skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Here's a couple simple questions. How many new churches have been built in islamic nations? How many new synagogues have been built in islamic nations? I am sure there have been a few, however, I know for a fact that in most cases an existing church or synagogue have been attacked by the local islamic populace and most Christians and Jews live in fear of their islamic neighbors.
Whether you agree with Switzerland's ban of minarets or not, what you should be focusing on is the pure indignant and hypocritical attitudes of islamic leaders within and especially outside of Switzerland.
Iran criticized a Swiss ban on the construction of minarets on mosques, and warned of rising Islamophobia in Europe, Iranian English-language news agency Press TV reported Saturday.
Hey ayatollah how many Christians or Jews are flocking to your religious tolerance? Switzerland's has a history of remaining neutral in conflict. By stopping the minarets from being built they are trying to ensure that there remains a sense of neutrality. Switzerland's actions are actually logical based on it's recent history. So is Iran's response. The vile hypocrisy never ends. It's the poor mohammedans who are constantly oppressed by the infidel Jews, Christians, and secularists. The mohammedans have done nothing to deserve this. Switzerland's response is nothing more than a dose of Iran's own medicine.
However, I am sure you won't have to wait too long before Switzerland backs down out of fear. Fear of the mohammedans that live within Switzerland. That fifth column that exists in just about every Western country that is trying to destroy liberal democracy to be replaced by shari'a. I don't believe Switzerland has the will to stick with it. Though, I hope I am wrong.
"We are very concerned with this referendum. The reality of our societies in Europe and throughout the world is that each limitation on the coexistence of different cultures and religions also endangers our security," Calmy-Rey said during a meeting of foreign ministers of the 56-nation Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe.
Here we go again. Another western nation is going to back down. This is exactly what the mohammedan expects and wants. But they don't have to rely on Switzerland.
The minister said if an appeal against the referendum is lodged at the European Court of Human Rights, it would be up to the court to decide on its legality.
What do you think the answer will be?
E-mail me here.
The Obama administration is looking to early January as the time to press for a new round of United Nations sanctions against Iran for its continued defiance of demands to explain its nuclear ambitions, US officials said Friday.
So let's figure this out. The Iranians were provided an offer to stop their nuclear development. The deadline to accept this offer is the end of December. The Iranians have not only scoffed at the offer, they have increased their nuclear development activity and plan on building at least 10 more facilities. The American administration is still sticking with the deadline under the presumption of what? Maybe they think the Iranians aren't serious? What happens when the deadline comes? That's when the US will press for more sanctions. How long is this process going to take? It's bad enough that Iranians have played games to buy time now the 5+1 group is helping them buy time.
The sanctions package is not yet "coherent," one official said, but may include UN penalties aimed at elements of Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps, which the United States already has applied, and on Iran's petroleum industry, which the Obama administration is considering.
Of course the package isn't coherent. When you take out a military option and leave it to the politics of 6 different nations, it will never be coherent. Can anyone name an incident where a politician is ever coherent?
The US State Department said Friday the administration was hoping for a strong statement on Iran, including a mention of possible sanctions, from the December 10-11 European Council session in Brussels.
Once again. Hope is not a legitimate strategy. What good does a "strong statement" provide? "Hey you have to stop doing that or we're going to issue another strongly worded statement". Give me a break. This doesn't work with children why would it work with a murderous despot?
The Iranians have already won. They have shown the West to be weak. Why should they back down? The West lives in a world that is far worse than denial. They refuse to accept reality and they continue to go down this path of hope and fantasy. The end of this road is violent destruction. They'll all be left with that look of consternation and sadness. "We did everything we could" will be their claim. "We meant well". What's the cliche about good intentions?
E-mail me here.
In
Barack Obama,
Iran,
Iranian Nuclear Facilities,
Iraq,
Israel,
Kim Jong-il,
North Korea,
Ramin Mehmanparast,
Saddam Hussein,
Sun Tzu,
United States
It would appear that no matter who is the President of the United States, that person is certain to be reviled by islamic despots no matter how hard the President attempts to placate them.
"Obama's policies can be considered the continuation of Bush's policies," Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Ramin Mehmanparast was quoted as saying. "No change has been made in the current American president's behavior."
The question then becomes, as I have asked quite often, why continue this appeasement approach? This approach even violates political logic and is self defeating. They don't like us. They don't think like us. They don't want the same things we do. The people of Iran have no true say in what their government does. They are serfs in the ayatollah's fiefdom. Enough trying to use western diplomacy against radical islamic ideology and hunger for pure power.
In the end, the Iranians are going to have nuclear weapons. Whether the build them themselves or they "borrow" some from North Korea. I could see a possibility of the Iranians claiming they have built the bomb already when in fact they received the present from Kim Jong-il. This would be enough to scare the rest of the region. If you think that this idea is far fetched, then you didn't pay attention to what some of the Iraqi scientists claimed; Many of them stated that they lied to Saddam about the nuclear program in order to remain amongst the living. It's called deception. Not only does Sun Tzu refer to war being deception, the Koran says deception is necessary when dealing with an adversary.
Quit playing games. The Iraninas aren't going to budge no matter how many deadlines the West let's pass. Don't be surprised if the Iranians pull another eleventh hour tactic prior to this next deadline. We'll find out the hard way if the Western bureaucrats have learned anything.
E-mail me here.
Time is running out for Iran to avoid sanctions over its nuclear program, Reuters quoted White House spokesman Robert Gibbs as saying on Thursday. He added that Teheran's deadline is still the end of the year for responding to international demands.
How many times do they have to hear the response before they face reality?!? All one has to do is pick up a newspaper or go to a news site an Iran's response is plastered everywhere. Even those news outlets who are trying to soften the response print what is actually said before they attempt to downplay it. Hey Barack Obama! The Iranians are thumbing their nose at you and your policies. They could care less whether you like them or not. They will continue along their path daring you to do something to stop them. They are betting everything that you won't.
"I declare here that with the grace of God, the Iranian nation will produce 20 percent fuel and anything it needs itself," Ahmadinejad told a cheering crowd in the central city of Isfahan on Wednesday.
Once again, there's their response. What more do you need? The question that matters the most is "what are you going to do about it Mr. Obama?" My expectation is probably the same as Iran's. Nothing. Sanctions don't work. You can't trust Russia or China to live by the sanctions even if they claim to support them. I have mentioned numerous times that there are most assuredly working under the table already. I am positive the skids have already been greased.
The only way to guarantee that sanctions would have a chance would be to embargo Iran from all shipments in and out. Do you have the spine to do this Mr. Obama? Even if this were put in place it guarantees nothing.
I would recommend tripling the CIA war chest and get to placing spies and paying informants to start working inside of Iran. That won't be done either. The majority in the American Congress despises the CIA. It has spent the last 30 years being the play thing of political bureaucrats and isn't up to the task. There are too many paper pushing, desk jockeying, bureaucrats that call themselves CIA.
If the administration had the will, it lacks the ability to do anything. Sadly, they won't even put the wheels in motion to prepare for the future.
E-mail me here.
It would appear that Lebanon is now fully in bed with Hizbollah.
Lebanon's new government Wednesday endorsed Hizbullah's right to keep its weapons, the latest sign that the group has no intention of meeting a UN resolution calling for it to disarm.
So the Lebanese government begged the United Nations to stop the war with Israel and to put peacekeepers in place. The UN came up with a resolution, no matter how worthless it was and is, to protect the Lebanese from being victims of a war between a nation, Israel, and a terror group, Hizbollah.
The inept United Nations declared that Hizbollah was to disarm and sent peace keepers to the region. These same peacekeepers watched as weapons were continuously transferred to Hizbollah. The little catch in the UN resolution was that the peacekeepers could do nothing without permission from Lebanon. This was the equivalent of asking your child if you can spank them.
Now the Lebanese have agreed to allow Hizbollah to violate the UN resolution, thus, Lebanon is now in blatant violation of the resolution. I really don't care how embarrassed the UN looks because I think they serve no purpose and cause more problems that they could solve. The fact that The UN is being slapped in the face by a country that asked for it's help is just more proof the UN needs to go the way of the League of Nations.
Why would the Lebanese agree to allowing Hizbollah to have weapons? Because they are not in any sort of mood to recommence a war within it's borders. They also see the way things are going in regards to the Western approach to the Middle East and are starting to sway to the islamist side. It's hard to blame them. They have to worry about their own preservation and the West isn't going to do anything to protect them.
The policy statement - which lays out the government's goals for the next four years - illustrates how the government is loath to take any strong action against Hizbullah for fear of sparking a crisis. The group has virtual veto power over the government's moves, most analysts believe, because sectarian violence could follow if it pulls out.
Well of course they are. There isn't a Middle Eastern army, outside of Israel, that is of any actual value. The only army an "Arab" army can defeat is another "Arab" army. While I am on this Arab thing. The Lebanese are not Arabs. If I remember my history correct, they descend from Phoenicians. Just as the Syrians are Assyrian, the Iranians are Persian, the Iraqi are Mesopotamians, and Egyptians are Egyptians. The only Arabs are in Saudi Arabia and Yemen. It's time this facade of "Arab unity" be tossed aside.
As of now, the bad guys are winning and the good guys are cowering in the corner afraid of their own shadows. It's time to get to fightin'.
E-mail me here.
What does it take for a Western political bureaucrat to finally listen and properly heed the words of despotic thugs? How many threats must be spewed and people be killed before the West actually takes these atrocitizers at their word? Is it because Western politicians seldom mean what they say and prefer compromise to conflict? It has to get through their heads that the Middle Eastern tyrannies don't want compromise they want power and control. They don't want soft power, they want a stranglehold that can't be loosened.
"Iran's nuclear issue has been resolved ... We will hold no talks (with major powers) over this issue. There is no need for talks," said Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Tuesday, in a televised interview communicated by the Reuters news agency.
What confusion will this cause in the West? Probably none. The West will refuse to acknowledge these statements and declare them nothing more than posturing and propaganda. The West has taken this stance for the last 3 decades only to get us to a point where Iran can have nuclear weapons in the not so distant future. Iran knows the West will do nothing beyond sanctions therefore the ayatollah and his lapdog have nothing to lose.
Only the Western bureaucrats and their supposed experts think Iran is ripe for an overthrow. Only outside of Iran is there thoughts of overbearing internal strife. That may have been so 20-30 years ago. These same groups that were ready to fight were ignored by the west. While the Iranians were ready to risk their lives for a new government, the West was attacking their agencies who could have made this possible. Instead of funding true democratic reformists, they neutered the agencies that would have contributed to this overthrow. The West replaced true field agents and the upper hierarchy with desk jockeys and politically correct yes men. The situation in Iran is a true reflection of Western impotence and selective decline over the past two decades.
"Talking about isolating Iran (over its nuclear work) is a psychological war launched by the West ... Iran is a unique country ... and no country can isolate it," Ahmadinejad was quoted as saying.
This is fact. Mahmoud and the ayatollah have set themselves up as the little guy martyr facing off with the power and might of the West. No wonder so many Western academics like them. They always pull for the underdog no matter who that underdog is or who they are instigating.
Sanctions will not work. Diplomacy died a while ago. There are two options: 1, allow Iran to get the nukes and then hope you can deal with them (By the way, Hope is not a legitimate strategy); 2, Destroy the facilities wherever they are and be ready for the aftermath. If the first is chosen watch for a power swing in the Middle East with numerous countries going to the Iranian side for the purpose of self-preservation. Also, if you thought oil prices were high last year, get ready for Iranian controlled oil and shipping lanes.
It doesn't take and expert to figure this out. Only a person willing to pay attention to what has been done and there responses. This will make the anti-Israel crowd happy. After Iran obtains nuclear weapons and takes over the region, Israel will face the full brunt of an attack. The United Nations will then be alleviated of the burden and remorse of recognizing such a state in the first place. Maybe that's the plan behind this whole debacle. It's a way for the United Nations to claim they did all they could, while at the same time, allowing Iran to destroy Israel. This will provide that so-called pride back into the Arab street and then they will be more sociable because that evil Zionist entity will be gone. Then we can have peace in the world and all finally get along. As insane as that sounds, I bet somewhere inside the walls of the UN there is someone who is thinking just that.
What a pathetic lot we human beings are. Truth is denied, lies are propagated and worshipped.
E-mail me here.
Hizbullah created the fight with Israel and now has a nation to continue it.
Hizbullah will improve its weapons capabilities to face off any Israeli threat, the group's leader Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah's said Monday, adding that armed struggle was the only way to regain "Arab lands" captured by Israel.
The only threat Israeli presents is to Hizbullah. That threat only exists because Hizbullah is a threat to Israel. Therefore, there is a cycle of violence here that cannot be stopped until one of the two entities no longer exists. Hizbullah now has a government they can manipulate and coerce in Lebanon. It's pretty good odds that there are quite a few sympathizers to the anti-Israel cause within the remaining seats of government as well as within the Lebanese military.
As for the struggle to "regain Arab lands", this is nothing more than the continuation of other "Arab" policies used to keep Israel on the defensive. The "Arabs" were dumb enough to attack Israel in the first place. I have found it extremely humorous that the armies of larger Arab states couldn't defeat a little country of Jews. Now they are trying to save face by crying foul and acting like spoiled children. Then again, the Bible does reference the Arabs and what they would be like.
I would also like to know where the UN stands on Nasrallah's blatant disregard to it's resolution that ended the 2006 war with Israel? I still see Hizbullah armed. In fact they are better armed now, after UN intervention, than they were before. So much for that "international law". Since Hizbullah was not a sovereign state, why didn't the UN forces don their blue helmets and fight this group? Instead, they patrolled a border and watched as weapons were shipped in. Every now and then they would conduct a raid for public perception. Throw a few words at the press and everyone goes back to normal. After all, the only ones willing to fight are currently busy in Iraq and Afghanistan.
By giving in to false ideas of reconciliation, Lebanon is now a tool for terrorists. The next war will find them complicit in their own attack. I would recommend that if Hizbullah sparks another attack from Israel that Nasrallah be the first one killed. Lebanon is for the Lebanese, not terrorists.
E-mail me here.
