Former US ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton told Tory delegates in Britain Sunday that efforts by the UK and the EU to negotiate with Iran had failed and that he saw no alternative to a pre-emptive strike on suspected nuclear facilities in the country.A very sad thing about how the British navy sailors were freed is that the UK may have paid Iran to get them back (H/T: Molten Thought). If that's so, I'd say it makes England an unreliable partner in the GWOT.
Bolton said that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was "pushing out" and "is not receiving adequate push-back" from the West. "I don't think the use of military force is an attractive option, but I would tell you I don't know what the alternative is.
"Because life is about choices, I think we have to consider the use of military force. I think we have to look at a limited strike against their nuclear facilities."
He added that any strike should be followed by an attempt to remove the "source of the problem", Ahmadinejad.
"If we were to strike Iran it should be accompanied by an effort at regime change ... The US once had the capability to engineer the clandestine overthrow of governments. I wish we could get it back," he said.
Bolton said that the fact that only partial intelligence about Iran's nuclear activity existed should not be used as an excuse not to act.
"Intelligence can be wrong in more than one direction... Responding after they (nuclear devices) are used is unacceptable."
Bolton also said the UN was "fundamentally irrelevant".
The former envoy criticized Britain's "softly softly" approach to Iran's imprisonment of 15 British sailors in April.
They were released after Ahmadinejad announced he was making a "gift" to the British people. "They [Iran] got no response from the UK or the US. If you were the Iranian leader, what conclusion do you draw?"
Sunday, September 30, 2007
My son lives in Sweden and he just told me that one of the newspapers says
that the EU is concerned about discrimination and will have a survey asking
people what their race is. Some Swedish politician said that if this is allowed
they will soon have passports stamped Jew.
I told my son when he receives it to answer the question with the answer Human Race. If enough people do this they will have to decide that there is no such race as human, or ask nationality. This is as far as I am concerned a way
to pass special laws protecting Muslims.
Sorry I don’t have more info. I am sure you can track it down.
P.S. Sorry for any spelling errors, but I am furious.
Read the rest at The Gathering Storm.
Targeted because you aren’t MohammedanBy Bram Logger
UTRECHT - Expelled from school. Not because you are a bully, but because you are bullied. It happened to Cyril Teissier (9) on the Zuilen primary school ‘The Circle’.
“It’s really frustrating that we have this discrimination, for that’s what it is; we couldn’t stop it,’’ said internal school manager Annet van der Ree.
As the only white and Christian Dutch boy in class, Cyril in group 5 was bullied so much by his Moroccan classmates that school management thought it better to send him to a different school. The bullying kids kept on doing that: kicking, beating, intimidating, and excluding him from his classmates.
Cyril’s parents, Laurent and Laura Teissier, deliberately chose to send all their kids to the ‘black’ primary school “The Circle”. Cyril’s older sisters (now 15 and 19) went there. “Because of the warm atmosphere, and also because it is a minority school, which receives a lot of extra financial attention from the government. That’s why there is always something nice going on there. We never had any problems with our two older kids.”
Unfortunately, Cyril wasn’t that lucky. “It started in group 5. He had two friends. They started to beat him and bully him more and more often. And laugh, when he was in pain,” according to Laura. “When two new (Moroccan) boys joined the class, things went seriously wrong. They wanted to prove themselves and incited the others to bully Cyril even more.
“Often Cyril was beaten. The school soccer field was only for Moroccan boys; you cannot play there, they said to him. And if he wanted to play with the girls in class, he was called a faggot. His only friend in class, a Turkish boy, fell for peer pressure and joined the bullies. He wasn’t a Moroccan, but at least he was a Muslim. Thus, better than Cyril.”
After each incident the school sat around the table with the bullies. They promised not to do it again. But more often than not, the very next day they broke their promises.
(Pastorius note: Sound familiar? Sounds an awful lot like what happens when we try to negotiate with the Iranians and the Palestinians, doesn't it?)
In the end, Cyril couldn’t bear it any longer. He didn’t want to go to school any more. He remained in his bed, and asked to be sent to a different school. The school management thought this was the best solution too.
“Let Cyril go three more years to a nice school. This will only get worse,” said Van der Ree. “I told Cyril’s parents they should for once let idealism not interfere with the welfare of their child.
In the meantime, Cyril is now very happy in group 6 on the Montessori school in Oog in Al.
“Twenty minutes cycling, not really convenient,” said Laurent Teissier. “We really dislike that. We hoped so much all our kids would get a good start in a black school. That was a failure.”
This summer a community announcement fell on the doormat of the Teissier family. It told about what a great success the “mixed school The Circle” was. “A nice safe place for all children from the community,” it said.
That was just too much for Laurent and Laura Teissier. “The school and the politicians shouldn’t behave as if there are no problems. We have the impression that bullying and discrimination by Moroccan youths against the Dutch is growing in Zuilen. Something should be done about that.”
Well, it sounds like Cyril's parents have learned a little bit of a lesson, although that 20 minute bike ride sure is inconvenient. One lesson I'm learning is that selfish parenting isn't only found in America. Jesus, that poor Cyril. What a couple of parents he's saddled with.
RIYADH: A Saudi man divorced his wife for watching alone a television programme presented by a male, an act he deemed immoral, the Al Shams newspaper reported on Saturday.
The man, whom the paper did not identify, ended his marriage on the grounds his wife was effectively alone with an unrelated man...
Weird, just plain weird. And downright absurd.
Here we have a couple with modern technology in their home and still applying the legalism of Wahhabism as applied to a television set.
President Hamid Karzai offered to meet with the Taliban leader and give militants a government position, but a spokesman for the militant group on Sunday said it will “never” negotiate with Afghan authorities until U.S. and NATO forces leave the country.Karzai made the offer only hours after a suicide bomber in army disguise attacked a military bus Saturday, killing 30 people — nearly all of them Afghan soldiers.
At the same time the Constitution of the Taliban Afghanistan has been released.
“Every Afghan has the right to express his feelings (no ideas, ehhh? only "feelings") through his views, writings or through other means in accordance with the law,” but also warns violators of Islamic thought “will be punished according to Sharia.”
And of course, if you are against Sharia, ... ehhh you know, "Obey Sharia or else".
The author, Aaron Lynch, looked at several institutions in his book — families, politics, and religion — and in the religion section, he looked at most of the major religions. Including Islam.
What can memetics (study of memes) tell us about Islam and the trouble in the Middle East?
Memetically, Islam is a very successful memeplex (group of memes). Several embedded memes help make it so. For example:
If Muslims drift away from Mohammed's teachings, God will end the world. That makes converting others and promoting Islam a matter of survival. It also motivates Muslims, as Lynch points out, "to dissuade each other from losing faith."
It is a requirement of Islamic faith to make a public prayer five times a day. The unusual posture attracts attention, and the prayers can be heard by nearby people. This helps the religion spread. And the fact that the Muslim is repeating his prayers five times a day makes it very easy for him to stay focused on his religion. It would be almost impossible for him to forget his beliefs.
Islam different from other religions in at least one important way: It began at a time and in a place where no empire constrained its spread. In other words, if you start a religion within the Roman Empire, you're going to have certain limitations. The Romans would see any new religion — especially a militant or political religion — as a threat to its power and would make sure you stayed peaceful. A religion that preached tolerance and goodwill toward others might survive, but a violent or militant or political new religion would be quashed immediately.
But Islam had no such restriction when it began, so it could incorporate "conversion by warfare" into its memeplex, and it did. As Lynch wrote, "The faith provides for a jihad or holy war, which historically led to Islamic rule over whole societies." Once a country has been attained by war, pagans were given the choice: convert to Islam or die. If any members of the newly acquired country were Christian or Jewish, they were required to pay special taxes and become a second-class citizen, unless they wanted to convert.
This information answers a question I've had for a long time. Why are there "Muslim" countries? Do you see Buddhist countries? Hindu countries? Christian countries?
I know there are countries where these religions are in the majority, but has the religion taken over the government? No. But the way Islam was created, taking over the government is what the faithful will do. Not the extremist. Not the crazy ones. The faithful Muslims, if they follow the teachings of Mohammad, will take over the government, establish the religion as the national religion, and rule using Islamic law. These memes make Islam unique among religions, and obviously causes problems for non-Muslims.
memes for war
According to the Koran, if you die while fighting for Islam, you are guaranteed eternal paradise. This meme not only encourages bravery in battle, but it encourages continual warfare against non-Muslim nations. You cannot die fighting for Islam if there is no fighting going on.
This answers another question I've had for a long time: Why can't the people in the Middle East just work out their differences and get on with their lives? My question assumes warfare is not desirable. I'm assuming war is a temporary break in an otherwise progressive, peaceful, productive life. But that is an assumption not shared by the writer of the Koran.
So continual warfare is part of the teachings of Islam.
And another meme has been added to reduce the costs of war. When men die, the ratio of women to men changes, of course, leaving widows childless or unable to take care of the children they already have. But the Koran says each man can marry up to four wives and encourages them to marry widows.
This makes the men more at ease with going to war (knowing their families will not be destitute), and makes sure warfare doesn't reduce the numbers in the next generation of warriors. In fact, even with lots of warfare and death, the numbers in the next generation can actually increase.
This is all very interesting in a detached, academic sort of way, but as you can easily surmise, this has profound implications.
How then, should the rest of the world interact with Muslim countries? The religion has slowly spread and taken over countries. Should they be stopped? How can you stop such a thing?
Hezbollah is rehearsing for something big here. Not sure what or when. But a few days ago, between 4,000 and 5,000 HezB gunmen deployed to the Christian areas of Beirut in an unsettling “show of force,” positioning themselves at road intersections and other key points throughout the city.
Two additional objectives were achieved: First, the operation served as a probing action to determine local reaction. Second, it served as an exercise to gauge the time required (speed, synchronization, etc.) to achieve the key points and intersections.
Amazingly, there was no response from the police or the army.HezB is also jamming cell-phone signals almost daily. Their lookouts are everywhere, at least from my vantage point, because they are watching the people I'm with and me.
HezB is also far better armed, equipped, and tactically proficient than most Americans might realize. They are terrorists to be sure: But they are also a very strong Iranian-trained guerrilla force here in Lebanon, and they seem to be getting a pass from far too many people in high places.
Someone really needs to ask Christine if old Mahmoud's Islamasausage tastes like pork, or what?
The New York Taxi Workers Alliance freaked out about plans to install GPS devices in cabs, because they would be used to spy on Muslims.
Fear and paranoia are driving the taxi strike planned for tomorrow and
Thursday, industry sources said yesterday.
The global-positioning systems being installed in all 13,000 cabs
will be used to target and spy on Muslims, according to pro-strike literature
being distributed by members of the New York Taxi Workers Alliance, the group
behind the two-day walkout.
I must say, their fear and paranoia is causing me to be paranoid and fearful
How about you?
Saturday, September 29, 2007
Ayn Rand identified and named the two species of anti-man, anti-life mystics that have largely governed man’s history: the mystics of spirit, and the mystics of muscle.
It is rare that two prominent mystics appear on the world stage at the same time to deliver their ultimata: Pope Benedict XVI and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran. Pope Benedict’s appearance and utterances on September 23 passed almost unnoticed, while Ahmadinejad’s appearance at Columbia University on September 24 garnered international headlines.
Columbia University’s invitation to Ahmadinejad to speak to an audience of students, faculty and the public provoked a firestorm of opposition, chiefly from those who challenged the propriety of extending the courtesy to a dictator who not only imprisons, murders and brutalizes people in his own country, but whose government funds international terrorism and whose agents are helping to kill Americans in Iraq.
Aside from the impropriety of inviting a self-proclaimed enemy to speak anywhere in this country, never mind at a noted university, there is the question of what President Lee C. Bollinger of Columbia thought he could accomplish by the invitation. He cited the prerogative of making such an invitation in the name of “free speech.”
Since the Press Law of Iran cited by Bollinger forbids criticism of the government in any form whatsoever, that is, forbids freedom of speech, why extend the right to a dictator responsible for the censorship and repression? Is the right to free speech extended to convicted criminals? By any objective standard, for having committed capital crimes, have they not forfeited the right to freedom of speech? Is not that forfeiture a part of their punishment and incarceration?
In defending his decision to invite Ahmadinejad, Bollinger said during his opening remarks at the event that “this is the right thing to do and, indeed, it is required by existing norms of free speech….”
What are those norms? Bollinger did not elaborate. Do those norms include welcoming a monster who, at his Nuremberg-like rallies in Tehran, regularly calls the U.S. the “Great Satan” and predicts and prays for its destruction at his hand?
One also must wonder what he believed he could accomplish by accusing Ahmadinejad of exhibiting “all the signs of a petty and cruel dictator,” and by reading from a list of crimes committed by the dictator. Did he expect Ahmadinejad to acknowledge the truth of Bollinger’s damnation, suffer an incapacitating guilt attack, then wreathe and weep in heart-wrenching contrition? What was the point? If he was hoping for a “robust debate” of his charges against Ahmadinejad, the robustness of the “confrontation” was an eminently one-sided one. The vulpine Ahmadinejad demonstrated agility in evasive sophistry matched only by Hillary Clinton when cornered by facts and fault.
Bollinger’s list of charges against Ahmadinejad included the jailing and execution of Iranians for demanding freedom of speech, in addition to denying the Holocaust, advocating the destruction of Israel, funding terrorism, providing men and weapons to fight Americans in Iraq, and denying that Iran is working to develop a nuclear bomb.
Ahmadinejad slithered around every one of those charges and every one of the pointed questions put to him by members of the audience. Reading a transcript of his address, there is in it not a single direct answer to any one of Bollinger’s charges or an honest answer to any of the audience’s questions.
Bollinger expressed his subtle estimate of Ahmadinejad during his rationalization of why the dictator should be allowed to speak:
“It is consistent with the idea that one should know thine enemies, to have the intellectual and emotional courage to confront the mind of evil and to prepare ourselves to act with the right temperament.”
But if the enemy is already known, and if one knows that his mind is evil (or what Bollinger characterized as Ahmadinejad’s “fanatical mindset”), why “confront” it in debate? Did we debate with Hitler of Nazi Germany or Tojo of Imperial Japan the rightness or wrongness of their aggression and atrocities?
Bollinger cautioned against “the very natural but often counter-productive impulses that lead us to retreat from engagement with ideas we dislike and fear.”
But Ahmadinejad has no idea but one: brute force. He does not wish to “engage” with ideas he dislikes and fears and which do not conform to his intrinsicist universe of Islam. Ideas emanate from minds, and it is minds he wishes to bypass and ultimately subdue or destroy – which is the leitmotif of Islam. He dismissed Bollinger’s moral indignation as irrelevant, almost comical.
Bollinger also revealed himself as an intrinsicist. His premise was that knowledge of the “good” was somehow an innate resident of Ahmadinejad’s mind as a repressed operative, and that what he wished to “discourse” with Ahmadinejad was why the dictator did not acknowledge it.
Ahmadinejad did not acknowledge it. He has his own set of intrinsic values, all subsumed under Islamic theology. He called Bollinger’s charges “insulting.”
Ahmadinejad’s address was not so much a speech or a lecture as a sermon, and he began it, appropriately enough, with an invocation. “In the name of God, the compassionate, the merciful….Oh, God, hasten the arrival of Imam al-Mahdi and grant him good health and victory and make us his followers and those to attest to his rightfulness….”
Perhaps it was lost on or forgotten by Bollinger and the audience, not to mention the press, that Ahmadinejad regards himself as the next “Mahdi,” the expected spiritual and temporal leader of Muslims, and in that role he is preparing the way for the return of the Hidden or Twelfth Imam by laying the groundwork for Armageddon or the Apocalypse. The joke was on Bollinger and the audience; the Mahdi had arrived, and he was Ahmadinejad.
Ahmadinejad’s sermon was such a vile and bizarre soufflé of Koranic references, prattlings about science, scholars, light and “realities,” oblique insinuations of the crimes of American “imperialism” past and present, commiserations about the plight of the Palestinians, and querulous babblings about the ill-treatment of Iran, that it would be fruitless to try to summarize it all here. Its general tone was a combination of an appeal to pity and an appeal to guilt.
(Ahmadinejad’s speech at the U.N. was even more bizarre. He lectured the General Assembly almost exclusively on the virtues of the Hidden Imam. But then, the U.N. is a bizarrely immoral, anti-U.S. institution anyway, which the U.S sanctions with its membership.)
If one wanted proof of Ahmadinejad’s mystical roots and fundamental irrationality, one statement of his at Columbia stands out:
“Realities of the world are not limited to physical realities and the materials, [they are] just a shadow of supreme reality. And physical creation is just one of the stories of the creation of the world.”
Ahmadinejad has read his Koran and his Kant. Both Bollinger and his “guest” are intrinsicists, but Ahmadinejad harbors a strong streak of whim-worshipping subjectivism, as well, against which Bollinger’s anger was impotent. He ended his rant with, “We are a peaceful, loving nation. We love all nations.”
He loves them enough to either conquer them or destroy them, just as Hitler loved Europe and Japan loved Asia.
One does not invite killers to a civilized venue to merely scold them for their crimes. One arrests them, or shoots them, or eradicates their murderous governments. Ahmadinejad in this instance was the enemy and should have been denied entry into this country. Instead, both Bollinger and the U.S., in the names of “fairness” and diplomatic protocol, allowed him to come here to take advantage of propaganda platforms, and he left “victorious and in good health.”
It was not Allah or God who was merciful and compassionate and who answered Ahmadinejad’s prayers. It was the State Department and the President of Columbia University. It is such mercy and compassion that will be the death of us.
Pope Benedict’s pronouncements on Sunday the 23rd were a kind of warm-up act to Ahmadinejad’s. In his own sermons, according to The Scotsman of the 24th, under the headline, “Pope urges rich to turn from Satan and help the poor,” he “denounced what he called the world’s ‘profit mind-set’…warning that money can turn people into ‘blind egoists’ as he urged the wealthy to share their riches with the poor.
“Benedict said life was about making choices between good and bad, between altruism and egoism, honesty and dishonesty….Ultimately, he said, it was about making the choice between God and Satan.”
Yes, life is about making choices, and knowing that those choices enable one to live – if one’s purpose is to live. If one makes the wrong choices, one suffers or dies. Benedict has those choices inverted, however. If one chose between good and bad by his criteria, one would indeed suffer or die. It requires honesty to assert that one owns one’s own life, and that one lives selfishly. It requires dishonesty to profess otherwise.
“…When the mind-set of sharing and solidarity prevails, you can correct your course and change it to a sustainable and equal development,” said Benedict.
“The pope called for a ‘conversion’ of economic goods,” said The Scotsman article. “’Rather than using them for self-interest, we should also think about the needs of the poor, imitating Christ,’ he said.”
Once a National Socialist, always a National Socialist. There’s a “mind-set” for you.
One might innocently pose these questions to Benedict: If the rich and the middle class heeded his altruistic homilies, and shared their wealth with the poor – then what? Who or what would generate more wealth to give away? Would not such a mass transfer of wealth trigger an economic collapse, and impoverish everyone? Would not everyone then be literally staring starvation and death in the face?
Aye, there’s the rub! That is the secret, unexpressed mutual goal of both Ahmadinejad and Pope Benedict. They are humanitarians, “lovers” of mankind, mystics of muscle and mind.
Rand had personal names for them: Attila and the Witch Doctor.
Crossposted at The Dougout
"to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. "
And, as I always say, if the governments of the world can not get that through their thick skulls, then regime change will be necessary.
We here at the Infidel Bloggers Alliance call on our governments to protect us from the radical Jihadi terrorist cells in our midst. If we find that our governments can not effect such protection, then they will be abolished and replaced. That is my promise to them.
So, let it serve as a warning, if we are attacked, we demand that you respond with greater force than that with which we are attacked. We demand that you put down our enemies. We demand that our government provide that which is necessary for our "Safety and Happiness."
That being said, let us read about Iran's proxy war against America. One has to wonder just how far our government believes they can let things go before our "Safety and Happiness" is disrupted.
The Claremont Institute’s National Security Studies series is devoted to the serious discussion of what will be required to defend the United States and the West. Our Declaration of Independence teaches that government is instituted among men to secure life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The Constitution’s injunction to provide for the “common defense” requires a vigorous and vigilant approach to national security. American foreign policy dedicated to the security of the interests and rights of its citizens requires not only informed and prudent statesmanship, but also a responsible citizenry that is engaged in the national discussion about friends and foes. It is in this tradition of spirited self-government that we publish these studies.
Iran has long been one of the leading state sponsors of terrorism worldwide. Iran’s ruling mullahs are extending their regional influence in the fog of the Iraq conflict. Their pursuit of nuclear weapons and a robust ballistic missile capability continues apace. Thomas Joscelyn argues that Iran is guilty of far more.
An emboldened Iran has vicariously waged war against America for nearly three decades, yet America’s leaders are unwilling to admit what is plain for all to see.Because of our reluctance to confront this terrorist state openly, we are losing ground on a vital front in our war against radical Islam. Through careful analysis of open sources, Joscelyn explains both the intelligence establishment’s misreading of history and the numerous but unfounded assumptions by today’s elite concerning Iran and its link to terrorist operations.
One of the most damaging and unwarranted assumptions made is that sectarian differences within Islam should prevent cooperation in operations against the West. A brief look at the evidence shows that Iran and others have had no trouble in putting aside differences in theology to harm their enemies, especially America.
Specific links include the Iranian connection to al-Qaeda in the Sudan, a partnership brokered by Hassan al-Turabi, one-time leader of Sudan’s ruling party, the National Islamic Front. Next, there is Imad Mugniyah, Hezbollah’s master terrorist, who helped Osama bin Laden upgrade al-Qaeda’s capabilities in the early 1990s.
The 1996 Khobar Towers bombing, long suspected to be the handiwork of Hezbollah under direction from Iran, may also have had a junior partner in al-Qaeda. The 9/11 Commission established that the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania were the work of Hezbollah-trained al-Qaeda operatives.
There are disturbing signs that may implicate Iran in, at the very least, facilitating travel for some of the 9/11 hijackers. Finally, there is extensive evidence that Iran aided al-Qaeda’s retreat from Afghanistan in late 2001 and has allowed al-Qaeda agents to operate from Iranian soil ever since.Recognizing this pattern is a prerequisite to restoring a sound policy towards Iran. We must be honest about Iran’s past actions over the last three decades.
Read the whole thing.
Jonz, who is British himself, and I tried to explain to the BNP people that immigrants are not the problem but, instead, the problem is immigrants who will not assimilate. The preponderence of immigrants who will not assimilate are Muslims. So, in general, most of the problems with immigration in the Western world are caused by Muslims.
Anyway, here in America, we have a problem with Mexican immigration, but it is not dangerous in quite the same way as Muslim immigration is. Mexican truck drivers, for instance, are just trying to make a living. They are very unlikely to detonate a nuclear warhead in one of our major cities.
Anyway, my larger point here is, look at this guy. He's Mexican, by heritage. But, he's a real American.
I friggin' love America. We're such a ballsy, obnoxious group of mofos. I totally love it. Even our women walk with an imperious swagger.
So long Halloween parade. Farewell Santa's gift shop.
The long-celebrated holiday traditions are facing elimination in some
Oak Lawnschools this year after complaints the activities are offensive, particularly to Muslim students.
Final decisions on which of the festivities will be axed will fall to the principals at each of
122's five schools, Supt. Tom Smyth said. Ridgeland School District
Parents expect the announcement to add to the tension that's been building since school administrators agreed earlier this month to change the lunch menu to exclude items containing pork to accommodate Muslim students. News that Jell-O was struck from the menu caused such a stir that officials since have agreed to bring the popular dessert back.
Jello?! Is anti-Islamic?
Read the rest at The Gathering Storm.
Read the rest at The Gathering Storm.
It is my judgement that Iran, while blustering, IS FULLY confident of victory in any set of circumstances, and this guides their policy
Now we can either see this stuff as Saddam like WMD emptiness or not, but if it's a bluff, it is one which will guarantee actions by the people which it is intended to fake out, thus guaranteeing its own failure as a policy.Iran threatens counterstrike at Israel with 600-missile arsenal
Iran has prepared a vast intermediate-range missile arsenal for an attack on Israel and U.S. targets throughout the Middle East. Iranian military sources said Teheran has amassed an arsenal of 600 Shihab-3 and -4 missiles, with a range of up to 2,000 kilometers.
"A key target will be Israel's nuclear site at Dimona," a military source said.
The sources said Teheran has deployed its arsenal in both western and northern Iran. They said much of the arsenal has been directed toward Israel and could destroy the Jewish state in a first strike.
Iran missile test in 2004 [ZOOM].
Iran's missile arsenal has been tested several times. In January 2007, Teheran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps conducted a massive missile exercise that demonstrated its capability to fire more than 100 missiles in a single salvo.
Capt. Mohammed Rostami, a member of the Iranian Center for Military Studies, said Iran has developed an arsenal that does not depend on Western suppliers. Rostami said Iran has developed an advanced command and control system that could ensure the launch of 600 Shihab-3 and -4 missiles within a minute.
The first salvo, Rostami said, would be followed by others as mobile launchers concealed by the huge Iranian mountains in the north and west of the country. He did not rule out that Iran would install nonconventional weapons in missile warheads.
Today Ahmadinejad announced that the US govt was responsible for 9/11 as a pretext for invading the middle east (Afghanistan and Iraq among others).
What shall we make of such people who believe this stuff, threaten our people and our allies with extinction for 28 years WITHOUT CESSATION , and believe fervently that in the event of Armageddon, a perfect being will come out of a well to bring peace and happiness? Will the world be more stable if they do all this AND have nuclear weapons? Will our lives be better? WIll even people in the street in Teheran be better off if Israel maintains all 300-600+ nukes on launch on warning status? Who, there, would hesitate 5 seconds over a radar signature arcing towards a state a few miles wide given what all leaders there in Iran say and profess for more than a generation?
Now this from Gertz:
New IRGC commander focusing on his strengths: WMD and assymetrical warfare
WASHINGTON — The new commander of Iran's elite military force is charged with developing weapons of mass destruction.
A report by the Washington-based Middle East Media Research Institute asserted that Gen. Mohammed Ali Aziz Jaafari, the new commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), would focus on building Iran's military capabilities. The report said that unlike his predecessor, Jaafari was not involved in regime politics and would focus on enhancing Iran's missile arsenal.
"In speeches he has given since his appointment, Jaafari has outlined the strategy he means to promote as IRGC commander, reiterating his commitment to developing Iran's ballistic missile capabilities and the asymmetrical warfare capacities of the IRGC," the report, dated Sept. 19, said.
A military truck carries a long-range Iranian Shihab-3 missile during an annual military parade in Tehran. AFP/Atta Kenare
On Sept. 1, Jaafari replaced IRGC commander Gen. Yahya Rahim Safavi in what was regarded as an unexpected appointment. Safavi, commander of IRGC for a decade, was replaced amid dissatisfaction by Iranian supreme leader Ali Khamenei with rising domestic unrest. Safavi was said to have threatened to resign several times as part of a power struggle.
Of course, the IRGC, which for all purposes can be considered to be Hizballah, and HAMAS, and the Waffen SS all rolled in to one for both internal and external purposes, WILL be either the instrument of the mullahs actions or the victim of the US and or Israel. It's one or the other, and if you don't believe me ..you SHOULD believe the people who are responsible for guessing with money about what is ahead. They are betting on THINGS, not nations, now.
Even if you decide not to add your avatar to each posting, I still recommend that you add your name-label. The decision is yours, of course.
If you need techie help with any of the above, don't hesitate to contact me. Pastorius has my email addy.
There is one way to gain clarity and surety about Islam—our best rational approach is the scientific method.
Let us start with the fact that the complete doctrine of Islam is found in three texts: Koran, the Sira (Mohammed’s biography) and Hadith (stories and anecdotes about Mohammed)—the Islamic Trilogy.
The Koran is confusing as it is arranged, but it can be made straightforward by scientific analysis.
The first step is to put the verses in the right time order, collect and categorize all of the similar stories. It is at this point that the missing parts, or holes, in the document become apparent. The life of Mohammed fills in and explains all the gaps and all the confusion falls away. Mohammed is the key to the Koran and Islam.
The doctrine breaks down in time into Mohammed in Mecca (the early part) and Mohammed in Medina (the later part). In essence, there are two Korans, one written in Mecca and the second Koran written in Medina.
The two Korans are the first grand division of Islamic doctrine.
What is intriguing is that the two Korans include contradictions. "You have your religion and I have mine" 109:1 is a far cry from "I shall cast terror in the hearts of the kafirs. Strike off their heads…" 8:12. The Koran gives a way to solve these contradictions—the later verse is "better" than the earlier verse. But the earlier verse is still true. All the verses from the Koran are true because they are the words of Allah.
The Koran defines an Islamic logic that is dualistic. Two things which contradict each other can both be true. In a unitary, scientific logic, if two things contradict each other, then at least one of them is false. Not so in dualistic logic.
All of the doctrine refers to two classes of people—Muslims and non-Muslims, kafirs. The doctrine that applies to kafirs is political in nature and is rarely neutral or positive. The part of the doctrine that applies to Muslims is cultural, legal, and religious.
The second grand division of Islamic doctrine is into religious Islam and political Islam.
It is surprising how much of the doctrine is political. Approximately 67% of the Meccan Koran and 51% of the Medinan Koran is political. About 75% of the Sira is about what was done to the kafir. Roughly 20% of the Hadith is about jihad, a political act.
Even the concept of Hell is political, not religious. There are 146 parts of the Koran that refer to Hell. Only 4% of the people in Islamic Hell are there for moral reasons, such as murder, theft or greed. In 96% of the cases the person is in Hell because they did not agree with Mohammed. This is a political charge. In short, Islamic Hell is primarily a political prison.
Friday, September 28, 2007
Judge Andrew Napolitano, who I usually agree with, blows it out his tuchus. Torture, the USA, Lincoln, and free men in warfare.
We begin this trail of American policy, and morality with Hillary and Bill Clinton on the subject of torture, and Brian and the Judge, one of the best, AND most entertaining shows on the radio (XM-168 9-12 AM East Coast).
Hillary notably expressed herself against any American POLICY of torture in special cases. I agree. The example given on the radio was, we capture Al Qaeda #3 who knows where a bomb in NYC is about to go off, therefore we need an American policy to set free the interrogators in such limited circumstances to do what they have to do.
The net of that would be that America would thus have a policy to administer torture.
The men on the spot would simply have to DO WHAT THEY DEEM APPROPRIATE, and face the music as Americans. If that means 12 men and women, it's called jury nullification. If not, it's called a pardon. Everyone assumes their responsibility, including a judge who suspends sentence if needs be. The men on the spot, the DA, the jury, the judge and the governor, and/or president. But the USA should NEVER have a policy to ADMINISTER torture. It is to Israel's denigration that they had one (which didn't work so well, as I understand it). Mr. Dershowitz and I part on this as well.
On most views of this type my own feelings parallel the Judge and THIS GUY
The Judge then took his proper view on this and jumped off the historical bridge by saying that killing such as Hiroshima and Nagasaki was immoral (and thus, how could Sherman escape from this?). The intentional killing of civilians (an assumption that this was the POINT of the bombing on the Judge's part) is immoral and illegal (i.e., therefore a war crime)
Sorry Judge, but HISTORY clearly says that Japan (revisionists aside) was NOT about to give in, and in fact on the day the Emperor was about to surrender, he was almost kidnapped and or killed by the Japanese Imperial Army.
Admiral Ugaki took off AFTER Nagasaki with intent to lead Kamikazes ANYWAY. Japanese radios stations resisted occupation forces after surrender. The Japanese Army had handed out 3 million bamboo spears to the civilians, as clear a message as their is about what they expected the Japanese people to do ..their duty to die rather than do the unforgivable.
American casualty estimates were about 250,000 killed and up to a million total casualties. As it was, there were 290,000 American servicemen KIA in the ENTIRE WORLD WAR. American estimates of japanese casualties were an unbelievable 3-4 million -KILLED.
Adm Leahy who was against the use of nukes went so far as to say when considering the invasion of Japan, and US demands...
"None of the points were draconian, at least compared to those imposed on Germany. Japan was to be "stripped of all" its overseas conquests, presumably to quarantine a nation that Roosevelt believed was genetically disposed towards acts of lawless violence. The president's policy of isolating Japan from the rest of Asia may have smacked of political eugenics, but nothing was said about occupation, demilitarization, war trials, or the emperor of Japan. Nor was there any hint of the worst fear of one JCS intelligence officer: a bloody invasion of the home island that would destroy the imperial Japanese government before it could negotiate a peace"As for Truman, as ALL of the men there at the time point out, the Japanese rebuffed the American demand for surrender at Potsdam, after Germany was destroyed and had surrendered, even though by that time even the now horrific multi-division killing effort on Okinawa was wrapping up, and it was THIS example .. with the 1st and 6th Marine Divisions at about 50% casualties ..which they faced against this power which, anyone could see was not going to win, but never the less, would NOT relent.
So Truman faced - what, and endless blockade at the end of a war during which Japan had demonstrated GASHIN SHOTAN, the willingness to 'lick liver and drink bile' rather than give in, or an invasion with millions dead, or use of nuclear weapons, with prospectively no or few American casualties and an end to the war.
Sorry Judge, but we weren't fighting for moral correctness, as the men on Peleliu could have told you any day.
And now let's turn to the idea of killing civilians, the heart of your argument, and the idea that a just war can also be, among free men, against anyone else, CIVILIZED, and one Billy T Sherman.
What's a little wiping off the map between humanist?
But wait, there's more. Read it (from National Review):
Columbia is "reeling," reads the headline in Wednesday's New York Times. Columbia is the Sulzbergers's university, and they had traditionally put a wordy buffer between what really happened at the institution and their paper's readers. Of course, that's virtually impossible to do these days. Still, it is not the Times that has excelled in reportage on Columbia during the past few tempestuous years. It is the Sun which has taken on that burden -- and, with some pleasure, I would think, since the university is a model of what the upstart daily thinks of as paradigmatic of the cowardice of liberal institutions in general. Or worse, the pusillanimity of liberal institutions when their very liberalism is being undermined from within.
In any case, Columbia is really reeling; and its wobbliness about what it stands for has been magnified since Lee Bollinger became president. He is simply scared out of his wits by Edward Said's less bright heirs on Morningside Heights. I have posted on this matter before. Actually, I am sure that Said would never have condoned an invitation to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, a lower class thug and a Shi'a besides, both an offense to Said's elitism and to his ill-fated Christian maneuvering to make Arab nationalism safely secular. I note that, with his usual discretion and allergy to street fights, Rashid Khalidi has not been heard from on the A'jad matter. He has bigger fish to fry: making sure that that vulgar practitioner of critical theory and deconstructor and rewriter of narratives, Joseph Massud, gets tenure. And that the Barnard tenure aspirant, Nadia Abu El-Haj, who believes that archeology proves there were never any Hebrews in the Holy Land, also is tenured. My guess is that, this time, the gang loses.
Of course, it is not only Columbia that is reeling. It is Bollinger himself. The faculty see this; the students certainly see this; and the trustees who typically will give a president enough rope to hang himself see that he has. My conclusion is that Bollinger is on his way out. The mandate of heaven has deserted him. He has no authority, least of all moral authority.
I also have a speculation about why the earnest protestations of Jewish students and others who were pro-Israel never could touch Bollinger about their terrible experiences in classes in the Middle East: he himself is Jewish, maybe an ambivalent Jew, maybe a frightened Jew, but a Jew nonetheless.
There are three people who have played a curious role in this drama.
One is John Coatsworth, whom Bollinger lured from Harvard to replace the sneaky Lisa Anderson as dean of the School of International and Public Affairs. What can one say about Coatsworth without having oneself strung up as a McCarthyite? Let's leave it at this: at least since graduate school at the University of Wisconsin he has been extremely radical. Why would a radical find common cause with an Islamic fascist? By the way, Coatsworth signed the Harvard divest-from-Israel petition. Did Bollinger imagine that such a person could (or would want to) restore calm to the Middle East programs at Columbia that were in his SIPA portfolio?
Richard Bulliet is the Columbia historian who negotiated with the Iranians for their president's visit. I've read what I believe is a wonderful book of his, The Camel and the Wheel, although I admit that my credentials for judgment are slight. I've also read parts of The Case for Islamo-Christian Civilization, a cross-your-fingers-and-hope book, predictably well-reviewed by Juan Cole, which is by now even worse than getting a good review from John Esposito. Bulliet was a supporter of the 1979 Iranian revolution.
There's a personal angle for me in this saga. It involves a Columbia professor, Michael Stanislavski, whom I have known since he was an undergraduate at Harvard and I an assistant professor. He is a very good historian, and I've read three of his books on Jewish history.
Moreover, I've learned from them, although my view of E.M. Lilien (someone you don't know of) is different than his. About two years ago, I was scheduled to speak at a Columbia meeting protesting the patent bias of the Middle Eastern faculty against Israel. Michael asked me not to come, arguing that, among other things, it would be unfair to Bollinger who was well-intentioned on the matter and would take deliberate action to solve the situation. I had no interest in inflaming it. So I called the student who had invited me and told him why I would, in the end, not speak. Still, I left out Professor Stanislavski's role in my decision. Stanislavski and I have had difficult exchanges since on these matters. He even wrote a letter to the chairman of a Jewish scholarly institution saying Columbia would not cooperate with it as long as I was on its board. It was a preposterous communication: one professor's pique doesn't decide whether his university would have an institutional relationship with another part of the academy.
As this drama has unfolded I wondered what Stanislavski made of Bollinger's canceling A'jad last year, giving permission for his speaking this year. Inviting him and then attacking him, a cowardly act followed by an act of spurious bravery. There is in Jewish history the figure of the court-Jew. This Jew did financial and commercial business for the prince. Sometimes he was a medical doctor and cared for the prince and his family. He also tried to intercede for the Jews when trouble was coming their way. Sometimes he succeeded, sometimes he failed. I guess Michael failed. But Jews no longer need court-Jews, and they haven't for at least a century. It must be sad trying to fill a function that has been obsolete for so long.
Europe Should Deport all its 20 Million Muslims
Republican Presidential Candidate Tom Tancredo told a Danish journalist that Europe Should Deport its 20 Million Muslims. This was last night on the first episode of a mini-documentary series on America, Clement in America.
This first episode dealt with the Immigration Issue. The Tancredo interview was just one of many. He was basically paraphrasing Samuel Huntington's misguided "Clash of Civilizations" when he affirmed that Europe should deport all the muslims.
Clement Behrendt Kjersgaard, is a very smart journalist and I was thrilled to see him hosting this series.
Unfortunately, I don't have video from last nights show. However, Here is the website to the program which has an English page. Hopefully the videos will be provided later. Even if you don't speak Danish, which most people in the world don't, all the interviews are naturally conducted in English.
When the partition of
Taha thought about this but was called away to the next room where Arab radicals told him to prepare to attack Ari’s village. When Taha returned he said he must side with his Arab ethnic group. Ari asked why? “We fought side-by-side against people like those in the past. Why not fight together to stop their radical agenda now.”
Read the rest at The Gathering Storm.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
The Real Occupation is a hip hop video by Kosha Dilz; a band who support Israel.
Thanks to Hip Hop Republican:
A quote from Patrick J. Buchanan, The McLaughlin Group (PBS), 14 September 2007
The next European country to break apart will be Belgium.
If the governments of the world can't get these truths through their thick skulls, then regime change will be necessary.
Are you hearing me, Belgium? We're gunning for you next.
See you soon, Brussels.
Does anyone still think it is a conspiracy theory to say that there is a coordinated campaign going in Europe to destroy the established nation states and surrender our countries to Muslims?
Government Advisors: Dutch Should Adapt to Muslims
Tolerance for Islam is too low and question marks on the sexualisation of Dutch society are justified. In the report, the WRR also says that the integration debate is not helped by the fixation on the concept of 'national identity'. The report says that there is nothing wrong with the dual nationality held by most immigrants in the Netherlands. The WRR already produced a controversial report last year (Dynamics in Islamic activism) when it complained that many Dutch politicians are involved in "Islam-bashing" and urged dialogue with "moderate movements such as Hamas." According to newspaper Volkskrant, the WRR will also advise that primary schools should be encouraged to have ethnically mixed pupil populations. They should be given the statutory commission to create a 'link' between population groups, said WRR member and Labour (PvdA) Upper House member Pauline Meurs in the newspaper.
British history ‘needs rewrite’
British history should be rewritten to make it "more inclusive", says Trevor Phillips, the head of the new human rights and equality commission. He said Muslims were also part of the national story and "sometimes we have to go back into the tapestry and insert some threads that were lost". He quoted the example of the Spanish Armada, which was held up by the Turks at the request of Queen Elizabeth I. "It was the Turks who saved us," Mr Phillips told a Labour fringe meeting.
...Esam Omeish of the Muslim American Society will step down from the Virginia Commission on Immigration, to which he was appointed by [Virginia] Governor Tim Kaine....
Read the whole thing.
Thursday, September 27, 2007
The limits of free expression
Sep 27th 2007 NEW YORK
From The Economist print edition
A rough ride for Iran's president
NEW YORK is used to the drama (and the traffic) created by visiting dignitaries. But Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iran's president, caused more stir than most. He started by asking whether he could lay a wreath at Ground Zero as a show of respect. "Access of Evil" cried the tabloids; "Zero Chance", and "Go to Hell". Condoleezza Rice called the idea "a travesty". Fairly swiftly, the visit was ruled out by the New York Police Department on security grounds. But Mr Ahmadinejad then prompted an even bigger ruckus when he appeared at Columbia University's World Leaders Forum on September 24th.
I say we haven't been nearly rude enough.
“has not offered any of the required cooperation”; “We hope that the Islamic republic of Iran, in the framework of applicable international law, will accept and respect the jurisdiction of Argentine justice”,Last November, the Argentine federal judge Rodolfo Canicoba Corral, ordered the international capture of eight Iranian citizens for involvement in the bombings of the Israeli embassy and the AMIA Jewish community center in Buenos Aires. One of those Iranian citizens is former president Rafsanjani.
This certainly wasn't reported on the BBC, maybe because Kirchner also took issue with Britain over the Falkland islands.
Friday, September 28: Our guest this week at the bottom of the hour is The Merry Widow of The Merry Widow blog, which presents a Christian view of events, near and far.
The Merry Widow will be discussing with us the North American Union, developments about which she has been following for some time. She will provide background on the NAU and will bring us up to date with the latest happenings occurring under the radar of most mainstream media sources.
And at the top of the hour, we will have Christine from Vigilant Freedom on to discuss the Laws of the Seas Treaty and why it's supporter's goal is nothing less than the establishment of world government at the expense of traditional sovereignty.
The call-in number is (646) 915-9870.
If you are unable to listen live to the radio show, you can listen to recordings of the radio broadcasts later by CLICKING HERE.
It’s not bad enough that the author of this piece is a blatant apologist for Islam. What’s worse is that it is written by a rabbi.
The following is an excerpt from a speech Rabbi Eric Yoffie delivered Aug. 3 to the Islamic Society of North America's 44th annual convention in
You can read the whole thing here. But I comment on some of the more ridiculous statement he made.
There is no lack of so-called experts who are eager to seize on any troubling statement by any Muslim thinker and pin it on Islam as a whole. Thus, it has been far too easy to spread the image of Islam as enemy, as terrorist, as the frightening unknown.
How did this happen?
How did it happen that Christian fundamentalists, such as Pat Robertson and Franklin Graham, make vicious and public attacks against your religious tradition?
How did it happen that when a Muslim congressman takes his oath of office while holding the Quran, Dennis Prager suggests that the congressman is more dangerous to
than the terrorists of Sept. 11? America
How did it happen that a member of Congress, Tom Tancredo, now running for president, calls for the bombing of
Meccaand ? Medina
Anyone who, in the slightest way, wandered off the reservation of the MSM can answer the rabbi on the above. But it’s this comment that goes straight to core of the problem we face with Muslims who adhere strictly to their religion.
Read the rest at The Gathering Storm.
Read the rest at The Gathering Storm.