Home     Writers     Op/Ed     Book Reviews     News     Bookstore     Photoshops     Submit     Search     Contact Us     Advertise  
  You are here: 

Wed

28

Nov

2007

We should Nuke Israel
Wednesday, 28 November 2007 08:38
by Chris Cook
We Should Nuke Iran, by Michael Cohen

This amazingly ignorant, hateful, and frankly criminal article has been redacted. I have placed "Israel" where the murderous and racist author, Michael Coren originally wrote "Iran." Likewise other slight alterations have been performed. There is, in what remains of this country Canada, hate crime legislation. Unlike Mr. Coren's, and his Toronto Sun publisher's heroes in the United States, Canadian media is expected to live up to certain standards. Promoting hatred and proposing the destruction of human life fail miserably to live up to the expected, and legislated, mandates for publishers. I recommend those offended by Mr. Coren's modest proposal write the Sun, Coren, and the CRTC. Mr. Coren can be reached here: mcoren@sympatico.ca
-Lex
[Republished at Atlantic Free Press without permission of the Toronto Sun]
We should nuke Iran Israel

TORONTO SUN - MICHAEL COREN - It is surely obvious now to anybody with even a basic understanding of history, politics and the nature of fascism that something revolutionary has to be done within months — if not weeks — if we are to preserve world peace. Put boldly and simply, we have to drop a nuclear bomb on Iran Israel.

We should nuke Iran Israel.

FANATICAL, OPPRESSIVE LEADER Ahmadinejad Olmert PROVOKES WARS AND FINANCES TERROR Not, of course, the unleashing of full-scale thermo-nuclear war on the Persian Jewish people, but a limited and tactical use of nuclear weapons to destroy Iran's Israel's military facilities and its potential nuclear arsenal. It is, sadly, the only response that this repugnant and acutely dangerous political entity will understand. The tragedy is that innocent people will die. But not many. Iran's Israel's missiles and rockets of mass destruction are guarded and maintained by men with the highest of security clearance and thus supportive of the Iranian Israeli regime. They are dedicated to war and, thus, will die in war.

Frankly, it would be churlish of the civilized world to deny martyrdom to those who seem so intent on its pursuance. Most important, a limited nuclear attack on Iran Israel will save thousands if not millions of lives. The spasm of reaction from many will be that this is barbaric and unacceptable. Yet a better response would be to ask if there is any sensible alternative. Diplomacy, kindness and compromise have failed and the Iranian Israeli leadership is still obsessed with all-out war against anybody it considers an enemy.

Its motives are beyond question, its capability equally so. It is spending billions of dollars on a whole range of anti-ship, anti-aircraft and anti-personnel missiles, rockets and ballistic weapons:

Its missiles, with a range of more than 2,000 km, and the accompanying launchers, which are so powerful that they can hit targets in Europe. Missiles with a range of 350km, their anti-aircraft missiles, which can be fired from the shoulder. Their radar-evading missile and underwater missiles, which travel at an extraordinarily high speed and is almost impossible to intercept.

Iran Israel is also developing enormous propellant ballistic missiles and began a space program almost a decade ago that will enable it to bomb the United States. It is also assumed in intelligence circles that Iran Israel has American made cruise missiles which are now being copied in large numbers by Iranian Israeli scientists.

Comparisons to the Nazis in the 1930s are unfair — to the Nazis. Hitler had the French army, the largest in Europe, on his border and millions of Soviet infantry just a few hours march away. Iran Israel has no aggressive enemies in the region.

Its fanatical leader, Ahmadinejad Olmert, controls a brutal police state, finances international terror and provokes bloody wars in foreign countries. It is unimaginably wealthy because of U.S. aid and is committed, in its leader's words, to "rolling back 300 years of Persian ascendancy" and wiping another nation, Iran, from the face of the earth. A conventional attack would be insufficient because Iran Israel and its allies seem only to listen to power and threat. Better limited pain now than universal suffering in five years.

The usual suspects will complain. The post-Christian churches, the Marxists, the fellow travelers and fifth columnists. But then, the same sort of people moaned and condemned in 1938. They were clearly wrong then. They would be just as wrong now.
More from this author:
War, Crime, Propaganda, and Judeo-Fascism (9635 Hits)
PEJ News - C. L. Cook - Slithered back recently into the lexicon of the Bush administration, Israel's Ohmert crowd, and their supporters in the...
Magna Carta Tested: Revenging the Legacy of Robin of Loxley (9085 Hits)
I’m a big fan of Robin Hood, the 12th century noble highwayman who, from his lurk in Sherwood Forest would prey upon the fatted courtiers of...
You and What Army? Bush Legions Starting to "Unravel" (12216 Hits)
Is it possible the largest and most advanced military in the history of the universe is ready to bust? According to General Barry McCaffrey (ret.)...
Gorilla Radio for Monday, October 16, 2006 (7190 Hits)
This week on GR: Veteran for peace, Mike Fernerand reports from inside Iraq'sRed Zone. Tom Rankin and the hijacking of B.C. Hydro....
Three Strikes and Stephen Harper is Out (8151 Hits)
by Chris Cook Though there are a myriad of reasons Canadians should have a quick end to the public service career of Mr. Harper -...
Related Articles:
James Petras' New Book: The Power of Israel in the United States - Book Review by Stephen Lendman (24722 Hits)
by Stephen Lendman James Petras is Professor Emeritus of Sociology at Binghamton University, New York. He's a noted academic figure on the US...
Two White Sisters in Asia: Israel and Australia (7953 Hits)
by M. Shahid Alam “Israel has not fully acknowledged the value of working together with Australia in Asia. It’s a way for us to...
Congress Should Immediately Terminate the 2001 AUMF (9084 Hits)
by Dave Lindorff Forget Nancy Pelosi's "100 Hours" agenda for the new Democratic Congress. The first thing Democrats need to...
A world of psychopaths - The superiority complex of psychopaths - and Israel and the US (12357 Hits)
by Paul J. Balles Paul J. Balles considers the psychopathic phenomenon of the "superiority complex" as an explanation of...
Arbour Under Attack Following Israel Condemnation (7290 Hits)
by Chris Cook United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, former Canadian Supreme Court Justice, Louise Arbour received a barrage of...


Add this page to your favorite Social Bookmarking websites
Trackback(0)
Comments (3)add comment

Gonzalez said:

0
chill out
Ok. First of all, please keep in mind that Michael Coren recently wrote the following in his Sun column:

"A little over a year ago I wrote a column in this newspaper that caused a major controversy. I advocated a tactical nuclear strike on Iran's nuclear facilities. I did not, of course, call for all-out nuclear war, but I did support what would be a massively destructive campaign against the Tehran regime's military ambitions. Thirteen months later I feel obliged to say that I wish I had never written such an article. I was wrong."

Secondly, please keep in mind that Coren did not come up with the phrase 'we should nuke iran'. The editors at the Sun write the titles of the columns.

Anyway... maybe you should just chill out a little. This was a year ago...
 
November 28, 2007
Votes: +0

cook said:

0
Nuclear winter
Yes "Chill", if that is your real name, Mikey is real contrite. He even moves himself, in the article you mention, to defend homos, something the self-aggrandizing, bible-thumping pinhead is loath to do in his syndicated column.

Ye Culpa

In his thirteen-month delayed revelation of the "wrongness" of his call, plastered across the front pages and virtual pages of the media conglomerate paying his salary, for a nuclear holocaust, albeit it a limited one, be rained upon the heads of the Iranian people (and those down-winders who probably deserve the same fate in Mikey's view) Coren manages to repeat the string of misquotes, and blatant misinfo. drivel he savaged the hapless Sun Corp. readers with the first go around. But that's OK, because he goes on to inform he is "better" than the evil men, and so is his "faith," before launching into a repetition of another, newer set of black propaganda, drafted no doubt in some dimly lit Massad dungeon, and designed to further inflame some other Michael Coren, (God, there seems no end to them!) into pushing for what Israel has been clammering for before and since Michael insipid contribution to the blood-howl, a "tactical" nuclear strike against Iran.

Chill out indeed!

Here's Micky's apologia in his own words below. Take note of the "bullies, the thugs, the racists and the hypocrites" who forced Michael not to make representation of his deep, and no doubt spiritual, second thoughts.

barf!


By MICHAEL COREN


A little over a year ago I wrote a column in this newspaper that caused a major controversy. I advocated a tactical nuclear strike on Iran's nuclear facilities. I did not, of course, call for all-out nuclear war, but I did support what would be a massively destructive campaign against the Tehran regime's military ambitions.

Thirteen months later I feel obliged to say that I wish I had never written such an article. I was wrong. And I have waited this long because I did not want the bullies, the thugs, the racists and the hypocrites to think that they had forced my hand.

I changed my mind after a great deal of thought and prayer. I realized that I had lashed out because of the obscene words and actions of Iran's leaders and apologists - against the Holocaust denial, the calls for the destruction of another country, the sponsoring of terrorism and lust for power and dominance at any cost.

I received numerous death threats, but they did nothing to change my mind. They were written by a grotesque coalition that was in itself rather revealing. It included:

* Leftist fanatics who hide their lust for violence and personal anger behind misnamed peace campaigns.



* Anti-Semites who care nothing for Persians or Palestinians, but simply hate Jews.

* Muslim fundamentalists who will say and do anything to promote theocracy.

* Iranians living in North America who claim to despise their government but do little to oppose it.

None of these people could influence me to change my socks, let alone change my mind. No, it was greater reference to my Christian faith and to forgiveness rather than retribution that has led me to write thus.

There is, however, still a monumental problem with which we have to deal. In the year since I wrote my column, Iran has moved closer to becoming a nuclear power, led by a man who demonstrated in New York recently that he is unstable and perhaps insane. A fantasist entirely sheltered from the world's nuances and realities.

Also in that year several children have been executed, women stoned to death for adultery, homosexuals hanged, student demonstrators beaten, dissidents incarcerated and tortured and Iran's leading labour leader kidnapped by security forces.

Outside of Iran's borders, we now have proof that the Tehran government trained those who blew up a Jewish community centre in Argentina, killing 85 innocent people. Iran has, and still is, sending men and weapons to Iraq, where most of the victims of the Iranian-backed gangs are unarmed Iraqi civilians.

Just last week former Iranian president Hashemi Rafsanjani said that Adolf Hitler "saved" Europe from the "evil of Zionism." He spoke on Iranian TV on "International Jerusalem Day" and claimed that the Nazi genocide of Jewish people in Europe was due in part to them being "a pain in the neck."

He continued that Jews caused problems in Europe because they "had a lot of property" and "controlled an empire of propaganda."

Mr. Rafsanjani, by the way, is considered moderate compared with President Ahminajad.

So these are dangerous, misguided and perhaps evil men. But I am better than that. More importantly, my faith is better than that.

So, again, I was wrong in what I wrote one year ago. But not wrong in still wanting the people of the world to be acutely aware of this darkness in their midst.

 
November 28, 2007
Votes: +0

ingmar said:

0
re: "We Should Nuke Iran"

Well, it goes both ways. Bnai Brith is already actively bothering the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal with frivolous complaints to squelch criticism of Israel. Earlier this year, the Victoria-based Peace, Earth and Justice News website ( www.pej.org ) came under attack by Bnai Brith via the CHRC for publishing articles by respected progressive writers such as James Petras, Jostein Gaarder, Israel Shamir, Gilad Atzmon, Virginia Tilley and others. The PEJ BOD, in a state of terror of being labelled as "anti-semite" immediately disappeared the articles, and has since stopped publishing any articles which are critical of the State of Israel. The complainant, Bnai Brith BC's Mr. Harry Abrahms even went so far to name an article which had been redacted from a particularly rabid article written by Michael Coren and published in the Toronto Sun with the title, "We Must Nuke Iran"[www.torontosun.com/Comment/2006/09/02/1795204]
The PEJ writer simply replaced every reference to "Iran" with "Israel." This word-for-word redacted article was sufficiently appalling to Mr. Abrahms to inspire his complaint to the CHRC. Although I find Terry Glavin's continuous Zionist rants here to be disturbing, I concur with him that using the CHRC to address such complaints is abusive.

Enjoy!

Cheers, Ingmar

Mark Steyn, Last Straw?

Steyn of Maclean's: Busted?
Free speech and the Canadian Islamic Congress.
By Terry Glavin
Published: December 13, 2007


TheTyee.ca
As soon as word got out last week that the Canadian Islamic Congress was planning to haul Maclean's magazine and author Mark Steyn before three Canadian human rights tribunals for the offence of subjecting this country's Muslims to "hatred and Islamophobia," the thing went viral, as pretty well anyone could have predicted.

In New York, alarms rang non-stop at the rightist National Review. In Britain, sensible pleadings emanated from the leftist Guardian newspaper. A recent column in Jewcy, an otherwise intelligent and deservedly popular American web magazine, was headlined: "Toothless Canada Borrows Crescent Fangs."

For all this, we could just blame Steyn, a prolific, witty and incorrigibly conservative writer because the fulcrum of the current rumpus is an excerpt from Steyn's book, America Alone: The End of the World As We Know It. Its weirdly Malthusian thesis more or less holds that Muslims are taking over the world and Europe will soon be peopled only by guillotine operators and women wearing tents instead of proper clothes. The excerpt was published in Maclean's under the headline "The Future Belongs to Islam," and it appeared in October 2006.

But the Canadian Islamic Congress says the book excerpt was the last straw, just "one in a string of articles that are anti-Islam and anti-Muslim," written mostly by Steyn and by his fellow columnist Barbara Amiel, that Maclean's published between January 2005 and last July.

In the 70-page "Maclean's Magazine: A Case Study of Media-Propagated Islamophobia" that forms the basis of the Canadian Islamic Congress case, Maclean's is charged with "engaging in a discriminatory form of journalism that targets the Muslim community, promotes stereotypes, misrepresents fringe elements as the mainstream Muslim community, and distorts facts to present a false image of Muslims."

The congress announced it was filing complaints with the Canadian Human Rights Commission, the Ontario Human Rights Commission, and the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal. Which caused a lot opinionators to become unhinged.

This ain't the USA

Let's leave the caterwauling to other people, take a deep breath, stay calm, and have a look at what's really new and really disturbing about all this, and what isn't new at all.

We'll start with what isn't new.

Canada is not the United States. We have no First Amendment here. Canada's Constitution affirms our rights to free speech, but we've never had such cause to be so afraid of our government that we wet our trousers at the suggestion that it's okay to reserve to the state some authority to limit free speech.

Hate propaganda, the low to which the Canadian Islamic Congress now accuses Maclean's and Steyn of having stooped, actually does cross the Canadian "free speech" limit, and strays into what Canucks have long considered criminal conduct. So we haven't suddenly fulfilled the fears of Yankee paleoconservatives and degenerated into Soviet Canuckistan. We've actually been like this for several decades already.

It was the Canadian Jewish Congress that first put the hate-propaganda proposition to the House of Commons, formally, in 1953, and hate speech was finally prohibited by the Criminal Code, after much parliamentary deliberation, in 1970. The Supreme Court of Canada has upheld the prohibition's constitutionality more than once since the promulgation of the 1982 Constitution Act.

Also, for a long time now, Canadians have regarded the much-dreaded principle of "multiculturalism" as an important value that is properly taken into account when we ponder thorny questions about our fundamental rights, including the right to freedom of speech.

This is not a proposition found only in weird post-modernist scholarly journals. Multiculturalism has been official federal policy in Canada since 1971. More importantly, the affirmation of multiculturalism as a defining national characteristic is entrenched in Canada's Constitution. It's been there for a quarter of a century.

Tribunal rules

So, the Canadian Islamic Congress, "in order to protect Canadian multiculturalism and tolerance," as it claims, is engaging in a time-honoured Canadian tradition by seeking a legal disposition of the question about whether Mark Steyn and Maclean's magazine have committed the offence of waging propaganda against an identifiable group, in this case, Muslims. Right?

No. Not right. And this is the part that's new, and not just a tiny bit disturbing.

The Criminal Code prohibits any incitement of hatred against any identifiable group that is likely to result in a crime. It also prohibits the willful public promotion of hatred against any identifiable group. Break this law and you could find yourself in prison for up to two years.

But the Canadian Islamic Congress isn't using the Criminal Code to go after Maclean's and Steyn. Any reasonable person who reads the 70-page brief that forms the basis of its complaint will see why the case is being taken to human rights tribunals instead. It's because there's absolutely no way a criminal charge would hold up.

The Criminal Code's hate-speech provisions make plain that you can't be busted for statements that are true or for the expression of an honest opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a religious text. Statements relevant to the public interest and for the benefit of the public, and reasonably believed to be true, are free and clear of the hate-crime law.

But at the mercy of the human rights tribunals where the Canadian Islamic Congress wants them summoned, Maclean's and Steyn are not assured of any recourse to the defences the Criminal Code's hate-speech provisions provide.

The Canadian Islamic Congress isn't engaging in an entirely groundbreaking strategy -- tribunals have been used in hate-speech and incitement cases before, to useful effect, against Nazis, white-power lunatics, holocaust deniers and gay-bashers. But filing these sorts of complaints with human rights tribunals is a growing trend, and it's pushing the tribunals into terrain they weren't built to traverse.

Acts, not opinions

You could say the Canadian Islamic Congress is steering the tribunals into a swamp more forbidding than any they've traveled before.

The human rights codes that quasi-judicial human rights tribunals operate under in Canada were initially written to address acts, not opinions, and were expected to address only the most narrow restrictions on speech, such as advertisements or job postings that clearly discriminate against ethnic and religious minorities. As a rule, the thornier questions of fair comment, or intent, or truth, don't matter. What matters most is simply cause and effect.

The Canadian Islamic Congress has instigated three separate proceedings under three separate human rights codes against a 102-year-old national magazine over the publication of an excerpt from a book, thereby inviting the tribunals to trespass upon free-press rights well beyond their competence. British Columbia's human rights tribunal has already scheduled hearings for next June.

This entire escapade is not just a threat to Maclean's and Steyn specifically but to journalists generally, and also to pamphleteers, bloggers and just about anyone who might occasionally express a public opinion on a subject of public interest. It also threatens to invite the wrath of the Supreme Court of Canada, which should be expected if Maclean's and Steyn find themselves forced to fight this all the way up. The result could cause great harm to the credibility and the legal clout of human rights tribunals across the country.

From Zundel to here

Alan Borovoy, the widely-respected general counsel for the Canadian Civil Liberties Association and a key architect of Canada's first human rights commission, saw this coming seven years ago. Back then, he warned of the very real free-speech threat we're now staring in the face.

It's one thing to go before a human rights tribunal with a hate-speech complaint against a dangerous crank like Ernst Zundel, Borovoy said back then. Zundel is a fascist, and he was successfully prosecuted under Canada's Human Rights Act for inciting hatred against Jews. He fled to the United States, got deported back to Canada, was confined for a while under a security certificate, and was then sent back to his fatherland where he was tried, convicted and jailed earlier this year.

"But a wise concern for human rights must address not only current cases but also longer-term implications," Borovoy told a 2000 gathering of the Canadian Association of Statutory Human Rights Agencies. "In short, who else could be targeted under these statutes?"

Well, now we know.

The question isn't whether we like Maclean's, which has taken a decidedly pugnacious turn since editor Kenneth Whyte took over as editor in March 2005. Neither is it about whether suppressing hate propaganda is a good idea. It is a good idea.

The question is whether human rights tribunals can sort through the necessary cacophony of utterances and statements in a free and open society in order to police vigorous public debates for commentary that is "likely to expose" religious, ethnic or other minority groups to hatred, contempt or discrimination. And the answer is they can't, and they shouldn't. That's not what they're for.

Besides, human rights tribunals aren't competent to assess intent to foment hatred or contempt, much less define what these terms mean, and they aren't obliged to guarantee the defence of truth. The Canadian Human Rights Act, for instance, fails to allow for either the truth or reasonable belief as a defence.

But in the realm of public discourse, truth matters, no matter how old-fashioned this sounds, and no matter how many post-structuralism discussion parlours will banish you for saying so. The truth that matters isn't some metaphysical notion of truth, or the kind of magical truth that is said to be culturally-dependent, but the commonplace kind that is revealed by objective facts.

The free expression of opinion also matters, and sorting out the intelligent opinions from the rubbish ones requires a robust and free "marketplace of ideas" in which opinions flourish or wither according to the good sense of the people.

The 'likely to expose' clause

Certainly the marketplace is no utopia, and in Canada, it may well be that the news media is providing an especially dystopian ideas marketplace, as author and journalism professor Marc Edge has forcefully argued, most recently here in The Tyee. But that doesn't get us away from the peril of giving human rights tribunals the job of telling us which ideas are permissible, and which ideas aren't.

Last year, in the middle of the "Mohammed cartoons" controversies, Borovoy again warned about the perils that lie on the road the Canadian Islamic Congress is now so boldly marching down.

In a multicultural country like Canada, journalistic analysis, commentary and even pedestrian news reportage, on any number of global conflicts and controversies, will inevitably result in the publication and broadcast of things that are "likely to expose" some people, sooner or later, to somebody's hatred or contempt, on the basis of their religious beliefs, ancestry or place of origin. To take all that in, human rights tribunals would have to apply "a more general restriction against the transmission of certain news or opinion," Borovoy said. "Hardly the role we had envisioned for human rights commissions."

It's hardly what Canadians had envisioned for multiculturalism, either.

When pollsters ask Canadians what they think of multiculturalism as a bedrock national value, most of us say we like it even better than hockey. We haven't had to be bludgeoned by political-correctness police to think this way. It comes naturally to us, and as uber-pollster Michael Adams has found, we're quite happy with it, thanks. Yes, we worry. And by "we," I'm including the 700,000-plus Muslims that the Canadian Islamic Congress claims to speak for, nearly 90 per cent of whom are foreign-born. Statistics Canada data and Environics polling results show that most of us think new immigrants aren't adopting Canadian values fast enough. But most of us also think that even though Canada has the highest rate of immigration of any country on earth, we're still not taking in too many immigrants.

Newcomers continue to face a range of problems, including racism, but the vast majority of recent immigrants say they're happy they came and they're better off for coming. Their kids are actually doing better, economically, than children whose parents were born here.

Nine of every 10 Canadian Muslims say they're proud Canadians, and almost as many think Canada is headed in the right direction. They explain their optimism in ways no different than anyone else: This is a free and democratic country and it's a pretty friendly place, besides.

Canada's multicultural strength

There are serious problems with Islamist radicals in Canada. The Muslim Canadian Congress -- which is routinely badmouthed by the Canadian Islamic Congress -- has had to point this out, time and again.

Still, this is not Britain, with its radical core of Islamists bullies, where Westminster foolishly grants official-voice status to radical imams, and where the mayor of London is happy to roll out the red carpet for misogynists and homophobes. This is not France, with its rioting banlieues and its weird rules against headscarves and crucifixes in the classrooms. And this is not the United States, where paralysis sets in almost the minute a public debate involving race or immigration begins.

These countries are better than us, in many ways. But in matters of multicultural harmony, Canada rides shotgun to nobody.

The Canadian Islamic Congress says Maclean's magazine is trying to drive a horrible wedge between Muslims and everyone else. It says Maclean's is "attempting to import a racist discourse and language into mainstream discourse in Canadian society."

If that's true, the magazine is doing a lousy job of it. The sinister plot is clearly not working.

But the Canadian Islamic Congress can say what it likes.

It's a free country.

 
December 14, 2007
Votes: +0

Write comment
smaller | bigger

busy
 

adsense

Top