Tag Archives: Jihad

Aug 2 2015

“Prepare for a Nuclear Iran”


Posts by Eidelberg [2008] and Bolton [2009]

Essay 1: “Iran: Our Most Dangerous Enemy” 

Paul Eidelberg (May 9, 2008)

Iran has been at war with the United States and Israel ever since the Khomeini-inspired Iranian Revolution of 1979.  This is, or may become, the most far-reaching revolution in human history.  Iran is not only the epicenter of international terrorism. Iran’s ultimate goal is to restore the Persian Empire and spread Shiite Islam throughout the world.  This is not fantasy….

Iran is gaining decisive influence on Syria and Iraq. Iran’s proxy, Hezbollah, virtually rules Lebanon. [Hamas is another proxy of Iran, has access to the Sinai where it could threaten Egypt].

If this was not enough, Iran controls the world’s spigot of oil flowing through the Persian Gulf. This nation of 70 million people can wreck the world’s economy. With control of the vast oil resources of the Persian Gulf, a nuclear-armed Iran, with its long-range Silkworm ballistic missiles, would cow an already craven Europe, without which the American economy would utterly collapse, period.

Hence, the question arises: “Will the U.S. or will Israel launch a preemptive attack on Iran, the engine of Islamic imperialism?” At stake is the survival of Western civilization. [Iran’s] maledictions, “death to America” and “death to Israel” speak of a world without Christianity and Judaism.

The U.S. National Intelligence Estimate of December 2007 reported that Iran had ceased its nuclear development program in 2003. Former UN Ambassador John Bolton wrote an excoriating critique of the NIE report in The Washington Post (December 7, 2007).  He warned that “the NIE opens the way for Iran to achieve its military nuclear ambitions in an essentially unmolested fashion, to the detriment of us all” (my emphasis). This is precisely why Mr. Bolton wrote an op-ed piece in The Wall Street Journal virtually encouraging Israel to launch a pre-emptive strike against Iran. He boldly asserted that the US should support Israel before, during, and after such a strike – should it take place.  [Hardly to be expected with Obama in the White House.]

Essay 2: “It’s Crunch Time for Israel on Iran”

John Bolton (July 28, 2009)

It’s routine for senior American officials to descend on Jerusalem. Most important was a visit of [former] Defense Secretary Robert Gates. His central objective was to dissuade Israel from carrying out military strikes against Iran’s nuclear weapons facilities. Under the guise of counseling “patience,” Mr. Gates conveyed President Barack Obama’s emphatic thumbs down on military force.

[Meanwhile], Iran’s progress with nuclear weapons and air defenses means that Israel’s military option is declining over time. Worse, Mr. Obama has no new strategic thinking on Iran. He vaguely promises to offer Tehran the carrot of diplomacy followed by an empty threat of sanctions down the road if Iran does not comply with the U.S.’s requests. This is precisely the European Union’s approach, which has failed for over six years.

Unlike Obama, Israel sees the diplomatic and military situation concerning Iran in a very inauspicious light. Israel fears that the Obama administration, once ensnared in negotiations, will find it very hard to extricate itself. The Israelis are probably right. To prove the success of his “open hand” or “outreach” policy, Mr. Obama will declare victory for “diplomacy” even if it means little to no gains on Iran’s nuclear program.

Under the worst-case scenario, Iran will continue improving its nuclear facilities and Mr. Obama will become the first U.S. president to tie the issue of Iran’s nuclear capabilities into negotiations about Israel’s nuclear capabilities.

Relations between the U.S. and Israel are more strained now than at any time since the 1956 Suez Canal crisis. Obama’s message to Israel (via Gates) not to attack Iran, and the U.S. pressure he brought to bear, highlight the weight of Israel’s lonely burden.

Striking Iran’s nuclear program will not be precipitous or poorly thought out. Israel’s attack, if it happens, will have followed enormously difficult deliberation over terrible imponderables, and years of patiently waiting on innumerable failed diplomatic efforts by the United States.

Absent Israeli action, prepare for a nuclear Iran.

Aug 2 2015

Islam vs. all other religions for first place in the murder category


Determining the validity or truth of an idea or statement isn’t always easy and never has been easy. A fourteenth-century philosopher William of Occam had a useful rule of thumb for this quandary. We now know it as Occam’s Razor, and it is often stated thusly: “The simplest explanation is usually the best.”
The original Latin –“Pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate” — adds a wrinkle. This translates roughly, “Multiple variables are not to be posited without necessity.”
A more modern form of this principle is called the Duck test which is a humorous term for a form of inductive reasoning. This is its usual expression: If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.

Aug 2 2015

Iran publishes book on how to outwit USA and destroy Israel…


Apparently John Kerry, who served in Vietnam, doesn’t agree that the Iranians have done any of these things.

Aug 2 2015

John Kerry: Iranians Screaming “Death To America” Doesn’t Mean They Want To Kill Us


This year in November it will have been 36 of Iranians claiming then what to destroy the great Satan America! Kerry now claims that he has personally stopped that from being true — really John?

Aug 2 2015

WHY THE IRAN DEAL IS NO DEAL . . .


No deal is better than this deal!

Jul 30 2015

Does Obama Want Iran to Nuke Israel?


The republicans have demonstrated time and time again that they are in 100% agreement with what BHO is doing. They attack any conservatives and/or tea party members and brand them as radicals. Therefore there is no reason to not believe what was written here by ERIK RUSH. The prove is that a treaty requires a 2/3’s vote to approve; the republicans turned it into a 2/3’s vote to stop. Since that is going to be impossible it guaranteed approval. Does that make any sense?;

Jul 30 2015

Mosquitoes in the Mosques


Post by  Tabitha Korol

The guidelines for Letters to the Editor of The Chautauquan Daily include warnings that libelous, demeaning or accusatory statements are unacceptable. This also means that the truth must be curtailed, for it is the truth that supremacist Muslims find inappropriate and offensive, even by those who perpetrate the acts.

 Nevertheless, I refer to guest speaker Hussein Rashid, who denied the intensity and frequency of religious violence, citing that Muslims kill a mere 17 Americans per year (surely, not in the year 2001), while mosquitoes kill an average of 750,000. This is the new Moral Inversion, that Sharia law is now moral and mosquitoes immoral. Are we to flick a wrist at jihadists and the growing body count? (According to Muslim historian Firistha, Muslims killed ~400 million Indian people during invasions and occupation of the Indian continent alone, bringing the worldwide total to more than 890 million victims since the birth of Mohammed.)

Are we to disregard the religious bigotry? sadistic cruelty? kidnappings? rapes? lifelong captivity? persecution of women? and worldwide terrorism? and arm ourselves with cans of repellant and netting? This may well be the Enlightenment that Rashid attempted to explain – that we misinterpreted the Middle East, that the wretched mosquito kidnaps young girls for sexual slavery, burns churches, and espouses destructive propaganda in America’s universities. 

Rashid did eventually declare religions to be violent, but I submit that all religions cannot be so classified. Religions are not equal; their doctrines differ greatly. Buddhism promotes peacefulness, loving-kindness, compassion, sympathetic joy, and equanimity. Hinduism’s many philosophies prescribe honesty, patience, self-restraint, and refraining from injuring living beings. Judaism and Christianity are commonly guided by the Torah and Ten Commandments. Islam’s guide is the Trilogy: Quran, Hadith and Sira.

 Compare one Commandment, “Thou shalt not kill/murder,” with the Qur’an’s 109 verses that call Muslims to war with nonbelievers, to kill infidels wherever they hide, to chop off heads and fingers, threatening Hell if they do not slaughter.

 Unlike the Old Testament’s verses of violence that are explained in context of history, those in the Qur’an are open-ended, as relevant today as in the past. Islam’s ideology promotes violence until the nonbelievers accept humiliation, convert to Islam, or are killed – a history of bloodshed and suffering.

 

 

Jul 24 2015

Negotiating with Muslims


BY Prof. Paul Eidelberg

Since Muslims regard “non-Muslims” as “pigs and “dogs,” and not as wolves, it is not enough for the disciples of Muhammad to kill non-Muslims. The proud warriors of Allah must also degrade infidels, especially Christians, Allah’s most numerous and most powerful opponents and competitors.

That’s what the Islamic war cry “Allahu Akbar” means: Allah is the greatest of the gods.

Overweening pride is the distinctive character trait of Muslims, in contrast to Christians, who exalt humility. Thus, for Muslims to degrade Christians only accentuates the lowliness in which Christian’s take pride!

To the extent that the Christian ethos influences the attitude of American diplomats and American foreign policy experts, these Americans are entrapped in an ironic and deleterious situation when dealing with Allah’s faithful. This is one, but not the only, reason why I oppose negotiations with Muslims.

In relating to the warriors of Allah, one should employ an uncompromising and coercive “either-or” approach.

Of course, such a modus operandi goes against the grain of liberals and democracies whose media are fond of Benjamin Netanyahu’s negotiating ideal of “reciprocity,” a concept utterly foreign to Islam.

Reciprocity is so foreign to Islam that its adoption by Muslims would be equivalent to a renunciation of their religion!

Yet this is precisely what is logically and politically entailed by the policy of “territory for peace” pursued by every Israeli prime minister from Yitzchak Rabin to Netanyahu, along with their countless experts in political science!

Jul 22 2015

Questions and Answers on Islam


Bill Warner answers these questions: Reliable Hadith; How to push back against Islam; Difference between a Muslim and Islam; What is the Islamic chain of authority; Sweet and kind Muslims; Muslim literacy; Mohammed and Jesus; Why are we afraid? Immigration; Koran; Catholics and the creation of Islam; Well meaning Muslims; Why do we have to obey Ramadan rules; Archeology and Islamic history; The corruption of the Koran.

Jul 20 2015

Islam Religious Nihilism


By Prof. Paul Eidelberg

Nicolai Sennels, a Danish psychologist, contends that Muslim violence and rape, and that Muslim rage and aggression as well as Muslim irresponsibility, stem from Muslim or Islamic beliefs.

If this diagnosis is correct, we would have to conclude that Islam, above and beneath the surface, is a pathological and psychotic creed. This obviously has grave consequences, especially for Israel and America.

First, it means that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, in negotiating for years with Mahmoud Abbas, the Muslim leader of the Palestinian Authority, has been dealing with a man whose Islamic beliefs render him a split personality, whereby the disparity between his words and deeds is not the result of hypocrisy – a common frailty – but of (unseen) schizophrenia.

Second, since Barack Obama is a self-professed Muslim, this means that the American people have twice elected a morally obtuse and irresponsible person as their President.

Since a person of Obama’s Islamic ethnocentric beliefs excludes natural rights, he thereby excluded “infidels” from any rights. Hence he cannot reliably distinguish right from wrong from a universalistic perspective. And since Obama also purveys the multicultural moral relativism prevalent in academia, this too will render him psychologically disinclined to disparage a Muslim as a terrorist.

Obama’s ethnocentric vacuity and moral insensitivity explains (1) his returning a statue of Winston Churchill to London; (2) his boycotting the anti-Islamic demonstration in Paris; (3) his hostility toward Israel; (4) his appointing Muslims to Executive departments and agencies, including Homeland Security and the CIA; and (5) his support of Iran despite its nuclear weapons program, and despite its threat to Western civilization.

Wafa Sultan was right in saying Islam is not a civilization. Lee Harris was right in saying Islam is the greatest enemy of civilization. From this I conclude that Islam manifests what is nothing less than religious nihilism, which is personified by Barack Obama, the occupant of the White House!☼