Remember When Michael Coren Advocated That 'We Should Nuke Iran'?
In 2006, extremist Right Wing commentator, Michael Coren, who writes for the Toronto Sun demanded that 'we' drop nuclear weapons on Iran. Coren's article has now completely disappeared from the Toronto Sun's website and archives.
Why is this terrible article noteworthy? Well, for starters had Coren's advice been followed, the people of Iran would not be able to struggle for their own political destiny as they are now doing.
Clearly, it is up to the Iranian people to determine what form of government they will have and what type of society they will live in. The current struggle in the streets of Tehran is important because Iran is 'self-determining'. Had they been 'nuked' as the irresponsible Mr. Coren wanted, democracy would have had no real chance to struggle and bloom.
The total irresponsibility of Coren's demand should not just evaporate away as a footnote of Canadian political commentary, remembered by only a handful of political junkies. Since the Toronto Sun has attempted to sanitize itself by dropping Coren's awful article, here it is in its entirety, the full text of Michael Coren's call for a nuclear attack on Iran.
We Should Nuke Iran
Toronto Sun
Saturday, September 2, 2006
By 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.
Not, of course, the unleashing of full-scale thermo-nuclear war on the Persian people, but a limited and tactical use of nuclear weapons to destroy Iran'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 missiles and rockets of mass destruction are guarded and maintained by men with the highest of security clearance and thus supportive of the Tehran 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 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 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:
The Shahab 3ER missile, with a range of more than 2,000 km, and the BM25 and accompanying launchers, which are so powerful that they can hit targets in Europe. Raad missiles with a range of 350km. The Misaq anti-aircraft missile, which can be fired from the shoulder. The Fajar 3 radar-evading missile and the Ajdar underwater missile, which travels at an extraordinarily high speed and is almost impossible to intercept. The Zaltal and the Fatah 110 rocket, the Scud B and Scud C and the BM25 with a range of 3,500 kms.
Iran 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 Tehran has Russian Kh55 cruise missiles stolen from Ukraine which are now being copied in large numbers by Iranian 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 has no aggressive enemies in the region.
Its fanatical leader, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, controls a brutal police state, finances international terror and provokes bloody wars in foreign countries. It is unimaginably wealthy because of its oil revenues and is committed, in its leader's words, to "rolling back 300 years of Western ascendancy" and wiping another nation, Israel, from the face of the earth.
A conventional attack would be insufficient because Iran 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."
POSTSCRIPT:
One year later, in the October 20th, 2007 edition of the Toronto Sun, Michael Coren gave a qualified retraction of his call for nuclear attack on Iran:
"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."
Mr. Coren WAS wrong. He continues to be wrong on many, many of his conservative opinions. He is an extremist in his political and social views. Shame on the Toronto Sun for continuing to carry his radical opinions!
Why is this terrible article noteworthy? Well, for starters had Coren's advice been followed, the people of Iran would not be able to struggle for their own political destiny as they are now doing.
Clearly, it is up to the Iranian people to determine what form of government they will have and what type of society they will live in. The current struggle in the streets of Tehran is important because Iran is 'self-determining'. Had they been 'nuked' as the irresponsible Mr. Coren wanted, democracy would have had no real chance to struggle and bloom.
The total irresponsibility of Coren's demand should not just evaporate away as a footnote of Canadian political commentary, remembered by only a handful of political junkies. Since the Toronto Sun has attempted to sanitize itself by dropping Coren's awful article, here it is in its entirety, the full text of Michael Coren's call for a nuclear attack on Iran.
We Should Nuke Iran
Toronto Sun
Saturday, September 2, 2006
By 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.
Not, of course, the unleashing of full-scale thermo-nuclear war on the Persian people, but a limited and tactical use of nuclear weapons to destroy Iran'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 missiles and rockets of mass destruction are guarded and maintained by men with the highest of security clearance and thus supportive of the Tehran 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 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 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:
The Shahab 3ER missile, with a range of more than 2,000 km, and the BM25 and accompanying launchers, which are so powerful that they can hit targets in Europe. Raad missiles with a range of 350km. The Misaq anti-aircraft missile, which can be fired from the shoulder. The Fajar 3 radar-evading missile and the Ajdar underwater missile, which travels at an extraordinarily high speed and is almost impossible to intercept. The Zaltal and the Fatah 110 rocket, the Scud B and Scud C and the BM25 with a range of 3,500 kms.
Iran 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 Tehran has Russian Kh55 cruise missiles stolen from Ukraine which are now being copied in large numbers by Iranian 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 has no aggressive enemies in the region.
Its fanatical leader, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, controls a brutal police state, finances international terror and provokes bloody wars in foreign countries. It is unimaginably wealthy because of its oil revenues and is committed, in its leader's words, to "rolling back 300 years of Western ascendancy" and wiping another nation, Israel, from the face of the earth.
A conventional attack would be insufficient because Iran 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."
POSTSCRIPT:
One year later, in the October 20th, 2007 edition of the Toronto Sun, Michael Coren gave a qualified retraction of his call for nuclear attack on Iran:
"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."
Mr. Coren WAS wrong. He continues to be wrong on many, many of his conservative opinions. He is an extremist in his political and social views. Shame on the Toronto Sun for continuing to carry his radical opinions!
Hey, let's be careful about condemning viewpoints for being "radical".
Radical means fundamental or to the root. Not so bad, eh?
Besides, surely you don't believe the truth is *always* "somewhere in the middle", as the hoary cliche goes. Sometimes the truth or the best option is at an "extreme." (The world is round; the world is flat; the world is oblong?)
Coren's column was wrong for advocating great violence and destruction against innocent civilians, not because it was "radical".
Posted by
Mike |
1:15 pm, June 18, 2009
Iran has one Ahmadinejad; Canada has two: Stephen Kang Ahmadinejad and Michael Kodos Ahmadinejad.
Posted by
Skinny Dipper |
1:56 pm, June 18, 2009
The Toronto Sun used to advertise itself as the "Little Newspaper that Grew". Then along came Coren and others and circulation declined and continues to decline.
Coren has a program on Crossroads TV and that whole operation is under investigaton because of a Ponzi scheme. People wonder where the Huntley Street regulars are, they've been off the air pending investigation. And that's the type of station that would host Coren. Definitely not CBC or CTV; not even Global for pity's sake!
Coren is on CFRB Toronto,a station in 6th place is listenership and one that skews to older men for its audience.
Coren is a liability, the male version of Typhoid Mary, a runty little pig of a so-called man.
Posted by
Anonymous |
5:03 pm, June 18, 2009
I think Mike's trying too hard to be Canada's Rush Limbaugh; but he gets extra irony points for being an immigrant who thinks he can change Canada, while all the time hating immigrants who who want to celebrate their heritage.
Posted by
KNW |
12:29 pm, June 27, 2009