Posted on 10/04/2014 9:14:51 PM PDT by right-wing agnostic
The war against Islamist terrorism has been going in the wrong direction, and the cancer has metastasized under the present administration. As we get rid of one Islamist tumor, more pop up.
But the most dangerous of all Islamists are ruling Iran and are determined to make themselves untouchable by possessing their own nuclear bomb.
We have wrongly chosen to ignore the majority moderate and secular Moslems in the Middle East and here at home. Those advising the White House and the State Department are lobbyists for the Islamist dictators, not secular Moderate Moslem Americans.
For reasons unknown, the Obama Administration had no qualms in removing and even bombing the secular Arab dictators, citing the human rights of their citizens, but when it comes to the human rights of the citizens living under the bloodiest Islamist dictators in Iran, this administration has gone out of its way to ignore the victims and empower the aggressors.
President Obama did not support the secular uprising in Iran but chose to stand by the Islamist clerics and their international terrorist Revolutionary Guards who are creating havoc across the Middle East, Africa, South America, and even here in the United States. Hizb’allah is the brainchild of Khomeini. Hamas is another gang of Islamists that Khamenei supports, leaving the people of Iran hungry. The Revolutionary Guards are operating in Africa, in every city in Europe, and in South America making deals with the drug cartels.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
"Many Iranian clerics are against the rule of religion in government. The majority of the clerics do not dare to speak up -- the ones who have spoken up have either disappeared or been arrested, imprisoned, tortured, and executed by the clerics in charge of Iran’s so- called Justice system, called Revolutionary Court."
If we are really determined to eradicate Islamism, we should stop making deals with them and start supporting the people against the Islamist regimes.
I especially agree with the above.
"But the most dangerous of all Islamists are ruling Iran..."
They are dangerous, Yes. But not "the most" dangerous.
In other recent news about Islamists - "General Jonathan Shaw, Britain's former Assistant Chief of the Defence Staff":
My son has neighbors from Iran. They have been here for years. They call thier homeland Persia.
> But the most dangerous of all Islamists are ruling Iran and are determined to make themselves untouchable by possessing their own nuclear bomb.
Thanks right-wing agnostic.
President Obama did not support the secular uprising in Iran but chose to stand by the Islamist clerics and their international terrorist Revolutionary Guards who are creating havoc across the Middle East, Africa, South America, and even here in the United States. Hizb’allah is the brainchild of Khomeini. Hamas is another gang of Islamists that Khamenei supports, leaving the people of Iran hungry. The Revolutionary Guards are operating in Africa, in every city in Europe, and in South America making deals with the drug cartels.
If the 75,000,000 “friends” cited had a 2nd amendment they could stand up for their own rights and not worry about our secular totalitarian.
FUBO
~”94% of Iranian people are against the ruling Islamist regime that is anti-Iranian, anti-American, anti-civilization, and rules under barbaric Sharia laws.”
“Many Iranian clerics are against the rule of religion in government. The majority of the clerics do not dare to speak up — the ones who have spoken up have either disappeared or been arrested, imprisoned, tortured, and executed by the clerics in charge of Iran’s so- called Justice system, called Revolutionary Court.”
If we are really determined to eradicate Islamism, we should stop making deals with them and start supporting the people against the Islamist regimes.
I especially agree with the above.~
Kinda like Eastern Europe under late communists.
And we are talking about quite an advanced society with some pro-Western traditions.
Yet, when we hear about negotiating Iranian situation it is all about: ‘Let’s bomb them to the stone age!’
No regime change is ever considered though it certainly might work in this case.
But it is absolute opposite towards less advanced societies which lack any understanding of Western values and basically a cerpentariums with people waging a perpetual bloody war against each other over ridiculous issues.
It usually takes a secular dictator to stop the whole mess and then force idiots to a public school to at least explain them the consequences of inbreeding, to teach them that it is actually Earth which revolves around the sun and that the infidels are not actually a source of all troubles but people who made assault rifles, pickup trucks and even light bulbs shine.
I have no idea why but these are dictators who are allegedly guilty of atrocity of keeping the haters down and we hear about some sort of ‘moderates’ who have to replace them.
What ‘moderates’? Do they mean a group chopping heads over too short skirts or another one crucifying over eating meal with left hand? Or maybe a third group which hangs people over emo hairdo and listening to pop music? At least we have choice, isn’t it?:)
Interesting you say that. Few yrs ago, there was another FReeper from Poland who said exactly the same thing.
A big difference is the mullahcracy is even worse, because communism was/is a 'man-made' doctrine or ideology. The mullahs use a much higher authority, a set of laws (sharia) and more importantly the Quran (which according to them is immutable) to impose their totalitarian religious dictatorship.
What ‘moderates’? Do they mean a group chopping heads over too short skirts or another one crucifying over eating meal with left hand? Or maybe a third group which hangs people over emo hairdo and listening to pop music? At least we have choice, isn’t it?:)
Personally, and for the record, I'm completely against Islam, any Islamic influences and any and all mullahs.
I didn't write this article, though my understanding is that one must put what is said in the article in context. The context being "separation of religion and state" (secular). As an example, Boroujerdi (an Iranian mullah himself) was (and is if he is still alive) entirely against the religious dictatorship in Iran. He was a "secular" cleric. When he opposed the regime mullahs, they arrested him, threw him in prison, tortured him, denied him his medication, and I don't know if he is still alive.
In addition, even within the mullahs regime, there are 'reformists' (some call them moderates). In foreign policy, they can absolutely not be 'moderates', because foreign policy is dictated by the Supreme leader at the very top. However, on social issues a 'reformist' president such as Khatami did push (some limited) ideas through. During his presidency, the women were given more freedom in terms of hejab, for instance. His aid Saeed Hajjarian tried to make some changes on social issues, aiming for a more liberal stance. He was shot by a hardline basiji and ended up in hospital with serious injuries.
Once again, I'm against all mullahs or any religious dictatorship particularly Islamic one. But, the main point is that so long as the Velayat-e Faghih (Guardianship of the Islamic Jurists) i.e. Khomeinist Doctrine and in fact 'invention', continues to be the basic foundation or even part of the Constitution of Iran, even those 'reformist' (aka moderate) mullahs within the current regime will have extremely limited voice, and will not be able to action much of their so-called 'moderate' ideas.
What is the ‘color’ of the majority opposition to mullahs? Are there any Kemalist-likes?
In the past, and to some extent even now, others who oppose the regime have tried to use the "reformists" as a springboard for gradually changing the current regime. However, that has not been successful for the reasons I mentioned in previous post. The 'hardliners' although fewer in numbers, are brutal and control different sectors within the regime. They will never allow an inch, because they know, the moment they do, they will lose control, power, money, influence and most likely their life.
In my view, and based on what we've witnessed so far i.e. the failures (lessons-learned). Any regime change will have to be by force. That force will require multiple leverage points.
Hey Bibi,
If you want Israel to survive you need to NUKE iran.
Do it for Israel. Do it for America.
Do it for the world.
My next door neighbor is a former iranian fighter pilot who owns a very large 4 passenger plane and is a creep i do not trust.
So what ya gonna do?
Feds supposedly have investigated him.
But hell, who trusts the feds any more to do anything rigt?..
Iranians leaders make ISIS look JV ... or maybe even pee wee...
Iranians leaders make ISIS look JV ... or maybe even pee wee...
Indeed, Lol.. They may!
Is that like the Americans wanted to make the old USSR look "JV" (before "JV" existed), OR vice versa? It really depends on what You prefer or don't.
The group writing the final version of history makes the call...
The group that survives will write a version of history, and will make the call.
Obama’s father was Muslim, and in Islamic law, he was Muslim by birth. He was educated as Muslim in Indonesia, the most populated Muslim country in the world. Obama don’t know U.S. history or that America has 50 states not 53; but Obama knows very well their prayers, and praised them as the most beautiful sound in the world. He studied the ”holy” Koran and Muhammad teachings, and the obligation of every Muslim to force infidels to choose convertion or death.
America awake
In “Audacity of Hope” he writes: “I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.” The quote comes from page 261 of the paperback edition of “The Audacity of Hope.
Moderate Muslim is an oximoron
ISLAM RELIGION OF THE SWORD
At the beginning, when they were a small minority, Mohammed preached respect for other religions condemning forced conversion to Islam; those are the parts of the Koran used by those who falsely proclaim that Islam is a “religion of peace”.
What they fail to disclose is that In Islamic tradition, affirmed by many scholars, there is the doctrine of “abrogation”, which states that later revelation to Mohammed supersedes prior revelations, and the Koranic verses ordering Muslims to fight and slay infidels, Christians and Jews came after those admonishing Muslims to live with non-believers in peace and without religious compulsion.
It is a well known fact the bloody history of Islam, but Obama, and a gutless media, still call it a “religion of peace”, even though that in the name of Allah more than 220 millions infidels have been slaughtered by Muslim, since the prophet of Allah beheaded in 627 AD over 700 hundred men and the pubescent boys and enslaved the women and children. In doing this, he wiped entirely the last remaining major tribe of Jews in Medina: the Qurayza.
In conclusion: You cannot separate “terror” from Islam.
“The issue of “terror” is a further aspect of this same understanding. Many outside Islam seek to separate “terror” and “Islam” as if they were, in their usage, independent or even opposed ideas. This latter view is almost impossible seriously to maintain in the light of Islamic history and the text of the Qur’an itself.”
“The Islamic State and the broader jihadist movements throughout the world that agree with it are, I think, correct in their basic understanding of Islam. Plenty of evidence is found, both in the long history of early Muslim military expansion and in its theoretical interpretation of the Qur’an itself, to conclude that the Islamic State and its sympathizers have it basically right.”
The Hindu Kush, seventy-five thousand square miles between Afghanistan and Pakistan, was populated by Hindus until approximately 1000 AD and the Muslim invasions. An estimated 60 million Hindus were murdered by Muslims over a thousand year reign, and Hindu Kush is the Muslim name for the region. It means “Hindu Killer.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.