Iran anniversary ‘punch’ will stun West: Khamenei

Iran anniversary ‘punch’ will stun West: Khamenei
Feb 8 03:19 PM US/Eastern
Supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said on Monday that Iran is set to deliver a “punch” that will stun world powers during this week’s 31st anniversary of the Islamic revolution.”The Iranian nation, with its unity and God’s grace, will punch the arrogance (Western powers) on the 22nd of Bahman (February 11) in a way that will leave them stunned,” Khamenei, who is also Iran’s commander-in-chief, told a gathering of air force personnel.

The country’s top cleric was marking the occasion when Iran’s air force gave its support to revolutionary leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, a key event which led to the toppling of the US-backed shah on February 11, 1979.

His comments came as Iran said it would begin to produce higher enriched uranium from Tuesday, in defiance of Western powers trying to ensure the country’s nuclear drive is peaceful.

This year’s anniversary is expected to become a flashpoint between security forces and supporters of opposition leaders Mir Hossein Mousavi and Mehdi Karroubi, who charge that the June re-election of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was rigged.

Opposition supporters are expected to stage anti-government protests on Thursday when the traditional regime-sponsored marches to mark the revolution take place across the country.

Mousavi renewed his call for demonstrations on the February 11 anniversary.

Just over a week ago, he and Karroubi had implicitly called for a gathering of their supporters.

“The 22nd of Bahman is upon us, truly it should be called the day of gathering,” Mousavi said on his Kaleme.org website Monday.

“I feel we have to participate while maintaining the collective spirit as well as our identity and leave an impression,” Mousavi said.

“Anger and bitterness should not take our control away.

“The clerics should know that since imprisonment, beatings, and other confrontational methods are done in the name of Islam and the Islamic regime, it is hurting Islam and we all should try to stop,” he added.

Anti-government protests were first triggered after the June 12 presidential election won by Ahmadinejad.

Over the past eight months, several thousand people were arrested. Some were released and others were given hefty prison terms, among them politicians, journalists and human rights activists.

Two protesters were tried, convicted and hanged in the aftermath of the election.

Khamenei told the air force personnel the “most important aim of the sedition after the election was to create a rift within the Iranian nation, but it was unable to do so and our nation’s unity remained a thorn in its eyes.”

Obama’s Dimestore ‘Mein Kampf’

Iran: ‘We Are Still Anti-American’ Says Top Ayatollah

Iran: ‘We Are Still Anti-American’ Says Top Ayatollah

Iran shows a card. Following the highly suspect US/Iran talks that took place this past week, Iran has made it very clear as to where they stand. “Iran: ‘We Are Still Anti-American’ Says Top Ayatollah,” from AKI:

Tehran, 1 June (AKI) – Ayatollah Ahmad Jannati, a close aide of Iran’s supreme leader Seyyed Ali Khamenei, and the head of the powerful Guardians’ Council watchdog, said Friday. Tehran remains “anti-American and a foe of the United States” despite the first high level talks between the two countries in three decades which took place earlier this month in Baghdad. Jannati, who was addressing faithful during prayers at Tehran’s university, stressed that the “talks in Baghdad do not change in the least the anti-American policies of the Islamic Republic.””If the Americans want to guarantee a certain level of security to their citizens they must pull out of Iraq and abandon the region,” he added.

Notice that even if the US were to “abandon the region” (which obviously includes Israel as well as Iraq), only a “certain level” of security could be guaranteed. Who says it’s all about the “occupation”?

Crossposted from The American Israeli Patriot.

Teheran thinks it has moved one step closer to a nuclear arsenal

Teheran thinks it has moved one step closer to a nuclear arsenal
Fri. 06 Apr 2007

The Daily Telegraph

By Con Coughlin

Inside Abroad

Suddenly, Iran is everybody’s friend.

The safe return to Britain of 15 sailors and Marines in time to celebrate Easter with their families and friends has shown the ayatollahs in a new light. Gone is the image of a regime that represses its people and seeks the annihilation of its foes. Forgotten are the chants of the Friday prayer worshippers calling for the destruction of America, the “Great Satan”, and “Little Satan”, as Britain is disparagingly referred to in the parlance of Iran’s radical mosques.

Instead, we now find ourselves having to come to terms with a regime that is rational, benign and generous of spirit. For how else can one explain the magnanimity of the Iranians in arranging the captives’ safe return? They had, after all, been caught red-handed conducting military operations within Iranian territorial waters.

We know this, of course, because of the “confessions” the captives made on television before their release. Such was the gravity of their crime that the Iranians believed they had every right to put them on trial where, if convicted, they faced lengthy jail terms. But by arranging for their return home, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the former Revolutionary Guards commander who was hitherto deemed an ideologically driven menace, has shown himself to be a statesman of international repute. Rather than getting bogged down in a protracted dispute over territorial boundaries, he found it within himself to forgive the Servicemen and to send them home.

The logical conclusion – or so many will now argue – to be drawn from this transformation in the way we view the Iranian government is that if goodwill can prevail over an issue as delicate as the detention of British Servicemen, why can’t it be extended to other areas of dispute, such as Iran’s support for radical Shia groups in Iraq and its desire to acquire nuclear technology?

That is certainly the kind of response the ayatollahs will be hoping for now. But while the Servicemen’s release might appear to be a simple act of altruism, an ulterior motive is never far from their minds.

In terms of seeking Iran’s help in securing the release of British hostages, we have been here before. The Iranians were pivotal in ending the captivity of Terry Waite, John McCarthy and all the other Western hostages in Lebanon during the 1980s. But then they were best placed to do so, having ordered the hostages’ abduction in the first place.

Iran has always seen terrorism as a useful tool for achieving its political ambitions. On that occasion, they used the hostages as a bargaining chip to limit Western interference in the Gulf after the campaign to liberate Kuwait in 1991. The moment the allies fulfilled their pledge to disband the coalition assembled to defeat Saddam’s occupation forces, Waite et al were released.

A similar subtext lies at the heart of Ahmadinejad’s decision to release the British Servicemen. The Iranians are concerned that their attempts to consolidate their hold over radical Shia groups in southern Iraq are being frustrated by the American and British military, especially after a number of Revolutionary Guard officers were detained for their involvement in equipping Iraqi insurgent groups with deadly weaponry, including the materials used in roadside bombs such as the one that yesterday killed four British soldiers and their translator outside Basra.

Five Revolutionary Guard officers are still in American custody, and, while both London and Teheran insist no deal was done, it is surely no coincidence that an Iranian official was yesterday granted access to the detained officers, the first contact Teheran has had with them since their arrest at the start of the year.

But for Iran, the radicalisation of the Shia of southern Iraq is almost a sideshow compared with the acquisition of nuclear weapons. Even as Sir Nigel Sheinwald, Tony Blair’s foreign affairs guru, was in Teheran negotiating the release, work was continuing at Iran’s uranium enrichment plant at Natanz where the Iranians could have sufficient fissile material for an atom bomb by the end of next year.

The acquisition of a nuclear arsenal is the ayatollahs’ dream, and everything they do – whether it is grandstanding over the detention of a handful of British Servicemen or prevaricating with UN nuclear inspectors – is aimed at achieving this ambition. With yet another UN deadline approaching for the Iranians to cease uranium enrichment at Natanz or face tougher sanctions, the issue of the British captives provided Ahmadinejad with the perfect platform to demonstrate to an international audience the benefits to be gained from treating Teheran with respect, not threats.

As Ahmadinejad made clear in the rambling, two-hour anti-Western diatribe he delivered before dramatically announcing the captives’ release, Iran has as much of a right to develop nuclear technology as any other country, and, by letting them go free he and his advisers are seeking to reinforce the point that they are honourable men who, contrary to what Messrs Bush and Blair would have us believe, are perfectly capable of acting in good faith.

But if the Iranians are merely interested in developing nuclear technology as an alternative energy source, why, then, does their pattern of behaviour over a period of more than a decade suggest their intentions are far more sinister?

Why, for example, are the Iranians negotiating with North Korea to share the technological expertise Pyongyang gleaned from last year’s successful test-firing of an atom bomb? And why have the Iranians put the International Atomic Energy Agency under pressure to remove nuclear inspectors they consider to be too effective in uncovering glaring inconsistencies in Iran’s official declarations about its nuclear programme?

The answer to these and many other questions relating to Iran’s nuclear programme is that the Iranians are trying to conceal their true intentions. They might, as in the case of the British captives, appear both rational and reasonable, but only a fool would take their gestures of goodwill at face value.

Whose obsession?

Whose obsession?

I’ve just been watching the Fox News special called ‘Obsession‘, which is about the threat of ‘radical Islam.’ To tell you the truth, it was too revolting to watch all the way through, but I watched it in part, as much as I could stomach.

The thing I noticed, and which I fully expected, was that throughout, the ‘talking heads,’ the pundits, like Steve Emerson and Daniel Pipes, were very careful to use the PC construction, ‘radical Islam’ or ‘Islamists’, rather than speaking of Islam itself; the point being, of course, that it is just a ‘minority of extremists’, aka ‘Islamists’ who are the threat.

Some of the footage of the various Moslem TV programs and the rabble-rousing speeches by the mullahs and sheiks, was absolutely chilling. There was absolute cold evil in their eyes, the tone of their voices, and of course, most importantly, the words they were speaking. And it’s clear that to them, there are no ‘good Americans’, no decent infidels. They see the world in stark black and white, and they, in their twisted minds, see themselves as ‘good’ and us as ‘evil.’ They don’t trouble themselves with any niceties such as saying that ‘there is only a tiny minority of extremists’ in America who are their enemies; no, they say that America, all of it, is the cause of all evil and trouble.

This is all, of course, not news to anybody who pays attention to recent events in the world and who is semi-educated about Islam; it may, however, open the eyes of some of the more somnolent people who don’t bother themselves to keep up with world events, or who are satisfied with the PC view of the news as fed to us by the old media. I do hope that some people in that category were truly shocked by watching ‘Obsession’ and that they will realize the profound threat we are under, all of us in the West.

There has recently been quite a controversy, although seemingly a contrived one, about the administration’s use of the term ‘Islamofascists’; the quibblers say that the ‘fascist’ part of the term may be an inaccurate usage. That’s as may be, but to me, the problem with the word is, that like the made-up term ‘Islamist /Islamism’, or ‘radical Islam’, it is a way of splitting hairs. It is a way of drawing a distinction which is one of those ‘distinctions without a difference.’ All of the above terms imply that there is an aberrant or mutant form of Islam which is militant, and which preaches violence. And it’s distinguished, supposedly, from generic Islam, or ‘real’ Islam, which is that fabled ‘Religion of Peace’, which has ‘benevolence at its heart’, as Condi Rice said. This may be a convincing line of argument for those who haven’t taken a look at the Koran, or at an honest history book. Simply reading history books shows us that there were what are now termed ‘Islamofascists’ before there was such a thing denoted as ‘fascism.’ And a cursory reading of the Koran shows beyond any doubt that Islam is a violent religion, suffused with incitements to violence, saturated in the idea of killing and butchering the infidel in some instances, subjugating and enslaving him when killing is not prescribed. The Koran as well as the Hadiths, the sayings of Mohammed, are chockfull of violent and hateful rhetoric and dogma.
The fact is, Islam, unlike Christianity, does not posit the existence of a merciful God whose grace gives us a way to salvation; the only sure ‘salvation’ for a Moslem is via martyrdom, via killing infidels and martyring oneself in the process.
And the fact is, jihad is enjoined on all believers. And yes, we have been told that ‘jihad’ merely means ‘inner struggle’, but we also know that there is an Islamic practice called ‘taqiyya’, deceiving and lying to the infidel. So their explaining away the idea of jihad is not terribly convincing.

Still, the official line on Islam is that it is a mild, peaceful religion which is merely misinterpreted by a ‘tiny minority.’ Now the problem remains: how on earth do we infidels discern who is part of that dangerous ‘tiny minority’ who want to kill us, and destroy our country, and the ‘good Moslems’, the peaceful, law-abiding ones? If they present a meek and mild demeanor, does that guarantee they are benign? There have been countless incidents of Moslems who have been law-abiding people until they strap on a bomb belt and kill people, or until they hijack a plane or get into a car and mow down strangers, or get a gun and start shooting at random infidels. It’s happened. Someone, perhaps Robert Spencer, wryly coined the term ‘sudden jihadi syndrome’ for the people who, out of the blue, commit murder and mayhem, and in some cases, martyr themselves in doing so. There is no certain way to predict who among us will suddenly turn murderous in the name of ‘allah.’

As another example of the difficulty of discerning the harmless from the dangerous is the presence of some prominent Moslems who are ‘on our side.’ In the ‘Obsession’ documentary, they were represented by Nonie Darwish and Walid Shoebat, among others. These people are always cited as proof positive that most Moslems are decent, law-abiding people, just like us. They are held up as examples of how Moslems can be exemplary citizens, who assimilate to America or the West.
Many people who seem absolutely desperate to be PC and to appear ‘tolerant’ eagerly seize on the fact that such friendly Moslems exist, and cling to these people to convince themselves, perhaps, that Moslems are basically just like us, and that these Moslems are simply being corrupted by a few evil pied pipers like Abu Hamza, the hook-handed mullah living in the UK, and others like him.

It’s well to remember, on this subject, what the late Oriana Fallaci said:

There is not good Islam or bad Islam. There is just Islam. And Islam is the Qur’an. And the Qur’an is the Mein Kampf of this movement. The Qur’an demands the annihilation or subjugation of the other, and wants to substitute totalitarianism for democracy. Read it over, that Mein Kampf. In whatever version, you will find that all the evil that the sons of Allah commit against themselves and against others is in it.”

Nevertheless, despite the evident threat of Islam, it is obviously all-important to a lot of Americans to show that they are not ‘prejudiced’ against Islam. Even the tough-talking, ex-military pundit Ralph Peters has written a few diatribes defending ‘good’ Islam and lambasting ‘Islamophobes and bigots.’ This idea that we must lean over backwards in order to be ‘fair’ and tolerant has been beaten into our heads for decades now, to the point that we have started to deny the plain evidence of our senses and of common sense itself. We force ourselves to ignore many egregious acts by Moslems and focus on the few rare exceptions, like Nonie Darwish, like Walid Shoebat, like Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and the few others who have denounced the religion of their birth. But the fact is, they are anomalous within Islam; they are not typical, nor should we try to convince ourselves they are. To do so is dangerous self-delusion.

I will go further, and say something which no one seems willing to say: the presence of the few ‘good Moslems’ like Darwish, Shoebat, Ali, or whoever, makes us more vulnerable to the terrorists. The presence of those ‘law-abiding’ peaceful Moslems, that friendly Moslem neighbor or co-worker, enables the presence of the terrorists among us. Now, I am not saying they knowingly enable terror; not at all, but their presence does. The presence of the good, law-abiding Moslem enables us to say, ‘see, they really are just like us, and we can’t condemn them all. Maybe we can bring democracy to the Islamic world after all, and surely they can assimilate to the West. ‘ And thus we close our eyes to the threat of the Abu Hamzas or whoever else is among us fomenting terror. We pretend they don’t exist, or we turn a blind eye to them because of the benign Moslems we respect.

The terrorists surely know this; they know they can effectively hide among the law-abiding Moslems. The presence of large enclaves of Moslems in the West, made up of mostly unthreatening people, provides cover and camouflage for the bad guys. The good guys are essentially the sugar coating on the poison pill of terrorism.

Still, we focus on that sugar coating and deny the harmful ingredients inside the pill.

I am certain that during World War II, there were many decent, law-abiding Germans and Japanese people, yet I don’t think our government insisted that we ignore the threat of the Axis powers because they had good citizens in their midst. Thank goodness we didn’t have the politically correct albatross around our necks then, as we do now. The wartime propaganda was no doubt harsh and tended to caricature (or to ‘demonize’, as the leftists like to say) the enemy. Had we wrung our hands and said, ”but, but the Germans and the Japanese are mostly good, law-abiding people, and their governments have been hijacked by Nazis and ‘extremists’,” no; we recognized a mortal threat and acted on it. There is no way to declare war on just part of a population, when there is no way to distinguish who is dangerous and who is not. One has to act on the presumption that all may be dangerous. Unfair? Probably, but life is not fair. And it would have been unfair to ourselves to be so squeamish that we could not act effectively to win the war as quickly as possible.

Nowadays, we are a different people than our parents and grandparents. ‘The past is another country’, and in the new country that has taken the place of vanished America, we can’t act to protect ourselves by deporting or repatriating people. Niceness and tolerance trump survival. So we accept mass immigration from terrorist-sympathizing countries, with the implicit calculus that we will accept a certain number of terrorists for the sake of being open to the ‘majority’ of law-abiding Moslems. The same bizarre logic is at work with the illegal invasion: the government has all but said that yes, there are and will be a certain number of criminals entering: murderers, rapists, thieves, molesters — but never fear; it’s only a minority of them. The majority are ‘hard-working folks’ so we have to take a few bad apples in order to get those ‘good-hearted folks’ so beloved of our President. And if those bad apples among the Mohammedans or the Mexicans happen to kill or maim Americans, well, that’s just the luck of the draw, and what’s a few thousand lives here and there, as long as we are diverse and tolerant? And if we give up some basic freedoms and conveniences so as to protect our safety while still welcoming the threat among us, then that’s just the price we pay for this wonderful diversity.

I wonder if the title ‘Obsession’ might just as easily describe our current regime’s obsession with ‘tolerance, inclusion and diversity’? What other word describes the willingness to court death and destruction in the name of some goal, if not the word ‘obsession’? We in the West are as obsessed as the Moslems are, in our own way: our obsessive ‘niceness’ and passivity provides the perfect complement to their need to conquer and subjugate. Obsession indeed.

The ‘Obsession’ special ended with the mandatory politically correct disclaimer, spoken by E.D. Hill. I knew it was coming all along; still, I had to groan when she intoned those familiar words, something like ‘We must remember, the majority of our Muslim citizens are peaceful and law-abiding people.’

I mean, what’s up with that disclaimer? Do our elites in the media and government think so little of us that they believe we will take up torches and head towards the nearest mosque, after watching ‘Obsession’? Even though they have just succeeded in showing us just how malevolent Islam can be, we are not supposed to take it to heart. And the implicit message is: ‘yes, Islam is a scary belief system that seriously unhinges many of its followers, who become rabid killers, but don’t fret about it; there’s not a blessed thing you can do anyway. Have a nice day.
Oh, and don’t forget: celebrate diversity, because it’s our strength.’

Iranian President Ahmadinejad: The West Should Pick Up the Zionist Regime ‘By the Arms and Legs’ and Remove It from the Region; U.N. Resolutions Are Illegitimate; America & England are Enemies of the Iranian Nation

October 27, 2006 No.1337

Iranian President Ahmadinejad: The West Should Pick Up the Zionist Regime ‘By the Arms and Legs’ and Remove It from the Region; U.N. Resolutions Are Illegitimate; America & England are Enemies of the Iranian Nation

The following are excerpts from an address delivered by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, which aired on Jaam-e Jam 1 TV on October 20, 2006. In the address, Ahmadinejad stated that the U.S. was extorting the entire world using the Holocaust as a pretext and that the West was being held hostage by “the Zionists” by means of the Holocaust, and instructed it to pick up “[the Zionist regime]by the arms and legs, and remove it” from the Middle East. He further claimed that the U.N. Security Council and its resolutions were illegitimate and that “the whole world knows that America and England are the enemies of the Iranian nation.”

TO VIEW THIS CLIP: http://www.memritv.org/search.asp?ACT=S9&P1=1301

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: “This [Zionist regime] was established in order to swallow up the entire region, and to place it at the disposal of the world forces. It is a big lie that it was done in order to protect those killed in World War II, and in order to compensate them.

“Over 60 million people were killed in World War II. Let’s assume you are right, and six million [Jews] were among those killed. How come none of you mourn the other 54 million? Why don’t you pay reparations to them? Why don’t you ever think about them? All your sorrow, your pity, your mourning cries are over [victims] who were counted by I don’t know whom…

“Western Countries Are Being Held Hostage Today By tThe Zionists”

“Obviously, some of the Western countries are being held hostage today by the Zionists. Some Western countries have been paying reparations for 60 years. We sent letters and messages, and asked them: ‘When will these relations, which evolved from World War II, come to an end?’ A war broke out 60 years ago, and some considered themselves the victors in this war. They occupied Palestine. They set up bases throughout the world, and want to act aggressively against all the peoples. They also gave themselves privileges in the international forums, and the other peoples must submit to their control. We asked them when these relations would come to an end. We asked the leader of one of these countries: ‘Until when will your people have to pay reparations?’ For two generations? Three generations? For a 100 years? A thousand years? A few thousand years?

“The existence of this regime is so essential for these countries that in some of them, they even built monuments. You know that every country builds monuments for the objects of their pride. They take their children, from an early age, to show them these monuments, in order to help them develop their identity, and to instill in their memory the things that make them proud, in order to feel power and honor. In some of these countries, they set up monuments whose purpose was to degrade that very nation. From an early age, they take their children and say to them: ‘Look, our ancestors were murderers. Our ancestors used to burn people. We are in debt.’

“Why Does America Extort the World, Under the Pretext of the Holocaust?”

“Something happened three generations ago. Let’s assume it was true. What is the crime of the youth born in Europe today? What is the crime of people living in the world today that they have to pay reparations so high they cannot even be calculated? The peoples have to pay any sum decreed by America and England. What is the reason for this? When will there be an end to these claims? What is their limit? What does America have to do with this? Why does America extort the world, under the pretext of the Holocaust? Why does England extort [the world]? Wasn’t it England that laid the foundations for the fear that led the Jews to flee to the occupied lands?

“They said: ‘We want to establish a place for the survivors.’ How many survivors were there? With false promises, you gathered the wretched people from Africa, South America, Asia, and North America, and you brought them there. You banished one people from its land, and you want to create another people by force. Why? Why? Are all those now living in Palestine survivors of the war? We asked [these Westerners]: ‘The current leader of the Zionist regime – where did his parents live? Where were they?’ As you know, some of the leaders of the Zionist regime are in fact Iranians.

[…]

“The life of this regime depended on military threat, military force, and the legend that it was invincible. Today, with God’s grace, this false legend has collapsed, with the help of the young believers of Palestine, and thanks to the believing, self-sacrificing commanders of Hizbullah. Today, the Zionists do not feel secure even in their own homes, anywhere in the world.

“Today, this community, which was gathered by force, and under false pretexts, and whose members were joined to one another by a paper-clip, in order to create a false illusion of a nation… Today, they have fallen apart. I declare here, loud and clear: With God’s grace, this regime has lost the philosophy of its existence.

[…]

“I said to them: If you do not agree, open the doors, open the gates, and allow these uninvited guests to return to their countries. Let them return to their homeland. If the Western countries that support the Zionists feel sympathetic toward them, they should give them financial aid, so that they can live in their own countries.

[…]

“We have some advice for the supporters of this regime. We say to them: First of all, do not seek a new crime. Every crime being perpetrated today, every youth who dies in Palestine today, every home that is demolished, and every incursion into the neighboring countries will be accredited to the supporters of this regime, and the nations will exact their revenge.

[…]

“Since You Brought [This Regime] Over There, You Yourselves Pick it up, By the Arms and Legs, and Remove it From There”

“Our proposal is as follows: Since you brought [this regime] over there, you yourselves pick it up, by the arms and legs, and remove it from there. This will make the peoples of the region improve their attitude toward you. These will be the first steps to a long-lasting friendship with the peoples of the region. This will be to your advantage.

“You may say: ‘We feel uncomfortable doing this, because the Zionists control our countries, the propaganda machinery is at their disposal, and if we want to gain voters, we need their money and their support. Therefore, we feel uncomfortable doing this.’

“Fine. We made you another proposal: Allow that which you advocate take place in Palestine. After all, you advocate democracy, and you claim that the peoples should control their own destiny. So let the Palestinian people decide upon its own path by means of a referendum. In response, you say: ‘We might lose our reputation.’ Our response is: You have no reputation left anyway! Where do you still have a reputation anywhere in the world?

“In the recent war in Lebanon, you saw with your own eyes that the whole world was against you. Even in Argentina, where the Zionists devise conspiracies, generate strife, and put pressure on the Argentinean administration, the people took to the streets.

[…]

“The Whole World Knows That America and England Are the Enemies of the Iranian Nation”

“This [Zionist] regime is on the verge of death, and we advise you to start thinking about your long-term interests and long term relations with the peoples of the region. At the end of the day, these are all ultimatums. Noone should complain tomorrow. The things are stated clearly.

[…]

“What is this Security Council anyway? The whole world knows that America and England are the enemies of the Iranian nation.”

Crowd: “Allah Akbar.”

“Allah Akbar.”

“Khamenei is the leader.”

“Death to those who oppose the rule of the jurisprudent”

“Death to America”

“Death to England”

“Death to the hypocrites and Saddam”

“Death to Israel”

“The Security Council, in Its Present Condition, is Illegitimate; Its Resolutions Are Illegitimate”

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: “They have taken control of the leading positions in the Security Council, and have the right of veto, and they are prosecuting and judging us, and they want to carry out the verdict. Sir, this is the logic of pharaonic times. The days of this logic are over. The Security Council, in its present condition, is illegitimate. Its resolutions are illegitimate. Do you want to be the judges, the rulers, the prosecutors, and those who carry out the verdicts? These days are over. Nobody accepts this behavior of yours. Even the illiterate old women of the Himalayas will not accept this behavior of yours.”

The Al Qaeda Bomb is Coming – Vote for your Life!

Form the Amrican Thinker

http://www.americanthinker.com/index.php 

The Al Qaeda Bomb is Coming – Vote for your Life!
October 25th, 2006

As surely as the future holds another catastrophic earthquake for California, so might it promise a Mushroom Cloud for one or more of our major cities.  This alarming reality makes the outcome of every future national election infinitely more momentous than that of its precursor.  For, if there’s any hope of forestalling this unimaginable prospect, it certainly lies in our imperative to replenish our government with only those preeminently qualified to do so

 

Granted, whether a Reagan Republican, a focused government Federalist, or a leave-me-alone Libertarian, whatever Congress hasn’t done lately to disappoint you, surely the White House has.  There’s talk that many of you understandably dispirited Conservatives will stay home to watch Dancing With The Stars this coming election evening.  If you do, you may just wake up Wednesday morning to the revelation that your inaction will one day cause a cataclysmic reaction.

 

It’s likely not a matter of if

In June of 2002, bin Laden spokesman Abu Gheith brazenly claimed al-Qaeda’s right to kill 4 million Americans – half of them children. Having raised the bar dramatically just 9 months prior, the murderous group’s words were interpreted by many experts as a warning of an impending “American Hiroshima.”  The term had previously been intercepted amid al-Qaeda “chatter,” especially pertaining to the false alarm of a 10 kiloton bomb having been smuggled into NYC exactly a month after the 9/11 attacks.

 

No one doubts that their will to annihilate countless Americans is categorical.  But—what of their way?  Is there a genuine danger of al-Qaeda actually possessing the means to a nuclear detonation, or is this all psychological gamesmanship?

Consider this—as a rule, technology will expand and miniaturize—not contract and bloat. A fine example is the world’s 1st digital computer—the U.S War Department’s ENIAC – which was a half million dollar behemoth spanning well over 100 feet.  When launched in 1946, it mustered but a fraction of the processing power of a 10 dollar digital wristwatch produced just 40 years later.   Such is the daunting way of all technology – including weapons: The initial prohibitive expense, size, and sophistication to all but advanced governments inexorably gives way to widespread proliferation to one and all.   

Consequently—the machinery of a terrorist nuclear bomb is readily available and, quite frankly, inescapable.  This means that our last hope of averting unprecedented disaster lies in keeping fissile material out of their bloodthirsty hands. After all, absent sufficient quantities of the proper isotopes, an A-bomb is but a harmless, empty hi-tech shell.

The Object of their Convection

So a would-be nuclear terrorist must either acquire a fully armed weapon, or, at the very least, its deadly fuel.  Such fuel must be purchased, stolen, or produced by extremely expensive, arduous, and time consuming means. Unfortunately, there currently exist rich opportunities for each of these methods of procurement.

 

Pakistan’s “rogue” nuclear scientist, Dr. A.Q.Kahn’s centrifuge design for uranium enrichment has already found its way to both North Korea and Iran.  The former has recently showcased the destructive results of that acquisition while the latter promises that a similar exhibition is soon forthcoming. Either of these rogue nations might be willing to marshal materials or weapons to al-Qaeda or Hezb’allah in order to deliver a bomb to the U.S with no discernible return address.

 

An easier acquirement may be available from the black market supply of both weapons and weapons-grade materials unleashed by the rapid dissolution of the former Soviet Union:

 

It is suspected that at least some of the 22,000 tactical nukes Moscow reclaimed from former S.S.Rs at the end of the Cold War have been stolen, lost, or are otherwise unaccounted for.

In 1997, Russian General Alexander Lebed told 60 Minutes that 84 one-kiloton “suitcase” devices had vanished.  This is a highly contested issue.  There are claims that such apparatus are available on the Chechnya black market and are already in the hands of terror cells within our borders.  There are also those who thoroughly dismiss these assertions and, furthermore, dispute the efficacy of such weapons after years of neglect.

 

Parcels of both Highly Enriched Uranium (HEU) and its precursor, “yellowcake,” have been intercepted in Czechoslovakia, Germany and Georgia.  It is widely believed that the materials were misappropriated in Russia.

 

Thousands of weapons and soft-ball sized lumps of HEU and Plutonium are stored in outlandishly ill-secured locations in Russia.  And, while the US D.O.D has implemented measures to help bolster security at these sites, they can only do so at those specifically allowed by Moscow.

And, if a little bloodshed doesn’t present an obstacle, there are minimally secured active materials available in HEU-fueled nuclear research reactors in the U.S and across the globe.   Also, recent intelligence suggests that Pakistan’s hard-line Islamist parties are becoming more entrenched in the country’s all-powerful Army.  Even more distressing are ongoing threats of the overthrow or assassination of President Pervez Musharraf. Such a move may instantly put a radical, terror friendly, Islamist government in charge of a formidable nuclear arsenal.

 

Burning down the House

The stakes are high, indeed.  The highest we’ve ever encountered – hands down. Our survival lies in the thoroughly dispassionate application of aggressive and not altogether pretty countermeasures.  Sure, politicians and diplomats can institute a “gold standard” for all nuclear weapons and materials by securing them in Fort Knox’s radioactive equivalent.  Meanwhile, vastly impotent liberal enclaves such as the UN can endeavor to check the production of new fissile materials by nations seeking membership into the nuclear club by deploying empty threats and meaningless sanctions.  These may prove to be marginally worthy long-term efforts, but fail miserably to tackle the immediate threat.

 

No—in order to address the real problem we must interrupt nuclear black markets.  We must prevent jihadists from acquiring weaponry from sympathetic states. We must expand our network of both human and electronic intelligence.  We must maintain the capability to interrogate those with information vital to the cause to whatever extent necessary.  We must enhance our eavesdropping and data-mining efforts beyond the perimeter which has already elicited liberal cries of foul.  Simply stated – we must do whatever needs to be done to whomever needs it done while remaining deaf to the outcries of the misguided children in the room – and in the House.

 

White House political strategist Karl Rove assessed the left’s pathetic and perilous counterterrorism stance cogently in his October 17th comments to the Washington Times:

“You had 90 percent of House Democrats voting against the terrorist-surveillance program, nearly three-quarters of Senate Democrats and 80 percent of House Democrats voting against the terrorist-interrogation act. Something is fundamentally flawed.”

Mr. Rove’s political position demands diplomacy.  Mine does not: This 1960’s mentality in a 2000’s world is not just “fundamentally flawed”—it is unforgivably negligent. In an age of daily mortal threats to our citizenry, these quixotically misguided hippie leftovers still place civil liberties far ahead of civil defense.

Furthermore, should the power dispensed by statute to the majority party be added to this naïve mix come Election Day, such an amalgam might just open the door to an inferno.  These starry-eyed dupes will be handed the power associated with chairing the powerful House committees.  And each of the aspiring committee chairmen was among those voting against the 2 bills cited by Rove.  Each also, along with 173 of their Democratic colleagues, voted against House Resolution 895 which specifically condemns:

 

“the disclosure and publication of classified information that impairs the international fight against terrorism and needlessly exposes Americans to the threat of further terror attacks by revealing a crucial method by which terrorists are traced through their finances.”

 

Fortunately, we currently enjoy a Republican majority.  As such, these bills, so crucial to safeguarding our very lives, passed in spite of the efforts of the oblivious minority. Indeed, there’s been much anxiety lately over a Democrat-held House’s impact on taxes, gun control, welfare reform, global warming, taxpayer funded abortions, and other social issues.  Yet all of these concerns will vaporize along with hundreds of thousands of Americans within seconds of a well placed and well timed A-Bomb.  The frightening truth is that aggressive counterterrorism bills such as these will never make it out of committee if Democrats are handed the majority next month.

 

Four Housemen of the Apocalypse

Imagine Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich) holding the gavel of the Judiciary Committee.  The man is so obsessed with impeaching the President that he actually held a mock trial last June in the Capitol basement, complete with cardboard name tags, C-SPAN cameras, and demands he be referred to as “chairman.”  He truly believes that we “unfairly elected to discriminate in granting visas to men from Middle Eastern countries” and were “openly violating our nation’s laws by authorizing the NSA to engage in warrantless surveillance of U.S. citizens.”      

 

How about Rep. Alcee L. Hastings of Florida wearing the crown at the Intelligence Committee? The former federal judge, who was impeached and removed from the bench in 1989, voted against the Patriot Act just weeks after the 9/11 attacks:

 

“The Patriot Act has given the government new powers to bug telephones, monitor e-mails and Internet use, and search public databases. From the over-broad definition of domestic terrorism, to the FBI’s new powers of search and surveillance, to the indefinite detention of both citizens and non-citizens without formal charges, civil liberties have been seriously undermined. This is completely unacceptable.”

 

In fact, for the job of protecting this nation against nuclear terrorism, isn’t it “Chairman” Hastings that is completely unacceptable?

 

Congressman Barney Frank (D-Mass) would chair the Financial Services Committee. In his book Why America Slept – The Failure to Prevent 9/11, Gerald Posner explores the impact Frank’s misplaced concern for the civil liberties of our enemies had on our vulnerability to the attacks. First, his efforts led to legislation which provided that membership in a terrorist group was insufficient cause to deny an entry visa.  Then:

 

“Between 1981 and 2001, Barney Frank sponsored no less than 13 amendments to the Immigration and Nationality Act, which had the effect of opening the nation’s floodgates to a well-disciplined, well-organized network of terrorist sleeper cells and support groups that have since become entrenched here in America for up to two decades.”

Charles Rangel (D-NY) would take the reins of the powerful Ways and Means Committee, where he has promised to cutoff vital military funding.  The anti-military Congressman actually introduced eight articles of impeachment against Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld over the Pentagon’s handling of charges of “prison abuse” by U.S. soldiers.  Can you imagine giving more power to a man who believes that:

“We just take for granted that there is an Islamic terror movement because we do have some fanatic people who come from Islamic countries.” 

We are arguably standing at the next crossroads of civilization, yet we are about to install leaders better suited for President Merkin Muffley’s war room than George Bush’s.  Insane?  It only gets more so:

The Worst Defense is a Weak Offense

In line for the Appropriations Defense Subcommittee is every pacifist’s favorite soldier – John Murtha (D-Pa).  The one-time warrior has lowered his sword and called for either the immediate withdrawal of U.S forces from Iraq or a specific deadline for doing so.  Once anointed with this chair, he has promised to force the issue by cutting off all necessary funding.  But the danger of his leadership extends well beyond Baghdad.

 

Murtha also voted unsuccessfully against extending the Patriot Act.  He did so knowing full well that he was attempting to strip intelligence and law enforcement agencies of the very powers which had permitted them to disrupt over 150 terrorist threats and cells around the world.

 

Murtha didn’t even wait for the smoke to clear in the Iraqi city of Haditha before exploiting its opportunity. Last November, he appeared on ABC’s This Week to announce that a cover-up going “right up the chain of command” had taken place.  Without any facts to back up his claims, the angry General proclaimed the act as murder, adding that it was “worse than Abu Ghraib.”

 

Yet, perhaps his most distressing comments were spoken on the House floor last December. Addressing the use of extreme measures to obtain extreme information in extreme circumstances, Murtha said:

“Torture does not help us win the hearts and minds of the people it’s used against”

Earth to Jack—Neither hearts nor minds will prevent Times Square from suddenly reaching the surface temperature of the Sun.  Forget Murtha – where’s Jack Bauer?

 

Behold a Pale Boss

Last and certainly least qualified for even the lowliest of civil defense jobs is San Francisco Democrat Nancy Pelosi.  This liberal feminist Minority Leader has never missed an opportunity to criticize the administration or scythe its counterterrorism initiatives.  In keeping with her “proud” liberal background, she strongly believes that terrorists should be tried in our court system and afforded all of the rights and constitutional protections normally reserved to citizens. 

True to that absurdly irresponsible position, she has proudly and consistently voted against most legislation written to maintain the current radiation levels of the country.  For instance:

 

The formation of the Homeland Security Department

 

The development of a national missile defense system

 

Exempting U.S. citizens, particularly our soldiers, from the potential contrivances of a blatantly anti-American  International Criminal Court

 

Final Passage of the Patriot Act reauthorization

 

Prohibiting “U.S. Citizens And Companies From Conducting Any Financial Transaction With Countries That Have Been Identified By The State Department As Active Sponsors Of Terrorism”

 

And yet, she has repeatedly voted for cutting Intelligence funding—even after 9/11.  She voted against the REAL ID Act of 2005, which would have strengthened our battle against terrorist entry into and movement about the country.  Even worse—her call for the acceptance of the easily forged, Mexican-issued “matricula consular” cards for border crossing and passage into Federal Buildings would have the exact opposite impact on our safety.

 

When a Carter appointed federal judge decreed that the NSA program was “unconstitutional” and called for its immediate suspension, Pelosi hailed the ruling as a “repudiation” of the administration’s use of NSA surveillance.  Adding utter ignorance of global history to her disregard for national safety, she has called for the immediate closing of camp X-ray at Guantanamo in order to

 

give us a clean slate in the Muslim world.”

 

Then, we need to unleash those sworn to our destruction in order to make amends – for what, not being stuck in the 9th century?   The abovementioned Military Commissions Act of 2006 broadened the government’s right to detain and question terror suspects about threats against our country. Not surprisingly, when it passed in spite of her nay vote, Pelosi incredulously declared:

“This bill is practically begging to be overturned by the [Supreme Court].”

For our Children’s Children’s Children

 

So the woman who would be Speaker would intentionally impede both our human and electronic intelligence gathering.  She will rule over a House whose committee chairmen share her preposterous belief that the ends justify the means only when those means are sanctioned by the ACLU.  That breaching the “liberties” of the few in order to save the millions is an unacceptable exchange.  Yes, the enemy tortures, decapitates and slaughters without mercy—but we are morally superior.

 

But here’s what the Dems just don’t get: Every time we show the enemy our moral superiority—we get weaker.  Every time the enemy brandishes his complete lack of morality—he gets stronger.  Furthermore, every time he is presented with a new weakness on our part – he grows stronger still. 

 

Surely, the liberal response to terrorism has been and will continue to be a veritable showcase of weakness and cowardice.  And, just as surely—only through strength and courage might we avoid the day when much of Manhattan resembles the smoldering ruins which were the World Trade Center on September 12, 2001.

 

So forget about Abramoff, Katrina, Iraq, and any other Republican blunder which the MSM has unabashedly over-reported in an effort to deflate your motivation to get out to the polls.  Instead of the mundane fallout over Foley, consider the potential lethal fallout over your city.

 

For the sake of this and future generations—vote.  Vote as though your life depended on it – for it just might.   Pelosi has said that this election “shouldn’t be about National Security.”  If the Democrats retake the House, she will have been right – dead right.

 

Marc Sheppard is a regular contributor to American Thinker. He welcomes your feedback

Marc Sheppard