including Y2K."
That's interesting. That sort of thinking reminds of a Jehovah's Witness or some other type of cult - these groups will often use specific dates or link current events to "end times." An actual "fundamentalist" (i.e. a person who believes in a literal interpretation of the bible)would not propose an actual timeline because the Bible doesn't provide one.
Posted by: Blu on May. 15, 2006I should not have used such a term (fundamentalist) so broadly. Here's a wikipedia entry that describes the different classification of Christian fundamentalist views.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalist#Christian_views
I was referring in a broad sense, not just to literalists. Of course, not all Christian fundamentalists were espousing Armageddon at the year 2000. Indeed, those that had quickly noted on 1/1/2000 that the millenium actually ended on 1/1/2001.
There were a number of mainstream conservative Christian books out that spun tales of Armageddon at Y2K. Go to Amazon.com and enter "Armageddon 2000" to see a sprinkling of the literature (no, all links are not pertinent, but you'll get the picture).
In my understanding, a significant percentage of conservative chrisians were becoming more interested and zeroing in on the end-times as Y2K approached, with that being a probable trigger; I would not single out literalists, but undoubtably there were many that believed such.
Posted by: will on May. 15, 2006"In my understanding, a significant percentage of conservative chrisians were becoming more interested and zeroing in on the end-times as Y2K approached, with that being a probable trigger; I would not single out literalists, but undoubtably there were many that believed such."
Reading medieval history is a hobby of mine. The Y2K stuff is funny because there were a certain % of people back in Y1K who were convinced the end was coming then too. I guess there are always a few "suckas."