Nuclear Terrorism and Pakistan

"...Emboldened, our adversaries are now wondering how the situation can be manipulated in their favor, how they can effectively play one side in America against the other while they wait patiently for America to adopt an "alternative foreign policy". We can now expect to see a "lack of motivation" in our negotiations with countries such as Iran and North Korea and a dangerous shift in momentum in countries such as Pakistan..."

It was back in 2007 that both our adversaries and our allies first learned of the alternative foreign policy the United States would be employing once Barack Hussein Obama was elected.  The comments above are from a post we made back in April of that year.

It was also back in 2007 when we first commented on Pakistan's Khushab reactor where we showed the rapid construction of the third reactor there.  New satellite images now show that the forth weapon's grade nuclear reactor at the Khushab site is now almost completed and Washington and the rest of the world is scratching their heads wondering where the money has come from and Pakistan is deviant in continuing this dangerous provocation. 

This whole thing should of course raise more than a few eyebrows in Washington, but it hasn't.  I can assure though that it has raised more than a few eyebrows in India and the rest of south and Southeast Asia where China's influence is growing at an alarming rate.

For it's cooperation in the war on terrorism, the United States has and continues to provide Pakistan with financial aid, over $20 billion so far, and despite the fact that Pakistan has repeatably betrayed us and continues to dangerously act contrary to American interests, we continue to pay.  Why?

There is a reason for this.  Pakistan is to South and Southeast Asia what the Palestinians are to the Middle East.   The only difference, and it is a big one is that Pakistan is a nuclear power.  Instead of throwing rocks, the Pakistanis threaten India and the region - constantly reminding the world of the consequences should we not heed to their demands.  Quite simply it is nothing more than nuclear extortion.   It is this game of nuclear blackmail that both North Korea and Pakistan have perfected and one that Iran is desperately eager to learn.

Pakistan's harboring of Osama Bin Laden should have been sufficient enough proof of Pakistan's double game and that my fellow Americans many of which are acutely aware of our nation's own financial constraints would finally come to their senses and demand that not one more American tax dollar is sent to that hell hole.  

Anyone who honestly thinks that Pakistan was not aware that Osama Bin Laden was living in a large compound adjacent to one of Pakistan's top military academies has a screw loose and that includes Defense Secretary Robert Gates who apparently gets his intelligence from his trusted Pakistani government sources while he reclines by the pool at the Hilton hotel.   If getting betrayed wasn't enough to wake Robert Gates from his pool-side slumber then perhaps discovering that he has been two-timed as well will.

Seemingly our nation's policy of appeasement dictates that we parade around on the world stage with a giant turd poised on our head as well.   Obama's foreign policy is not winning us friends nor is it garnering us any respect.  We are simply being laughed at.

Believe me when I say that giving Pakistan US67,500 for the restoration of the Mid‐18th‐Century Sunehri Masjid (Golden Mosque) in Lahor is not the way to promote America or American values.

Why is the continuation of financial aid for Pakistan even a subject of debate?  

We went to war with Afghanistan because they wouldn't hand him over and now we give our treasure to a nation that harbored him.

Related Posts:

Divided We Stand, United We Fall

The Road To Pakistan

Beneath The Planet of the Taliban

Yin and Yang

CONTINUE READING

The Jihadi Propagandist

"Hence that general is skillful in attack whose opponent does not know what to defend; and he is skillful in defense whose opponent does not know what to attack."

Sun Tzu ~ The Art of War

The war we are engaged in today is a war like no other war that our nation has ever experienced and the challenges are like none that we have ever faced before. We are engaged in a war where the lines between politics, religion, soldier and civilian have been blurred. Whether we like it or not, we are all on the front lines of this war.

Our troops in Afghanistan are demoralized, it does not help the situation when their commander Gen. David Petraeus is more interested in appeasing our enemies rather than destroying them. That Petraeus would have the audacity to condemn the desecration of what he describes as the "Holy Qu'ran" by Rev. Terry Jones and not have the courage to condemn the blood-lusting jihadists who murdered in the name of Islam just proves that he has become nothing more than an Islamophile who has lost his ability to command.

To achieve victory in what is now America's longest war according to General David Petraeus it is incumbent on us all to appease the enemy by curtailing that very thing that we are supposedly fighting for - freedom.



The front line has shifted once more and our nation's leadership and military now feel compelled to require us to sacrifice our ardent beliefs and convictions on the altar of political correctness instead of standing up for what we believe in.

In the recent Koran desecration incident, no one seems to be asking the questions as to why are they only rioting in Afghanistan or why did it take two weeks for the rioting to commence from the time that Rev. Terry Jones had set the Koran alight. No one seems to find it ironic that President Hamid Karzai who instigated these illiterate reprobates to go on a rampage is now calling on the the United States Congress not only to condemn the Koran burning but asking that the Rev. Terry Jones be arrested. Is Hamid Karzai really on our side?

Am I the only one aware of the enemy propaganda and noticing a pattern of coercive persuasion here? These riots and killings are not spontaneous, they are organized and organized with a purpose. Signs are printed in English and calls go out to the mosques urging the masses to take the streets. It is nothing more than a form of enemy propaganda designed to exploit and divide us in the hopes that we will alter or change our beliefs. They seem to be working because each time the jihadis do this, we react, and there are calls for us to restrict our freedoms.

How many of in our nation and the West including Graham, Petraeus and Reid have already fallen victim to the enemy psyops?



Related Posts:

Word Don't Kill People, People Kill People

CONTINUE READING

Damn You All To Hell !!

In more ways than one, this is the end.

CONTINUE READING

Britain's Islamic Fatalism

"I ask him to bring a new spirit of urgency to the fight against the Zeus of Iran and his attempt to kidnap our freedoms; and by doing so, to show New Labour's commitment to the true spirit of Europe - not just to an economic community, or to monetary union, but to European civilization itself."

The excerpt above is from a letter written by Salman Rushdie to Britain's "The Guardian" newspaper on 14 February 1997. It was on this day, the eighth anniversary of the fatwa against him, that Salman Rushdie would castigate Europe's politicians for cynically abandoning the ideals of free expression and human rights. In retrospect, Sir Salman Rushdie's words would offer a veiled glimpse at the coming future of European and Western civilization. A civilization that would one day willingly subjugate itself to dhimmitude, all in the name of diversity and "religious tolerance".

You might have expected a strongly worded statement on the 14th of February from 10 Downing Street, perhaps even in response to Hamid Ansari's declaration on Iranian State television that the "fatwa" calling for the death of Sir Salman Rushdie still stands, but this is not the courageous and proud Britain of the past, this is a nation now resigned to fatalism. Islamic fatalism.

It is hard to imagine that Sir Salman Rushdie could have possibly imagined that just eleven years later not only would the Archbishop of Canterbury be conceding that Britain's acceptance of Islamic law was inevitable, but that Iran would be on the very verge of developing a deliverable nuclear weapon. Is there truly any hope for a civilization hopelessly consumed with a "pathological self-hatred", a self-hatred that has now become dangerously fused with both anti-rationalism and as the Archbishop has so demonstrated, an Islamic fatalism?

Britain's latest disgrace is to unwittingly assist Islamic extremists in perpetuating their "us versus them" dichotomy by issuing special "Islamic bonds". What was wrong with the regular bonds you might ask? Well, the for Britain's Islamic fundamentalists, the regular bonds are "unclean" by Islamic standards. Make no doubt about it, with the assistance of quislings like Rowan Williams and Chancellor Alistair Darling, Islam's foot soldiers are busy with the task to ensure that Islam's religious precepts are all being duly incorporated into civil law.

For a government hopelessly enamored with the concepts of diversity and multiculturalism, these sharia-compliant bonds are a naive and misguided way of tapping Middle-East money and building bridges with the Muslim community, but the reality is that this "banking apartheid" contributes not to economic prosperity, but only to racial and ethnic chauvinism. What Britain's leaders lack is foresight, the foresight to see that that by rejecting their own principles and values and then bolstering Islamic self-assertion, chauvinism and values, they only substantiate the dualistic sociopolitical ideology professed by Islam's hardcore fundamentalists. It is the relentless accommodation and appeasement of these fundamentalists that continues to embolden them.

When the day of maturity comes, and it will, these bonds will be repaid with English blood and not with sterling.

CONTINUE READING

Totalitarianism Attacks !

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad arrives in New York Sunday amid a firestorm of controversy surrounding his visit to the United States.

Ahmadinejad, who has called the holocaust "a myth," encouraged the destruction of Israel, supported terrorists in Iraq and defied United Nation's sanctions to halt uranium enrichment, will once address the United Nations General Assembly and then later address a Columbia University forum.

You see it's all been a big cultural misunderstanding.

All that purported rhetoric in the Western media about "wiping Israel off the map" and the pursuit of the nuclear technology that would enable it, all nothing more than semiotic misunderstanding.

One of the central themes of this blog has been the theory of relativism and how cultural relativism inevitably drags moral relativism in it's wake. The inability to distinguish right from wrong, where the truth becomes subjective depending merely on one's point of view. It's ironic and shameful that an academic institution supposedly dedicated to the pursuit of truth would subject itself to ideological indoctrination under the guise of intellectual diversity.

In an environment that eschews moral absolutism and embraces cultural relativism and the "diversity of opinions", Ahmadinejad will find fertile grounds to supplant factual reality and historical truth with propaganda that purports our history and the holocaust to be nothing more than a myth.



You wanna conquer the world, you're going to need liberals, right?

CONTINUE READING

Iran Issued "Waiver For Terrorism"

According to UN officials, the United States has denied a visa to Iran's U.N. ambassador in Geneva, Ali Reza Moaiyeri, to attend next week's ministerial meeting of the U.N. General Assembly because he was involved in the 1979 U.S. hostage crisis. Asked for comment, Richard Grenell, spokesman for the U.S. Mission to the United Nations, said "although we don't comment about specific visa cases we certainly would not allow a person into the United States who has taken Americans as hostages."

Mr. Grenell you are correct, we would never as a nation knowingly allow a person into the United States who has taken Americans as hostages. Our nation's immigration rules specifically bar visas being granted to those for whom there are reasons to believe have supported or furthered acts of terrorism and Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is no exception. In fact in 2005, Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was found to be ineligible for a visa after an inter-agency review and was only granted a visa at the insistence of Condoleeza Rice.

State Department Spokesman, Sean McCormack said at the time "We did find Mr. Ahmadinejad ineligible", "We then requested a waiver of that ineligibility finding .... [sic]". Stop right there! A waiver?! Since when does our nation give out waivers to terrorists? And since when do we repeatably disregard our nation's laws to accommodate and appease terrorists and the nations that support terrorism?

Fast forward to 2006 and now to 2007, Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad applies for a visa, and in what amounts to nothing more than a despicable act of arbitrary governance by our nation's State Department the visas are granted despite his ineligibility. Not only has Iran failed to answer unresolved questions regarding the holding of American hostages, but continues to this very day to be a sponsor for State terrorism including terrorism in Iraq that has been responsible for the deaths of American and British soldiers. It is inconceivable that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad would be allowed entry to our nation and then be allowed to give a speech at Columbia university where he could possibly be addressing the very siblings of those whom he had murdered.

Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has repeatably denied the holocaust and has threatened to "wipe Israel of the map". Currently Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is in defiance of several UN sanctions and continues to hold the entire international community hostage with his nuclear ambitions.

The visa issued to Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad must be revoked immediately and without further delay. Under no circumstances should Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad be allowed to set foot on American soil. If President Bush or the masochistic, terrorist loving Islamophiles in our nation's State Department refuses and/or fails to do what they must to revoke this "waiver for terrorism", then the last line of defense falls upon our Immigration and Naturalization department at Ahmadinejad's port of entry to refuse Iran's delegation entry.

CONTINUE READING

Ahmadinejad and The Disgrace of a Nation

Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is to leave for New York on Sunday to address the UN General Assembly, despite calls in Washington for him to be banned from the gathering, the State Department nonetheless issued him a visa and President Ahmadinejad will now give his third speech to the General Assembly on Tuesday, before returning to Iran.

During his visit to New York, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has made two requests, the first that President Bush join him in a debate before the UN General Assembly and the second that he be given a tour of Ground Zero. Both requests have been denied.

According to NYPD Police Commissioner Ray Kelly, Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his entourage never gave any indication of why he would want to visit the site of the terrorist attacks of September 11th and a request was denied based on security grounds. Despite the NYPD's rejection of the request for a tour of Ground Zero tour, Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his entourage, accompanied by a United States Secret Service protective detail, have made clear their defiant intent to visit Ground Zero regardless. Accordingly the Iranian mission to the United Nations has informed the Secret Service that the Iranian president intends to visit Ground Zero Monday at 10 a.m.

Ahmadinejad's defiance under the circumstances should make Iran's objectives painfully clear and that is, that the ignoble intent to visit Ground Zero is not one of mere curiosity or of reverence, but rather an act of profound provocativeness with a strong potential of being misused later for propaganda purposes. Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad shouldn't just be denied access to Ground Zero he should have never been issued a visa to set foot on United States soil.

And to our nation's State Department, who issued visas to Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his entourage, I ask but one question. "What in God's name are you hoping to achieve with your relentless and shameful acts of accommodation and appeasement to tyranny, are you somehow hoping that such acts will pave the road to peace and prosperity?" Shame on you for defiling the memories of those who have made the ultimate sacrifice in defending freedom and liberty so that we might enjoy a world free from tyranny. Shame on you.

CONTINUE READING

Pakistan's Nukes For Sale? - Yes, No, Maybe

On the 27th of January two house subcommittees would hold a hearing entitled "A.Q. Khan's Nuclear Wal-Mart: Out of Business or Under New Management?" it what amounted to be not much more than a confusing and sophomoric attempt to determine if AQ Khan and Pakistan's nuclear proliferation network is still in business.

The hearing centered on the testimonies of only two witnesses, one of which, Mr. Mark Fitzpatrick who only last month delivered a 176-page dossier that concluded that despite Khan having been placed under house arrest by the Pakistan government in 2004, his proliferation network was still alive and kicking.

Interrupting a witness the Congressional Subcommittee Chairman Brad Sherman stated "I trust Pakistani interrogators more than our own...[sic]" . See the video below:

Considering Brad Sherman's frustration with Pervez Musharraf's lack of cooperation in providing us information of AQ Khan's nuclear proliferation network we found his proclivity to trust Pakistani interrogators over our own not only bizarre, but deeply troubling. When it was suggested by his co-chaiman that perhaps Musharraf is not exactly in charge, he simply dismissed it out of hand.

In a bizarre twist, it is now being reported in Pakistan that the "experts" testifying before the congressional committee on Wednesday agreed that the AQ Khan network “is no longer in existence”. Surely one must wonder what could have possibly happened in a one month time to suddenly convince the United States that AQ Khan's network has completely been dismantled.

We are also surprised that the committee didn't call in Ann Patterson the Ambassador designate to Pakistan who seemed to let slip in her confirmation hearing only a week before on the 20th of June that:

"We recognize the progress made by the Pakistan government in disabling the A.Q. Khan proliferation network and the steps taken to ensure that such a network cannot be reconstituted."

It wouldn't be until the 27th of June at 12:05 PM that State Department spokesman Sean McCormack would state the following in the daily press briefing:

"I haven't seen the report. I know that -- to my knowledge, the network as we knew it is out of business. I can't tell you whether or not there are any copycats out there or any elements that were associated with the A.Q. Khan network who are attempting to continue to engage in these kind of illicit activities. The -- I don't think we know everything about the activities of the A.Q. Khan network. I think it is a matter of continued interest not only to us, but to others. And I know that our folks continue to take a look at it."

So... is AQ Khan's network still in operation? According to the State Department, "All signs point to YES!" ... "Possibly No" ... The answer is fuzzy...

"Ask again Later"

CONTINUE READING

Challenges Ahead For Cameron Hume

U.S. Ambassador-designate to Indonesia Cameron Hume promised in front of the U.S. Senate on Tuesday to win Indonesia's support for key U.S. foreign policy goals, including support on the Iranian nuclear row, Middle East conflicts and on the Myanmar (Burma) problems. Cameron Hume's complete statement before the U.S. Senate Commitee on Foreign Relations can be found here.

Cameron Hume might be in for a rude awakening with his overly optimistic assessment of Indonesia's meditation abilities. A further independent assessment will reveal that an intricate web of cultural, ethnic and religious undertones underscore the reasons why Indonesia has so far failed in their bid to assume the role as the Muslim world's peacemaker.

The Indonesians can be fully expected to embellish their credentials though in exchange for financial aid and it really irks me to see a diplomat or anyone for that matter fall into that trap. That old adage spoken by Ronald Reagan "Trust but verify" not only saves face but helps to gain respect in the long run.

And despite what Indonesia's current government has to say, Islamic fundamentalism is on the rise thoughout the country. Logic would seem to dictate that we use our efforts to stem the tide of fundamentalism in the country before we contribute more financial aid, or in the alternative we at least have the common sense to link the two together and make clear to the Indonesian government that "progress" includes efforts to stem fundamentalism.

With regards to Aceh, yes the tsunami was terrible and yes the United States and countless other countries contributed billions of dollars in aid much of which went missing due to corruption. While the corruption in Aceh might now be ebbing, I'm quite sure there are a lot of Americans who might question having their taxpayer dollars spent to establish a Islamic Caliphate there.

On to Iran, Indonesia's ties to Iran are not as close as the Indonesians would have Western diplomats believe. Any reliance on Indonesia to help ensure that Iran does not acquire nuclear weapons and the delivery systems to match is nothing more than an exercise in futility. All roads lead to Pakistan if the West is ever going to be serious about stopping the ongoing orgy of proliferation that continues to this day.

Likewise, Indonesia will have little luck helping to convince Myanmar to embrace democratic reforms. America and the West's inconsistancies in dealing with rogue nuclear states has only enboldened Myanmar's military rulers into following the lead of other "pariah states" such as Iran, North Korea and Pakistan in an effort not just to legitimize their totalitarian rule, but to extort financial aid and incentives from America and the West. If it can work for Iran and North Korea and Pakistan then why not for Myanmar?

Unlike Sudan, an understanding of the dynamics of Indonesia and the region is an essential prequisite in helping them to move forward.

.

CONTINUE READING

Where is Colonel Blimp?

"Gad, Sir, Lord Deadingstone is right. It's only fair that the Iranians have a nuclear bomb as well. We must have a level playing field and all y' know."

Where is Colonel Blimp? Some have predicted that he would re-emerge when Britannia needs him, but as England kneels before their adversaries he is no where to be found.

"Colonel Blimp" was a symbol for the moral dilemma and what can perhaps best be described as the "conflicts of conscience" that England faced during World War Two. "Colonel Blimp" represented a a pre-war honor and a code of military conduct and he was unwilling to have himself be dragged down to the moral level of his belligerent uncivilized adversaries.

Today, David Low's "Colonel Blimp" would lay bare a morality warped by political correctness rather that prejudice, but the overall message remains the same, that the values of fair play continue to emasculate Britain's foreign policy and do nothing but feed the crocodile with the hope that they will be the last to be eaten.

Make no doubt about it, England's prostration to tyranny leaves dangerous implications for what remains of the freedom loving world.

CONTINUE READING

England and Iran

Tony Blair: Hallo! Hallo!

Iranians: Hello Who is it?

Tony Blair: It is Tony Blair, and these are United Nations diplomats. Who's country is this?

Iranians: This is the country of my President, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

Tony Blair: Go and tell your President that we have been charged by the UN with um.. sacred sanctions. If he will release our sailors, we can give um... "incentives" and maybe some more goodies.

Iranians: Well, I'll ask him, but I don't think he'll be very keen. Uh, by the way, they've already confessed.

Tony Blair: What?

UN Diplomat: He says they've already confessed!

Tony Blair: Are you quite sure they have actually confessed now?

Iranians: Oh, yes. It's very nice-a. (I told him the sailors have confessed)

Iranians: [chuckling]

Tony Blair: Well, u-- um, can we visit our sailors and check on their welfare?

Iranians: Of course not! You are English types-a!

Tony Blair: Well, what are you, then?

Iranians: I'm Iranians! We are your muslim overlords, you silly pathetic Prime Minister?!

UN Diplomat: What are you saying?

Iranians: Mind your own business!

Tony Blair: If you will not release our sailors, we shall um... take more "assertive measures".

Iranians: You don't frighten us, English pig-dogs! Go and boil your bottom, sons of a silly person. I blow my nose at you, so-called United Nations, you and all your silly English k-nnnnniggets. Thpppppt! Thppt! Thppt!

UN Diplomat: What a strange person.

Tony Blair: Now look here, my good man--

Iranians: I don't wanna talk to you no more, you empty headed animal food trough wiper! I fart in your general direction! Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries!

UN Diplomat: Is there someone else up there we could talk to?

Iranians: No. Now, go away, or we shall taunt you a second time-a! [sniff]

Tony Blair: Now, this is your last chance. I've been more than reasonable.

Iranians: (Jihad.)

Muqtada al-Sadr: (Jihad?)

Iranians: (Jihad!) [BOOM]

Tony Blair: If you do not agree to our commands, then I shall-- BOOM! Jesus Christ! GAIA!

UN Diplomats: GAIA! [BOOM] Ah! Ohh!

Tony Blair: Right! um... Sanctions!

UN Diplomats: Sanctions! [mayhem]

Iranians: Hey, this one is for your mother! There you go. [BOOM]

Iranians: And this one's for your dad! [BOOM!! BOOM!!]

Tony Blair: Run away!

UN Diplomats: Run away!

Iranians: Thppppt!

Iranians: [taunting]

CONTINUE READING

Western Impotence and Submission

It has been said that a picture tells a thousand words.

The image is being broadcast around the globe by Iran of a female British soldier wearing a hijab is a powerful image and even more disturbingly it is an image of submission.

Not only is the female soldier a hostage, but she has chosen willingly to conform to Islamic dress standards. It is highly doubtful that she was under duress and forced to wear this. Most likely she was told to put it on and she complied willingly.

Where do we draw the line?

If this soldier was a Jew would she have willingly donned a yellow star?

Has the West become so spineless or is it perhaps the steady diet of multiculturism and political correctness force fed to the West by that would compel a soldier of today to express sensitivity to the indignation of her Islamic captors.

She could have refused. Refused to submit but she didn't.

If she would have refused to don the headscarf, she would not have been paraded on television like this.

In the mind of muslim, this is a very powerful image. The image is meant for consumption in the Muslim world and displays powerfully what is seen as the acquiescence of the West to the superiority of Islam.

The infidel and the lesser satan submits.

CONTINUE READING

The Lion and the Unicorn

In all honesty, I was caught a bit off guard at the critical reviews concerning Dinesh D'Souza's book "The Enemy at Home: The Cultural Left & It's Responsibility for 9/11". D'Souza might have failed in articulating, but he was on to something.

While I have not read the book, I have read a few excerpts and am somewhat in agreement with D'Souza's some of D'Souza's conclusions. Namely that the decadence of the left has partially invited the wrath of our adversaries.

Andrew Stuttaford claims that D'Souza is more interested in fighting the culture war at home rather than facing up to the global ideological challenge posed by Islamic extremism. An interesting choice of words, Stuttaford might have easily used the term "Islamic fascism" instead of the politically correct term "Islamic extremism" which is meant to divide Islam into two camps namely the "peaceful aka moderate and the extreme" and subliminally remind us that Islam is a religion of peace. Stuttaford was not the only one that failed to make this distinction, D'Souza failed here as well.

While it might seem to some that I am nitpicking, the distinction is essential to being able to understand not only the mindset of our adversaries but also the challenge facing Western civilization with having to fillet the political aspects from the religious aspects of Islam. Islam is as much a political system as it is a religion, something that the West continuously fails to comprehend.

It is interesting to note though that some of the same observations made by Dinesh D'Souza were infact made by George Orwell in his 1941 essay entitled "The Lion and the Unicorn".

"In intention, at any rate, the English intelligentsia are Europeanized. They take their cookery from Paris and their opinions from Moscow. In the general patriotism of the country they form a sort of island of dissident thought. England is perhaps the only great country whose intellectuals are ashamed of their own nationality. In left-wing circles it is always felt that there is something slightly disgraceful in being an Englishman and that it is a duty to snigger at every English institution, from horse racing to suet puddings. It is a strange fact, but it is unquestionably true that almost any English intellectual would feel more ashamed of standing to attention during 'God save the King' than of stealing from a poor box. All through the critical years many left-wingers were chipping away at English morale, trying to spread an outlook that was sometimes squashily pacifist, sometimes violently pro-Russian, but always anti-British. It is questionable how much effect this had, but it certainly had some. If the English people suffered for several years a real weakening of morale, so that the Fascist nations judged that they were 'decadent' and that it was safe to plunge into war, the intellectual sabotage from the Left was partly responsible."

"...During the past twenty years the negative, fainéant outlook which has been fashionable among English left-wingers, the sniggering of the intellectuals at patriotism and physical courage, the persistent effort to chip away English morale and spread a hedonistic, what-do-I-get-out-of-it attitude to life, has done nothing but harm. It would have been harmful even if we had been living in the squashy League of Nations universe that these people imagined. In an age of fuehrers and bombing planes it was a disaster. However little we may like it, toughness is the price of survival. A nation trained to think hedonistically cannot survive amid peoples who work like slaves and breed like rabbits, and whose chief national industry is war."

-- George Orwell, from THE LION AND THE UNICORN (1941)

CONTINUE READING

The Fruits of Appeasement

As the Western world feverishly adds more goodies to an appeasement plan with Iran with regards to their nuclear ambitions, North Korea defiantly conducts their nuclear test only a few months after their long range missle tests.

You would have thought we had learned our lesson. History seems to have taught us nothing.

CONTINUE READING

What is History For?

WASHINGTON (Reuters-Bund) - U.S. German groups criticized President Franklin D. Roosevelt on Thursday for calling a foiled plot to blow up airplanes part of a "war with Nazi German fascists," saying the term could inflame anti-German tensions.

U.S. officials have said the plot, thwarted by Britain, to blow up several aircraft over the Atlantic bore many of the hallmarks of Nazi German fascists.

"We believe this is an ill-advised term and we believe that it is counter-productive to associate Germany or Germans with fascism," said Fritz Kuhn, executive director of the German-American Federation advocacy group.

"We ought to take advantage of these incidents to make sure that we do not start a nationalistic war against Germany and Germans," he told a news conference in Washington.

"We urge him (FDR) and we urge other public officials to restrain themselves."

Kuhn said U.S. officials should take the lead from their British counterparts who had steered clear of using what he considered inflammatory terms when they announced the arrest of more than 20 suspects in the reported plot.

Hours after the news broke, Roosevelt said it was "a stark reminder that this nation is at war with Nazi German fascists who will use any means to destroy those of us who love freedom, to hurt our nation."

Ask Me if I CAIR

CONTINUE READING

Courage and the Crocodile

Once again President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad raises the pot leaving the West and the impotent United Nations scrambling just to stay in the game.

The West and the United Nations are left once again with two simple choices, call his bluff or just add more goodies to the pot of appeasement and hope that Iran will fold.

Ronald Reagan once said, "To sit back hoping that someday, some way, someone will make things right is to go on feeding the crocodile, hoping he will eat you last - but eat you he will."

Well here we sit, waiting and watching as the United Nations foolishly thinks of what they can somehow feed the crocodile and appease him. We watch and wait for the United Nations the United States or anyone to somehow make things right.

Orwell was off by twenty-two years and here we are today, drunk on diversity, silenced by political correctness and tolerance, we now seem to find ourselves paralyzed unable to act and no longer able to distinguish between right and wrong.

Is destiny no longer ours to choose? I say we have a choice, we continue to take dark path ahead, or we find within ourselves the courage and resolve to choose the path less traveled.

CONTINUE READING

The Iranian Project

Just over a week ago I got word from my Iranian sources that Iran has already completed the "enrichment phase" and yet the BBC and Fox News are reporting today that the uranium enrichment of uranium has only just started. What I found odd was how the much of the media and the world seem to rely on the Iranian government to somehow come out and let everyone know what and when they are doing.

Does anyone honestly believe that the Iranian government is being honest and forthright with the international community with regards to their nuclear ambitions and is it really a risk that we can take? I'm led to believe that Iran has not being forthcoming at all and that the overtures to the United Nations and the International Atomic Energy Agency are nothing more than a dog and pony show meant to distract. Our sources tell us that these are nothing more than staged inspections and that Iran continues clandestine work to develop a "uranium bomb".

Sources tell is that Iran has a lot of help in these final days getting all what they need not only from the Russians but from Pakistanis as well. Assessments from United States intelligence that Iran is several years away from developing a nuclear weapon are not only completely false, they are recklessly dangerous because they give a false sense of security. Iran is not years away from developing the bomb, they are only months away.

CONTINUE READING

"The Mad Mahdi of Fire" versus "The Paper Tigers"

Just recently 5 kilos of hot dogs and 2 kilos of Danny's chili con carne departed Kuala Lumpur for Tehran leaving on the Iranian Airlines midnight flight. It was raining heavy that night as Sina came by to pick everything up on his way to the airport. The next day the children of two Iranian government officials, their friends and parents will be eating their favourite chili dogs for lunch. Sina conveys the message to me that the offer still sits on the table, to open a "Danny's Hot Dogs" in Tehran just down the road from "Super Star", a luxurious apartment and US10,000 a month. I smile and tell Sina I will consider the offer.

As the countdown quickens, places like Kuala Lumpur and Dubai have in recent months seen what can only be described a flood of Iranian "students" leaving Iran, being sent overseas by their parents (government officals and businessmen) who in many cases are accompanied themselves by Iranian government "handlers". It is no longer a question for Iranians of "if the war will come" but rather "when".

Of the Iranians who who stop in for chili dogs, there are several who clearly do oppose the Iranian government - many of whom stop by for a taste of real "Americana" and an opportunity perhaps to speak English. That being said, there are also a number of Iranians who stop in as well, and when they do, all the heartrending chit-chat over chili dogs quickly comes to an end and the subject changes.

Ask any of these Iranians why they don't do something and whether or not they are willing to die for their freedom back home and you are met with momentary silence. Not satisfied with the ballot box, many of these Iranians fully expect the United Nations, Europe or the United States to resolve their problems (as long as Israel is not involved). The reality is that like it or not, Iran is a democracy albeit an authoritarian one, who's citizens that oppose the current government are not willing to accept the responsibilty for the actions of their own democratic government. Outside of the major cities, many of the citizens of Iran are in fact fully supportive of the Iranian government. And while many affluent globe-trotting Iranians might feel free outside of Iran to criticize their government back home and call for it's overthrow, the reality is that many of their compatriots back home at the very least, suffer from Stockholm Syndrome.

What might awaken all these millions of complacent slumbering Iranians supposedly opposed to their government and quicken an overthrow of the Iranian government, if it is even in the "coffee grounds", is when we stop treating them as victims, mollycoddling them and hold them equally to task, the same as we hold Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his administration to task. The Iranian citizens are not victims, they are voters.

Some might see it as a painful paradox, but what seems to have emboldened the Iranian government is that they see the Europe and the United States as corrupt and immoral adversaries completely downtrodden, who have become fragmented, impotent and paralyzed by their own domestic opposition. Fearful of a backlash from their own populace, Iran genuinely feels that the West simply does not have the will nor resolve to stop them believing that any preemptive attack on Iran will be seen by much of the world as the epitome of Western imperialist aggression. It is a nuclear highstakes game of poker that Iran is playing, but one that they are confident of winning.

Iranians genuinely feel that they are entitled to nuclear weapons and are quite confident that what they see as an arrogant condescending tone from the West will change once they become a nuclear superpower. Two Iranian officials remind me over a late supper one night that Israel has had nuclear weapons for sometime now and continues to refuse to disarm attempting to hint that this might be the only possible thing that could have Iran reconsider. They then say it does not matter anyway because by June Israel will either have the option to disarm and move or perish. The choice will be theirs.

Our sources tell us that if all proceeds according to schedule, by this June, Iran will have assembled five nuclear warheads at five separate locations along with their delivery systems and that a nuclear test will then be conducted shortly thereafter this to demonstrate Iran's achievment.

The Iranian government believes that any possible military strike against them will come prior to 30 April 2006 before the weather starts to change in May. The Iranians are prepared though and are confident that any military strike against them will fail with it's objectives.

CONTINUE READING

Words Don't Kill People, People Kill People

"We are from God and to God we shall return." (Quranic verse). I am informing all brave Muslims of the world that the author of The Satanic Verses, a text written, edited, and published against Islam, the Prophet of Islam, and the Koran, along with all the editors and publishers aware of its contents, are condemned to death. I call on all valiant Muslims wherever they may be in the world to kill them without delay, so that no one will dare insult the sacred beliefs of Muslims henceforth. And whoever is killed in this cause will be a martyr, God Willing. Meanwhile if someone has access to the author of the book but is incapable of carrying out the execution, he should inform the people so that [Rushdie] is punished for his actions ~ Rouhollah al-Mousavi al-Khomeini."

On 14 February 1989 the preceeding fatwa was issued against Salman Rushdie. His crime was that he had insulted the Prophet of Islam and the Quran in his novel entitled "The Satanic Verses". Prior to the fatwa being issued, not many outside of literary circles had even heard of Salman Rushdie or his novel "The Satanic Verses". Surely not the Iranians or the rest of the Muslims living throughout the world.

By 1997 Salman Rushdie would find that much of Europe and the civilized world had not only abandoned him, but had sacrificed his freedom and safety in a futile and pathetic attempt to appease his would be Islamic judges and executioners. On 14 February 1997 , Salam Rushdie wrote a letter to London's 'The Guardian' newspaper excoriating the EU for it's impotence and in it both deploring and pleading with England and the EU to stand firm and intervene in this matter of the highest urgency. In retrospect, Mr. Salman Rushdie's words would offer a veiled glimpse at the coming future of European and Western civilization. A civilization that would one day willingly subjugate itself to dhimmitude. in the name of diversity and "religious tolerance".

In 1999 a United Nation report stated that "...there has been an escalation of death fatwas emanating from Iran, and elsewhere, against individuals and entire groups...[sic]" , many people would be killed and many would die and yet nothing would be done. While much of the world has forgotten, Salman Rushdie today still lives his life in fear. On 12 February 2005 of this year Iran officially stated that the fatwa against Salman Rushdie did only remain valid, but that it was irrevocable.

Like many others, I had not heard of the small paragraph in the Newsweek article until on Friday the 6th of May when Pakistani cricket legend and now politician Imran Khan decided to preserve a copy of the magazine and call a news conference to show copies of the offensive paragraph to everyone and let others know not only how offended he was by it, but how all Muslims should be offended by it as well. Taking the cue from Mr. Imran Khan and finding themselves now equally offended, both Al-Jazeera and Al-Arabiya urgently bought their own copies of the magazine so they could immediately broadcast to the illiterate Muslims throughout the world this offensive paragraph.

Again the sabre rattles and sharp fangs of militant Islam become exposed as the "muslim street" goes into a rabid bloodlusting frenzy brought on and incited not by Newsweek, but by Imran Khan and the Muslim media. This is not the first time we have seen this and it won't be the last. The "muslim street" has learned over the years that their rage and violence gives birth to concessions and rewards from an ever compliant America and Europe who will willingly sacrifice their own convictions, freedom and treasure in an attempt to temper the flames of Islamic rage.

And so, like good dhimmis, and in the name of diversity and "religious tolerance" once again we are called upon to sacrifice and thust another of our own into the volcano of Islamic rage hoping once more that we can appease and quell the insatiable hunger of our perpetually offended Islamic overlords. When will we come to the painful yet bitter realization that our mere existence is offensive to these people?

Regardless of whether the reports were true or false, to accuse Newsweek for the deaths of people would be synonymous with blaming J. D. Salinger for the death of John Lennon and yet Mark Whitaker of Newsweek magazine now finds himself on the defensive being accused of sparking global riots. The blogosphere has been even more unforgiving with Michelle Malkin now leading the charge and having the audacity to accuse Newsweek and their editors of having blood on their hands. Somewhere in Pakistan and the Middle East the real perpetrators of the incitement are laughing as the stupid kaffirs once again eat their own.

To blatantly imply or suggest that a nation of short-fused, uneducated Muslim reprobates living in mud huts and eating Fear Factor food could be whipped into a rabid killing frenzy all due to a paragraph written in English in Newsweek magazine is beyond reprehensible. It is indicative nothing more than that of a brainwashed Western civilization suffering from Stockholm's Syndrome and finally coming to terms with it's unwitted dhimmitude.

CONTINUE READING

The Pakistan Connection - Part Two

Im really not sure how to explain what I felt driving back to my place and the silence seemed deafening. As I drove back I reflected over what what Ms. N had been through in her life. What she had told me me of her life.

I had known Ms. N. for a quite a while now. Or at least I thought I knew her. I had heard all of her heart-wrenching stories of her life in Iran and I truly felt bad for her. With tears in her eyes she had once told me of the revolution in 1979 and how she saw her best friend raped and then killed in front of her.

It was in 1979 during the revolution there were a lot of students supporting various groups and forms of government. Some supported the United States others supported The Soviet Union and Communism. Ms. N and her friends were communist supporters and has spent their time passing out leaflets and hanging posters and such where they could. She had went on to describe in vivid detail at how her and her friend one afternoon were caught passing out leaflets to passersby and jailed by the police. Frightened and unable to contact their parents they were taken to jail, where they feared for their lives as they were being accused of treason and the penalty for treason they were told was death. The next morning they were to be sentenced for their crimes. And so the the next morning the guards came in and took both of them out.

Ms. N's friend was sentenced to be executed and Ms. N would be let free. There was a problem though. Ms. N's friend was a virgin and it was determined by the mullahs that if a virgin was executed they would go to heaven. A solution to this problem was determined. Both were taken back to their cell where several prison guards took turns brutally raping her friend in front of her while two of the mullahs watched. After they finished, her friend laid bleeding and sobbing on the floor in the prison cell. Around twenty minutes later two guards came in and took Ms. N and her friend out back of the station where they told her friend to kneel while Ms. N watched, one of the guards then took out a pistol and shot her friend in the back of the head. Afterwards, Ms. N was warned the same would happen to her if she continued her treasonous activities and then she was released and given a letter to take to the parents of her friend so they could come and collect her friend's corpse.

Call it what you want. Our own human nature and empathy we feel for those who have suffered through such terrible atrocities such as this. We feel ourselves willing to do anything in our power to help. I know I did. Ms. N. could have asked me anything and I would have dropped everything to help her without question. But there in lies the problem. I had questions and there was a small part of me that felt guilty for having these questions. But something was not quite right.

Before we managed to even get out of the city and onto the highway we found a roadblock and the police were stopping all the cars. The flashlight shined in the car and focused on Ms. N. I explained to the officer that she was my wife and we were headed home after having supper. The policeman then waved us on.

We arrived back at my place around twenty minutes later, passed through security and then and head upstairs. As we head upstairs in the lift the pieces of the puzzle seem to be coming together. The names she has mentioned or somehow let slip in the course of conversation, the circles we both seem to run in. Dr. S. and Ms. B. and her ex husband.

When we get upstairs Ms. N asks if I had anything to drink. I pour us two tequilas and we both sit down. Before I could ask anything about the money, Ms. N asked me about Dr. Ed and how I knew him. I was taken aback by the question.

A bit of background here ~ I had met Dr. Ed merely by chance as he lived in the same condominim that I lived in. Dr. Ed was a "medical doctor" or so he said who lived in a small condominim stocked full of vodka bottles and scientific books in both English and Russian concerning nuclear reactors. When he got drunk which was daily he would invite me for a drink of vodka, he jokingly refered to vodka as "heavy water". It became even more of a joke when I told him the malay word for alcohol was "Arak" he would rant on in his stupor about how misrable he was that he was not allowed to travel anywhere, how he missed his wife and how had to stay here awaiting further instructions from his "boss" who owned a few boats and did fishing business in Kamchatka. Later Dr. Ed would tell me that his boss wanted to meet me and needed my help in the shipping business to ship a few container loads of fish into either Malaysia or Singapore for transhipment and that he would be in Malaysia after he met with Dr. Khan in Pakistan regarding the fish business.

A month later the boss from Kamchatka arrived with several other people including someone who was introduced to me, a middle eastern looking man known only as the "banker". The boss invited us all including myself to Pangkor Laut Resort where he explained to me that he was in the fish business and wished to close a deal with McDonalds to supply fish for their fish filet sandwichs but that he has a problem getting a visa at the embassy. In retrospect, I did something that I now regret. I introduced him and his secretary/translator to someone in the State department over here who I had heard was on the take. It would be US5000 dollars and one day for the visas to be issued.

I suppose the whole thing really took me by surprise at how Ms. N knew of my relationship with Dr. Ed, but like I said, the puzzle pieces were starting to fall into place. Ms. N. was not who she claimed to be, neither was her so-called ex husband. They all worked for the Iranian government. I should have figured it out earlier but I didn't. Considering how much she claimed that she hated the Iranian government she seemed to have a very close relationship with the Iranian embassy here. She was here to meet and work with both the Russians and the Pakistanis as well who operate from a shop selling carpets.

It would then be Dr. Blix's dear friend and colleague Dr. S. who would later meet with me and try to vet me out only to find that my loyalties were to my own country.

It is only a matter of time, a very short time now that Iran will have what they need to produce nuclear weapons and nothing is being done to prevent it. Why?

CONTINUE READING