HK, you may find this article at American Thinker relevant in light of the current discussion:

One often hears the argument that if Iran can live with an Israeli nuclear bomb, why can't Israel live with an Iranian bomb? The answer is that no Israeli leader threatens to eradicate Iran.

Since world public opinion will blame the Israelis for whatever they do preemptively to save themselves, they might as well do what's needed and what works. Israel must, with or without American help, strike first and strike successfully. It must take out not only Iran's nuclear weaponry, but its delivery systems and its command and control centers because it is always better for Jews to be alive and condemned, than dead and eulogized.

Many of us here at NB recognize I'm-a-teeny-weeny-job's threats as the standard islamofascist demand to convert to Islam (and by default give up Israel), submit to dhimmitude, or die.  Andrew Bostom at American Thinker has written extensively on this phenomenon and shown that it is historically intrinsic to islam:

Violent jihad warfare on infidels is the norm, not the exception, in Islamic history. Once successful, jihad leads to the imposition of humiliating, degrading, violent, and expensive oppression under dhimmitude, the institutionalized imposition of lowly status upon those who refuse to abandon their faith and adopt Islam. Among the worst victims of jihad and dhimmitude have been the Jews and Christians who lived in historic Palestine...

...

The essential pattern of the jihad war is captured in the great Muslim historian al—Tabari' s recording of the recommendation given by Umar b. al—Khattab to the commander of the troops he sent to al—Basrah (636 C.E.), during the conquest of Iraq. Umar reportedly said:

Summon the people to God; those who respond to your call, accept it from them, (This is to say, accept their conversion as genuine and refrain from fighting them) but those who refuse must pay the poll tax out of humiliation and lowliness. (Qur'an 9:29) If they refuse this, it is the sword without leniency. Fear God with regard to what you have been entrusted. [3]...

...By the time of the classical Muslim historian al—Tabari's death in 923, jihad wars had expanded the Muslim empire from Portugal to the Indian subcontinent. Subsequent Muslim conquests continued in Asia, as well as Eastern Europe. The Christian kingdoms of Armenia, Byzantium, Bulgaria, Serbia, Bosnia, Herzegovina, Croatia, and Albania, in addition to parts of Poland and Hungary, were also conquered and Islamized.

Arab Muslim invaders engaged, additionally, in continuous jihad raids that ravaged and enslaved Sub—Saharan African animist populations, extending to the southern Sudan. When the Muslim armies were stopped at the gates of Vienna in 1683, over a millennium of jihad had transpired. These tremendous military successes spawned a triumphalist jihad literature. Muslim historians recorded in detail the number of infidels slaughtered, or enslaved and deported, the cities and villages which were pillaged, and the lands, treasure, and movable goods seized. Christian (Coptic, Armenian, Jacobite, Greek, Slav, etc.), as well as Hebrew sources, and even the scant Hindu and Buddhist writings which survived the ravages of the Muslim conquests, independently validate this narrative, and ,complement the Muslim perspective by providing testimonies of the suffering of the non—Muslim victims of jihad wars. [8]

In The Laws of Islamic Governance al—Mawardi (d. 1058), a renowned jurist of Baghdad, examined the regulations pertaining to the lands and infidel (i.e., non—Muslim) populations subjugated by jihad. This is the origin of the system of dhimmitude. The native infidel population had to recognize Islamic ownership of their land, submit to Islamic law, and accept payment of the poll tax (jizya).

He notes that "The enemy makes a payment in return for peace and reconciliation. " Al— Mawardi then distinguishes two cases: (I) Payment is made immediately and is treated like booty, "it does, however, not prevent a jihad being carried out against them in the future. ". (II). Payment is made yearly and will "constitute an ongoing tribute by which their security is established".

Reconciliation and security last as long as the payment is made. If the payment ceases, then the jihad resumes. A treaty of reconciliation may be renewable, but must not exceed 10 years. [9]...

Source:  The Legacy of Jihad in Historical Palestine(Part I)

And, just so we understand the nature of what we are currently dealing with, rather than far off history:

Here is bin Laden himself explaining the "true" nature of the relationship between Muslims and non-Muslims, such as Americans, AKA, "infidels":

"As to the relationship between Muslims and infidels, this is summarized by the Most High's Word: ‘We renounce you. Enmity and hate shall forever reign between us - till you believe in Allah alone' [Koran 60:4]. So there is an enmity, evidenced by fierce hostility from the heart. And this fierce hostility - that is, battle - ceases only if the infidel submits to the authority of Islam, or if his blood is forbidden from being shed [i.e., a dhimmi], or if Muslims are at that point in time weak and incapable [in which case, bin Laden later clarifies, they should dissemble (taqiyya) before the infidels by, say, insisting the conflict is about "foreign policy," nothing more]. But if the hate at any time extinguishes from the heart, this is great apostasy! ... Such, then, is the basis and foundation of the relationship between the infidel and the Muslim. Battle, animosity, and hatred - directed from the Muslim to the infidel - is the foundation of our religion."

...

In his attack against "moderate" Muslims, bin Laden rhetorically asks and answers the pivotal question:

"Does Islam, or does it not, force people by the power of the sword to submit to its authority corporeally if not spiritually? Yes. There are only three choices in Islam: either willing submission; or payment of the jizya [tribute], through physical though not spiritual submission to the authority of Islam; or the sword - for it is not right to let him [an infidel] live."

...

Nor is this worldview "peculiar" to bin Laden. Here's his Second, Ayman Zawahiri:

"Jihad in the path of Allah is greater than any individual or organization. It is a struggle between Truth and Falsehood, until Allah Almighty inherits the earth and those who live in it. Mullah Muhammad Omar and Sheikh Osama bin Laden-may Allah protect them from all evil-are merely two soldiers of Islam in the journey of Jihad, while the struggle between Truth and Falsehood transcends time."

Source:  Osama Bin Laden as Robin Hood?  (An interesting article strongly criticising ex-CIA agent Michael Scheur's view of Islam and Jihad)

This is not just some little piss-ant dictator trying to look big in the eyes of his buds.  He was installed by the mullahs.  They have the same world view as he does.  Bin Laden may be a different sect, but he and his are on the same page as far as Israel and the U.S. are concerned.  This is a religious war decalared by them, purposely unrecognized by many world leaders/politicians of the western style democracies.  The Islamist forces made it to Tours in 732 A.D., and were finally driven out of Spain many years later.  Again, in September 1683, the Muslims attempted to push further into Europe at Vienna, but were defeated.  Now, financed by new oil wealth, they are on the march again, but this time are busily using the distorted liberality of the western democracies against them to take over from within, if possible.  This is not over by a long shot.

Either we fight this creeping islamic aplogism or the day will come when our grandchildren will be forced to convert or suffer the same fate millions of dhimmis have suffered since this religion of conquest erupted.

BTW, HK, thanks for the info on the greens.  It was news to me.

"The future is not set.  There is no fate but what we make for ourselves."

michaelyon-online.com

"The future is not set.  There is no fate but what we make for ourselves."

michaelyon-online.com