Iran is evil

The regime in Tehran has to be one of the most evil regime on this planet and it is time to serve it with a vicious military iron fist right into its jaw that should break it into a million pieces. God's willing, this regime should join Nazi Germany and Imperial japan into the dustbin of history. For the sake of Humanity, this cultist regime in Tehran must be crushed and eliminated.



There's more...

Sharia = apartheid!


The news: Volume 14, Issues 13-25 - Independent Communications Network Ltd., 2000 - Page 6
Sharia is what apartheid was in South Africa. Even if constitutional, it is unjust! If we do not dismantle it like apartheid, it will dismantle Nigeria.

National Writers Syndicate - Islamic Apartheid Muslims Only
Islamic Apartheid in Mecca and Medina is a legal, political, and religious segregation enforced by the Shariah compliant country of Saudi Arabia, ...

Surrender! - HUMAN EVENTS
Jul 8, 2008 – This will mean English law must become subordinate to Sharia law. This is Dhimmitude, an Islamic system of religious apartheid begun in the 7th century that...

Shilling for Shariah | FrontPageMagazine
Aug 30, 2011
... So Shariah is based upon a religious ideology that embraces gender apartheid, religious apartheid, cruel punishment and the denial of freedoms of speech, thought, and conscience. As such it cannot be compatible with western pluralistic democratic societies.

Sharia would create legal apartheid in Britain, says David Cameron
Feb 26, 2008 - Islamic law for Muslims would create legal apartheid in Britain, David Cameron said today.

Shariah Islamic Law: Legal Apartheid
Sep 1, 2009 - Shariah Islamic Law: Legal Apartheid.

Islamic Gender & Religious Apartheid

Racism, Cultural ... - Maryam Namazie - Human Rights Activist
She is spokesperson for the One Law for All Campaign against Sharia Law in ... women and girls continue to face apartheid and Islamic laws and customs.

Introduction: Tenets of Shariah Law
Shariah Law is a military political doctrine written 1,200 years ago by Islamic authorities. The believers of Shariah Law have created a movement like Apartheid in which a minority oppresses a majority.
The goal of authoritative Shariah Law is to establish a one-world militant political Islam through Jihad. There are three forms of Jihad: Violent, Cultural, and Financial.

The multiculturalism backlash: European discourses, policies and practices - Page 11 - Steven Vertovec, Susanne Wessendorf - Taylor & Francis, 2010 - 210 pages
... that the ultimate outcome of multiculturalism, if unchecked, could be the recognition of Sharia law in Britain. ... quite literally, a legal apartheid to entrench what is the cultural apartheid in too many parts of our country.

Islamic Finance or Sharia-compliant Finance - Q Society
Understand what Islamic finance really is and ignore the marketing lies. - Do not endorse the introduction of sharia law and apartheid in Australia,..

Dutch VVD Bolkestein warns of Ethnic apartheid | Eux Online
He fears that there are areas in Holland where the Islamic Sharia law is being practiced.

LGF Pages - Sharia would create legal apartheid in Britain
Feb 26, 2008 – The reality is that the introduction of Sharia law for Muslims is actually the logical endpoint of the now discredited doctrine of ...

Civil Rights | American Public Policy Alliance
These groups understand what is at stake: Shariah doctrine in America is the 21st century equivalent to Jim Crow segregation laws and apartheid laws.

A Pashtoon city, Kandahar has accepted the Taliban’s strict version of sharia ... increasing dogmatism and ‘gender apartheid’ by the denial of basic human rights ...

The United Nations Should Not Recognize an Apartheid, Judenrein, Islamic Palestine
by A. M. Dershowitz
September 21, 2011 at 11:30 am
Sep 21, 2011 – It wants Palestine to be a Muslim state governed by Sharia Law... The draft constitution for the new state of Palestine declares that “Islam is the official religion in Palestine.” It also states that Sharia Law will be “the major source of legislation.” It is ironic that the same Palestinian leadership which supports these concepts for Palestine refuses to acknowledge that Israel is the nation state of the Jewish people. Israel, in contrast to the proposed Palestinian state, does not have an official state religion. Although it is a Jewish state, that description is not a religious one but rather a national one. It accords equal rights to Islam, Christianity and all other religions, as well as to atheists and agnostics. Indeed, a very high proportion of Israelis describe themselves as secular...
To summarize, the new Palestinian state will be a genuine apartheid state. It will practice religious and ethnic discrimination, it will have one official religion and it will base its laws on the precepts of one religion..

Ban Koran-burning?
If Islam becomes a protected faith, free expression will be no more
The Washington Times
Thursday, April 7, 2011
... Shariah law - the legal basis of most Islamic states - is a form of religious apartheid, systematically classifying Christians and Jews as third-class citizens. Christophobia and anti-Semitism are rampant in the Muslim world.

Fears and Smears
National Review Online - ‎Oct 22, 2011‎
Moreover, they believe this can be done mostly without violence, through a sedulous campaign of voluntary apartheid (integrating with but not assimilating into the West) and the infiltration of sharia principles into our law and our institutions.

New Republic - Sep 29, 2011
Wierdly, the progressives talk all the time about class, apartheid (in Israel where it doesn't exist) but somehow doesn't see us women as a class and is loathe to speak out about the mistreatment of half the people on the planet.

Islamophobia is Not an Irrational Fear, Nor is it the Fear of Islam.
AINA (press release) - [Oct. 24, 2011]
Moreover, they believe this can be done mostly without violence, through a sedulous campaign of voluntary apartheid (integrating with but not assimilating into the West) and the infiltration of sharia principles into our law and our institutions.

Sharia: Obama-encouraged Libyan transitional council approves polygamy,...
Daily Caller - Neil Munro - ‎[Oct. 24, 2011]
... Abdul-Jalil's announced support for Islamic law could have meant anything between a symbolic nod to fundamentalist rebel groups and a promise for Saudi-style theocracy — complete with apartheid-style treatment of Muslim women and Christians, Jews and other non-Muslims. His announcement ending the Gadhafi-era ban on polygamy suggests that he and his allies intend to implement much of Sharia.


The Great Twitter/Facebook Revolution Fallacy

For some strange reason, the American media has always been obsessed with Twitter and Facebook. The movie “The Social Network,” which is about the founding of Facebook, received far more media commentary than any other movie in 2010, despite being only the 28th highest U.S.-grossing film that year.

This applies to foreign affairs as well. In the context of the events occurring in the Middle East, the Western media loves to argue that Twitter and Facebook constitute catalysts for revolution in the modern era. Indeed, some articles called the 2009 Iranian protests the “Twitter Revolution.” One excited journalist at the time wrote:

Iranians are blogging, posting to Facebook and, most visibly, coordinating their protests on Twitter, the messaging service. Their activity has increased, not decreased, since the presidential election on Friday and ensuing attempts by the government to restrict or censor their online communications.

On Twitter, reports and links to photos from a peaceful mass march through Tehran on Monday, along with accounts of street fighting and casualties around the country, have become the most popular topic on the service worldwide, according to Twitter’s published statistics.

The trouble with all this is that in June 2009, the entire country of Iran only had 19,235 Twitter users, according to statistics assembled by Sysomos. This is about half the number of people who attend a professional football game. To be fair, the figure is probably not exact; the true number could be higher (due to Iranians not reporting being from Iran) or lower (due to foreigners setting their residence to Iran to protect native Iranian Twitter users).

But it certainly is not enough to make a “Twitter Revolution.” Foreign Policy analyst Golnaz Esfandiari probably provides a more accurate analysis of Twitter’s role in Iran:

Twitter was definitely not a major communications tool for activists on the ground in Iran.

Nonetheless, the “Twitter Revolution” was an irresistible meme during the post-election protests, a story that wrote itself. Various analysts were eager to chime in about the purported role of Twitter in the Green Movement. Some were politics experts, like the Atlantic‘s Andrew Sullivan and Marc Ambinder. Others were experts on new media, like Sascha Segan of PC Magazine. Western journalists who couldn’t reach — or didn’t bother reaching? — people on the ground in Iran simply scrolled through the English-language tweets posted with tag #iranelection. Through it all, no one seemed to wonder why people trying to coordinate protests in Iran would be writing in any language other than Farsi.

The recent revolutions in the Arab world also, in all likelihood, have very little to do with either Twitter or Facebook, whatever the Western media might say. Tunisia, Egypt, and Yemen have a combined total of 14,642 Twitter users. That is a tiny, tiny number. There are more people in a major public university than Twitter users in these three countries combined.

Facebook is relatively more widely used throughout the world; its penetration in Egypt was 4.58% as of July 2010.  This is better than Twitter, but the usage pales in comparison to – say – the percent of the population that watches Al Jazeera. Fortunately, given the nationwide Internet shutdown in Egypt, journalists are not talking about a “Facebook Revolution” in Egypt.

But the articles about Facebook or Twitter supposedly inciting revolution continue. One recent Times article argued that in Sudan “protests, organized by groups of university students and graduates, came together as Facebook, Twitter and other Web sites were used to rally several thousand demonstrators.”

Maybe. But only 10% of people in Sudan even have access to the Internet, let alone use Facebook or Twitter. One wonders how many people in Sudan (or Egypt or Iran, for that matter) even know that these websites exist.

Indeed, the primary users of Twitter and Facebook seem to be well-educated, Internet-savvy Westerners – the type of people who, not coincidentally, write articles for the New York Times and Washington Post. The Western media’s focus on so-called “Twitter Revolutions” may tell less about the revolution and more about the preoccupations of the American journalists who cover about the revolution.



Exposed: Iran and N. Korea Pose Greater Threat to World Peace Than Previously Thought

Diplomatic Cables Based on U.S. Intelligence Reports -- Published by Whistleblower Web Site WikiLeaks -- Reveal North Koreans Sold 19 Nuclear-Capable IRBM Missiles to Iran Capable of Striking Targets Throughout Europe and in Russia; Documents Show Arab States Called for Attack on Iran's Nuke Facilities -- China Admits It's Fed Up With North Korea's Belligerence, Wants Peninsula Reunified Under Seoul's Control

(Posted 5:30 a.m. EST Tuesday, November 30, 2010)
(Updated 11:15 a.m. EST Tuesday, November 30, 2010)


Memo to Representative Peter King (R-New York):

Shut the hell up!

The ranking Republican on the House Homeland Security Committee -- who will take over as chairman in January -- called on Attorney General Eric Holder to prosecute Julian Assange, founder of the whistleblower Web site WikiLeaks, under the Espionage Act and for Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton to designate the site "a foreign terrorist organization,' in reaction to its posting on Sunday of more than 250,000 secret U.S. diplomatic cables.

"This is extremely damaging to U.S. troops, U.S. interests and U.S. intelligence," King told Fox News on Monday. "They [WikiLeaks] are engaged in terrorist activity. What they're doing is clearly aiding and abetting terrorist groups. Either we're serious about this or we're not," adding that putting the Web site on the State Department's list of known foreign terrorist organizations would enable the U.S. to shut down WikiLeaks by seizing its assets and to stop other entities -- including news media outlets -- from cooperating with it.

Excuse us, Congressman King, but since when is it "aiding and abetting terrorist groups" to expose the fact that Iran and North Korea pose a dangerous threat to world peace -- a threat much more dangerous than previously thought -- to the point that even China is reportedly "fed up" with North Korea's belligerence?


The Guardian

LONDON -- China supports the "independent and peaceful reunification of the Korean peninsula" and cannot afford to give the North Korean regime the impression it has a blank check to act any way it wants, Chinese officials based in Europe confirmed today (Tuesday).

The officials, who asked not to be identified, spoke a day after The Guardian revealed that senior figures in Beijing, exasperated with North Korea behaving like a "spoiled child," had told their South Korean counterparts that China was leaning towards acceptance of reunification under Seoul's control.

One Chinese official said today reunification was not going to happen overnight and China's first priority was to calm down the situation, restart a dialogue, and maintain stability in the region. But Beijing had always backed peaceful reunification as a longer term goal.

The officials admitted to a sense of frustration in Beijing over North Korea's recent actions, including its nuclear and missile tests – which China opposed – and last week's lethal artillery bombardment of a South Korean island.

Instead of prosecuting Assange and attempting to shut down WikiLeaks -- which, by the way, would clearly violate the U.S. Constitution's guarantees under the First Amendment of a free and unfettered news and information media -- WikiLeaks should be honored for performing, for once, a vital public service by alerting the world to the mounting threat to world peace and stability posed by Tehran and Pyongyang -- a danger that has been building since 2003 and is now approaching a dangerous flashpoint on the Korean Peninsula.

The whistleblower site made public what the State Department should have told the world months ago: That North Korea sold to Iran 19 intermediate-range R-27 ballistic missiles -- missiles that could be armed with nuclear warheads and, when fired from Iran, could strike cities throughout Europe.

Even the Russian capital Moscow could potentially be threatened by nuclear-armed Iranian IRBMs, the U.S. diplomatic cables show, based on intelligence reports. That revelation comes just four months after relations between Russia and Iran began to deteriorate over Iran's nuclear program.


According to the cables obtained by WikiLeaks -- accounts of which were published Sunday by The New York Times -- top Russian officials were alerted to the Iranian missile threat in February during a meeting in Moscow with a U.S. delegation led by Vann Van Diepen, a top official of the State Department’s nuclear nonproliferation division.

Van Diepen, while working in his previous capacity as a national intelligence officer, "played a crucial role in the 2007 assessment of Iran’s nuclear capacity," according to the Times account of the cables.

Iran's acquisition of the North Korean-built R-27 missiles -- which, ironically, were originally designed by the Russians during the Soviet era -- gives Tehran the capability of striking cities throughout Europe and that even Moscow lies within the missiles' striking range, the cables show.

The U.S. delegation warned their Russian counterparts that the missiles, which have an advanced propulsion system that the North Koreans developed, would bring Iran closer to developing its own arsenal of intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) at a time when the two former Cold War adversaries reached a new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) -- yet to be ratified by the U.S. Senate -- aimed at further reducing the U.S. and Russia's ICBM stockpiles.


The nuclear development program of Iran been the source of increasing alarm by the United States for the past half-decade. Now, it appears, the alarm has spread worldwide -- nowhere more so than in the Arab world.

Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah is so worried about Iran's nuclear program that he repeatedly called on the U.S. to launch a pre-emptive strike and destroy the Islamic Republic's nuclear facilities -- as the Israelis did to Iraq's nuclear plant in a 1981 air strike, according to an account of the cables published Sunday by Britain's The Guardian newspaper.

And Saudi Arabia isn't alone, according to the cables. They reveal that Arab governments are just as suspicious as the U.S., Israel and the European Union are that Iran is developing nuclear weapons. One cable recorded King Abdullah as having "frequently exhorted the U.S. to attack Iran to put an end to its nuclear weapons program."

According to Adel al-Jubeir, the Saudi ambassador to the U.S., the king, in an April 2008 meeting in Riyadh with General David Petraeus, then the commander of the U.S.-led multinational force in Iraq, told him to "cut off the head of the snake," referring to Iran's nuclear program, the Guardian reported in its account of the cables.


Other Arab countries, notably Egypt and the United Arab Emirates, referred to Iran as "evil", an "existential threat" and a power that "is going to take us to war," according to the cables. Jordan and Bahrain have even gone so far as to openly demand that Iran's nuclear program "be stopped by any means necessary" -- including military action.

The Arab countries' demand for action against Iran marks a dramatic departure from widely-held perceptions that to attack Iran's nuclear facilities would have triggered a much wider war in the Middle East, with Tehran likely to retaliate with a massive missile strike against Israel.

For its part, Israel let it be known to American officials in June 2009 that it was prepared, if necessary, to "go it alone" and attack Iran's nuclear facilities unilaterally, according to the Guardian account of the cables. They quoted Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak as saying that there was a window of "between six and 18 months from now in which stopping Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons might still be viable," beyond which any military action "would result in unacceptable collateral damage."

According to Barak's timetable, that window will close at the end of this year.

Iran lashed out at the WikiLeaks disclosures Monday, with President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad dismissing the leaks as a "worthless" psychological warfare campaign by the U.S. against his country. "We don't think this information was leaked," Ahmadinejad said during a televised news conference in Tehran. "We think it was organized to be released on a regular basis and they are pursuing political goals."

Ahmadinejad insisted to reporters that Arab nations' demand for action against Iran's nuclear program would have no impact on his country's relations with them. "We are friends with the regional countries and mischievous acts will not affect relations," he said.


Disclosure of North Korea's sale of the R-27 missiles to Iran could not have come at a more sensitive time, as tensions on the Korean Peninsula have reached a crisis stage after North Korea launched an artillery barrage on a South Korean island, killing four South Korean civilians and bringing the peninsula to the brink of war.

Among a second cache of U.S. diplomatic cables made public by WikiLeaks on Monday include a bombshell revelation that China, North Korea's longtime ally, is "fed up" with the increasingly belligerent regime in Pyongyang, with senior Chinese officials quoted as derisively branding North Korea "a spoiled child."

While Beijing publicly has refused to condemn Pyongyang for its November 23 attack on the South Korean island of Yeongyeong and has called for a resumption of the six-party nuclear talks, the cables reveal China's mounting private frustration with North Korea in the four years since Pyongyang's provocative underground nuclear tests and test firings of its long-range Taepodong-2 ballistic missiles.

In a February 17 cable, South Korea's Deputy Foreign Minister, Chun Yung-woo, told Kathleen Stephens, the U.S. Ambassador to South Korea, that senior Chinese officials told him that Beijing "is fed up with the North Korean regime's behavior and would not oppose" the unification of the Korean peninsula under South Korean control.


Chun, who heads the South Korean delegation to the six-nation talks aimed at dismantling North Korea's nuclear program, said China "would not be able to stop North Korea's collapse" following the death of its ailing, 68-year-old dictator, Kim Jong-il, according to the cable. The North, Chun said, "had already collapsed economically and would collapse politically [within] two to three years" after Kim's death -- despite Pyongyang's apparent grooming of the dictator's 27-yer-old son, Kim Jong-un, to take over.

Chun dismissed South Korean media reports that Chinese companies had agreed to pump $10 billion into the North's economy, the cable said. "Beijing had 'no will' to use its modest economic leverage to force a change in Pyongyang's policies," Chun said.

In a sign of the deteriorating relations between Beijing and Pyongyang, the cable quotes Chun as saying that North Korea has a low regard for Wu Dawei, China's deputy foreign minister and chief representative at the six-party nuclear talks, with the North Koreans characterizing him as "the most incompetent official in China."

For his part, Wu is quoted in an April 2009 cable as telling U.S. officials that Pyongyang was behaving like "a spoiled child" to get Washington's attention by carrying out its missile tests -- which severely jangled nerves in Japan, where the government in Tokyo regarded the tests as a direct threat to Japan's national security.

Another sign of tension between the two countries has been a series of violent incidents along the Chinese-North Korean border -- the most highly publicized of which was the deadly shooting in July by North Korean border guards of three Chinese citizens and the wounding of a fourth.

The four Chinese were shot on the North Korean side of the border, after North Korean guards suspected them of "crossing the border for trade activities," according to Qin Gang, a spokesman for China's Foreign Ministry. Beijing filed a formal diplomatic protest to Pyongyang over the incident.


Congressman King and other politicians, in their condemnation of WikiLeaks, have forgotten the reason why WikiLeaks came into being in the first place: The refusal of the U.S. Supreme Court in 2005 to review federal court rulings ordering two investigative reporters to reveal their confidential sources.

It has been a longstanding practice of investigative journalists uncovering corruption in and wrongdoing by the government and private entities to keep the identities of confidential sources secret to protect them from retaliation for their disclosures. The Valerie Plame affair undermined that practice, prompting many sources to remain silent, out of fear of discovery and retribution.

Courts ordered then-New York Times reporter Judith Miller and then-Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper to reveal their sources for information about the outing of CIA operative Valerie Plame in apparent retaliation for the public challenge by her husband, former Ambassador Joe Wilson, to the credibility of the Bush administration's claim of an alleged Iraqi stockpile of weapons of mass destruction as the rationale for invading Iraq in 2003.


As Peter Scheer, a journalist and practicing attorney who is also executive director of the First Amendment Coalition, writes in a November 16 blog posting on the coalition's Web site, "WikiLeaks emerged as a technological solution to this hole in the fabric of legal rules implementing the First Amendment’s free press and free speech guarantees."

WikiLeaks is designed "to foil subpoenas or other assertions of judicial power," Scheer wrote. "Because the Web site is not tied to any single real-world venue and apparently was built with layers of redundancy, court injunctions issued against WikiLeaks, whether directed to its Internet service providers (ISPs), its lawyers or other entities, are unlikely to disable it."

More important, Scheer wrote, "WikiLeaks claims to use technology that erases the fingerprints of sources, rendering leaked documents untraceable. By contrast, the same documents leaked to a newspaper, such as The Washington Post, whether by means of e-mail, 'cloud'-based Internet services or other electronic communications, would be vulnerable to interception and tracing.

"Even if the documents, instead, were hand-delivered to the Post, its reporter could be subpoenaed and forced to testify," Scheer added.

It is a both a tragedy and a disgrace that it took a Web site such as WikiLeaks to alert the world to the dangers to world peace and security that Iran and North Korea pose -- a job that the mainstream media should have done but has been intimidated by the court rulings in the Plame case into not doing.

WikiLeaks should not be prosecuted for that. It should instead be given a great deal of thanks for performing a vitally needed public service.

# # #

Copyright 2010, Skeeter Sanders. All rights reserved.




CNN and ABC stories show impact of unfair immigration laws

From Restore Fairness blog

As the countdown to Arizona's SB1070 law draws nearer (July 29th), and Congress continues to skirt the issue of immigration reform, a number of excellent stories have emerged from the news on our broken immigration system. 

There's more...


Advertise Blogads