"The so-called "Khomeini revolution", which deposed [the] Shah, was in reality
a mere return to oppressive Shi'ite theocratic rule,
the predominant form of Persian/Iranian governance since 1502."
John Chambers:
"'Reading the Holocaust Cartoons in Tehran' ...
is one of the saddest articles I have read in a long time.
...
Iran would not be the first society in which Jews were forced to keep their heads down and pray that the storm would pass, until it broke upon them.
Nor would her father be the first to live in exile, wondering what had become of the country he once treasured."
The author talks rubbish about the liberation of Iraq:
"it's a universal story. The background is Iran, but this is about everybody: family, love, exile, adolescence. If America could make war in Iraq, it was because public opinion were so scared of Iraqis. They had been dehumanised. From the second you can identify with people, that's much harder."
In the
Iran-Iraq War,
Ayatollah Khomeini
used
children (age 12 to 17) rolling along the ground to clear minefields.
The poor children believed the nonsense they were taught in school
about an "afterlife"
where they would supposedly live after death:
"The young men cleared the mines with their own bodies.
It was sometimes like a race. Even without the commander's orders, everyone wanted to be first."
The medieval thug
Ayatollah Khomeini
and his followers
enslaved Iran,
established a religious state with no elections and no human rights,
executed homosexuals, apostates and atheists,
stoned to death adulterers and prostitutes,
funded Islamist terror all over the Middle East,
and
issued violent threats against westerners
like Salman Rushdie.
Iran is still enslaved by Khomeini's ignorant followers today.
Ayatollah Khomeini says men can have sex with children:
Sayings of Ayatollah Khomeini
- "A man can have sexual pleasure from a child as young as a baby.
However he should not penetrate, sodomising the child is all right.
If the man penetrates and damages the child then he should be responsible
for her subsistence all her life.
This girl, however does not count as one of his four permanent wives.".
Ayatollah Khomeini's Religious Teachings on Marriage, Divorce and Relationships
- "A man can marry a girl younger than nine years of age,
even if the girl is still a baby being breastfed.
A man, however is prohibited from having intercourse with a girl younger than nine,
other sexual act such as foreplay, rubbing, kissing and sodomy is allowed."
Shamefully, this enemy thug was allowed visit the US in 2006.
He should be arrested and put in
Guantanamo Bay,
not invited to speak at American universities.
Shame on Harvard and the
National Cathedral
for inviting him.
Shame on the Bush Administration for letting him in.
New York Sun Editorial, August 31, 2006:
"Mr. Khatemi has been invited to speak on, of all things,
"Ethics of Tolerance in the Age of Violence."
The title insults the intelligence of all those who would attend.
What in the world is a man who presided over the July 9, 1999, crackdown on Tehran University,
where hundreds of students were arrested and tortured,
doing speaking about "tolerance" at a university?"
Massachusetts Governor, Republican
Mitt Romney,
orders MA state government to
decline support
to Mohammed Khatami's 2006 visit.
"State taxpayers should not be providing special treatment to an individual
who supports violent jihad and the destruction of Israel.
...
Khatami pretends to be a moderate, but he is not. My hope is that the United States will find
and work with real voices of moderation inside Iran.
But we will never make progress in the region if we deal with wolves in sheep's clothing."
Fury at Harvard.
The university rabbi says:
"This man has no place speaking at a place like Harvard.
...
It is unfortunate that some people don't have the moral compass to condemn evil."
The Iranian dissident
Amil Imani:
"During this turbaned fascist's watch, many students' lives were extinguished
for daring to express their opposition to the stone-age regime.""Women prisoners were often subjected to even greater indignities than men
by being raped before being executed"
- and Harvard feminists don't care.
The would-be Hitler, Ahmadinejad,
denies the Holocaust happened,
calls for the extermination of the Jews of Israel,
and is trying to acquire nuclear weapons.
He is already involved in killing hundreds of Jews in Israel,
and hundreds of American soldiers in Iraq.
America and Israel must attack and depose him sooner rather than later.
The lying fascist thug Ahmadinejad,
Feb 2007:
"We are opposed to any proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and nuclear weapons.
We believe that the time is now over for nuke weapons. It is a time for logic, for rationality and for civilization. Instead of thinking of finding new weapons,
we are trying to find new ways to love people."
Ahmadinejad visits America, Sept 2007
(and here).
Shamefully, despite his involvement in the killing of hundreds of
brave American soldiers in Iraq,
this enemy leader was allowed visit New York in Sept 2007 and even speak at
Columbia University.
This enemy thug should be arrested and put in
Guantanamo Bay,
not invited to speak at American universities.
Columbia University invited Nazi Germany's ambassador to speak on campus in 1933."Students who criticized the Luther invitation were derided as "ill-mannered children" by the director of Columbia's Institute of Arts and Sciences."
Also in the 1930s,
Harvard hosted a visit by Hitler's foreign press spokesman,
and other US universities had many contacts and exchanges with
Jew-cleansed Nazi Germany
almost right up until the war started in 1939.
Saturday Night Live
gay Mahmoud video
"Iran So Far"
(and lyrics),
Sept 2007.
"I remember when it started, saw you on the news.
You were hating gays, I was eating food." "My mind says no! But my body says yes!" "I know you say there's no gays in Iran ... but you're in New York now, baby!"
"Islam is Not a Religion of Pacifists
...
Islam's jihad is a struggle against idolatry, sexual deviation, plunder, repression, and cruelty.
...
But those who study jihad will understand why
Islam wants to conquer the whole world.
All the countries conquered by Islam or to be conquered in the future will be marked
for everlasting salvation. For they shall live under [God's law]."
"Those who know nothing of Islam pretend that Islam counsels against war.
Those [who say this] are witless.
Islam says: Kill all the unbelievers
just as they would kill you all! Does that mean that Muslim should sit back
until they are devoured by [the unbelievers]? Islam says: Kill the [the non-Muslims],
put them to the sword and scatter [their armies]. Does this mean sitting back until [non-Muslims]
overcome us? Islam says: Kill in the service of Allah those who may want to kill you!
Does this mean that we should surrender [to the enemy]?
Islam says: Whatever good there is exists thanks to the sword and in the shadow of the sword!
People cannot be made obedient except with the sword!"
Michael Ledeen
- perhaps the strongest voice calling on Bush to support
the brave Iranian democratic resistance.
Iranian "elections"
When Is an Election Not an Election?
- Michael Ledeen, June 16, 2005,
on the Iranian "elections" of June 2005:
"It's symptomatic of the failure of strategic vision from which our chatterers and leaders currently suffer,
that so many words and so much energy are being wasted on the immense charade that goes under the name
of Iranian "elections." Any normal person familiar with the Islamic republic knows that these are not elections at all,
and for extras have nothing to do with the future of the Iranian nation.
They are a mise en scene,
an entertainment, a comic opera staged for our benefit. The purpose of the charade, pure and simple,
is to deter us from supporting the forces of democratic revolution in Iran."
Amazing how freedom-hating leftists
attacked the
heroic Iraqi election of Jan 2005
as a fake,
and yet are silent about the
Iranian "election" of June 2005.
The Iranian Embassy in Ireland,
72 Mount Merrion Ave,
Blackrock, Co.Dublin.
- A desecration of a beautiful road in Dublin.
A backward, medieval dictatorship desecrating a beautiful area
of our city.
The modern version of World War Two's
Nazi Germany Legation,
58 Northumberland Road, Dublin.
Death and the maiden in Iran
by Alasdair Palmer
- "Amnesty International
issued a statement expressing outrage at the execution
.. but no British newspaper or television station has reported this.
Why not? The two extremes of pro- and anti-Muslim sentiment in Britain are now united
in not expecting even the most minimal ethical standards from Islamic countries such as Iran
...
What would be headline news if it happened in America
..
is, because it happens in an Islamic state, apparently too banal to count.
That attitude guarantees that more children will suffer Atefeh's fate."
Someday - when every last trace of the thug Khomeini
has been wiped clean from a free Iran
- someday in free Iran
there will be statues to martyrs like her.
Salman Rushdie
(The "canary in the coalmine" of the modern global jihad)
The death threats against the left-winger
Salman Rushdie in 1989
were in retrospect the start of the modern international jihad
against all of us.
Salman Rushdie reads from "The Satanic Verses".
This is a witty, highly intelligent and profound attack on the
absurd origins of all religions.
Every religious person should listen to this and think about it.
See copies:
See also the scene
"He has given us... His shoe!"
in Monty Python's
Life of Brian.
The Salman Rushdie affair, 1989 to date
- The foreign tyrants of Iran threaten a British citizen with death
for criticising their violent superstitious beliefs.
A fatwa of one's own
by Mark Steyn
recalls, during the Rushdie fatwa of 1989,
the pathetic response of such as:
Robert Runcie, Archbishop of Canterbury (1980-91):
""I well understand the devout Muslims' reaction, wounded by what they hold most dear and would themselves die for"
(surely, "kill for").
Roy Hattersley.
Gerald Kaufman.
Life peer
Hugh Trevor-Roper, Lord Dacre
shamefully said:
"I wonder how Salman Rushdie is faring these days under the benevolent protection of British law and British police, about whom he has been so rude. Not too comfortably I hope ... I would not shed a tear if some British Muslims, deploring his manners, should waylay him in a dark street and seek to improve them. If that should cause him thereafter to control his pen, society would benefit and literature would not suffer.".
What the jihad is about:
"If tomorrow the Israel/Palestine issue was resolved to the total happiness of all parties, it would not diminish the amount of terrorism coming out of al-Qa'ida by one jot. It's not what they're after.
...
What they want is to change the nature of human life on earth into the image of the Taliban. If you want the whole earth to look like Taliban Afghanistan, then you're on the same side as them. If you don't want that, you're not.
They do not represent the quest for human justice.
That, I think, is one of the great mistakes of the left.
...
Go away and die - that's all bin Laden wants you to do.
It's not just about Iraq, it's about ham sandwiches and kissing in public places
and sex with girls you're not married to.
...
It's about life."
He is angry at his fellow leftists:
"so much of the left always seems to fall for fascist bastards
pretending to be speaking on behalf of the masses.
They've done it before with communism in its various forms,
and here's another bunch of fascist bastards claiming to be speaking for the downtrodden masses,
and they're falling for it again."
"Rushdie has looked down the barrel of Islamism, smelt its cordite, and survived.
So he is perpetually being asked - how do we lift the collective fatwa on our transport systems,
our nightclubs, our cities? How do we scrape meaning from his misery?
"When people ask me how the West should adapt to Muslim sensitivities,
I always say - the question is the wrong way round.
The West should go on being itself.
There is nothing wrong with the things that for hundreds of years have been acceptable
- satire, irreverence, ridicule, even quite rude commentary
...
One of the things that have made me live my entire life in these countries is because I love the way people live here.""
Rushdie is knighted, June 2007.
The "Islamic street" seethes with threats of violence.
Labour Muslim life peer
Lord Ahmed
is quoted as
saying:
"Actually I was appalled to hear that Salman Rushdie had been given knighthood, particularly when this man has been very divisive.
This man - as you can see - not only provoked violence around the world because of his writings, but there were many people that were killed around the world and honouring the man who has blood on his hands, sort of because of what he did, honouring him I think is going a bit too far."
If this is an accurate quote, then Lord Ahmed should be expelled from the Labour Party.
How dare he blame the victim of violence for the violence?
Why doesn't he blame the medieval savages that actually carried out the violence?
Whining Islamist extremists in Pakistan complain about the knighthood,
and threaten violence.
A Pakistani Minister says:
"Every religion should be respected. I demand the British government immediately withdraw the title as it is creating religious hatred."
Ed Brayton replies, defending the Enlightenment:
"Nonsense. If your religion says that you have the right to kill anyone who criticizes your religion - fuck your religion."
Andrew Marr has a simple reply:
If Pakistan is so angry, give back our aid, 20 June 2007
- "If Pakistan is so offended, however, there is a dignified way to deal with the problem.
Last year, Tony Blair went to Lahore to praise its "enlightened moderation" and to announce a rise in our aid budget to Pakistan from £236 million to £480 million. If this is tainted money, it can presumably be returned."
An even better idea would be for Britain to withdraw the aid,
in protest at the threats from Pakistan.
Oliver Kamm:
"The proper response to those who find themselves offended by the expression of ideas is: 'That's tough. You'll live. Get over it.'"
Kamm also makes a very important point:
"I was appalled to see ... remarks by the British High Commissioner in Pakistan ... The honour was not, the High Commissioner said, an insult to Islam, for we respect Islam.
The first part of that answer was correct but strictly irrelevant. The second was improper. I take fierce exception to (I am - if you will - offended by) a British diplomat's speaking on behalf of my country and my government in taking a position on matters of religion.
I do not respect Islam (or any religious faith).
All I will insist upon as a matter of right for Muslims (or Christians, Jews and Seventh-Day Adventists) is religious liberty. Beyond that, they have no claim. They are not entitled to my respect.
As a mere lobby group, they have no right to be listened to, let alone taken seriously, on matters of public policy."
My thoughts exactly.
I tolerate all religions.
I respect none.
But then, Oliver Kamm and I believe in the Enlightenment.
And of course, instead of responding with logic and reason,
and evidence that their imaginary being "Allah" actually exists,
angry Muslims respond with violence.
Oh right, that's really going to convince me that Allah exists.
The worst that Rushdie or any other heretic could say about Islam
isn't remotely as bad as what the Islamists say about it.
The Islamists are saying Islam is a religion of sick random violence and hatred.
That's the message they are sending to an unfriendly world.
And the world is listening, and believing it.
See
his comments
(New York Times, May 23, 1989)
clearly supporting the fatwa.
Then see his
weasel words
to try to get out of the controversy:
"Under Islamic Law, the ruling regarding blasphemy is quite clear;
the person found guilty of it must be put to death.",
but then he says Muslims in Britain must obey British law.
(In other words, he supports the death penalty
for blasphemy in Islamic countries.)
Further weasel words in 2003
claim he was talking in the abstract, and
neglect to mention
his
explicit comments
such as:
"I might ring somebody who might do more damage to him than he would like.
...
I'd try to phone the Ayatollah Khomeini and tell him exactly where this man is".
Cat Stevens on TV, 1989.
Geoffrey Robertson: "You don't think that this man deserves to die?"
Cat Stevens: "Who, Salman Rushdie?"
Geoffrey Robertson: "Yes."
Cat Stevens: "Yes, yes."
Geoffrey Robertson: "And do you have a duty to be his executioner?"
Cat Stevens: "No, not necessarily, unless we were in an Islamic state and I was ordered by a judge or by the authority to carry out such an act - perhaps, yes."
Geoffrey Robertson: "Would you be part of that protest, Yusuf Islam?
Would you go to a demonstration where you knew that an effigy
[of Salman Rushdie]
was going to be burnt?"
Cat Stevens: "I would have hoped that it would be the real thing."
Cat Stevens on the genocidal dictator
Saddam Hussein:
"during the Persian Gulf war" [1991] "he spoke sympathetically of his "Muslim brother,"
Iraqi President Saddam Hussein"
Cat Stevens
defends (in Islamic states) the killing of women for adultery:
"Yusuf, who is an active member of the Supreme Council of British Muslims, claims that these reports have been greatly overplayed. 'The law on adultery states that you need four live witnesses to the actual event.' Therefore, he points out, these women must have confessed."
Cat Stevens
says that the British citizen
Salman Rushdie should be extradited to
some Islamic tyranny such as Iran for punishment (i.e. death)
for writing a book offending Stevens' imaginary friend "Allah"
(who does not exist).
This obnoxious man
says that no free British citizen
should be allowed under law
to criticise or ridicule his
ancient, made-up tribal religion:
"Look at it rationally. It's not the breaking of one law, it's the thin end of the wedge whereby
all that is held sanctimonious can be demolished."
The
controversy
about whether he supported Hamas.
The anti-jihad
Robert Spencer
surprisingly defends him
- saying that
many donors to Islamic charities do not know where their money goes.
Cat Stevens' hostility to
freedom of speech:
"To safeguard the peace and security of the multi-religious society,
Islam wisely prohibits the vilification of what people hold sacred,
in order that people do not vilify or mock God the Almighty in return."
Cat Stevens on
the death penalty for blasphemy:
"When asked about my opinion regarding blasphemy, I could not tell a lie and confirmed that
- like both the Torah and the Gospel - the Qur'an considers it, without repentance,
as a capital offense. The Bible is full of similar harsh laws if you're looking for them.
However, the application of such Biblical and Qur'anic injunctions
is not to be outside of due process of law,
in a place or land where such law is accepted and applied by the society as a whole."
In other words, in a majority Muslim country
it is alright to execute people for blasphemy.
Bruce Bawer
is disgusted that this man is singing at the
Nobel "Peace" Prize concert in Dec 2006.
"Someone has to destroy the Iranian nuclear plants now."
"There is one thing that can save us. Tel Aviv will be Iran's first target.
The life of every Israeli is on the line. The Israelis understand this fully.
Perhaps Israel will again save us. Perhaps we will again be free-riders
who benefit from Israel's defense of her self.
...
Or perhaps we will do the proper thing, and destroy the greatest evil in the world ourselves, while we still can.
This would be the thanks that Israel deserves, for saving us the last time."
Axis of Evil, Part Two
by Charles Krauthammer
- The US should do the job itself.
"Iran will go nuclear during the next presidential term.
...
All that stands between us and that is either revolution or preemptive strike."
"Numerous preemptive counter-proliferation strikes have taken place since 1940.
Allied air forces and special operations forces
destroyed German nuclear facilities and heavy water supplies that were an integral part of the Nazi A-bomb research effort.
U.S. bombers also destroyed the most important Japanese nuclear research laboratory in Tokyo at the end of WWII.
Other raids include: Iran versus Iraq in 1980, Israel versus Iraq in 1981,
Iraq versus Iran with seven raids from 1984 to 1988,
and the U.S.-led coalition versus Iraq in 1991."
"In the spring 2003 war, American and British forces accomplished in about a month
what Iranian forces had failed to do in eight years of war with Iraq between 1980 and 1988.
Tehran cannot fail to appreciate that Iranian conventional forces would have little chance
of resisting a US military assault."
"American military superiority over Iran gives Washington a wide spectrum of military options for coercing Tehran
[short of invasion].
...
An American air campaign mounted from regional support hubs in the small Gulf Arab states
could make short work of Iran's air force and air defense forces to gain air superiority
for attacks against Iran's nuclear infrastructure."
In a Single Night,
Edward N. Luttwak, The Wall Street Journal, February 8, 2006
- Iran's nuclear weapons program could be stopped
in one night.
"it is enough to demolish a few critical installations to delay its program for years"
Bomb Iran,
Joshua Muravchik,
November 19, 2006
- Bomb Iran now, before it becomes powerful.
"Russia was poor and weak in 1917 when Lenin took power, as was Germany in 1933 when Hitler came in. Neither, in the end, was able to defeat the United States, but each of them unleashed unimaginable suffering before they succumbed.
...
After the Bolshevik takeover of Russia in 1917,
a single member of Britain's Cabinet, Winston Churchill,
appealed for robust military intervention to crush the new regime.
His colleagues weighed the costs - the loss of soldiers, international derision, revenge by Lenin - and rejected the idea.
The costs were avoided, and instead the world was subjected to the greatest man-made calamities ever. Communism itself was to claim perhaps 100 million lives, and it also gave rise to fascism and Nazism, leading to World War II."
Muravchik argues against invasion,
but rather bombing the nuclear weapons program.
And repeating until they stop.
"In time, if Tehran persisted, we might have to do it again."
If Bush does not do this, history will judge him a failure in this war:
"If Ahmadinejad gets his finger on a nuclear trigger,
everything Bush has done will be rendered hollow. We will be a lot less safe than we were when Bush took office."
The Case for Bombing Iran, Norman Podhoretz, June 2007.
"the plain and brutal truth is that if Iran is to be prevented from developing a nuclear arsenal, there is no alternative to the actual use of military force - any more than there was an alternative to force if Hitler was to be stopped in 1938.
...
It now remains to be seen whether this President, battered more mercilessly and with less justification than any other in living memory, and weakened politically by the enemies of his policy in the Middle East in general and Iraq in particular, will find it possible to take the only action that can stop Iran from following through on its evil intentions both toward us and toward Israel."
If true, this means Iran had a nuclear weapons program.
So Iran was lying.
If true, it is
another great victory for the Bush policy,
along with the end of Libya's WMD program.
Iran stopped because it was afraid of the US in 2003.
Iran must be kept afraid, or the program will start again.
But is it true?
Would you be willing to bet Israeli security, and the lives of all the Jews of Israel, on it?
Iran 'hoodwinked' CIA over nuclear plans, 12 Dec 2007:
"British spy chiefs have grave doubts that Iran has mothballed its nuclear weapons programme .. and believe the CIA has been hoodwinked by Teheran."
After
Iraq, people in Iran want to be next:
"We don't want any more Islamic Republic. It has taken us 25 years
to realize that the revolution came to nothing.
...
The Afghans and the
Iraqis had their dictatorships taken away. So why not us?"
And a member of the regime:
"Obviously, I'm afraid!
Who wouldn't be afraid of an America armed to the teeth and which has shown in Iraq its
total lack of respect for the sovereignty of nations? Yes, I am afraid."
- These are stirring times.
Conversation With Khomeini
(The ayatollah's grandson)
-
"He refers as a matter of course to the work of the coalition forces
in Iraq as a "liberation."
He would prefer, he says, to live in Tehran, but he cannot consider doing so until there has been "liberation" in Iran also.
...
"Talk of an Islamic state in Iraq is not very serious or very deeply rooted among the people. It is necessary for religion and politics to be separated.
...
we have had 25 years of a failed Islamic revolution in Iran, and the people do not want an Islamic regime anymore."
...
I asked him what he would like to see happen, and his reply this time was very terse and did not require any Quranic scriptural authority or explication. The best outcome, he thought, would be a very swift and immediate American invasion of Iran."
Iran's Proxy War
- Iran's support for Sheik al-Sadr's
Islamofascist "resistance" in Iraq,
which wants to set up an Islamic fundamentalist state
with no human rights,
and which has no popular support.
Iran, Hezbollah support al-Sadr, April 07, 2004
- Iran understands
the threat that a free, democratic Iraq would pose
to their tyranny.
- "Iran does not want a success in Iraq.
A democratic Iraq is a death knell to the
mullahs."
To end this,
it may be necessary to confront Iran.
Iran seems to be voting itself in as
"Next"
on the list in the War on Terror.
Finish It or Forget It, April 11, 2004
- Victor Davis Hanson on al-Sadr, Iran and
the need for America to finish this.
"a baby-faced grotesque thug .. dressed up in a cleric's robes
and backed by two or three thousand gangsters has
.. pompously boasted about his promised imposition of Iranian-style theocracy upon 26 million other Iraqis.
Forget that .. Iraqis had shown not much interest in his crackpot Shiite paradise on earth. Forget that this criminal was not a holy-man at all, but a murderer who shortly after the liberation of Iraq,
had systematically put out hits on various rivals. Forget that he was a coward who was
a mouse under Saddam's fascist police, and roared as a lion only after the Americans
.. at the cost of their lives and treasure had freed him and his Chicago-style Costa Nostra. And forget that he was hardly a nationalist, but an Iranian toady who did the bidding of Teheran and wished to ruin southern Iraq in the same manner that his kindred self-appointed mullahs had wrecked Iran."
America must destroy al-Sadr's movement
and finish the war:
"There is a lesson in the saga of Sadr here that we really must relearn about this entire war.
...
there is a law and a way to war over the ages that are unfortunately immutable, given that human nature is constant across time and space: namely that peace follows only from the defeat and humiliation of the culpable, not from magnanimity granted to impotent but still proud enemies."
The defeat of al-Sadr
by
Steven Den Beste,
8 July 2004.
A few months after all the gloating headlines,
"Al-Sadr is still loose, and he still has some supporters. But he took his best shot,
failed utterly, and he won't get a second chance. He is now marginalized,
little more than a leader of a criminal gang which once again rules over a couple of slums
on the outskirts of Baghdad, a minor but tolerable pain
waiting to be eliminated when the time is right."
No, Den Beste was wrong.
Al-Sadr was allowed to survive, and so loads of people had to die again.
Misplaced Mercy
by Ralph Peters, August 10, 2004
- "When will our nation's decision-makers, Republican or Democrat, figure out
that there is no practical alternative to killing our deadly enemies?
...
This column has said it before and will doubtless say it yet again:
If we're unwilling to pay the butcher's bill up front,
we'll pay it with compound interest in the end."
Ralph Peters
is one of the few critics of the Bush administration that I actually respect.
He is on their side and he wants them to win.
That is why they should listen to his criticism and advice:
"The neocons' unwillingness to go after Sadr early on, as soon as the cleric chose violence,
was just a two-bit reprise of Bill Clinton's reluctance to kill Osama bin Laden
when he had one chance after another.
...
We should never send our military on any mission we only intend to prosecute half-heartedly."
Syria and Iran next,
says Victor Davis Hanson,
interview posted January 10, 2005.
Wider War
by Ralph Peters, 9 Apr 2004
- "Iran and Syria are at war with the United States.
In Iraq. Now.
Washington refuses to admit it."
"Iran, Syria and al Qaeda share one common goal:
Preventing the emergence of a free Iraq. They want to stop
democracy and social liberty dead in their tracks.
And they're willing to throw in all their reserves to do it."
"We are fighting a great battle for human freedom. Its outcome
may well shape this entire century."
"And as for those who declared so fervently
.. that deposing Saddam and
liberating Iraq was a diversion from the War on Terror,
just look at who we're fighting now: Al Qaeda. Extremist
militias. The Iranians. And the Syrians.
The War on Terror is here and now. In Iraq."
The Islamofascists of Iran, Syria and
Saudi Arabia are at war with:
"anyone who tries to
make Iraq a free and successful country. The terror
masters know that they would not survive successful
democratic revolution on their doorsteps, because their
own people would demand their own freedom."
".. we
are engaged in a regional conflict with Iran, Syria and
Saudi Arabia. Until the regimes of those countries
surrender or are removed, we will be attacked"
"Americans must understand that the war in Iraq is in reality a regional war which unites religious
fanatics like the Iranians and radical secularists like the Syrians and Saddam's Iraqi supporters."
"The only way to end Tehran's continual sponsorship of terror is to
bring about the demise of the present Iranian regime. And as it happens,
we have an excellent
opportunity to achieve this objective, without the direct use of military power
against Iran. There is a
critical mass of pro-democracy citizens there,
who would like nothing more than to rid themselves of
their oppressors. They need help, but they neither need nor desire
to be liberated by force of arms.
Above all, they want to hear our leaders state clearly and repeatedly
- as Ronald Reagan did with the "Evil Empire"
- that regime change in Iran is the goal of
American policy."
Watersheds:
We live in a time of democratic revolution, February 14, 2005
- "Revolution often comes from the barrel of a gun, but not always. Having demonstrated our military might,
we must now employ our political artillery against the surviving terror masters.
The great political battlefield in the Middle East is, as it has been all along, Iran
...
When the murderous mullahs fall in Tehran, the terror network will splinter into its component parts,
and the jihadist doctrine will be exposed as the embodiment of failed lies and misguided messianism.
The instrument of their destruction is democratic revolution, not war"
The Road to Victory Goes Through Tehran
by Robert W. Tracinski (May 20, 2003).
- "President Bush called the military victory in Iraq "the turning of the tide"
in the War on Terrorism. That may be true, but the tide won't stay with us
- or carry us to victory
- until we are willing to take the war to Tehran and topple the most important
material and ideological supporter of Islamic terrorism."
Taking of hostages by Iran is not Britain's finest hour - Mark Steyn, April 1, 2007,
on Britain's weak response:
"Tony Blair is looking less like Margaret Thatcher and alarmingly like Jimmy Carter
...
like the Americans, the British persist in trying to resolve real crises through pseudo-institutions.
...
The U.N. will do nothing for men seized on a U.N.-sanctioned mission. The European Union will do nothing for its "European citizens." But if liberal transnationalism is a post-modern joke, it's not the only school of transnationalism out there. Iran's Islamic Revolution has been explicitly extraterritorial since the beginning:
It has created and funded murderous proxies in Hezbollah, Hamas and both Shia and Sunni factions of the Iraq "insurgency."
...
So we live today in a world of one-way sovereignty:
American, British and Iraqi forces in Iraq respect the Syrian and Iranian borders;
the Syrians and Iranians do not respect the Iraqi border."
Britain's weak response will only encourage Iran to keep pushing,
and keep killing Britons in Iraq.
How Iran Probed, Found Weakness and Won a Triumph, John Bolton, April 9, 2007:
"the incident was deliberate and strategic, not simply a frolic and detour by a zealous local commander.
Snatching the hostages, whatever waters they were in,
was a low-cost way of testing British and allied resolve.
...
By day 13, Iran already had its final answer: not much of a reaction at all.
...
That is the lesson for Iran: it probed and found weakness. Mr Ahmadi-Nejad, the president, can undertake equal or greater provocations, confident he need not fear a strong response.
...
Emboldened as Iran now is, and ironically for engagement advocates, it is even less likely there will be a negotiated solution to the nuclear weapons issue, not that there was ever much chance of one.
Iran, sensing weakness, has every incentive to ratchet up its nuclear weapons programme,
increase its support to Hamas, Hizbollah and others
and perpetrate even more serious terrorism in Iraq. The world will be a more dangerous place as a result."
Britain on its knees, Melanie Phillips, April 8, 2007
- "The British marine hostage saga is a debacle of the first order - a grim parable of the degraded state to which Britain has now descended
...
Iran has been at war with the west for almost thirty years, but we have decided to ignore it.
Iran has been a major factor behind the carnage in Iraq, but we have decided to ignore it.
The Iranians now know from this debacle that they can make trouble for the west with impunity. They can take hostages, smuggle arms into Iraq, blow up British soldiers and even go nuclear - and no-one will do a damn thing to stop it."
Melanie Phillips is right about the big picture,
but she
is too hard on the hostages.
Yes, their behaviour was grovelling and humiliating.
But they
were under imminent threat of
rape, torture or execution at any moment.
They
were at the arbitrary mercy
of a cruel and unaccountable eastern despotism
with a long history of sadism and murder
and contempt for human rights.
You cannot blame anybody for what they do under such circumstances.
"Three years ago, those of us in favour of destabilising the Middle East
didn't have to be far-sighted geniuses: it was a win/win proposition. As Sam Goldwyn said,
I'm sick of the old cliches, bring me some new cliches. The old cliches
- Pan-Arabism, Baathism, Islamism, Arafatism - brought us the sewer that led to September 11.
The new cliches could hardly be worse. Even if the old thug-for-life had merely been replaced
by a new thug-for-life, the latter would come to power in the wake of the cautionary tale of the former."
"But some of us - notably US deputy defence secretary Paul Wolfowitz
- thought things would go a lot better than that. Wolfowitz was right, and so was Bush,
and the Left, who were wrong about the Berlin Wall, were wrong again,
the only difference being that this time they were joined in the dunce's corner of history
by far too many British Tories."
The Arab Street rises up
- "One repeated, crucial claim of the anti-war advocates was that US military action in Iraq
would infuriate the "Arab Street," presumably by giving radicals a recruiting tool,
and/or causing worse hatred of the U.S. among otherwise passive Arabs and Muslims.
....
In case no Leftist has noticed, as the sun sets on February 2005, there are some early and compelling signs
that
what the "Arab Street" really wants is .... democracy. Gasp !!!"
"Turns out, the critics, liberal and "realist," got the Arab street wrong. In Iraq and Lebanon,
the Arab street finally got to speak, and mirabile dictu, it speaks of freedom and dignity.
It does not bay for American blood. On the contrary, its leaders now openly point to the American example
and American intervention as having provided the opening for this first tentative venture in freedom."
"This is not to say that this spring cannot be extinguished. Of course it can.
... But it has yielded one unmistakable verdict thus far: the idea that Arabs are not fit for or inclined toward freedom
- the underlying assumption of
those who denounced, ridiculed and otherwise opposed the democracy project
- is wrong. Embarrassingly, scandalously, blessedly wrong."
The Arabian spring, Sunday Times,
March 06, 2005,
quotes
Hisham Kassem, publisher of Egypt Today:
"History will do Bush justice after he has left the White House.
With his advisers he is today the most unpopular American president ever in the Middle East.
But he is really a man who did this region good.
The Americans have done a wonderful job.
It is because of their pressure that we have had this opening in Egypt.
Criticising Mubarak was forbidden prior to the pressure they put on him."
Rats deserting the sinking ship:
If there really is
a democratic revolution starting in the Middle East,
we can expect to see leftists scrambling to pretend that they were
always in favour of it.
Just as, after the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989,
there was a mad scramble by leftists to pretend that they
always opposed communism.
Success has a thousand fathers,
and, just as in 1989 leftists tried to deny
that Ronald Reagan
was responsible,
so the modern leftists will
try to pretend
that this is nothing to do
with Bush.
It doesn't matter.
What matters is that the Middle East gets its freedom.
Was Bush right after all?,
The Independent, 08 March 2005.
See cover.
- After 3 and a half years of attacking America non-stop,
and doing everything they could to prevent this day,
The Independent starts to worry that they might be on the wrong side of history.
Tip to The Independent:
Yes, everything you've written for 3 and a half years is wrong.
You need to start again.
Sack Robert Fisk,
and hire somebody who actually understands
the Middle East.
Arabs get it!
The Arab Street understands!
- "Opinion Survey of the Arab Street 2005", by Al Arabiya, May 2005,
shows that Arabs understand that the problem is the Arab world itself, not Israel:
"What is stalling development in the Arab world?"
81 percent said "Governments are unwilling to implement change and reform."
Only 8 percent said "The ongoing Arab-Israeli conflict."
"What is the fastest way to achieve development in the Arab world?"
67 percent said "Ensuring the rule of law through justice and law enforcement."
23 percent said "Enhancing freedom of speech."
Only 10 percent said "Resolving the Arab-Israeli conflict."
Maybe, just maybe
- despite the sneers of Europe and the left -
Arabs and Iranians
are ready for democracy.
What an exciting time.
Auschwitz.
The Iranian revolution must be ended before it is able to
repeat what happened here.
Photo by Jochen Zimmermann.
See terms of use.
See more images of Auschwitz
here.
"We will never forgive our parents for having done this to us with their revolution"
-
A young Iranian on his parents' generation of 1979
- who enslaved them all under Islamism.
"In Iran, we don't have homosexuals like in your country.
In Iran, we do not have this phenomenon."
- The lying fascist thug
Mahmoud Ahmadinejadlaughs about the execution of homosexuals in Iran,
Sept 2007.
"I very much resent it in the West when people from
- maybe with all the good intentions or from a progressive point of view
- keep telling me, "It's their culture."
It's like telling people
... it's like saying, the culture of Massachusetts is burning witches.
First of all, there are aspects of culture which are really reprehensible,
and we should [all] fight against it. We shouldn't accept them.
Second of all, women in Iran and in Saudi Arabia don't like to be stoned to death."
- Interview
with female Iranian writer
Azar Nafisi.
"I feel blessed to have been chosen by the people of Beverly Hills.
As a Jewish youngster in Iran, I was a second-class citizen
and kept running into closed doors. Through my example, I hope to open doors
in America for other people like me."
- Iranian Jew,
Jimmy Jamshid Delshad,
on his election as
Mayor of Beverly Hills, California, Mar 2007.
Could anything better symbolise the hope that America offers
to oppressed peoples all over the world?
Will someday
Iranian Jews
ever have equal status in their own land?
End Islamic law!
"We are opposed to any proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and nuclear weapons.
We believe that the time is now over for nuke weapons. It is a time for logic, for rationality and for civilization. Instead of thinking of finding new weapons,
we are trying to find new ways to love people."
Ahmadinejad visits America, Sept 2007
(and here).
