Obama Well Knows What Chaos He Has Unleashed

Obama Well Knows What Chaos He Has Unleashed

By Victor
Sharpe

 

Not content with creating havoc in the U.S. economy,
setting Americans against each other, and forcing through a health reform act
which has nothing to do with health but everything to do with the redistribution
of wealth and an immense increase in governmental interference, our president
has now opened a Pandora’s Box in the Middle East.  It may well usher in a
catastrophe not seen since World War 2.

From his notorious Cairo speech to the present, President Obama speaks,
and disaster follows.  Some commentators believe that President Obama and
Secretary of State Clinton are so utterly naïve as to make themselves unable to
understand what will happen in Egypt as a result of their undermining of the
Mubarak regime.
The question is justifiably asked: Do they truly believe that the next
regime that comes to power will have the interests of the U.S. and the West at
heart?
My fear is that Obama is not naïve at all, but he instead knows only too
well what he is doing, for he is eagerly promoting Islamic power in the world
while diminishing the West and Israel, however much innocent blood will flow as
a result.
Inevitably, sooner or later, the Muslim Brotherhood will take power, usher
in a barbaric Islamist power in Egypt that will control the Suez Canal, and show
no mercy to its own people or its perceived foes.
So now we see what the present incumbent in the White House has wrought,
and so can our few remaining allies.  They must now wonder what confidence they
can ever have in any future alliance with the United States.
We should be aware of what endemic Islamic violence has wrought in the
past.  For example, assassinations of Arab leaders are not an infrequent
occurrence.  After the 1948 Arab-Israel War, the King of Jordan, Abdullah, was
murdered by followers of the Muslim fanatic, the Mufti of Jerusalem.
The Egyptian prime minister, Nokrashi Pasha, was also struck down.  The
forces behind the killings were elements of both Arab socialist movements and
the Muslim Brotherhood.  Today, in the streets of Cairo, we have an unholy
alliance of the current radical left with the same Muslim Brotherhood.
The Suez Canal is a major lifeline for the economies of Europe and the
United States.  It has been the source of political disruption in the past, as
it may well be in the near future. And the Muslim Brotherhood may soon control
it. As always, the past is our guidepost to the future.
In 1952, Gamal Abdul Nasser seized control of the Egyptian state and forged
an alliance with the Soviet Union, which provided enormous arms shipments to
Egypt.
Feeling greatly empowered, Nasser broke both the 1949 Armistice Agreement
with Israel and international law by blocking the Suez Canal to Israeli ships
and other vessels bringing cargoes to and from the Jewish state.  At the same
time, Nasser blockaded the narrow Straits of Tiran at the foot of the Sinai
peninsula, thus preventing Israeli maritime trade with the Far East and Africa.
Nasser eventually nationalized the Suez Canal on July 27, 1956.  This
illegal act threatened the oil supplies to Britain and France from the Middle
East.  The economic stranglehold on Israel became intolerable, and Arab
terrorism against the Jewish state led to many Israeli civilian deaths.
(Incidentally, Arab terrorism began long before the so-called Israeli
“occupation,” which Arab and pro-Arab propagandists now use as the excuse for
present Arab aggression against Israel.)
In October 1956, war by Britain, France, and Israel against Egypt broke
out.  Israeli forces, in what became known as the One Hundred Hours War,
defeated the Egyptians in Sinai and Gaza and broke the naval blockade.  Britain
and France invaded the Canal Zone to end Nasser’s blockade of the Suez
Canal.
Under U.S. Secretary of State John Foster Dulles, Britain and France were
eventually forced out of Egypt.  This was, as future events showed, a dreadful
blunder on the part of the Eisenhower administration.  It was the beginning of
Britain’s decline as a world power.  It also led to Nasser remaining in
power.
The Egyptian dictator’s political and pan-Arab ambitions again climaxed in
1967.  Nasser again blockaded the Suez Canal to Israeli shipping and
reinstituted the naval blockade at the mouth of the Tiran Straits.
This in turn led, in 1967, to the hasty withdrawal of the U.N. buffer force
that had been in place to prevent further Egyptian aggression against Israel.
U.N. Secretary General U. Thant folded under Arab pressure and arbitrarily
withdrew the buffer force.  Egyptian armed forces then entered the Sinai,
heading for the Israeli border.
The Arab and Muslim world called then, just as now, for Israel’s
extermination, and huge mobs in Arab capitals uttered lurid threats for Israel’s
defeat and the slaughter of her people.  The world prepared for Israel’s
destruction, but everyone was astonished when in June 1967, Israel — forced to
fight a defensive war of survival — destroyed the combined Egyptian, Syrian,
and Jordanian armies and air forces within six days.
The Suez Canal and the Straits of Tiran were again open for the free
passage of Israeli ships.  Nasser fell from power and was replaced by Anwar
Sadat.  However, in 1973, the Syrian and Egyptian armies attacked Israel on the
holiest day in the Jewish religious calendar, Yom Kippur, which gave its name to
the war.
Israel was hard put to survive initially, but she gradually beat back the
Arab threat.  Sadat eventually decided that war was not an option for the time
being and chose to make peace with Israel.
Israel vacated the entire Sinai desert (95% of the territories Israel
conquered) and gave up the oil-producing facilities it had developed at Abu
Rodeis — all in return for a signed peace agreement with Egypt.  Jordan
eventually followed Egypt’s decision, but both Arab nations maintained a frigid
peace with the Jewish state.
Anwar Sadat was subsequently assassinated by members of the Muslim
Brotherhood.  His successor was Hosni Mubarak, who, for the last thirty years,
has kept control over the seething Egyptian masses and the volatile Arab
street.
Now his thirty-year rule has been fatally undermined by U.S. President,
Barack Hussein Obama, in a betrayal that is as astonishing as it is
deplorable.
It is clear to any child that a new Egyptian regime will, if not
immediately, be hijacked by the Muslim Brotherhood, which is now calling for
Egypt to prepare itself again for war with Israel and for the blockading of the
Suez Canal to American, Western, and Israeli shipping.  Obama is no fool; he
engineered this.
So, thanks to President Obama, we are back to square one with an Islamic
Egyptian regime poised to send Egypt’s massively armed army back into Sinai and
towards the Israeli border with the aim of exterminating the Jewish state.  So
much for “land for peace.”
But what economic turmoil would a new Egyptian Islamic closure of the Canal
mean to the West?
It is estimated that slightly more than two million barrels of crude oil
and refined petroleum products flow both north and south through the Suez Canal
every day.
In 2009, for example, almost 35,000 ships transited the Suez Canal, and 10
percent were petroleum tankers.  Oil shipments from the Persian Gulf travel
through the Canal primarily to European ports, but also to the United States.
Additionally, the Sumed Oil pipeline provides an alternative to the Suez
Canal, transporting as much as 3 million barrels of crude oil from Saudi Arabia
and several Gulf states.  It amounts to up to seven percent of Europe’s oil
needs.  Since the violence erupted in Egypt, European oil prices have risen far
more than they have in the United States.
If the Muslim Brotherhood, which was founded in 1928, takes over Egypt, it
is more than likely that both the Canal and the pipeline would be shut again,
causing oil tankers to travel around the Cape of Good Hope, adding six thousand
miles to the journey to Europe alone.  Not what an economically strapped Europe
wants.
At the same time, the Brotherhood, now governing over 80 million Egyptians
and possessing a huge military, would join with a radicalized Yemen in
blockading the Bab al Mandeb straits at the foot of the Red Sea.
Add to the noxious mix the Islamic Republic of Iran, and we may well see
the closure of the Gulf of Oman, with additional disruptions of oil shipments to
the West. The economic reality for America will be catastrophic.
Under Obama’s watch, the true democratic revolution against the mullahs in
Iran was snuffed out because the American president refused to support the
demonstrators in the streets of Tehran.  In contrast, the same Obama ordered
Hosni Mubarak to leave office and let the rioters in Cairo have “free”
elections.
Following Condoleezza Rice’s naïve call for “free” and democratic elections
in Gaza, a branch of the Muslim Brotherhood (Hamas) used the democratic process
to come to power and immediately trashed all semblance of democracy by
instituting oppressive sharia law and raining thousands of missiles upon Israeli
towns and villages.
The grotesque policies of Obama have caused Lebanon to fall under Islamic
occupation, with the Iranian puppet, Hezb’allah, now controlling the Lebanese
government.  Jordan’s kinglet, Abdullah, sits on a powder keg whereby his throne
is under increasing pressure from violent members of the same Muslim
Brotherhood.
So there you have it.  Islam increasingly holds Europe, America, and what
is left of the free world in its clutches…and the left cheers it on.
Let me close with the words of  Michael D. Evans, New York Times
bestselling author of Jimmy Carter: The Liberal Left and World
Chaos
:
It’s no coincidence that Al Baradei showed up in Cairo only two days after
the uprising began and was immediately named a negotiator by the Muslim
Brotherhood. In fact, he had been waiting in the wings for quite a
while.
He’s on the board of an organization headed by George Soros and Zbigniew
Brzezinski called International Crisis Group. Brzezinski is the same man who
supervised the fall of the Shah of Iran in 1979.
Another board member of the ICC is one Javier Solana. Solana is one of the
most powerful figures in the European Union. Because of Solana’s Marxist
sympathies, and his support for the regime of Cuba’s Fidel Castro, Solana was on
the USA’s subversive list.
Former U.S. National Security Advisor, Sandy Berger, who once smuggled
incriminating documents out of the Clinton White House [editor’s note: the
documents were smuggled out of the National Archives] by hiding them in his
clothing, is another Board Member, as is General Wesley Clark, once fired from
his NATO command.
Mohamed El Baradei also sits on the ICC’s Board and thus, seeing the hand
of George Soros along with the other players who for so long have plotted
against the West and Israel, the Islamists are joined
together.”
Update: Clarice Feldman writes:

The ICG site has now updated his
membership
as a board member.
Mohamed El Baradei
Mr. ElBaradei suspended his membership from the Board of Crisis Group
concurrent with his January 2011 return to Egypt.
Director-General Emeritus, International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA);
Nobel Peace Prize (2005)

What, one wonders, will
history say of the foreign policies of Barack Hussein Obama?

Victor Sharpe is a freelance writer and author of Volumes One
& Two of
Politicide: The attempted murder of the
Jewish state
.

 

Prime Minister Criticizes British ‘Multiculturalism’ as Allowing Extremism

Prime Minister Criticizes British ‘Multiculturalism’ as Allowing Extremism

By JOHN F. BURNS

LONDON — Faced with growing alarm about Islamic militants who have made Britain one of Europe’s most active bases for terrorist plots, Prime Minister David Cameron has mounted an attack on the country’s decades-old policy of “multiculturalism,” saying it has encouraged “segregated communities” where Islamic extremism can thrive.

Speaking at a security conference in Munich on Saturday, Mr. Cameron condemned what he called the “hands-off tolerance” in Britain and other European nations that had encouraged Muslims and other immigrant groups “to live separate lives, apart from each other and the mainstream.”

He said that the policy had allowed Islamic militants leeway to radicalize young Muslims, some of whom went on to “the next level” by becoming terrorists, and that Europe could not defeat terrorism “simply by the actions we take outside our borders,” with military actions like the war in Afghanistan.

“Europe needs to wake up to what is happening in our own countries,” he said. “We have to get to the root of the problem.”

In what aides described as one of the most important speeches in the nine months since he became prime minister, Mr. Cameron said the multiculturalism policy — one espoused by British governments since the 1960s, based on the principle of the right of all groups in Britain to live by their traditional values — had failed to promote a sense of common identity centered on values of human rights, democracy, social integration and equality before the law.

Similar warnings about multiculturalism have been sounded by Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany and by President Nicolas Sarkozy of France. But, if anything, Mr. Cameron went further. He called on European governments to practice “a lot less of the passive tolerance of recent years and much more active, muscular liberalism,” and said Britain would no longer give official patronage to Muslim groups that had been “showered with public money despite doing little to combat terrorism.”

Perhaps most controversially, he called for an end to a double standard that he said had tolerated the propagation of radical views among nonwhite groups that would be suppressed if they involved radical groups among whites.

Muslim groups in Britain were quick to condemn the speech, among them  the Muslim Council of Great Britain, a major recipient of government money for projects intended to combat extremism. Its assistant secretary general, Faisal Hanjra, said Mr. Cameron had treated Muslims “as part of the problem as opposed to part of the solution.”

A Muslim youth group, the Ramadhan Foundation, accused the prime minister of feeding “hysteria and paranoia.”  Mohammed Shafiq, the group’s chief executive, said Mr. Cameron’s approach would harden the divide between Muslims and non-Muslims, “and we cannot allow that to happen.”

British leaders, particularly from the Conservative Party, which Mr. Cameron leads, have mostly been careful to avoid arguments that might expose them to charges of holding racially tinged views since a notorious speech in 1968 in which Enoch Powell, a leading Conservative, warned of “rivers of blood” if nothing was done to curb Caribbean immigration to Britain.

“We have failed to provide a vision of society to which they feel they want to belong,” Mr. Cameron said, speaking of immigrant groups, dominated by Muslims, whose numbers have been estimated in some recent surveys at 2.5 million in Britain’s population of 60 million.  Britain’s domestic intelligence service, MI5, has said that as many as 2,000 Muslims in Britain are involved in terrorist cells, and that it tracks dozens of potential terrorist plots at any one time.

Mr. Cameron continued: “We have even tolerated these segregated communities behaving in ways that run counter to our values. So when a white person holds objectionable views — racism, for example — we rightly condemn them. But when equally unacceptable views or practices have come from someone who isn’t white, we’ve been too cautious, frankly even fearful, to stand up to them.”

The prime minister pointed to several steps the government planned that would tackle the rise of extremism. Among these, he said, would be barring “preachers of hate” from visiting Britain to speak in mosques and community centers; stopping Muslim groups that propagate views hostile to values of gender equality, democracy and human rights “from reaching people in publicly funded institutions like universities and prisons”; and cutting off government support  for such groups.

The prime minister’s speech came at the end of a week in which Britain’s role as a base for Islamic terrorists as well as  the behind-the-scenes pressure applied by the United States for actions that would deal more effectively with the threat  have drawn fresh attention.

On Thursday, the government’s official watchdog on antiterrorist issues, Lord Alexander Carlile, issued a final report before retiring in which he said that Britain had become a “safe haven” for terrorists, primarily because of rulings by the European Court of Human Rights,  that made it difficult to deport people considered terrorist risks, and other decisions that curbed the application of British antiterrorist laws.

For years, and particularly since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, American officials have been frustrated by what they  see as an insufficiently robust crackdown on terrorist groups in Britain, which have been identified in Congressional testimony and elsewhere as a leading threat to American security.

 

‘We need to be a lot less tolerant towards Islamic extremists’: Cameron calls for immigrants to respect British core values

‘We need to be a lot less tolerant towards Islamic extremists’: Cameron calls for immigrants to respect British core values

By Jason Groves
Last updated at 3:39 PM on 5th February 2011
David Cameron today pledged to make Britain ‘a lot less’ tolerant towards Islamic extremists who whip up hatred against the West.
In a major speech on terrorism, the Prime Minister argued that Britain has been too ‘passive’ towards organisations and preachers who poison the minds of young Muslims.
Mr Cameron said Britain needs to be less tolerant and more judgemental when faced with ideologies that threaten the country’s basic values.
David Cameron and German Chancellor Angela Merkel at the International Conference on Security Policy in Munich today. 'Frankly, we need a lot less of the passive tolerance of recent years and much more active, muscular liberalism,' the Prime Minister said

David Cameron and German Chancellor Angela Merkel at the International Conference on Security Policy in Munich today. ‘Frankly, we need a lot less of the passive tolerance of recent years and much more active, muscular liberalism,’ the Prime Minister said
Signalling a major departure from Labour’s softly-softly approach, he  suggested that to ‘belong’ in Britain, individuals must sign up to core values such as freedom of speech, the rule of law and democracy.
In a barely-concealed attack on the opposition, he will say: ‘It’s time to turn the page on the failed policies of the past.’
The Prime Minister pledged to end all public funding for groups which give succour to extremist views. And he called for action to ban extremists from radicalising young people in universities, prisons and internet chat rooms.
At a security conference in Munich today, Mr Cameron said: ‘Frankly, we need a lot less of the passive tolerance of recent years and much more active, muscular liberalism.’
His warning comes just days after Britain’s independent reviewer of anti-terrorism laws, Lord Carlile, said that human rights rulings had made Britain a ‘safe haven’ for suspected foreign terrorists.
The Prime Minister also hit out at Labour’s experiment with multiculturalism – calling it a failure. He says society has failed to provide a strong sense of what it means to be British, making it easier for extremists to prey on youngsters seeking something to identify with.
He added: ‘We have even tolerated these segregated communities behaving in ways that run counter to our values.

FOREIGN SECRETARY WARNS OF CYBER WARS

Governments must agree rules for online behaviour to prevent ‘cyber war’ breaking out between states, William Hague warned yesterday.
The Foreign Secretary revealed that as recently as last month his department’s IT system had come under attack from a ‘hostile state intelligence agency’.
He added that reliance on computer networks to control everything from the supply of electricity to the flow of money had ‘opened up new channels for hostile governments to probe our defences’.
Mr Hague told the Munich Security Conference that he was willing to host an international conference in Britain to discuss ‘norms of acceptable behaviour’ in cyberspace.
And he called for ‘real political and diplomatic weight’ to be put behind regulations to prevent an online war.
‘So when a white person holds objectionable views – racism, for example – we rightly condemn them.
‘But when equally unacceptable views or practices have come from someone who isn’t white, we’ve been too cautious, frankly even fearful, to stand up to them.’
Mr Cameron pledged to end the state funding of groups that help foster extremist views, even if they are not directly linked to terrorism. He warned that there is a ‘spectrum’ of dangerous groups, ranging from those advocating suicide bomb attacks to those who ‘may reject violence, but who accept various parts of the extremist world view, including real hostility towards western democracy and liberal values’.
He said: ‘As evidence emerges about the backgrounds of those convicted of terrorist offences, it is clear that many of them were initially influenced by what some have called “non-violent extremists” and then took those radical beliefs to the next level by embracing violence.’
Shami Chakrabarti, director of civil liberties and human rights campaign group Liberty, said: ‘I don’t know how the Prime Minister defines multiculturalism, but I agree with every fundamental right and freedom set out in his speech.
‘These are the values enshrined in the Human Rights Act which I hope he will now promote rather than denigrate.’
Downing Street last night declined to name the groups Mr Cameron is referring to. But controversial organisations which have received state funding in the past include Hizb-ut-Tahrir and the Muslim Council of Britain.
Mr Cameron warned fellow European leaders that they cannot tackle terrorism simply by tracking down extremists abroad in countries like Afghanistan and Pakistan and must ‘wake up to what is happening in our own countries’.
But the Prime Minister added that events in Egypt – where Muslim protesters are calling for democratic reforms – show that ‘Western values and Islam can be entirely compatible’.

Singapore’s Lee: ‘we can integrate all religions and races except Islam’

Singapore’s Lee: ‘we can integrate all religions and races except
Islam’

Thomas Lifson

 

Lee Kuan Yew ranks as one of the most successful statesmen of the 20th
century, having led Singapore to independence, and built a thriving prosperous
mini-state with a world class economy, out of an ethnically diverse population.
He retired as the world’s longest serving prime minister, and at 87 years of
age, has little to lose in speaking his mind.
Thus, his candor in discussing the assimilation of Muslims is perhaps
understandable, but stil startling in a world of political correctness and
compulsory sensitivity to Muslims, who are never expected to reciprocate.
Singapore has a substantial Muslim minority, mostly Malays but also some Indian
Muslims. Throughout its history, Singapore has striven to keep ethnic tensions
minimized among its diverse population (ethnic Chinese being the largest group
[74%], followed by Malays[13%], Indians, and others — including many
westerners). At one point in the 1960s, Lee spearheaded a merger with
majority-Muslim Malaysia, but it quickly fell apart.
Now, Lee has published a book on Singapore’s future, and he is speaking
his mind
:
In the book, Mr Lee, when asked to assess the progress of multiracialism in
Singapore, said: “I have to speak candidly to be of value, but I do not wish to
offend the Muslim community.
“I think we were progressing very nicely until the surge of Islam came, and
if you asked me for my observations, the other communities have easier
integration – friends, intermarriages and so on, Indians with Chinese, Chinese
with Indians – than Muslims. That’s the result of the surge from the Arab
states.”
He added: “I would say today, we can integrate all religions and races
except Islam.”
He also said: “I think the Muslims socially do not cause any trouble, but
they are distinct and separate.”
Mr lee then went on to speak of how his own generation of politicians who
worked with him had integrated well, including sitting down and eating together.
He said: “But now, you go to schools with Malay and Chinese, there’s a halal and
non-halal segment and so too, the universities. And they tend to sit separately
so as not to be contaminated. All that becomes a social divide.”
He added that the result was a “veil” across peoples. Asked what Muslims in
Singapore needed to do to integrate, he replied: “Be less strict on Islamic
observances and say ‘Okay, I’ll eat with you.'”
Hat tip: Andrew
Bolt

 

Islam on a Collision Course

Islam on a Collision Course

By Amil
Imani

 

When he was asked why the vast majority of Egyptians, the heirs to a great
pre-Islamic civilization, speak Arabic rather than Coptic, a leading Egyptian
historian replied, “Because we had no Ferdowsi.”  That would be the
tenth-century Persian poet and the author of the Shahnameh (Book of
Kings) who revived not only the Persian language, but also Persian identity.
Ferdowsi is known for his efforts to save the Persian language, and the history,
from oblivion.  It has been suggested that Ferdowsi is Iran’s Homer:
Twice as long as Homer’s Iliad and Odyssey taken together, the Shahnameh blends Iran’s
ancient myths and legends with accounts of major events in its past. Its 55,000
rhyming couplets chart the history of the Iranian world from its creation to the
fall of the Persian Empire in the seventh century.
The cruel, successful subjugation of the Persian people by the Arab
invaders whetted the latter’s appetite for further conquests.  They ventured
elsewhere into the civilized world — to Egypt, Syria, the Levant, Spain, and
eventually to the gates of Vienna.  Cruelty and terror were their instruments of
policy.
Out of all the peoples conquered by the Arab invasion in the seventh
century, the Persians are the only one who can boast of a major body of
literature in the indigenous language that they were using before the conquest.
The Persian language, culture, and traditions have been Iranians’ shields
against the Muslim hordes and their barbaric Islamic ideology for the past 1,400
years.
In English, this language is historically known as “Persian,” though some
Persian-speakers migrating to the West continue to use inaccurately and
inappropriately the word “Farsi”
to identify their language in English.  Farsi is encountered in some
linguistic literature as a name for the language, used both by Iranians and by
foreign authors.  But in fact, Farsi is the Arabized form of the native
word Parsi.  Due to a lack of the p phoneme in standard
Arabic, the word Farsi was born.  The Academy
of Persian Language and Literature
has declared that the name “Persian” is
more appropriate, as it has the longer tradition in the Western languages and
better expresses the role of the language as a mark of cultural and national
continuity.
The enumeration of the influences of Iranian civilization on world cultures
is not the primary objective of this author and is out of the scope of the
present article.  It is important, however, to demonstrate the salient point of
how Islam has been on a collision course with great ancient civilizations such
as Egypt, Persia, and many more from its inception up to now.  Just as it
brutally conquered and bitterly stifled one of the fountainheads of progress in
ancient times, Islam remains a very real threat to Western civilization and to
any progressive civil society in the 21st century.  It is virulently
capable of great destruction and retardation of minds, as we have seen in the
past three decades in Iran and elsewhere.  Any and all enlightened citizens of
this planet who care about freedom, human rights, and progress should take this
clear and present danger very seriously.
Egypt is one of the crown jewels of the ancient world, rich in culture and
filled with illustrious antiquities.  Unlike the Persians, the Egyptians became
completely Arabized and have little or no nostalgia for their ancient past.
Islam has dominated the Egyptians’ lives. Pew’s
Global Attitude Project
poll shows that the Egyptians want more Islam in
politics.
At the time of the Muslim conquest, the population of Egypt was made up of
Christian Copts and estimated to have been about nine million at the time of the
invasion of 641 AD.  Today, Copts form 15% to 18% of Egypt’s population.  The
Arab conquerors imposed a special tax, known as jizya, on the Christians, who
acquired the status of dhimmis.  Egyptian converts to
Islam, in turn, were relegated to the status of mawali.
Early on, the Prophet Muhammad explicitly said, “There is no compulsion in
religion.”  He further confirmed that admonition: “For you, your religion; and
for me, my religion.”  But as soon as he gathered enough power, Muhammad
violated those exhortations and set out to force his belief and way of life on
others at the point of the sword.  Further, he conveniently ignored his own
teaching by unsheathing his sword upon “the people of the book” — Jews and
Christians.  He spared them death only if they converted or consented to pay the
backbreaking religious taxes of jizya.
I believe that people in the West and in America are beginning to see the
real face of Islam and the danger it poses to secular democratic societies.  In
the past, Islam succeeded in largely displacing the magnificent Persian
civilization with a primitive, myopic, discriminatory system of belief.
Presently, once again and with renewed vigor, Islam is aiming to destroy another
civilization — the Judeo-Christian civilization, a civilization that
constitutes a living falsification of the primitive and backward Islamic creed.
Islamofascism presents a clear and present danger — not only to Western
civilization, but to the entire civilized world, as is evidenced by the ruling
Islamists in places such as Iran, the Sudan, Somalia, and Saudi
Arabia.
With the current Egyptian uprising, the very notion of rapidly advancing
1.5 billion human beings from illiteracy and barbaric 7th-century
mentality up to 21st-century Western standards of democracy is an
utter impossibility.  Over 60% of the “Muslim world” (excluding Iran) is
illiterate and only Quran-trained.  The task is insurmountable, in my opinion.
I believe first and foremost that we must free the Iranian people, draw them
back into our Western civilization, and declare Islam a defunct ideology that
has simply failed in Iran.
While the Egyptian demonstrators are as much against Hosni Mubarak as they
are against his tyrannical regime, they don’t mind having sharia law injected
into their day-to-day lives.  On the contrary, the 2009 Iranian protests were
just as much against the Islamic Republic as they were against Shi’a Islam.  In
fact, much of the protesting was against Islam itself.  People have experienced
what a primitive and defective system of belief Islam is, and they aim to
abandon it for good.  In fact, millions of Iranians representing the entire
spectrum of society are demanding change from the repressive Islamic theocracy
to an open secular democracy.
Young Iranians, particularly the urban educated Iranians, are among the
most ardent believers in democracy in the world.  Many view America as the
country that holds the best hope for spreading and protecting the high ideals of
democracy.  In a sense, many Iranians feel a closer affinity with a democratic
Israel than with all the neighboring Arab Muslim dictatorships.  Although Islam
was imposed on Iran some 1,400 years ago, Iranians deeply value their own
ancient non-Arab identity and have never fully surrendered to the Arab culture.
During the bloodletting war initiated by the late Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein
against Iran, all Arab states sided with the “Butcher of Baghdad” against Iran.
Israel was the only Middle Eastern country that remained neutral and in fact
helped Iran in the struggle.  We Iranians don’t forget our friends, and we also
remember our enemies.
While I’m worried that the Muslim Brotherhood will take over this
quasi-popular revolt in Egypt, I am also hopeful that the Iranian patriots will
see the Egyptian demonstrations and be inspired to make yet another try at
toppling the loathed mullahcracy in Iran.