Will Ahmadinejad Destroy Iran?

The nuclear standoff with Iran goes on, with the Islamist regime vowing to expand and accelerate suspect uranium enrichment amid increasing international doubts about its actual achievements. The United Nations nuclear watchdog agency says Iran is is operating only several hundred centrifuges at its uranium enrichment plant at Natanz, despite its claims to have activated 3,000.

The UN analysis supports the view that Tehran could be bluffing in order to present the world with a fait accompli.

This much is certain: Iran is determined to have nuclear weapons to match its ballistic missile arsenal. We therefore expect tensions–and oil prices–to continue to rise.

Like Hitler before the Second World War, the mullahocracy’s monster-in-chief, Mahmud Ahmadinejad, is testing Western will and resolve. Hence, Iran’s kidnapping and humiliation of the Royal Navy service personnel, who were returned “as a gift.”

Ahmadinejad seems supremely confident; but so did Hitler for many years. In the end, history shows that madmen are both destructive and self-destructive. This video makes the point.


Oops, Wrong Compass: Dutch Have Muslims Pray Facing DC

Oops, Wrong Compass: Dutch Have Muslims Pray Facing DC

Muslim arrestees held in a windowless cell in The Hague have been praying West instead of East, facing Washington DC instead of Mecca. The Dutch press agency ANP revealed today that the compass which the Dutch police painted on the ceiling of the cells in the Segbroek police station to enable Muslim criminals to pray towards Mecca pointed in the wrong, opposite, direction. A police spokesman said a mistake had been made. The mistake has meanwhile been rectified

Bacon – the new hate crime

Bacon – the new hate crime

April 10, 2007 by Christine | 910 Group | 23:00:02 | |

Here’s the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) latest alert:

Political, religious leaders asked to repudiate growing Islamophobia

(WASHINGTON, D.C., 4/10/07) – A prominent national Islamic civil rights and advocacy group today called on the FBI to investigated what Tennessee law enforcement authorities are calling a “hate crime” targeting a mosque in that state.

The Washington-based Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) said worshipers at the Islamic Center of Clarksville found a defaced copy of the Quran, Islam’s revealed text, on the front steps of the mosque just before communal prayers (Jummah) on Friday. Two strips of bacon, which is prohibited for Muslims to eat, were smeared in the Quran. Local police are investigating the incident as a hate crime.

SEE: Muslims on Alert After Hate Crime (Leaf-Chronicle)

“We once again urge local, state and national political and religious leaders to repudiate the growing level of anti-Muslim rhetoric in our society that can lead to such troubling incidents,” said CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad.

According to the Clarksville Leaf Chronicle, two hours before the 1 p.m. Friday service, the Koran was found on the front steps of the Islamic Center. Someone had written “Mohammad pedophile” on the front, and an (unnamed) expletive was on the inside, smeared under two strips of bacon. Not only did the local police report it as a hate crime, but they said they would contact the FBI. Mosque representatives are meeting with the City Mayor Johnny Piper to see what he can do as well.mmmmm...bacon....

This is a clear example of how hate crime laws are being used to impose sharia law, in the guise of religious special accomodations, and in place of U.S. federal or state laws. I’m not a lawyer, so correct me if I’m wrong – that’s why we have a comments section – but under the current laws in Tennessee and the U.S., these are facts of the case:

1. The Koran – simply a book under our laws, rather than “Islam’s revealed text,” and therefore not subject to the special treatment required by sharia law – belonged to whoever put it on the steps. So no theft or defacement of someone else’s property was involved. If I had left a Bible on their steps, would that have been a hate crime? Or a Koran from Yemen, not accepted by the Wahhabi cult?

2. Leaving a Koran on a property’s steps – again, just a book like any other, under our law rather than sharia law – does not vandalize that property. Maybe you can define it as littering, but “hate crime littering” seems a bit of a dhimmitude stretch when it’s a single book and two pieces of bacon, neatly placed inside the book.

3. Writing in a book, including a Torah, New Testament, Bible, Lolita, The Pentagon Papers, the Yellow Pages or the Koran (again, just a book under any laws other than sharia) is permitted under the First Amendment. Writing an expletive in a book is permitted under the First Amendment. Writing that Mohammed was a pedophile is permitted under the First Amendment, and is also amply documented by both Islamic and other scholars of the Koran.

[Scriptural Evidence] Volume 7, Book 62, Number 64: Sahih Bukhari [the most venerated and authentic Islamic source]
Narrated ‘Aisha: that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old, and then she remained with him for nine years (i.e. till his death).

4. Bacon is not illegal in Tennessee, and putting bacon in a book is not illegal in Tennessee. It’s a waste of good bacon, but it’s not illegal. In fact, Tennessee is the new home for the Pig Improvement Company, the world leader in genetic pig stock production (” Selling breeding stock and boar semen is a profitable business…”:

In 2005, the Tennessee pork industry had over $52 million in cash receipts and ranked 24th in the United States in pork population. Tennessee’s 1,300 pig farms take up 51,876 acres of land and constitute the state’s 10th most lucrative agricultural industry.

Where was the underlying crime that must exist for this to be a “hate” crime, under U.S. or Tennessee laws? Or was the underlying crime one that exists only under sharia law, followed with meticulous political correctness by the Clarksville police in reporting it as a hate crime? Will leaving a book on the steps of a mosque become criminal trespass, in order to find some underlying crime to make it “hateful” under the National Incident Based Reporting System of the Department of Justice? The methodology for gathering hate crime statistics uses 3 categories of crimes: against people, against property and against society. Since this was not a crime against property or people, under U.S. and state laws, should we assume that the Clarksville police department has found it to be a crime against society under sharia law?

Or are we in the never-never land of searching for or inventing underlying crimes, to criminalize hostile and critical speech, so that it can be prosecuted as a hate crime? The 2005 Department of Justice “Study of Literature and Legislation on Hate Crime in America” warned of the risks:

Over the past 25 years, the federal government and all but one state have passed pieces of legislation addressing hate crime in some way. Still, there remains no national consensus about whether hate crime should be a separate class of crime, and among those supporting hate crime statutes, there is disagreement about how these statutes should be constructed and focused. The keys issues in the debate include:

(1) the necessity of considering hate or bias motivation when the core offenses(e.g., assault, vandalism) are already covered by criminal law;

(2) whether there is a danger in basing additional penalties for crimes upon the thoughts motivating offenders, rather than keeping the focus of criminal law on the behavior itself;

(3) whether it is possible to determine with legally-acceptable levels of certainty the motive behind a person’s criminal acts;

(4) whether, in practice, hate crime laws result in crimes against certain groups of people being punished more severely than equivalent crimes committed against other groups, and if so, whether that is fair and legally defensible;

(5) whether having hate crime statutes deters potential offenders; and

(6) whether having these statutes hinders law enforcement’s ability to investigateand prosecute crime.

Until we determine otherwise, assume that Clarksville, Tennessee is operating under sharia law regarding the First Amendment. Make sure you don’t criticize the violent verses in the Koran while jaywalking, owing time on your parking meter, or buying bacon at Target. You don’t know who in Clarksville’s finest may be watching and reporting you for hate crimes.

Jews as Depicted in the Qur’an

Jews as Depicted in the Qur’an
3/23/2004 8:00:00 AM GMT

Dear Sheikh! As-Salam `Alaykum. What, according to the Qur’an, are the main characteristics and qualities of Jews?


In the Name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful.

All thanks and praise are due to Allah and peace and blessings be upon His Messenger.

Dear questioner, we are really pleased to have your question and we pray to Allah to make our humble efforts, exerted solely for His Sake, come up to your expectation.

As regards the question you posed, the following is the fatwa issued by Sheikh `Atiyyah Saqr, former Head of Al-Azhar Fatwa Committee, in which he states the following:

“The Qur’an has specified a considerable deal of its verses to talking about Jews, their personal qualities and characteristics. The Qur’anic description of Jews is quite impartial; praising them in some occasions where they deserve praise and condemning them in other occasions where they practice blameworthy acts. Yet, the latter occasions outnumbered the former, due to their bad qualities and the heinous acts they used to commit.

The Qur’an praises them on the verse that reads: “ And verily We gave the Children of Israel the Scripture and the Command and the Prophethood, and provided them with good things and favored them above (all) peoples.” (Al-Jathiyah:16) i.e. the peoples of their time.

Among the bad qualities they were characterized with are the following:

1. They used to fabricate things and falsely ascribe them to Allah. Allah Almighty says: “ That is because they say: We have no duty to the Gentiles. They speak a lie concerning Allah knowingly.” (Al-`Imran:75) Also: “The Jews say: Allah’s hand is fettered. Their hands are fettered and they are accursed for saying so. Nay, but both His hands are spread out wide in bounty. He bestoweth as He will.” (Al-Ma`idah:64)

In another verse Almighty Allah says: “Verily Allah heard the saying of those who said, (when asked for contributions to the war): “Allah, forsooth, is poor, and we are rich! We shall record their saying with their slaying of the Prophets wrongfully and We shall say: Taste ye the punishment of burning!” (Al-`Imran:181)

2. They love to listen to lies. Concerning this Allah says: “and of the Jews: listeners for the sake of falsehood, listeners on behalf of other folk” (Al-Ma’idah: 41)

3. Disobeying Almighty Allah and never observing His commands. Allah says: “And because of their breaking their covenant, We have cursed them and made hard their hearts.” (Al-Ma’idah: 13)

4. Disputing and quarreling. This is clear in the verse that reads: “Their Prophet said unto them: Lo! Allah hath raised up Saul to be a king for you. They said: How can he have kingdom over us when we are more deserving of the kingdom than he is, since he hath not been given wealth enough?” (Al-Baqarah: 247)

5. Hiding the truth and standing for misleading. This can be understood from the verse that reads: “…distort the Scripture with their tongues, that ye may think that what they say is from the Scripture, when it is not from the Scripture.” (Al-`Imran: 78)

6. Staging rebellion against the Prophets and rejecting their guidance. This is clear in the verse: “And when ye said: O Moses! We will not believe in thee till we see Allah plainly.” (Al-Baqarah: 55)

7. Hypocrisy. In a verse, we read: “And when they fall in with those who believe, they say: We believe; but when they go apart to their devils they declare: Lo! we are with you; verily we did but mock.” (Al-Baqarah: 14) In another verse, we read: “Enjoin ye righteousness upon mankind while ye yourselves forget (to practice it)? And ye are readers of the Scripture! Have ye then no sense?” (Al-Baqarah: 44)

8. Giving preference to their own interests over the rulings of religion and the dictates of truth. Allah says: “…when there cometh unto you a messenger (from Allah) with that which ye yourselves desire not, ye grow arrogant, and some ye disbelieve and some ye slay?” (Al-Baqarah: 87)

9. Wishing evil for people and trying to mislead them. This is clear in the verse that reads: “Many of the People of the Scripture long to make you disbelievers after your belief, through envy on their own account, after the truth hath become manifest unto them.” (Al-Baqarah: 109)

10. They feel pain to see others in happiness and are gleeful when others are afflicted with a calamity. This is clear in the verse that reads: “If a lucky chance befall you, it is evil unto them, and if disaster strike you they rejoice thereat.” (Al-`Imran:120)

11. They are known of their arrogance and haughtiness. They claimed to be the sons and of Allah and His beloved ones. Allah tells us about this in the verse that reads: “The Jews and Christians say: We are sons of Allah and His loved ones.” (Al-Ma’idah: 18)

12. Utilitarianism and opportunism are among their innate traits. This is clear in the verse that reads: “And of their taking usury when they were forbidden it, and of their devouring people’s wealth by false pretences.” (An-Nisa’: 161)

13. Their impoliteness and indecent way of speech is beyond description. Referring to this, the Qur’anic verse reads: “Some of those who are Jews change words from their context and say: “We hear and disobey; hear thou as one who heareth not” and “Listen to us!” distorting with their tongues and slandering religion. If they had said: “We hear and we obey; hear thou, and look at us” it had been better for them, and more upright. But Allah hath cursed them for their disbelief, so they believe not, save a few.” (An-Nisa’:46)

14. It is easy for them to slay people and kill innocents. Nothing in the world is dear to their hearts than shedding blood and murdering human beings. They never give up this trait even with the Messengers and the Prophets. Allah says: “…and slew the prophets wrongfully.” (Al-Baqarah: 61)

15. They are merciless and heartless. In this meaning, the Qur’anic verse explains: “Then, even after that, your hearts were hardened and became as rocks, or worse than rocks, for hardness.” (Al-Baqarah: 74)

16. They never keep their promises or fulfill their words. Almighty Allah says: “Is it ever so that when ye make a covenant a party of you set it aside? The truth is, most of them believe not.” (Al-Baqarah: 100)

17. They rush hurriedly to sins and compete in transgression. Allah says: “They restrained not one another from the wickedness they did. Verily evil was that they used to do!” (Al-MA’idah:79)

18. Cowardice and their love for this worldly life are their undisputable traits. To this, the Qur’an refers when saying: “Ye are more awful as a fear in their bosoms than Allah. That is because they are a folk who understand not. They will not fight against you in a body save in fortified villages or from behind walls. Their adversity among themselves is very great. Ye think of them as a whole whereas their hearts are divers.” (Al-Hashr:13-14) Allah Almighty also says: “And thou wilt find them greediest of mankind for life and (greedier) than the idolaters.” (Al-Baqarah:96)

19. Miserliness runs deep in their hearts. Describing this, the Qur’an states: “Or have they even a share in the Sovereignty? Then in that case, they would not give mankind even the speck on a date stone.” (An-Nisa’:53)

20. Distorting Divine Revelation and Allah’s Sacred Books. Allah says in this regard: “Therefore woe be unto those who write the Scripture with their hands anthem say, “This is from Allah,” that they may purchase a small gain therewith. Woe unto them for that their hands have written, and woe unto them for that they earn thereby.” (Al-Baqara: 79)

After this clear explanation, we would like to note that these are but some of the most famous traits of the Jews as described in the Qur’an. They have revolted against the Divine ordinances, distorted what has been revealed to them and invented new teachings which, they claimed, were much more better than what has been recorded in the Torah. It was for these traits that they found no warm reception in all countries where they tried to reside. Rather, they would either be driven out or live in isolation. It was Almighty Allah who placed on them His Wrath and made them den of humiliation due to their transgression. Almighty Allah told us that He’d send to them people who’d pour on them rain of severe punishment that would last till the Day of Resurrection. All this gives us glad tidings of the coming victory of Muslims over them once Muslims stick to strong faith and belief in Allah and adopt the modern means of technology.”

Dems will talk to dictators but not appear on Fox

Dems will talk to dictators but not appear on Fox


Thomas Lifson
E.J. Dionne pens an approving essay about Democrats who boycott Fox News for its sin of not being as liberal as the rest of the television news industry. Of course in E.J.’s universe FNC broadcasts “right-tilting programming” while CBSNBCABCMSNBCCNN are only “supposedly ‘liberal media.'” That’s a neat trick, combining scare quotes around “liberal media” and sticking in the adjective “supposedly” in front of the phrase. I guess he really, really doesn’t think they are liberal. Of course the American public overwhelmingly disagrees with Dionne and think the media are liberal.

By the standards propounded by global warming enthusiasts, his position makes Dionne a liberal media denier.
Dionne thinks that the boycott is harming Fox. But it is interesting to note that if the boycott continues, voters will notice that there are two types of politicians: those who are willing to appear on any media outlet, including hostile ones (i.e., Republicans on all the other channels), and those who only appear on friendly media (Democrats boycotting Fox.)
I wonder who exactly will be hurt by that?
Hat tip: Ed Lasky

From War Blog


War Blog
By FrontPage Magazine
FrontPageMagazine.com | April 13, 2007


The largest Sunni insurgent group has severed ties with al Qaeda and its Islamic State of Iraq; Sunni religious leaders oppose al Qaeda

Banner of the Islamic State of Iraq. Click to view.

The Sunni civil war in Iraq continues to gather steam. The Islamic Army in Iraq, the largest Sunni insurgent group which has previously operated closely with al Qaeda in Iraq, has severed ties with the terror group after several months of infighting, Al Jazeera reported today. Ibrahim al-Shammari, an Islamic Army in Iraq spokesman, “told Al Jazeera on Thursday that the Islamic Army in Iraq had decided to disunite from al-Qaeda in Iraq after its members were threatened.”

“In the beginning, we were dealing with Tawhid and Jihad organisation, which turned into al-Qaeda in Iraq,” Al-Shammari explained. Specifically after Abu Musab al-Zarqawi died, the gap between us [and al-Qaeda] widened, because [they] started to target our members… They killed about 30 of our people, and we definitely don’t recognise their establishment of an Islamic state – we consider it invalid.”

Mishan al-Jabouri attacks al-Qaeda on al-Zawraa. Click image to view.

Evidence of the split between the Islamic Army in Iraq and al Qaeda began to appear early this year. Mishan al-Jabouri, the owner of Al Zawraa – or Muj TV, which is the propaganda television station for the Islamic Army in Iraq, lashed out against al Qaeda in February of 2007. Jabouri aired a laundry list of complaints against al-Qaeda and its puppet Islamic State of Iraq. the grievances included:

• Al-Qaeda in Iraq has divided the Iraqi people, failed to protect the Sunnis and brought the Shia death squads down on the Sunnis by inciting sectarian violence through mass suicide attacks.
• The Islamic State of Iraq in Iraq wants the Sunni groups to “pledge allegiance” to leaders, ministers and emirs whose identities are unknown, including Abu Omar al-Baghdadi.
• Islamic State of Iraq has continued to conduct an extensive campaign of assassination against rival sheikhs, emirs and insurgent group leaders, and in many cases added insult to injury by failing to give the bodies back to the families. One of al-Jabouri’s own messengers was executed.
• The Islamic State of Iraq has no system of law or justice.
• Weapons and ammunition are being confiscated from insurgent groups that do not support the Islamic State.
• Al-Qaeda in Iraq is intentionally targeting members of the Iraqi Army and police forces, who al-Jabouri and other insurgents believe are acting in the best interest of Iraqis.
• The goal of the Islamic State of Iraq is to serve as a stepping stone to attack other nations, which endangers the Iraqi people.

Earlier this week, Nibras Kazimi noted that the Islamic Army in Iraq, via a press release on its website, launched a “vicious rhetorical counterattack against Al-Qaeda’s Islamic State of Iraq and its recent statements and actions.”

“This communiqué came a day after Sheikh Hamid al-Ali issued a fatwa (Arabic) casting doubts over the validity of giving allegiance to Abu Omar al-Baghdadi and Al-Qaeda’s Islamic State of Iraq (ISI),” notes Mr. Kazimi. Prior to this statement al Qaeda had accused the Islamic Army in Iraq of “collaborating with the Mossad, being in Saudi Arabia’s pay, and negotiating with the Americans.” Al Qaeda also branded “other jihadists who have not pledged allegiance to [Abu Omar al-Baghdadi] as seditionists.”

This split between al Qaeda and the Islamic Army in Iraq comes as a grouping of influential Sunni clerics banded together to oppose al Qaeda. “Sheikh Ahmed Abdul Ghafour al-Samarrai told Reuters the ‘council of ulama of Iraq’, set up by a founding committee of 40 prominent religious scholars in Amman last week, was prompted by a need for balanced fatwas – religious edicts – within his community as violence grew in Iraq.”

“It’s high time our clerics unify their utterances. Religious scholars have to work on teaching Muslims respect for the others …,” he said referring to radical Islamists with ideological links to al Qaeda…”Our scholars will meet and issue fatwas and I am full of hope the proper resistance that does not kill fellow Iraqis will heed the views of these scholars,’ said al-Samarrai. “The authentic resistance considers the blood of Iraqis as sacrosanct. But those who masquerade as resistance and for whom the lives of Iraqis are cheap – this is not resistance against the occupier, this is terror…,” he added.

It should be clear the Islamic Army in Iraq and the council of Sunni scholars are by no means friends of the United States. Both groups view ‘resistance against the occupier’ as legitimate. And the Islamic Army in Iraq has some preconditions for negotiations that are unrealistic: a time line for U.S. withdrawal and direct negotiations with the U.S. Congress, not the Bush administration.

The reason for their need to classify ‘resistance against the occupier’ as legitimate, though distasteful to Americans, is key for their withdrawal from the insurgency. The Islamic Army in Iraq and other insurgent Sunni groups need an ‘out’ to lay down their arms. As long as they are classified as terrorists or their actions are judged as criminal, there is no reason to end the fighting. There are no optimal solutions in ending an insurgency – the most practical solution to end the Sunni insurgency is to cause the it to fracture and turn on itself.

This is essentially what has happened in Anbar province. Significant elements of the 1920s Revolutions Brigades and Jaysh Mohammed formed the Anbar Salvation Council in conjunction with several Sunni tribes, and are now actively hunting al Qaeda in Iraq, with the help of the Iraqi security forces and U.S. military.  Thursday, April 12, 2007




By Robert Spencer

A new apex of cluelessness (if the story is accurate). Would they have invited Hitler to address Congress in 1942?

“Egyptian Daily: Democrats Invite Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood Leader and Muslim Brotherhood MPs to Congress,” from the MEMRI Blog, with thanks to all who sent this in:

The Egyptian opposition daily Al-Masryoon reported that high-level diplomatic sources said that Muslim Brotherhood General Guide Muhammad Mahdi ‘Akef, several members of his office, and Muslim Brotherhood MPs had been invited by U.S. Democrat congressmen to visit the U.S. next month and to speak to Congress.


By Robert Spencer

And right now, without such attacks, they can operate more or less freely under the radar screen. “Hizbullah avoiding attacks on America to escape US wrath,” by Hilary Leila Krieger in the Jerusalem Post, with thanks to the American Israeli Patriot:

Hizbullah hasn’t conducted attacks in America out of concern that it would provoke too strong a response and disrupt the organization’s fund-raising in the US, according to Federal Bureau of Investigation assessments.”They want to maintain a low profile by engaging in criminal activity [but] not direct attacks,” Thomas Fuentes, special agent in charge of the FBI’s International Operations, said Wednesday at a foreign press briefing. “They’ve not been enthusiastic about doing it on US soil because of the attention and reaction that would occur.” Fuentes said any attack in America would mean a large boost in US resources devoted to countering Hizbullah.


By Robert Spencer

Why do these groups continue to function?

“Report: ‘Moderate’ Islamic charities back terror: U.S. government allegedly allowing major groups to channel funds,” from WorldNetDaily.com, with thanks to AM:

Muslim charity groups posing as “moderates” continue to support terrorist activities, according to a report by the government watchdog Judicial Watch.The report – titled ” Muslim Front Organizations: Moderate Non-Profits or Elaborate Deceptions?” – says that while the U.S. government “finally has taken action against some of the groups identified by Judicial Watch, others are still functioning.”

Judicial Watch contends the federal government is aware of the Islamic groups “and the danger they pose to our national security. The question is: Why are they still in operation?”

“This report carefully documents connections between so-called Muslim charities in the U.S. and the terrorists who murder innocents,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “The federal government should no longer coddle terrorist front groups in the name of political correctness. Any organization that funds terror should be shut down immediately.”

After the 9/11 attacks, Judicial Watch filed a complaint with the Internal Revenue Service against non-profit organizations “reportedly being used as money laundering front organizations for radical Islamic terrorists.”

The complaint said non-profit entities have been used to launder financial transactions and facilitate the transfer of funds supporting violent terrorist attacks by the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas.

Judicial Watch said that in 2004, the Senate Financial Committee requested an investigation of several of the organizations on the list of groups it provided. Republican Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa said, “Many of these groups not only enjoy tax-exempt status, but their reputation as charities and foundations often allows them to escape scrutiny, making it easier to hide and move their funds to other groups who threaten our national security.”

Nevertheless, many of the groups continue to function.  Thursday, April 12, 2007


Hamas Issues Islamic Call For Genocide on PA Television

 Hamas Issues Islamic Call For Genocide on PA Television

by Ezra HaLevi

While Hamas has sought, since its Mecca Agreement with Fatah, to strike a moderate tone in order to renew international funding, it continues the calls for genocide of Jews.

In a recent sermon on PA TV, Hamas spokesman Dr. Ismail Radwan reiterated Hamas’s classic ideology that:

* The Hour – the Islamic resurrection and end of days – is dependent on the killing of Jews by Muslims.
* The remaining Jews will unsuccessfully attempt to hide, but the rocks and trees will expose them, calling out “there is a Jew behind me, kill him!”
* “Palestine… will be liberated through the rifle,” meaning that Israel will be destroyed through violence.

The Hamas spokesman ended his sermon with a prayer to Allah to “take” Israel and the USA.

Click here to view the video

The following is the full text of the Hamas spokesman’s call for genocide of Jews, translated by Palestinian Media Watch:

Hamas spokesman, Dr. Ismail Radwan (PA TV, March 30, 2007): “The Hour [Resurrection] will not take place until the Muslims fight the Jews and the Muslims kill them, and the rock and the tree will say: ‘Oh, Muslim, servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me, kill him!’

“We must remind our Arab and Muslim nation, its leaders and people, its scholars and students, remind them that Palestine and the Al Aqsa mosque will not be liberated through summits nor by international resolutions, but it will be liberated through the rifle. It will not be liberated through negotiations, but through the rifle, since this occupation knows no language but the language of force…

“O Allah, strengthen Islam and Muslims, and bring victory to your Jihad-fighting worshipers, in Palestine and everywhere… Allah take the oppressor Jews and Americans and their supporters!”

Read an Arutz Sheva blog posting analyzing the above news piece.


ONCE BRITAIN RULED THE WAVES. NOW IRAN DOES.Barry RubinJerusalem Post, April 3, 2007    Why is Iran being so aggressive? Why is Britain being so weak? And what is the wider meaning of Iran’s seizure of 15 British navy personnel from Iraqi waters in this new hostage crisis?     It is no accident that Teheran is doing everything possible to humiliate Britain. The two countries’ political cultures are not only out of sync, they are operating on different timelines altogether. Britain and the West may no longer believe in imperialism, but Iran–along with most Middle East regimes, opposition movements, and publics–does.     Remember the War of Jenkins’ Ear? In 1731, Spanish sailors boarded a British vessel in Spanish waters (which it was entitled to do), and cut off the ear of Captain Robert Jenkins of the Rebecca, which they were not. It was one cause of a war between the two countries.  And in 1862, after the murder of a British merchant in Japan went unpunished, the British navy bombarded the capital of the warlord responsible….    In those days, the Western powers were far stronger than those of what we nowadays call the Third World. Britain and France…were ready to remind tyrants of that fact. Sometimes, this leverage was used for…reasonable purposes; other times, it was employed for the sake of greed and territorial acquisition.… This era is long gone, and to a large extent that is a good thing. But perhaps the pendulum has swung too far into a failure to appreciate that power and force are often required, especially against “haughty tyrants,” an apt description of Iran’s rulers…     The turning point, of course, was in 1956. Who better embodied that fight against haughty tyrants than Anthony Eden, perhaps even more than Winston Churchill? Eden raised the call to battle against the fascists in the 1930s and warned tirelessly against where appeasement was leading.  It was Eden who as prime minister in 1956 secretly worked with France and Israel to overthrow the Middle East’s new—and it turned out archetypal tyrant—Egyptian president Gamal Abdel Nasser….      For so conspiring, Eden was reviled and driven out of office. Yet, in retrospect, wouldn’t it have been better if Eden’s effort had succeeded? And isn’t there some parallel between Eden and Prime Minister Tony Blair—a man who, whatever his mistakes, has striven to uphold the cause of freedom against forces which make Nasser look mild in comparison?     What is this latest incident in retaliation for? The mutilation of a sea captain, or murder of a merchant on his way to appreciate the beauties of a Japanese temple? No, the British navy personnel were taken hostage in retaliation for the arrest of Iranian government-sponsored terrorists caught in the act in Iraq.     From the Iranian side, of course, humiliation of the West is precisely the goal. Iran is not, moreover, striving for equality, but superiority for its own side. It wants to show, as the revolution’s founder, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, once famously said, that the United States and the West in general “cannot do a damn thing.”    It is the radical Islamists (and remaining radical Arab nationalists) who want to show that they are the ones with the “gunboats,” or rather hijacking airplanes, to keep up with current technology, who can make explosions in Western cities without fear of suffering meaningful retaliation.     In contrast, the West seeks to prove that it is nice. It seeks to apologize, to make reparations, to act as the weaker party…   Meanwhile, imperialism has switched directions, running now from east to west. And if that is already so without nuclear weapons controlled by Teheran, what do we have to look forward to?     At least up to now, the gap in power that leaves the West the weaker side has not been technological, but rather psychological. It isn’t just a matter of gun-power, either, for the West refuses to use a force as potent as the battleship or aircraft carrier—its economic might. But economic, as well as military, supremacy is being conceded to the extremists and the dictatorships.  And thus, British navy personnel—like American diplomats a quarter-century ago—are seized and their government is to be made to apologize. The woman among the prisoners is forced to wear an Islamist headscarf to show which culture is to prevail.     The West is having trouble distinguishing between imperialism and self-defense, but this is not the first time that has happened, is it?   [Poet James]Thompson wrote: “Rule, Britannia, rule the waves; Britons never will be slaves.” But will they be dhimmis?  BRITAIN’S HUMILIATION—AND EUROPE’SCharles KrauthammerWashington Post, April 6, 2007    Iran has pulled off a tidy little success with its seizure and release of those 15 British sailors and marines: a pointed humiliation of Britain, with a bonus demonstration of Iran’s intention to push back against coalition challenges to its assets in Iraq. All with total impunity. Further, it exposed the impotence of all those transnational institutions—most prominently the European Union and the United Nations—that pretend to maintain international order.    You would think maintaining international order means, at least, challenging acts of piracy. No challenge here. Instead, a quiet capitulation.    The quid pro quos were not terribly subtle. An Iranian “diplomat” who had been held for two months in Iraq is suddenly released. Equally suddenly, Iran is granted access to the five Iranian “consular officials”–Revolutionary Guards who had been training Shiite militias to kill Americans and others—whom the United States had arrested in Irbil in January. There may have been other concessions we will never hear about. But the salient point is that American action is what got this unstuck.    Where then was the European Union? These 15 hostages, after all, are not just British citizens but, under the laws of Europe, citizens of Europe. Yet the European Union lifted not a finger on their behalf.    Europeans talk all the time about their preference for “soft power”… What was the soft power available here? Iran’s shaky economy is highly dependent on European credits, trade and technology. Britain asked the European Union to threaten to freeze exports, $18 billion a year of commerce. Iran would have lost its No. 1 trading partner. The European Union refused.    Why was nothing done? The reason is simple. Europe functions quite well as a free-trade zone, but as a political entity it is a farce. It remains a collection of sovereign countries with divergent interests…. “The Dutch,” reported the Times of London, “said it was important not to risk a breakdown in dialogue.” So much for European solidarity….     The problem is most striking at the United Nations, the quintessential transnational institution with a mandate to maintain international peace and order. There was a commonality of interest at its origin—defeating Nazi Germany and imperial Japan. The war ended, but the wartime alliance of Britain, France, the United States, China and Russia proclaimed itself the guardian of postwar “collective security” as the Security Council. Small problem: Their interests are not collective. They are individual. Take the Iranian nuclear program. Russia and China make it impossible to impose any serious sanctions. China has an interest in maintaining strong relations with a major energy supplier and is not about to jeopardize that over Iranian nukes that are no threat to it whatsoever. Russia sees Iran as a useful proxy in resisting Western attempts to dominate the Persian Gulf.    Ironically, the existence of transnational institutions such as the United Nations makes it harder for collective action against bad actors. In the past, interested parties would simply get together in temporary coalitions to do what they had to do. That is much harder now because they believe such action is illegitimate without the Security Council’s blessing… What exactly has the new multilateralism brought us? North Korea tested a nuclear device. Iran has accelerated its march to developing the bomb. The pro-Western government in Beirut hangs by a thread. The Darfur genocide continues unabated.    The capture and release of the British hostages illustrate once again the fatuousness of the “international community” and its great institutions. You want your people back? Go to the [EU] and get stiffed. Go to the Security Council and get a statement that refuses even to “deplore” this act of piracy. (You settle for a humiliating expression of “grave concern.”) Then turn to the despised Americans. They’ll deal some cards and bail you out. IRAN’S WIN-WIN TACTIC: KIDNAPPINGDavid BercusonGlobe and Mail, April 11, 2007    There are strong parallels between the seizure by Iran’s Revolutionary Guard, late last month, of 15 Royal Navy personnel boarding a freighter in the Persian Gulf, and the kidnapping of two Israeli soldiers by Hezbollah along the Israeli-Lebanese border early last July. Both events were the result of prolonged and careful planning. Both events were set in motion at the precise time when the targets of the seizures were at their most vulnerable and had little or no resort to help, even though help was close by. Both events added to Iran’s lustre and strengthened the hard-line Islamists in Tehran.    In the Israeli case, the attack on an IDF patrol was carried out in one of the very few spots along the Israeli-Lebanese border where the Israelis’ surveillance equipment could not monitor their own troops. Powerful mines were planted along possible Israeli paths of pursuit. Israeli communications were monitored to determine what times the patrols were at their least observant and most vulnerable.     In the British case, similar care was taken by Iran to determine the exact moment to strike. The Iranians knew the British frigate covering the boarding operation was too far away, and in too shallow water, to intervene. They waited until the ship’s helicopter had returned to the ship, which can only mean they had mapped out the Royal Navy’s normal boarding procedures practically to the minute. They had undoubtedly timed the operation down to the second to know how much time would be available to cross quickly into Iraqi waters, seize the boarding party, then slip back into Iranian waters.    It is no coincidence that both hostage-takings were carried out either by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard or by Hezbollah, which is, in effect, a proxy of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, trained and equipped by Iran.   Nor is it any coincidence that both events occurred within days of important international meetings of countries opposed to Iran’s nuclear research.    Last July’s kidnapping came on the eve of the Group of Eight meeting in St. Petersburg and shortly before the United Nations Security Council was due to begin deliberating possible sanctions against Iran for its defiance of the International Atomic Energy Agency.   Last month’s kidnappings were carried out on the very eve of Security Council meetings to consider a second, tighter, set of sanctions against Iran….     The seizure of hostages by Iran (or Iran’s proxies) has become routine because it works…. A successful hostage-taking is a “win-win” for Iran (or Hezbollah) because it shows the Muslim world that Iran and its allies can punch the British or the Israelis (and eventually–again–the Americans) in the nose and not only get away with it, but also win (or appear to win) concessions.     In the latest case, the concessions came in the form of the apparent admission by British sailors that they violated Iranian waters. In the case of Israel and Hezbollah, the concessions will come—as they have in the past—in the form of the mass release by Israel of Arab prisoners….    There are lessons here, especially for navies that operate close to Iranian waters—including Canada’s navy. Canadian naval vessels have carried out roughly 2,000 of these boarding operations in the past half-decade alone. The lessons are, first, that because Iran has gained much from these encounters at very little cost, it will continue to carry them out, and second, that the only way to “win” a hostage-taking is to be prepared to deter it with armed force, no matter the cost.    It’s a sure bet the Royal Navy is feverishly reviewing absolutely every aspect of last month’s hostage-taking to determine all the reasons Iran was able to carry it off so successfully. Fault may well be found at just about every level of operations. But even if the Royal Navy and other militaries lay out the best of plans to deal with future Iranian hostage-taking, none of those plans will work without determined and intelligent political leadership at the very top.   Ultimately, that is where both Britain and Israel failed (David Bercuson, director of the Center for Military and Strategic Studies at the University of Calgary, is CIJR’s newest Academic Fellow.)