Ex-Mossad Chief Give Warning to West

[Adam's Apple]

He could very well be right.

'We're on the eve of World War III'
By Aaron Klein and John Batchelor, World Net Daily
March 28, 2006

JERUSALEM – Global civilization is on the verge of "World War III," a massive conflict in which the Islamic world will attempt to impose its ideology on Western nations, according to Meir Amit, a former director of Israel's Mossad intelligence agency.

Amit, one of the most esteemed figures in the international defense establishment, warned Islamic nations and global Islamist groups will continue launching "all kinds of attacks" against Western states. He urged the international community to immediately unite and coordinate a strategy to fight against the "Islamic war."

"We are on the eve of war with the Islamic world, which will wage a war and all kinds of actions and attacks against the Western world. We already noticed the terrorists in the world hit Spain, England, France. I call it World War III. You must look at it from this angle and treat it wider, not as a problem of terrorism here and there," said Amit, speaking during an exclusive interview with WND's Aaron Klein and ABC Radio's John Batchelor broadcast on Batchelor's national program, for which Klein serves as a co-host. (Listen to the Amit interview.)

Amit served as Mossad chief from 1963 to 1968. He directed some of the most notorious Mossad operations during that time and pioneered many of the tactics currently used by intelligence agencies worldwide. The subject of multiple books and movies, Amit is routinely described as a "living legend." Now in his mid-80s, Amit serves as chairman of Israel's Center for Special Studies.

The former intelligence chief referenced recent terror attacks against Israel, Europe and the United States; Iran's alleged nuclear ambitions; the insurgency in Iraq and Afghanistan; and worldwide Muslim riots.

"It looks to me like it is a kind of coordinated or contemplated problem to somehow impose the Islamic idea all over the world," Amit said.

for full article:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/printer-friendly.asp?ARTICLE_ID=49459

 

[Annie]

He could very well be right.

'We're on the eve of World War III'
By Aaron Klein and John Batchelor, World Net Daily
March 28, 2006

JERUSALEM – Global civilization is on the verge of "World War III," a massive conflict in which the Islamic world will attempt to impose its ideology on Western nations, according to Meir Amit, a former director of Israel's Mossad intelligence agency.

Amit, one of the most esteemed figures in the international defense establishment, warned Islamic nations and global Islamist groups will continue launching "all kinds of attacks" against Western states. He urged the international community to immediately unite and coordinate a strategy to fight against the "Islamic war."

"We are on the eve of war with the Islamic world, which will wage a war and all kinds of actions and attacks against the Western world. We already noticed the terrorists in the world hit Spain, England, France. I call it World War III. You must look at it from this angle and treat it wider, not as a problem of terrorism here and there," said Amit, speaking during an exclusive interview with WND's Aaron Klein and ABC Radio's John Batchelor broadcast on Batchelor's national program, for which Klein serves as a co-host. (Listen to the Amit interview.)

Amit served as Mossad chief from 1963 to 1968. He directed some of the most notorious Mossad operations during that time and pioneered many of the tactics currently used by intelligence agencies worldwide. The subject of multiple books and movies, Amit is routinely described as a "living legend." Now in his mid-80s, Amit serves as chairman of Israel's Center for Special Studies.

The former intelligence chief referenced recent terror attacks against Israel, Europe and the United States; Iran's alleged nuclear ambitions; the insurgency in Iraq and Afghanistan; and worldwide Muslim riots.

"It looks to me like it is a kind of coordinated or contemplated problem to somehow impose the Islamic idea all over the world," Amit said.

for full article:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/printer-friendly.asp?ARTICLE_ID=49459

I've thought this for years now. The 'West' could leave the Middle East, it still wouldn't stop. The invasion of Europe is well underway and only the Danes seem to really recognize it.

 

[Adam's Apple]

Yep, Kathianne. No one wants to deal with it, to be truthful. The big question is whether the West (particularly Europe) will shake off its lethargy before it's entirely too late, or will their anti-Semitism do them in?

 

[Gunny]

Yep, Kathianne. No one wants to deal with it, to be truthful. The big question is whether the West (particularly Europe) will shake off its lethargy before it's entirely too late, or will their anti-Semitism do them in?

Does it look like anyone is shaking off the lethargy? The world map looks like an ostrich farm to me.

We're going to keep screwing around and playing international political gridlock games which plays right into the hands of nations like Iran. Then, when they announce they already have nukes, the ostriches will all look at the US and want to know why we didn't do anything to prevent it.

 

[Annie]

Does it look like anyone is shaking off the lethargy? The world map looks like an ostrich farm to me.

We're going to keep screwing around and playing international political gridlock games which plays right into the hands of nations like Iran. Then, when they announce they already have nukes, the ostriches will all look at the US and want to know why we didn't do anything to prevent it.

Here's more to your point:

http://vodkapundit.com/archives/008750.php

Beating the Drum
Posted by Stephen Green · 5 April 2006

Kevin Drum asks, “What’s the plan?” for winning in Iraq. When Glenn Reynolds said President Bush is losing the hawks who would do “whatever it takes” to win, Drum complained that, “Like most slogan-driven hawks, however, he doesn't follow this up with a definition of what he means by ‘whatever it takes.’”

Drum has a fair complaint. There hasn’t been enough talk about victory – by warbloggers, by the mainstream media, by Bush, or even by left-leaning writers like Kevin Drum. So we’re going to have that discussion right now.

Victory depends on your definition of the word, and Drum doesn’t supply one - even while he complains that nobody else has.

Do you define it to include beating the insurgency (AKA, covert invasion) and allowing a free and independent Iraq to evolve? If that’s the case, then we’re looking at a commitment like the one we have now, for at least ten years. Perhaps as long as fifty. Don’t look so shocked – those are the numbers I gave you before and after the initial invasion, and without ever promising victory.

Do you define victory down, and just mean to beat the insurgents? If that’s the case, Drum’s complaint becomes a little silly. We know how to beat insurgencies, and the West has a pretty good record of doing just that. Jim Dunnigan explained how six years ago. If the means (or successes) are any surprise to Drum, that’s his own damn fault.

Or do you define victory another way? You could say that winning means doing what we set out to do in March, 2002. You know: toppling the dictator, cutting his ties to al Qaeda and Hamas, eliminating any WMD or expertise for making them in the future, and giving the Iraqis a chance to taste freedom. If that’s your definition, then, hey, mission accomplished. The fact that the Coalition is still around, still bleeding, speaks well of us. And slightly less well of those who would have us cut and run.

If the Iraqis fail in their quest for modernity and justice, it won’t be because the Coalition didn’t stay and help. Besides, building a real nation from the oppressed scraps of three is hard work. It’s obvious that Drum wishes we hadn’t, and Iraq won’t have a chance if we Drum out of the country. If I read him right, Drum prefers the Good Old Days when Saddam was killing at least as many Iraqis as the insurgency is, and UN sanctions were killing even more. Drum would prefer that Iraq remain under Saddam’s boot, then to even allow them a chance at freedom. I’m proud to say we took a different course.

Drum worries warbloggers want to reinstate the draft, or that we’ll have to raise taxes (no complaint here – we’ve got to pay for this war), or that we’ll endorse a “permanent military occupation of the entire Middle East.”

We might fail. The only certainties in war are spent treasure and spilt blood. Our attempt, though it might prove foolish, to create a stable, free, and prosperous Iraq is an attempt to avoid the kind of regional conflagration Drum thinks we want. Does he not realize that? And if he does, is Drum unable to see far enough past his own snark to know that leaving the Middle East to its own devices virtually guarantees a regional conflict? And – oh, yeah – hasn’t Drum noticed that we do seem to be winning?

“Whatever it takes” is what we’re trying to avoid. Whatever we're doing might just be working.

 

[Gunny]

Or do you define victory another way? You could say that winning means doing what we set out to do in March, 2002. You know: toppling the dictator, cutting his ties to al Qaeda and Hamas, eliminating any WMD or expertise for making them in the future, and giving the Iraqis a chance to taste freedom. If that’s your definition, then, hey, mission accomplished. The fact that the Coalition is still around, still bleeding, speaks well of us. And slightly less well of those who would have us cut and run.

If the Iraqis fail in their quest for modernity and justice, it won’t be because the Coalition didn’t stay and help. Besides, building a real nation from the oppressed scraps of three is hard work. It’s obvious that Drum wishes we hadn’t, and Iraq won’t have a chance if we Drum out of the country. If I read him right, Drum prefers the Good Old Days when Saddam was killing at least as many Iraqis as the insurgency is, and UN sanctions were killing even more. Drum would prefer that Iraq remain under Saddam’s boot, then to even allow them a chance at freedom. I’m proud to say we took a different course.

I'm a believer in this one. We got rid of Saddam, the people voted in a government, and as soon as that government is capable of sustaining itself, our mission is accomplished.

Getting embroiled in Iraq's internal civil war holds nothing good for the US, and I don't believe there would be enough long-term support at home for us to accomplish anything.

The problem is, this logic is overshadowed by the rantings of left, who will paint ANYTHING Bush does to break off engagement as a failure.

 

[Annie]

I'm a believer in this one. We got rid of Saddam, the people voted in a government, and as soon as that government is capable of sustaining itself, our mission is accomplished.

Getting embroiled in Iraq's internal civil war holds nothing good for the US, and I don't believe there would be enough long-term support at home for us to accomplish anything.

The problem is, this logic is overshadowed by the rantings of left, who will paint ANYTHING Bush does to break off engagement as a failure.

I like this guy, he often finds himself ahead of the curve, but a few months or even years short. He reminds me of myself. :tng: Oftentimes he has a concept in his sites, but fails to carry it through to the end. Falling just short of being spot on.