Iran Away From Reality

- Bosch Fawstin

Vaclav Havel on Obama: Soiling Your Pants Prematurely Will Not Gain You International Respect

Foreign Policy interviewed Former Czech President, political prisoner and playwright Vaclav Havel on Barack Obama and the costs of moral compromise.

Question: How, as president, do you decide when these small compromises are worth it and when they might lead to something more dangerous?

Havel: Politics, it means, every day making some compromises, and to choose between one evil and another evil, and to decide which is bigger and which is smaller. But sometimes, some of these compromises could be very dangerous because it could be the beginning of the road of making a lot of other compromises, which are results of the first one, and there are very dangerous compromises. And it’s necessary, I think, to have the feeling which compromise is possible to do and which, could be, maybe, after ten years, could be somehow very dangerous.

I will illustrate this with my own experience. Two days after I was elected president, I invited the Dalai Lama to visit. I was the first head of the state who invited him in this way, directly. And everybody was saying that it was a terribly dangerous act and issued their disapproving statements and expressions. But it was a ritual matter. Later, the Chinese deputy prime minister and the foreign minister came for a visit and brought me a pile of books about the Dalai Lama and some governmental documents about what good care they have taken of Tibet, and so on. They were propagandist, fabricated books, but he felt the need to explain something to me.

I had a press conference with this minister of foreign affairs. And he said, “It was wonderful, meeting, because we were speaking openly. Mr. Havel gave me his opinion, and I explained the opinion of our government. I gave him this book, and he thanked me for it.”

This was unbelievable! Why did they feel the need to explain their point of view to the leader of such a small nation? Because they respect it when someone is standing his ground, when someone is not afraid of them. When someone soils his pants prematurely, then they do not respect you more for it.

Jennifer Rubin has more on Vaclav Havel’s advice to Obama.

Pic of the Day....

Not-so-subtle message.....

Go to Weasel Zippers for the whole story.

I think you will also want to read the following:

President Obama's Secret: Only 100 al-Qaeda Now in Afghanistan, With New Surge We're Sending 1,000 Soldiers and $300 Million for Every One al-Qaeda Fighter.....

Fort Hood Shooter Neither A Muslim Nor Sane

He distributed copies of the Quran before he went on his killing spree.



He yelled Allah-u-Akbar which means “Allah is greater” (not great, CNN and others should get their translations straight) while shooting the soldiers.



He was about to be deployed to Afghanistan as part of behavioral health support.



He’d been wanting to get out of the military since 2001.



He was a pious, devout and observant Muslim.



He praised the shooting at Little Rock recruitment station because he believed that Muslims should stand up against “the aggressor”.



I am sure there are many more facts out there like the ones mentioned above but still The Islamic Information Center has the audacity to say the following:



"While several news reports have cited one of the gunmen to be Army Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, IIC strongly emphasizes that this attack and its perpetrator are in no way representative of the Muslim people or the peace-loving religion of Islam," the statement said.”



My questions to IIC: Which part of the Quran condemns killing infidels? Can you please quote it? Why do you assume that infidels are just dumb people that should take your statements on face value? Why don’t you provide us with evidence that whatever this man or any other Muslim terrorist did or does is not representative of “the peace-loving” religion of Islam?



Read the whole article at PI.

We're Already At War With Iran, Or At Least, They Are At War With Us

Michael Ledeen wrote an excellent article, worth reading, in the latest Imprimis. Among other things, he wrote:

The simple facts regarding Iran are easy to understand. We are dealing with a regime that came to power in 1979, when the Iranian revolution overthrew the Shah. Immediately thereafter, Iran declared war against the United States, branding us “The Great Satan.” The Iranians have been at war against us for 30 years, and prior to 9/11 the Iranian regime was directly or indirectly responsible for the murder of more Americans than any other country or organization in the world.

Some people want to talk to Iran. Or negotiate or something. Ledeen has this to say about talking with Iran:

We have been talking to the Iranians, almost non-stop, for 30 years. There isn’t an American president from Jimmy Carter to the present who has not authorized negotiations with Iran. The classic case occurred during the Clinton administration. We ended all kinds of sanctions against Iran, let all kinds of Iranians into the U.S. for the first time since the 1970s, had sporting matches with the Iranians, hosted Iranian cultural events, and unfroze Iranian bank accounts. Then President Clinton and Secretary of State Albright started publicly apologizing to Iran for this and that. But when all was said and done, Ali Khamenei reminded everyone that Iran is in a state of war with the U.S., and that was the end of negotiations. This is what has happened every single time we have tried talking to or appeasing Iran.

Read the whole article (PDF document): Understanding Iran

Shari'a Made Simple

No More Concessions To Islam

A little while ago I posted something on the IBA called How Many Concessions Will It Take Before The Free World Is Unrecognizable? I envisioned a huge post, full of comments, but alas, my post was a flop. But I really like the idea of having one huge collection of concessions that democracies (and companies and people in the free world) have made to Islam, so I could use it whenever I mention concessions. (And for other people to use when they mention concessions.) When I write about Islam chipping away at democracy, someone can go to this site and see what I'm talking about.

Each little concession may not be noteworthy or cause an alarm, but I think seeing so many in so many different places and in so many different forms all in one view, it might make even a hardened skeptic think, "Hold on there! That's enough!"

So I started a blog and tried to make the URL as short as possible (http://concess.blogspot.com) so it's easy to share in comments. Check it out: NO MORE Concessions to Islam.

I would also like to invite anyone to send me concessions you come across. The format I'm using is a short summary of the concession followed by a link to the article. I think this would create a maximum impact because the reader would be able to scan 25 concessions in just a few minutes, giving a feeling of freedom slipping away, and hopefully having a motivating visceral reaction. If you feel inclined to participate, send me concessions here: citizenwarriorgeneral@gmail.com. Thank you. This is another weapon in our arsenal.

Oprah Has a Thread About Islam

My wife sent me this one. On the Oprah web site, someone made a comment about this story: Company (Swift) Concedes to Ramadan. The question asked on the thread was what would have happened if Christian (or any other) believers walked off the job when they weren't allowed to pray?

It's an active and interesting dialog I thought some of us might want to participate in.

Muslim prayer vs. Christian prayer

Seven Ways to Stop the Invasion

I don't know who wrote the list below, but it's pretty good. I got it here and here. Someone asked, basically, "So what do you think can be done about all this besides moral grandstanding and warning about 'our failure to act?'"

The article, if you can call it that, gives seven specific answers. I'm curious how you IBA readers react to this list.

Best ways to deal with the Muslim invasion of the West:

1. Deportation to countries of their origin.

2. Deportation to Muslim-only towns guarded by the police.

3. One child per family policy reinforced with sterilization.

4. Mandatory lessons about Muslim atrocities.

5. Very strict control of Muslim clergy (mullahs).

6. Tax on Muslims to recompense us for all the harm they have done to us.

7. Sermons (khutbah) and religious instructions must be conducted in the local language, rather than Arabic, so that hate speech can be easily identified.

I think 4, 5, and 7 are particularly good. What do you think?

Foehammer's Anvil taken down by its provider

This is what you can see now instead of his page, Foehammer’s Anvil (Click in the image to see it full image):
This is what he himself wrote some days ago:

I wish it had been a bug, but instead it was the intentional disabling of this site again by my hosting company LunarPages. I am no longer going to hide their part in the several times that the Anvil has gone offline unexpectedly. They outsource their support but claim that they do not. I am quite suspicious that what is described to me in nebulous emails from LunarPages as “script errors” that require blocking my site are simply transparent excuses made on the part of certain people that would much rather see this site off-line. LunarPages should be supportive of my blog for the very simple reason that I am a good customer and pay my bills and run a clean blog, but apparently that is not good enough anymore. Instead, I am expected to be bled dry for what little I might be able to afford in order to maintain a blog that has seen its traffic dwindle in no small part but as a result of such mischief as transpired earlier this week.

Between sites like Digg and my own hosting troubles, vicious personal attacks from religious zealots masquerading as anti-hate police and all the rest of the nuts that even have gone so far as to threaten my life, it can be of little wonder to anyone that is paying even scant attention that I am disgusted and no longer view this fight the same as I did a year ago.

Spanish Pundit.

Hmm, yeah, this is what e-jihad means, looks like, then...

Muslim Moroccan Intifada continues in Madrid

Sorry for not writing before about this, even if it's one of the most importand Jihadi news we have had later here. Some days ago, there was a charge of the Muslims living at suburb in Madrid against the police. Why? Because they have been building houses together with other non-Muslim people in a place they cannot, as it is of public domain. A Judge resolved they should be outed from there and thehouses destroyed. Well, they were waiting for the two and a half local policemen who were sent there and one of them got his face broken (he had surgery to rebuild it) by a follower of the religion of peace of Moroccan origins, who threw a very heavy object to his face. A minor was accused of throwing it although he was discharged later.

Now the police is investigating if the Imam of one of the Mosques there is teaching the boys how to make "cocktail molotovs".

Who spoke about integration here? If he really did this (and I am sure there is something of the kind going on there), this man should be accused on terrorism charges immediately.

Ronald Reagan on Appeasement

Mark Alexander