• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Iran Super Thread- Merged

Here we go again.

http://www.military.com/news/article/iranian-speedboat-...n-tests-us-navy.html

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/04/11/iran.us/index.html

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The USS Typhoon fired a warning flare during a confrontation Thursday night with three small Iranian boats in the Persian Gulf, a U.S. military official said.
The Typhoon, a small patrol craft, was approached by the Iranian boats in a "taunting manner," the official said.

U.S. Navy officers conducted bridge-to-bridge communications with the Iranian boats and two then turned away, the official said. But one came within 200 yards of the Typhoon, prompting it to fire a warning flare. The Iranian boat then turned away.

The confrontation is not considered serious, the U.S. official said.
 
CougarDaddy said:
Here we go again.

Patience Lads, they're on borrowed time.

You'll feel the heat wave from Clair, Saskatchewan on a cold winter's night.
 
BBC :

Ahmadinejad ; 9/11 "suspect event : http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7350830.stm

Iran anti-vice chief "in brothel" : http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7350165.stm
 
WRT your para two...

Quote from the BBC article..

Iran has tough punishments for unmarried couples who have sex or behave in a manner considered immoral.  - I WOULD BE EXECUTED

Young people have been jailed or flogged for dancing together at house parties.  - TWISTED

The public dress code can be tightly enforced, with women barred from showing their hair or wearing make up or colourful clothes and men from wearing their hair long.  HOW WOULD YOU LIKE TO MOVE THERE?

For years the hardline Iranian establishment never admitted that prostitution existed.  - ITS THE OLDEST PROFESSION, HA!

 
jollyjacktar said:
Obviously, the Chief was just doing some undercover work.  ;)

"General Reza Zarei was found with six naked women"

He was taking his job to much at heart  :D!
 
I suspect that what you are seeing is political maneuvering to get rid of him by someone in power, likely he was deemed a threat to somebody and therefore his habits wee exposed to eliminate him as a threat.
 
Cost of trial, minimal

Cost of bullet, a matter of pennies.

His days are done, and no doubt the embarassment caused, he will pay with his life. Who knows how his family will pay.
 
Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of he Copyright Act from today’s National Post, is a column by Daniel Pipes with which I largely agree:

http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/story.html?id=462003
Can democracy and Islam coexist?

Daniel Pipes,
National Post  Published: Tuesday, April 22, 2008

There's an impression that Muslims suffer disproportionately from the rule of dictators, tyrants, unelected presidents, kings, emirs and various other strongmen - and it's accurate. A careful analysis by Frederic L. Pryor of Swarthmore College in the Middle East Quarterly (Are Muslim Countries Less Democratic?) concludes, "In all but the poorest countries, Islam is associated with fewer political rights."

The fact that majority-Muslim countries are less democratic makes it tempting to conclude that the religion of Islam, their common factor, is itself incompatible with democracy.

I disagree with that conclusion. Today's Muslim predicament, rather, reflects historical circumstances more than innate features of Islam. Put differently, Islam, like all pre-modern religions is undemocratic in spirit. No less than the others, however, it has the potential to evolve in a democratic direction.

Such evolution is not easy for any religion. In the Christian case, the battle to limit the Catholic Church's political role was painfully long. If the transition began when Marsiglio of Padua published Defensor pacis in the year 1324, it took another seven centuries for the Church fully to reconcile itself to democracy. Why should Islam's transition be smoother or easier?

To render Islam consistent with democratic ways will require profound changes in its interpretation. For example, the anti-democratic law of Islam, the Shari'a, lies at the core of the problem. Developed over a millennium ago, it presumes autocratic rulers and submissive subjects, emphasizes God's will over popular sovereignty and encourages violent jihad to expand Islam's borders. Further, it anti-democratically privileges Muslims over non-Muslims, males over females and free persons over slaves.

For Muslims to build fully functioning democracies, they basically must reject the Shari'a's public aspects. Turkey's first president Mustafa Ataturk frontally did just that in his country, but others have offered more subtle approaches. Mahmud Muhammad Taha, a Sudanese thinker, dispatched the public Islamic laws by fundamentally reinterpreting the Koran.

Ataturk's efforts and Taha's ideas imply that Islam is ever-evolving, and that to see it as unchanging is a grave mistake. Or, in the lively metaphor of Hassan Hanafi, professor of philosophy at the University of Cairo, the Koran "is a supermarket, where one takes what one wants and leaves what one doesn't want."

Islam's problem is less its being anti-modern than that its process of modernization has hardly begun. Muslims can modernize their religion, but that requires major changes: Out go waging jihad to impose Muslim rule, second-class citizenship for non-Muslims and death sentences for blasphemy or apostasy. In come individual freedoms, civil rights, political participation, popular sovereignty, equality before the law and representative elections.

Two obstacles stand in the way of these changes, however. In the Middle East especially, tribal affiliations remain of paramount importance. As explained by Philip Carl Salzman in his recent book, Culture and Conflict in theMiddle East, these ties create a complex pattern of tribal autonomy and tyrannical centralism that obstructs the development of constitutionalism, the rule of law, citizenship, gender equality and the other prerequisites of a democratic state. Not until this archaic social system based on the family is dispatched can democracy make real headway in the Middle East.

Globally, the compelling and powerful Islamist movement obstructs democracy. It seeks the opposite of reform and modernization -- namely, the reassertion of the Shari'a in its entirety. A jihadist like Osama bin Laden may spell out this goal more explicitly than an establishment politician like Turkey's Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, but both seek to create a thoroughly anti-democratic, if not totalitarian, order.

Islamists respond two ways to democracy. First, they denounce it as unIslamic. Muslim Brotherhood founder Hasan al-Banna considered democracy a betrayal of Islamic values. Brotherhood theoretician Sayyid Qutb rejected popular sovereignty, as did Abu al-A'la al-Mawdudi, founder of Pakistan's Jamaate-Islami political party. Yusuf al-Qaradawi, Al-Jazeera television's imam, argues that elections are heretical.

Despite this scorn, Islamists are eager to use elections to attain power and have proven themselves to be agile vote-getters; even a terrorist organization (Hamas) has won an election. This record does not render the Islamists democratic but indicates their tactical flexibility and their determination to gain power. As Erdogan has revealingly explained, "Democracy is like a streetcar. When you come to your stop, you get off."

Hard work can one day make Islam democratic. In the meanwhile, Islamism represents the world's leading anti-democratic force.

Daniel Pipes is director of the Middle East Forum and the Taube/Diller Distinguished Visiting Fellow at the Hoover Institution of Stanford University.

©All rights reserved by Daniel Pipes.

www.danielpipes.org

First, I would mention that 15th century Christendom roughly mirrored 21st century Islam; to paraphrase Pipes: it presumed autocratic rulers and submissive subjects, emphasized God's will over popular sovereignty and encouraged violent wars to expand Christianity's borders. Further, it anti-democratically privileged Christians over non-Christians, males over females and free persons over slaves.

Pipes says: ”Islam's problem is less its being anti-modern than that its process of modernization has hardly begun.” The process by which the modern, secular, liberal (well, mostly liberal) West was created required a long, painful often violent reformation followed by an equally long and painful enlightenment. I have proposed that we, seving our own self-interest, need to help Islam to initiate both.

It is important to recall that what “we” did was no less than to push religion, the faith of our fathers and all that, out of civic life and into the private realm. It was a difficult process in he West and, I think, for many good Muslims it is a terrifying, even soul threatening prospect.

The prospect is, however, in my opinion, mandatory; Islam must undergo a complete reformation and the African Arabic, Persian and Central and West Asian Muslim societies must also be enlightened – or destroyed, because, heaven knows, we cannot coexist with them as they are because, as they are, they threaten our very existence and we must preserve our civilization (as Huntington might see it).

Chaos in Dar al Islam will be part of the process. 
 
Continuing your line of thought Edward, and at risk of being labelled an Orangeman, I think that the same question about democracy and religion could have been asked about any Catholic country up until the 1960s and the election of John XXIII and Paul VI.

Many inhabitants of the modern Anglosphere would have argued strenuously that those Priest Ridden States were not ready for democracy. That includes places like Spain, Portugal, Italy, Ireland, Quebec, and French communities on the Prairies.  Our forebears fought vigorously against that form of totalitarianism in wars big and small and including the Manitoba Schools question and the Metis rebellions.

All the Popes of the 19th Century and early 20th Century expressed grave reservations about "bottom up governance" to put it mildly.  And given the outcome (WW1, WW2, Communism, Fascism, Wars of Liberation, Cultural Revolutions.....) their concerns weren't misplaced. They too, just like their fellow religious arbiters the Caliphs argued vigorously about the need for central authority.

The ongoing debate of course is whose...Maoists, Communists, Fascists, Social Democrats, Catholics, Swedish Lutherans or German Lutherans, Canterbury Anglicans or New Westminster Anglicans, Shia or Sunni?

I am comfortable as Napoleon described my Nation.... a nation of shopkeepers.  What you believe is your affair.  Let me believe as I believe and we'll get along fine.  In the meantime can we both focus on the important issue of putting bread on our tables for our families?
 
US pressure going up:

U.S. Weighing Readiness for Military Action Against Iran
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/25/AR2008042501480.html

The nation's top military officer said yesterday that the Pentagon is planning for "potential military courses of action" as one of several options against Iran, criticizing what he called the Tehran government's "increasingly lethal and malign influence" in Iraq.

Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said a conflict with Iran would be "extremely stressing" but not impossible for U.S. forces, pointing to reserve capabilities in the Navy and Air Force [emphasis added].

"It would be a mistake to think that we are out of combat capability," he said at a Pentagon news conference. Speaking of Iran's intentions, Mullen said: "They prefer to see a weak Iraq neighbor. . . . They have expressed long-term goals to be the regional power."

Mullen made clear that he prefers a diplomatic solution and does not expect imminent action. "I have no expectations that we're going to get into a conflict with Iran in the immediate future," he said.

Mullen's statements and others by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates recently signal new rhetorical pressure on Iran by the Bush administration amid what officials say is increased Iranian provision of weapons, training and financing to Iraqi groups that are attacking and killing Americans.

In a speech Monday, Gates said Iran "is hell-bent on acquiring nuclear weapons." He said war would be "disastrous" but added that "the military option must be kept on the table, given the destabilizing policies of the regime and the risks inherent in a future Iranian nuclear threat."

Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, who was nominated this week to head all U.S. forces in the Middle East, is preparing a briefing soon on increased Iranian involvement in Iraq, Mullen said. The briefing will detail, for example, the discovery in Iraq of weapons that were very recently manufactured in Iran, he said.

"The Iranian government pledged to halt such activities some months ago. It's plainly obvious they have not," Mullen said. He said unrest in the Iraqi city of Basra had highlighted a "level of involvement" by Iran that had not been clear previously.

But while Mullen and Gates have said that the government in Tehran must know of Iranian actions in Iraq, Mullen said he has "no smoking gun which could prove that the highest leadership is involved."..

Mark
Ottawa
 
Wesley  Down Under said:
Patience Lads, they're on borrowed time.

Well they don't seem to have much time with the way they are trying to provoke Coalition warships in the Gulf...the Iranians really seem to be spoiling for a fight, or at least posturing.

:eek:

Here's a little update, albeit a little late (first posted yesterday):

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/usa_iran_navy_dc;_ylt=AnlvqjBnzckPdlKQCVnZiFKs0NUE

By Kristin Roberts

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A cargo ship hired by the U.S. military fired warning shots at boats suspected to be Iranian, the U.S. Navy said on Friday, underscoring tension in the Gulf as the Pentagon sharpened its warnings to Tehran.

According to American defense officials, the Westward Venture cargo ship chartered by the U.S. Defense Department was traveling in international waters when two unidentified small boats approached on Thursday.

After the boats failed to respond to radio queries and a warning flare, the cargo ship's onboard security team fired "a few bursts" of machine gun and rifle warning shots, according to Cmdr. Lydia Robertson, a spokeswoman for the U.S. Navy's Bahrain-based Fifth Fleet.

"The small boats left the area a short time later," she said by telephone. "They were able to avoid a serious incident by following the procedures that we use."

The news helped push oil prices up more than $3 to $119.50 a barrel -- within striking distance of the record $119.90 hit earlier this week -- as traders worried escalating tensions in the region could eventually disrupt crude shipments.

In Tehran, an Iranian navy source denied that any confrontation had occurred with a U.S. ship in the Gulf. But the source, quoted by a journalist for Iran's state-owned Arabic Al-Alam TV channel, said any shooting that may have occurred could have targeted a non-Iranian vessel.

U.S. defense officials said they suspected the boats were Iranian. "We don't have complete confirmation of that but we suspect it," one official said.

The incident was reported as America's top military officer charged Iran with increasing its support for Iraqi militias with weapons and training used to kill U.S. troops.

Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Mullen said the United States would continue to rely on diplomatic and economic methods to encourage Iran to change, but stressed the Pentagon had military options.

"When I say I don't want to take any military options off the table, that certainly more than implies that we have military options," Mullen told reporters. "That kind of planning activity has been going on for a long time. I think it will go on for some time into the future."

Tensions in the region have risen this year. In January, the United States said Iranian boats aggressively approached three U.S. Navy battle ships, warning them they would explode in minutes.

In March, another U.S. military-chartered ship preparing to cross the Suez Canal fired warning shots at a small boat, killing an Egyptian on board.

(Reporting by Kristin Roberts and Andrew Gray, Editing by Chris Wilson)
 
Instead of warning shots, sink the bastards! Give them their one way ticket to pardise they want so badly.

Hey remember that Eddy Money song 'Two Tickets to Paradise', so lets start handing them out, by the book  ;D
 
Someone is showing their hand early:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/29/science/29nuke.html?_r=2&th=&emc=th&pagewanted=all

A Tantalizing Look at Iran’s Nuclear Program
By WILLIAM J. BROAD

Barbed wire and antiaircraft guns ring a maze of buildings in the Iranian desert that lie at the heart of the West’s five-year standoff with Tehran over its program to enrich uranium.

It is a place of secrets that Iran loves to boast about, clouding the effort’s real status and making Western analysts all the more eager for solid details and clues. Tehran insists that its plans are peaceful. But Washington and its allies see a looming threat.

The sprawling site, known as Natanz, made headlines recently because Iran is testing a new generation of centrifuges there that spin faster and, in theory, can more rapidly turn natural uranium into fuel for reactors or nuclear arms. The new machines are also meant to be more reliable than their forerunners, which often failed catastrophically.

On April 8, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad visited the desert site, and Iran released 48 photographs of the tour, providing the first significant look inside the atomic riddle.

“They’re remarkable,” Jeffrey G. Lewis, an arms control specialist at the New America Foundation, a nonprofit research group in Washington, said of the photographs. “We’re learning things.”

Most important, the pictures give the first public glimpse of the new centrifuge, known as the IR-2, for Iranian second generation. There were no captions with the photographs, so nuclear analysts around the globe are scrutinizing the visual evidence to size up the new machine, its probable efficiency and its readiness for the tough job of uranium enrichment. They see the photos as an intelligence boon.

“This is intel to die for,” Andreas Persbo, an analyst in London at the Verification Research, Training and Information Center, a private group that promotes arms control, said in a comment on the blog site Arms Control Wonk.

One surprise of the tour was the presence of Iran’s defense minister, Mostafa Mohammad Najjar. His attendance struck some analysts as odd given Iran’s claim that the desert labors are entirely peaceful in nature. In one picture, Mr. Najjar, smiling widely, appears to lead the presidential retinue.

Nuclear analysts say the tour opened a window into a hidden world previously known only to the Iranians and a few international inspectors.

“I don’t see anything to suggest this is propaganda,” Houston G. Wood III, a centrifuge expert at the University of Virginia, said in an interview. “They seem to be working on an advanced machine.”

Such judgments rest not only on the photographic clues, but also on the Iranian record of successful, if limited, enrichment, as well as the reports of international inspectors, who have tracked Iran’s effort to develop the new centrifuges.

Engineers use centrifuges for many applications other than enriching uranium. In general, the devices spin fast to separate all kinds of objects of differing mass and density — for instance, milk from cream and impurities from wine. To that end, centrifuges exploit simple laws of physics, doing so in ways that echo common experience.

A car that veers around a corner throws its passengers to one side. So, too, a centrifuge throws its contents off what would normally be a forward course. But it does so relentlessly.

Why do the contents separate? As Newton explained in his second law of motion, the more massive the object, the greater the tug. In the lurching car, an adult feels the force more than a child. In the centrifuge, heavy objects feel it more than light ones and, if possible, they move more vigorously toward the outer wall.

Nuclear centrifuges apply the same principle to uranium mined from the earth’s inner recesses, spinning it into constituent parts.

Iran is separating U-235 from U-238. Rare in nature, U-235 easily splits in two to produce bursts of atomic energy. It also has three fewer neutrons than its cousin, making it slightly lighter and thus a candidate for centrifuge separation.

First, engineers turn the natural mix of uranium (0.7 and 99.3 percent, respectively) into a gas. Then, the centrifuge throws the heavier U-238 atoms toward the wall, letting the rare U-235 ones accumulate near the center. The results get scooped up continually. Rows of centrifuges repeat the process to slowly raise the rare isotope’s concentration.

It seems easy. But the centrifuges spin at about the speed of sound, must work day and night for months or years on end and can easily lose their balance, tearing themselves apart.

“Our machines broke down frequently” in the program’s early days, Gholamreza Aghazadeh, the chief of the Iranian Atomic Energy Organization, recalled in a 2006 interview on state television. He said a study had traced the failures to centrifuge assembly when technicians with bare hands inadvertently left behind clusters of microbes.

“This little amount of germs,” Mr. Aghazadeh said, was enough to throw the whirling devices off balance, leaving them in ruins. “When we say a machine is destroyed,” he added, “we mean that it turns into powder.”

In great secrecy, Iran began its centrifuge program in 1985, according to inspectors of the International Atomic Energy Agency. It copied a Pakistani design, known as the P-1. Today, the Iranian version stands more than six feet tall. Inside, a hollow rotor of aluminum spins the uranium gas to blinding speeds. Iran has installed 3,000 of the temperamental machines at Natanz, and recently began expanding that setup to 9,000.

In recent years, Iran has tried to move ahead in sophistication with a newer centrifuge design based on Pakistan’s second-generation model, known as the P-2. Its rotor is made of superhard steel that can spin faster, speeding the pace of enrichment while lowering the risk of breakdown.

But Iran had great difficulty building the machines and obtaining the special steel. Mostly in secret, it instead developed its own version, the IR-2. It is partly indigenous, signaling that the Iranians have achieved new levels of technical skill. If perfected, the IR-2 could accelerate Iran’s production of fuel for reactors or bombs.

Western experts say demonstration models of the IR-2 stand about three feet high — half the height of the P-1. But they spin twice as fast.

“That’s a lot,” said David Albright, president of the Institute for Science and International Security, a private group in Washington that tracks nuclear proliferation. “It would produce about four times the enrichment.”

The secret is carbon fibers, say international inspectors. The IR-2’s rotor is made not of steel or aluminum but black carbon that forms an incredibly strong tube for its weight. Experts say it is also cheaper to make than steel tubes.

Of the 48 photographs Iran released, Western analysts gave special scrutiny to one showing Mr. Ahmadinejad and his entourage viewing a disassembled IR-2, its guts arrayed on a table. Clearly visible are its casing, inner rotor, motor and several other critical parts.

Arms Control Wonk, which Dr. Lewis of the New America Foundation runs, led a discussion of the photo. Most comments focused on parts. But Geoffrey E. Forden, an arms expert at M.I.T., noted that the table also held an Iranian flag.

“Indigenous manufacturing of sophisticated components is something to be very proud of,” he wrote. “And showing them with an Iranian flag is a very good way of graphically proclaiming it.”

Several photos gave glimpses of what Western analysts consider the part of a nuclear centrifuge usually kept most secret — its bottom bearing. That sounds prosaic. But the bearing is critical to battling the bane of relentless spinning: friction, which can slow, cripple or destroy machines meant to work flawlessly for years.

Iran’s centrifuges, as is standard practice, have no physical support at the top. In an effort to eliminate friction, they have a magnetic bearing that holds the upper end of the rotor steady with invisible fields.

The rotor’s entire weight rests on the bottom bearing, which consists of a single, thin, needlelike projection, its rounded head etched with spiral grooves to promote the quick flow of lubricating fluid.

One picture showed a young woman with a black Islamic shawl showing a bottom bearing to Mr. Ahmadinejad, who wore a lab coat and what seemed like a pleased expression. Another bearing sat on the table between them.

Dr. Lewis said the presence of the tiny part appeared noteworthy, since Iran once abandoned trying to build advanced centrifuges because of problems in making the bottom bearing.

Other photos showed rows of P-1 centrifuges as well as the new IR-2 model, apparently ready for testing.

A European centrifuge expert who closely follows the Iranian program, including the evaluations of international inspectors, said difficult work remained on the IR-2. “They obviously have months, if not a year, of test work to do before they can consider proceeding with mass production,” the expert said, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the issue’s sensitivity.

More generally, analysts say, Iran is slowly but steadily gaining the industrial experience needed to make reactor fuel, or, with the same equipment and a little more effort, bomb fuel — the hardest part of the weapons equation.

Uranium enriched to about 4 percent uranium 235 can fuel most reactors; to 90 percent, atom bombs.

Mr. Albright of the Institute for Science and International Security said that in one year 3,000 flawlessly running P-1 centrifuges could produce enough weapon-grade uranium for one nuclear weapon. Or, he added, the same could be achieved with 1,200 IR-2 machines.

American intelligence agencies say the earliest Iran could make a nuclear weapon is 2009, but consider 2010 to 2015 a more likely time frame. Iran insists it wants to make only reactor fuel for producing electricity.

Given the high stakes and international jitters, why did Iran release the photos? Analysts cite everything from a spirit of cooperation to blasts of disdain.

“Maybe it’s an invitation for engagement, or maybe it’s just to show off their achievement,” said R. Scott Kemp, a centrifuge expert at Princeton.

Dr. Wood of the University of Virginia said the episode smelled of hubris. “It was amazing to me that they put the pictures out there,” he said. “It’s sort of a cocky thing. I would think they had more to gain by keeping their cards close to their chests.”

By this analysis, the move trumpets Iran’s defiance of the West and the United Nations Security Council, which has imposed three rounds of sanctions on Tehran for its refusal to halt the uranium enrichment.

Some analysts see the centrifuges, despite the disclosures of the presidential tour, as a continuing enigma.

Ultimately, Tehran could use them for good or ill, for lighting cities or destroying them. Only time, they say, is likely to reveal Iran’s true intentions.
 
Interesting comparison. It is also interesting to note that while we fight for freedom of speech in Afghanistan, we also allow HRCs to have free reign to attack free speech here at home. While we fight and die to build roads, Canadian city councils allow their roads to deteriorate and infrastructure crumble.................

http://cjunk.blogspot.com/2008/05/winning-in-afghanistan-losing-at-home.html

01 May 2008
Winning in Afghanistan; Losing at Home

The War on Islamic Totalitarianism is being won in Afghanistan and Iraq, and if polls are any indication, a growing number of Muslim hearts may be turning as well. The smoldering corpses of barbarians number in the many thousands ... who knows ... other than to say that the 72 virgins servicing the bits and pieces of jihadist must be getting mighty worn out. The point is, thousands of the scum went to Iraq and Afghanistan and are never going home.

Sure, a steady stream of the degenerates keep arriving from just about every corner of the world ... but Muslim public opinion seems to be shifting ... and that, in any context, is a win. It also means that fewer Islamic countries will laud the exploits ... or rather explosions ... of their suicide-bent countrymen. The chief barbarian himself, good'ol Mo, must be quivering with rage, to watch Afghan children and women cluster adoringly around Western crusaders ... or worse yet, shed their hijabs for blue jeans in newly liberated Basra and Ramadi. There is change in the air ... and it ain't good for the barbarians.

So, with the War on Barbarism slowly moving toward a victory, where next must we cast our eye to crush it's last vestiges? As we scan the planet for a good place to invade ... with or without Noam Chomsky's permission, our gaze falls on Europe and North America ... where barbarism is, in fact, making gains:

    And that brings us to the bad news. We still censor ourselves in fears of terrorist threats, mortgaging the Enlightenment tradition of free and unfettered speech. In Europe, cartoonists, novelists, opera producers, filmmakers, and even the pope are choosing their words very carefully about Islam — in fear they will become the targets of riots and death threats.

    Here at home, our State Department is advising its officials to avoid perfectly descriptive terms for our enemies like “jihadist” and “Islamo-fascist” in favor of vague terms like “violent extremist” or “terrorist” — as if we could just as easily be fighting Basque separatists.


Perhaps we can convince the USMC to invade Canada's HRCs ... that'd be good start, don't you think? Or, how about sending our chief traitor to Guantanamo for a cool down ... I'm sure he wouldn't mind rooming with thugs for a bit:


    Dear Muneeza Sheikh,


    Thank you for your letter on behalf of the students and graduates who launched human rights complaints with the Ontario Human Rights Commission against MacLean’s Magazine.

    The NDP appreciates the battle you are waging against mainstream media’s portrayal of Muslim Canadians and the intolerance and hatred against other communities such as Arabs and South Asians.

    The NDP holds the view that intolerance and the promotion of hate speech and action has no right to thrive and grow in Canada. We believe all citizens deserve to live in a country where their culture, ethnicity, gender, language, race, religion, sexual orientation and lifestyle should be respected and celebrated. There is no room for Islamophobia, racism or discrimination in a country such as ours.

    As you continue to find a resolution, I encourage you to stay strong in your fight for justice. Please keep me updated on your efforts.

    Sincerely,
    Jack Layton, MP (Toronto–Danforth)


I doubt though, that even Jackie is up to the Gitmo shuffle. What's that you ask?

It's acquiescence to leftist whining over Gitmo ... with the following predictable result:

    A Kuwaiti man released from the U.S. prison in Guantanamo Bay in 2005 has carried out a suicide bombing in Iraq, his cousin told Al Arabiya television on Thursday.

Posted by Paul at 6:24 PM 
 
- Give the next generation of Iranians time to sort themselves out and they will.  The present powers that be will try to provoke a war with the West to stay in power.  We should not fall for that.
 
how could anyone besides that war criminal bush HATE ppeopke from iran enough ti kill them.
I mean clearly it doesnt magtter to bush, he just wants people to die, but NORMAL people wont just be down for killing people frpom iran.

PS bush hates queers.
 
FascistLibertarian said:
how could anyone besides that war criminal bush HATE ppeopke from iran enough ti kill them.
I mean clearly it doesnt magtter to bush, he just wants people to die, but NORMAL people wont just be down for killing people frpom iran.

PS bush hates queers.

First of all what kind of response is this? Your grammar and spelling is disgusting. This is not MSN talk this is army.ca forums. 

Second..."PS bush hates queers", Is that really necessary to put in this topic? If your going to respond I suggest you respond civilly.
 
Back
Top