Does Obama Know That He is Encouraging Iran to Attack Israel; accident or intention?

hearnoevilislamist10

This dose of reality piece is from Ynet with a tip of the hat to Jihad Watch.

Iranian fighter turned US spy: Tehran will attack Israel

Former Revolutionary Guard member who relayed its secret operations to CIA for 10 years says Iran will commit ‘most horrendous suicide bombing in human history’ if not stopped

Kahlili accused the Obama Administration of being naïve. According to him, the American overtures are viewed by the Iranian regime as a sign of weakness, while the Iranian people consider the efforts to engage the regime an act of betrayal against their struggle for freedom.

Kahlili said he joined the Revolutionary Guard following the Islamic revolution of 1979, but volunteered to work for the CIA when he became disillusioned with the Khomeini regime after witnessing acts of rape, torture and murder.

Read It All…

Iran, not Turkey has the most secularly oriented population in the Muslim world.  Iranians were the only Muslim population to come out into the streets in *sympathy* for America after 9/11.  There is little doubt that the Shah abused the Iranian people and that they were justified in wishing him removed. However the general Iranian population had no idea that the end result would be slavery to the most conservative religious elements.

I firmly agree with those that believe that if Obama had shown any support for the Iranian (almost) revolution after their last election the “almost” would be missing completely.

Ahmadinejad’s Imam: Islam Allows Raping, Torturing Prisoners


by Nissan Ratzlav-Katz

(IsraelNN.com) A highly influential Shi’a religious leader, with whom Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad regularly consults, apparently told followers last month that coercion by means of rape, torture and drugs is acceptable against all opponents of the Islamic regime.The gathered crowd heard from Ayatollah Mohammad Taqi Mesbah-Yazdi and Ahmadinejad.

Warning: The imam’s question-and-answer session, partially reproduced here, contains disturbing descriptions of the sanctioned brutality.

In the wake of a series of publications worldwide regarding the rape and torture of dissident prisoners in Iran’s jails, supporters of Ahmadinejad gathered with him in Jamkaran, a popular pilgrimage site for Shi’ite Muslims on the outskirts of Qom, on August 11, 2009. According to Iranian pro-democracy sources, the gathered crowd heard from Ayatollah Mohammad Taqi Mesbah-Yazdi and Ahmadinejad himself regarding the issue.

According to the Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center (ITIC), an independent Israeli intelligence analysis organization, Mesbah-Yazdi is considered Ahmadinejad’s personal spiritual guide. A radical totalitarian even in Iranian terms, he holds messianic views, supports increasing Islamization, calls for violent suppression of domestic political opponents, and, according to the ITIC, “declared that obeying a president supported by the Supreme Leader was tantamount to obeying God.”

At the Jamkaran gathering, Mesbah-Yazdi and Ahmadinejad answered questions about the rape and torture charges. The following text is from a transcript alleged by Iranian dissidents to be a series of questions and answers exchanged between the ayatollah and some of his supporters.

Asked if a confession obtained “by applying psychological, emotional and physical pressure” was “valid and considered credible according to Islam,” Mesbah-Yazdi replied: “Getting a confession from any person who is against the Velayat-e Faqih (“Guardianship of the Islamic Jurists”, or the regime of Iran’s mullahs) is permissible under any condition.” The ayatollah gave the identical answer when asked about confessions obtained through drugging the prisoner with opiates or addictive substances.

Can an interrogator rape the prisoner in order to obtain a confession?” was the follow-up question posed to the Islamic cleric.

Mesbah-Yazdi answered: “The necessary precaution is for the interrogator to perform a ritual washing first and say prayers while raping the prisoner. If the prisoner is female, it is permissible to rape through the vagina or anus. It is better not to have a witness present. If it is a male prisoner, then it’s acceptable for someone else to watch while the rape is committed.”

This reply, and reports of the rape of teen male prisoners in Iranian jails, may have prompted the following question: “Is the rape of men and young boys considered sodomy?”
One aspect of these permitted rapes troubled certain questioners.

Ayatollah Mesbah-Yazdi: “No, because it is not consensual. Of course, if the prisoner is aroused and enjoys the rape, then caution must be taken not to repeat the rape.”

A related issue, in the eyes of the questioners, was the rape of virgin female prisoners. In this instance, Mesbah-Yazdi went beyond the permissibility issue and described the Allah-sanctioned rewards accorded the rapist-in-the-name-of-Islam:

If the judgment for the [female] prisoner is execution, then rape before execution brings the interrogator a spiritual reward equivalent to making the mandated Haj pilgrimage [to Mecca], but if there is no execution decreed, then the reward would be equivalent to making a pilgrimage to [the Shi’ite holy city of] Karbala.”

One aspect of these permitted rapes troubled certain questioners: “What if the female prisoner gets pregnant? Is the child considered illegitimate?”

Mesbah-Yazdi answered: “The child borne to any weakling [a denigrating term for women – ed.] who is against the Supreme Leader is considered illegitimate, be it a result of rape by her interrogator or through intercourse with her husband, according to the written word in the Koran. However, if the child is raised by the jailer, then the child is considered a legitimate Shi’a Muslim.”

Fascism One, Freedom Zero in Northern Cal

Imagine it’s 1940, and picture Adolf Hitler speaking at a US university, receiving a polite reception, while Winston Churchill is barred from speaking because his safety cannot be guaranteed.

It’s unthinkable, yet the very same pro-fascist dynamic is a reality in 21st Century America.

Protestors at Berkeley, the campus once synonymous with the term “free speech,” forced the cancellation of Netanyahu’s speech there, as well as two subsequent speeches, in November 2000. The Jewish Bulletin of Northern California reported:

Hundreds of protesters shouting “Support the Palestinians, choose a side” and “No free speech for war criminals” blocked the gate leading to the Berkeley Community Theatre Tuesday evening, forcing the cancellation of a scheduled speech by former Israeli prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu.

Waving banners reading “Zionism=Nazism” and “End U.S. aid to Israel,” the crowd was estimated at more than 500 by the Berkeley Police Department and at 200 to 250 by observers…

The vitriol that greeted Netanyahu at Berkeley only worsened in the ensuing years. Anneli Rufus of the East Bay Express recalled that in 2001:

“…Students for Justice in Palestine had become large enough to stage a high-profile sit-in at UC’s Wheeler Hall. The group had demanded that the regents divest from companies with significant holdings in Israel. When the regents failed to respond, dozens of group members chained shut nine of the building’s twelve doors. They formed human chains to block two of the remaining doors and ushered students out of the building through the last door. Professor Gordon, who had an important class scheduled that day in Wheeler, burst through the chain of students only to be showered with spit and hit by a student…”

Later that year, 23-year-old Aaron Schwartz was walking toward the Hillel building as part of an obviously Jewish group celebrating the annual holiday Simchas Torah. According to accounts in The Daily Californian and the Jewish Bulletin of Northern California, one onlooker mocked the procession by goose-stepping in place, chanting “Heil Hitler,” and performing the Nazi salute. After punching Schwartz in the face and knocking him to the ground, the man and his two companions strolled away.

But many remember spring 2002 as the season the screaming really started. On spring break, someone hurled the cinderblock through the front door of Berkeley’s Hillel Center, scrawling the words F— JEWS nearby…

The same mentality was on display in spring 2002 at San Francisco State University, where pro-Israel students and elderly Holocaust survivors trying to hold a rally were stopped by violent protestors screaming “F– the Jews,” “Jews, go back to Russia,” “Too bad Hitler didn’t finish the job,” and “Get out or we’ll kill you.”

Threats of “we’ll kill you” appear to have led to the logical next step in the recent violent death of 38-year-old pro-Israel activist Daniel J. Kliman in San Francisco.

It appears that present-day northern California is to Jews what Mississippi in the early 20th Century was to African-Americans-the epicenter of explosive hate-although the same bigotry permeates much of the academic world.

That would include Concordia University in Montreal, where Netanyahu was prevented from speaking about the war against terrorism. Daniel Pipes, writing in the New York Post on September 17, 2002, described the violent scene:

“… he never made it onto the campus – because a thousand anti-Israel demonstrators staged a mini-riot with the intent of preventing him from speaking…

The anti-Israel forces physically assaulted the would-be audience…
They smashed a plate-glass window and threw objects at the police inside.
They hurled furniture at police from a mezzanine. As Toronto’s Globe & Mail
put it, “By lunchtime, the vestibule of Concordia’s main downtown building was
littered with paper, upturned chairs, broken furniture and the choking
aftereffects of pepper spray.”

The police, saying they couldn’t assure Netanyahu’s safety, canceled the event…

On Thursday, Hanan Ashrawi, the former spokeswoman and colleague of Yasser Arafat, went to Colorado College in Colorado Springs to give a keynote speech at a symposium on “September 11: One Year Later.”

Protestors noted that Ashrawi is smack on the side of America’s enemies in the War on Terrorism. For example, while the U.S. government formally designates Hamas a terrorist group, Ashrawi states she doesn’t “think of Hamas as a terrorist group.” Also, she considers Israeli civilians living on the West Bank to be “legitimate . . . targets of Palestinian resistance” — that is, legitimate targets for deadly violence.

Yet the protestors did not block the terrorist spokeswoman from expressing her opinions (a mere year after the 9/11 attacks), and she is just one of countless pro-terror speakers who are welcome on US campuses. Sheikh Khalid Yasin, a convert to Islam, has been invited to numerous colleges to preach that terrorism is justified, homosexuals should be murdered, and Christian missionaries in Africa are injecting people with AIDS. …

Little wonder that when the genocide-espousing Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad spoke at Columbia University on September 24, 2007, the event did not seem out of the ordinary. His politely received speech was hailed by many observers as a fine display of one of the noblest ideals of institutions of higher learning -the free exchange of ideas.

Hardly anyone in the media noted that, the day before he departed for America, Ahmadinejad re-emphasized the two most heartfelt ideas to which he and his regime are dedicated–“Death to America” and “Death to Israel,” emblazoned on signs in a military parade over which he presided.

Were the deaths of America and Israel debatable propositions? For many in the academic world, the answer apparently is yes. After all, they would tell us, that’s what universities are for. Let all views be heard.

All views, that is, with certain exceptions, including the anti-terror message of the prime
minister of Israel.

Edward Olshaker is a longtime journalist whose work has appeared in History News Network, The Jewish Press, FrontPage Magazine, and other publications.

Most definately READ IT ALL

Another Middle Eastern Voice in support of the West

Rome, as the proud city of the ancient world, was not simply overwhelmed by the swarming hordes of barbarians from the east, but a civilization long in the making swiftly was ruined. It was undone from within by a population that lost its sense of purpose while forgetting its history, and a ruling elite corrupted by self indulgence beyond repair.

The West, as was ancient Rome, is besieged, and those encircling the West at present make no pretence of their intent to tear it down as reparation for past sins that occurred in the making of the modern world.

But the swarming hordes of the anti-West axis — unlike those that overran Rome and its empire — do not gather at the frontiers of the West. Instead they assemble within the modern day temple of rank hypocrisy, the United Nations, and from there launch their assault against the civilization whose wonders they greedily seek, as did their barbarian predecessors invading Rome.

The UN conference on racism in Geneva, Switzerland is the modern day effort of an increasingly supine West at negotiating the price for being left alone by the rapacious thuggish leaders of failed and rogue states of the Third World.

It is the weakening of the West’s moral centre — the abject unwillingness to defend its history which on balance has given the longest lease on freedom and prosperity to the world — that was on display in Geneva.

The spectacle of several European diplomats walking out of the conference hall in Geneva as Iran’s President Ahmadinejad delivered his vile anti-Semitic anti-western rant, illustrated the pathetic disarray of Europe’s frantic diplomacy to negotiate a face-saving agreement with the world’s worst human rights violators.

Instead of hosting such fraudulent conferences as Durban II in Geneva, it is time the West demonstrated its moral authority by demanding from the likes of Ahmadinejad and his anti-West allies to answer why they have denied their people freedom to fully embrace the proven model for prosperity that is the West.

In respect to Israel, it is a beacon of modern enlightenment restored to its ancient home and a reflecting mirror in which the Arab-Muslim world sees daily its appalling failure as a civilization that once merited respect.

AHMADINEJAD’S RAGE

Moreover, the intensity of the anti-Semitic rage that Ahmadinejad displayed in Geneva serves the Arab-Muslim rulers to hold others responsible for their people’s misery.

The Third World needs more of the West despite its flaws — ask the Chinese and the Indians — if their poor are to escape the oppressiveness of their traditional cultures.

The West needs to recover urgently its moral centre for it is only moral criterion — as once Alexander Solzhenitsyn counselled the West against communism — which can help contain and defeat the contemporary enemies of freedom.

SALIM.MANSUR@SUNMEDIA.CA

Please, read it all by clicking on the title

Dennis Ross becomes Barack Obama’s adviser on Iran.

A Persian puzzle
Feb 24th 2009 | NEW YORK
From Economist.com

BARACK OBAMA has spoken of reaching out to difficult regimes, if only such opponents would unclench their fists. In turn Iran’s president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has given some indication that his country would be willing to engage with America, if it could be done on the basis of “mutual respect”. The latest step in the delicate diplomatic dance between Iran and America was taken on Monday February 23rd, as Mr Obama named his new point-man for Iran.

It has been a long time coming. For over a month rumours abounded that the job would go to Dennis Ross, a former negotiator for America in Arab-Israeli peace talks. But while other envoys to the Middle East were announced—one each for Palestine-Israel and Afghanistan-Pakistan—Mr Ross’s appointment was delayed. Some think him too close to Israel; a critical former State Department official has suggested that he was Israel’s lawyer in negotiations with the Palestinians, and he has lately hung his hat at a pro-Israel think-tank. Part of the delay may have revolved around his exact responsibilities and title. Rumour had it that he would be a “super-envoy” above all others in Middle East policy. That seems to have been overdone; he will instead be a “special adviser” for the Gulf and south-west Asia.

America has no direct relations with Iran, yet: deciding whether and how to open up to the country will be a delicate process. It remains unclear whether the Iranians will want to talk to Mr Ross at all: some Iran-policy experts suggest that his background will put the Iranians off. Nor is it clear what the scope of any talks might be.

Last there is the ticking of the nuclear clock. A report by the International Atomic Energy Agency recently suggested that Iran has more low-enriched nuclear material than previously thought. It has enough for a nuclear bomb, though that material would yet require much more enrichment, which is no mean feat. American hawks note that Mr Khatami is no dove; the nuclear-weapons programme that America’s spies think Iran suspended in 2003 was ongoing under Mr Khatami’s watch. And average Iranians support Iran’s unhampered right to nuclear technology, even if they do not want a bomb.

With all these considerations in the balance, it is no wonder that Mr Obama has moved cautiously on Iran. He has pressing domestic and economic concerns, too, so may feel it is wise to proceed slowly with any foreign-policy changes. But even if Mr Obama is wise to take careful steps he—and Mr Ross—will come under greater pressure to spell out soon what path he hopes to follow.

Read it all by clicking on the post title