The UNconscionable power of Iran

Simon

Does Ms Philips accept that Israel is a nuclear power? Frankly, I think it is difficult to find anyone who thinks Israel does not possess a nuclear arsenal, perhaps numbering several hundred warheads. Since they would undoubtedly use them in the event of a nuclear strike any Iranian leader authorising such action would presumably be willing to see his own country destroyed in the subsuquent Israeli retaliation, regardless of wht the United States might do. Does Ms Philips seriously believe that there are Iranian leaders willing to pay this price to destroy the Israeli state?

Dee Ranged

Yes, it's quite remarkable how the Left continue to support the UN to the exent they do.

It truly is a 'club of terror' and should be disbanded altogether.

Tony

The UN brought down a wonderful country called Rhodesia and turned it into Bob Mugabe's current paradise. This is all they are capable of doing, destroying things that work.
The UN should be re-named 'UM' which stands for UNITED MULLAHS.
The USA should cancel all funding of this den of evil as soon as possible.

Gary O

Simon: yes.
Do you think that those who flew planes loaded with innocent men, woemn and children gave a toss about their own self preservation.
You simply cannot attach our human values to those perverts who see killing "non-believers" as doing their god's duty.

Adam B.

Simon, the answer is yes, unbelievable though it may sound.

As for the UN, it is a perversion of everything it is supposed to represent. It's time for a league of democracies, we should quit this tyrants' club and leave these corrupt "diplomats" to swan around New York shopping in the department stores and ordering hookers in their penthouse suites whilst their people starve at home.

Adam B.

Tony, you're right. The US contributes the most, yet the UN votes against the US 80% of the time. Just what are we in the West getting out of this institution?

Gary O

Get this: most (NOT ALL) members of the UN are poor countries who can't even feed or clothe its own people, many are run by corrupt despotic regimes and states sponsors of terrorism.

And they get to vote on how we live our lives!

UN has far outlived its purpose and should be disbanded asap.

How much does the US (I know it is in arrears) compared to say Saudi Arabia and guess who is the most hated by all other Third Word member states?

TT

Tony, you're right. (If a bit dramatic!) Simon, a resounding YES, Iran would happily be willing to pay the price you mention. Their hatred of Jews (not necessarily Israelis)is so pathological that they would pay any price, and this is sanctioned by their religion which requires them to (basically) kill or convert the kafirs. It is very disheartening that otherwise intelligent people just do not get it. What will it take? (I think we know the answer.)

Leeside

Simon: Yes, absobloodylutely! Since when are these guys respectors of human life?

BVD

Yes, Simon, Melanie and many others believe exactly that. To say otherwise is the same as Mugabe saying there is no more cholera in Zim'bbe. In fact the similarities dont end there you know.

John Birch

Please, the idea that Iran is a threat to the west is ridiculous. Iran has the economic clout of a small American state and with the price of oil dropping like a stone it is going to be facing major economic problems. It's a paper tiger that has been emboldened by the toppling of its chief adversary in the region, Iraq, but, of course, Ms. Phillips never addresses that consequence of a policy she supported.

Jasmine

Just been reading this on the website of Olavo de Carvalho:

"Nowadays, the national interest of all countries is being subordinated to worldwide plans imposed by an economic, bureaucratic and intellectual elite whose power transcends that of any particular nation, including the United States."

This is the effect of the wretched UN.

Like someone else hereabouts, Mr de Carvalho is also monitoring the influence of a certain Saul Alinsky on a certain president elect. Read the whole piece here:

www.olavodecarvalho.org/english/articles/081118lf_en.html

Brilliant stuff.

Frank P

Jasmine

Thank you for that link and I agree with your assessment of it. Moreover there is a cornucopia of notations in the footnotes, one in particular, a John Fonte reference that I had previously missed. Fonte is one of the best writers around on the plans and effects of modified Marxism.

Btw our winter-flowering Jasmine has just burst floor into bloom and lightened these dark days of December; you post likewise.

Adam B.

John Birch, ridiculous? Iran doesn't need to be an economic powerhouse to be a threat, it's not that sort of threat. It's a nuclear device going off in Tel Aviv, New York or London kind of threat. It doesn't get much bigger than that.

barackobama

The problems at the UN started when it was formed in 1945. The United Nations coalition led by Winston Churchill set as the principal condition for membership of the UN Organisation that countries should declare war against Germany and Japan. This allowed dictatorships like Turkey and absolute monarchies like Ethiopia an equal say with the democracies in the general assembly. The UN constitution agreed by the UK and the US gave veto power in the Security Council to Joseph Stalin. Ireland -- whose president was soon to be the convicted IRA leader De Valera, whose government included men who had assassinated British officers and which at that time still claimed Northern Ireland -- became a member with enthusiasic American support in 1955. President Nixon ensured Communists replaced the Nationalists as China's representative on the Security Council in 1971 and gave Mao the veto. The UN, as a consequence, has been almost totally ineffective. Contempt for the organisation is intense in Beijing and Moscow as well.

Joe Camel

What Ahmadinejad and his group seem to be after is establishing a new Persian Empire, in which Tehran would command a string of satellite states comprising a large chunk of the Arab world, particularly along the eastern Mediterranean seaboard and southward towards the Red Sea. Iran already has Syria, Hezbollah, and Hamas in its pocket, which is why there is disagreement in Washington about how to approach Baby Assad. Is it worth trying to lure Syria into the moderate camp or not?

barackobama

And Tony.
It was Margaret Thatcher and her government that recognised Mugabe. The UN were spectators.

An American

Simon, Yes...
A nuclear attack on Israel will fulfill Iran's Mullahs' religious calendar for 2012.

Please...will someone take the UN off of our hands...out of our pockets...and off of our streets.

They all remind me of that bar scene from Star Wars.

Unfortunately...I don't see the UN going away in the forseeable future with the 'Anointed One' now taking over. He adores the UN. The post of US Ambassador to the UN is so important that incoming UN Ambassador Rice will be given a cabinet post. That way, she can get all of our juicy inside information and pass it on to her 'friends' at the UN.

If there were a national vote to take the US out of the UN and throw the UN out of our country. I believe it would pass by 75%.

Anthony

One of the most important things about Iran getting the bomb is that all the other countries in neighbouring areas - Syria, Egypt and so on - would defer to it.

That's why a nuclear Iran would change everything.

Dixon

Anthony
December 12th, 2008 3:24pm
One of the most important things about Iran getting the bomb is that all the other countries in neighbouring areas - Syria, Egypt and so on - would defer to it.
That's why a nuclear Iran would change everything."

alternatively, Syria, Egypt and Saud, let alone the tiny moneypots like Kuwait, will all rush of their own. Who wouldnt in their circumstances?

Dixon

That should have said "will all rush to get nukes of their own".

One of my PC viruses intermittently cuts out the keyboard. I may seem to spew a lot of words, but spare a thought for my needing to rewrite the same words repeatedly before they register!

james Huggins

The UN is a corrupt, ineffective, power mad group of mostly tribal chiefs and political strong men who cannot even run their own countries. Much like the US federal government. Scary isn't it..

Tony

Barackobama - firstly why do you risk using the President Elects name as a nom de plume? There is no guarantee he will succeed. A bit risky isn't that?
As far as your comment that the UN was only a 'spectator' in the demise of Rhodesdia...what can I say, were you living under a rock in the 60's and 70's??
The UN passed dozens and dozens of resolutions against Rhodesia, the pricipal one being sanctions against the government of Ian Smith.
Here are a few more resolutions they passed, representing only a tip of the ice-berg: 216, 217,221,232,253,411,386,320,415,423,438,445,326,328,333...ad nauseum!!
The UN's role in bringing Rhodesia to her knees was central to the collapse of that wonderful land and it was voted for by UN members that were commies, dictators, leaders of failed states and international criminals!
I will dance with joy the day the UN is closed down and I believe the West should form their own UN and stop funding this present excuse of an international body.

John Thomas

Yes, the point of the Cold War was that Russia(USSR) was not a country fanatical and mad enough to risk annhiliation by starting a nuclear war (MAD, indeed, deterred it; had western European countries such as Britain ever been mad enough to unilaterally disarm (as many wanted) the tanks would surely have rolled in ...) But countries like Iran are not at all like this. Iran/Amad'jad has said that they're not like those people in the West, they do not fear death, and pursuing their ends (annihiliating Jews and kafirs) is well worth it. Besides, jihadists will have Pakistan's arsenal before long (does its range extend to the UK? Probably). And yes, the UN are just the guys to facilitate Iran. Be very afraid - the world in, say, 1970, was very safe compared to now.

Ali Mostofi

They stick a few carpets around, and suddenly they are a power. Wow! How much did it cost the PR agencies of IRI to get this news around. We live in desperate times.

Lama Clampett

Dixon: "... spare a thought for my needing to rewrite the same words repeatedly before they register!"

Reintarnation dagnabbit! It must be that there karma.

Jeeves

Dixon: "I may seem to spew a lot of words..."

Indeed, you are a fount of wisdom Sir.

jerry

John Birch, re the overthrow of Iraq and its consequences.

Unfortunately, as most humans, you presume to know what would have happened "if only." The continued activity of Saddam Hussein as a master of his country was already sadistic. It may very well have been Iraq's justification for developing its own nuclear weapons as a result of the activities that no one can yet stop in Iran. Then the world would have faced two nuclear powers who lacked respect for human life. Now we have only one major player among the heartless Muslim dictators.

Peter Barry

It seems that the person writing on here with the name 'barrackobama' is as much in touch with REAL history as his namesake is with the truth.

HarleyDavidson

Don't blame Iran or any of the third world countries for the UN stupidity. It is the western democracies who fund this abomination. This is a lovely way to run a world after all its as if we were to round up all the thugs and criminals in your town or city and let them take over city hall and decide what is best for the rest of us. Hey, we'll even pay them for their troubles and subsidize them for ripping us off. Hey, if its good enough for the UN then its gotta be good enough to do here at home.

Hey, Obama loves the place. And he is the Messiah. How can we go wrong?

Adam B.

Some interesting points about the disgusting UN here (you have to scroll down a bit):
http://www.tomgrossmedia.com/mideastdispatches/archives/000993.html

Herbert Thornton

All very fascinating, but what is it proposed should be done about it?

It seems, if we face up to reality, to boil down to the questions of -

1. Whether Iran's nuclear program must be destroyed,

and - if the answer is "yes", to -

2. Who will do it - the U.S. or Israel?

Since it seems unlikely that the U.S. can be persuaded to do it, then we have to conclude that it will have to be Israel.

Meantime, we - the chattering class - can only wait, while continuing to chatter.

On the other hand, suppose that Israel does nothing. Then I suppose we can also chatter about Iran's stockpile of nuclear bombs and how they will be delivered and where they will be detonated - not to mention chattering about how many nuclear bombs Pakistan's nuclear facilities are continuing to accumulate, year after year and whether they will be used too.

I expect the only question then will be how big will Armageddon actually be? The chatter about that will be even more fascinating.

Roy

Bad enough that Pakistan should have the damned device. Stolen under the very noses of Europeans dozing on the job whilst building their power plants. The ivory white smile of the Pakistani Abdul Qadeer Khan disarmed the staff at the Dutch Physics Laboratory, and took work home for years. Later on selling to all and sundry what he had learned and how a DIY Islamic country can build them, no bother. I doubt even now whether the western world has learnt its lesson. Specially when billions of dollars were given Pakistan to bring them on-side in the Afghan/Iraq conflict, part of which went into the building of this thing. You can't trust these people and yet they have been skin grafted onto the body Euro, the body US, and all free bodies in the world today.

Dixon

Own up Lama Clampit, is unt u really Deputy Dawg, or that there Ronnie.

barackobama

The UN is powerless. Sanctions against Iraq in 1990-2003 were the most complete UN embargo in history. But they finished up making Saddam stronger. Abolishing the UN won't change the world by an iota, but having UN resolutions to hand (as the US and the UK had in 2003) can be useful propaganda. This is why even conservative Republicans haven't seriously proposed closing the place down or pulling out of it.
Claims that the UN made Britain impose Mugabe on Zimbabwe are false. Margaret Thatcher was prime minister in 1979/80 when the key deals were done and could have stopped them happening. She didn't. So it's her fault.

Verity

Adam B writes: "It's time for a league of democracies...".

This is what we don't need. Democracies don't need a "league". Except in the case of Brown/Blair led Britain, democracies strive to do what is right and to cooperate with other democracies. We don't need dictatorial trappings that appeal to African despots and other human effluent.

The UN is disgusting. I have already written that the BBC is too malign to survive and should be the victim of controlled dynamiting. I've also suggested that the following day, there should be a tribute dynamiting of the UN. Or the other way round. But they're both toxic and they both have to be wiped off the face of the earth. I don't believe in reform. Destruction is best because then you're sure.

Let the UN be a blip in history.

Dixon

Our best hope is summed up in the sentiment "bring it on"

After a few nukes have gone off in embarrassing places, maybe we'll see law and order in its present form collapse and then the ordinary people will finally be free to re-build civilisation unencumbered by such convocations of imbecility as the UN, the IPCC, Kyoto, the EU, Westminster and its equivalents abroad, the Big Three parties and their equivalents abroad, County Councils and their Euro-equivalents, the British police and the rest of the self-serving Politically Correct shower that blight our lives at present.

It is like having to lance a viciously aggressive and over-grown boil. Itll be for the best in the long run. Those mullahs would be doing us a great service. Then we could actually deal with them in return unfettered by that concatanation of chatterers and "useful idiots".

Towncar

An American here. I just want to say that I appreciate that the level of discourse here is of such quality. Opinions from all sides are credibly stated, lucid and demonstrate consideration of the various subjects. A similar comment thread on an American website, inevitably devolves by the third post to: NO! You're Stupid!

An American

Dixon and Verity,

Unfortunately...it will take a couple of Islamic nuke attacks to wake up our weak western leaders. By that time, things will be in such a socialist quagmire, we may not be able to pull things together.

I find it interesting that it is the women on this blog including our revered Melanie, that most often state the stark obvious.

An American

Towncar,
I agree...that's why I prefer this blog over most US blogs...it doesn't take much intelligence to scream nasty words at each other...I guess it does help vent some.

This blog is filled with some incredibly bright people who know their world history and politics...I learn something new every day.

Verity

An American - I'm not sure I agree with you about it taking a couple of Islamic nuke attacks to wake up our weak Western leaders ...

In Britain, they are already awake to Islamic aggression and violence. In Britain, the socialists, starting with the ego-mentalist Tony Blair, sincerely believe they have harnessed Islamic aggression in their own countries and can employ it to work for them. As in, keeping the population afraid, under the thought fascist banner, and fearful to fight back for their own soil.

They fund the risible (well, that guy's wig, anyway), scandalous and aggressive Muslim Council, for example, which spews out hatred and bossy intolerance in our midst. (In the US, it's CAIR.) They fund mosques that preach violence. They even tried to suppress cinema verité footage of a violent, aggressive mosque gathering that ITV filmed undercover. Whoops! Might be insensitive! Suppress it under racial hatred laws. Yes, they think Islam is a race, or pretend so.

Islamics can not be shown as violent, despite blowing up planes, trains, giant, heroic office towers, and nightclubs, because Islam is the religion of peace and is handy for keeping the indigenes under control.

So, An American, will it take "a couple of Islamic nuke attacks"? Or will it by then be too late? How would Obama and the British "prime minister" for want of a better description, react?

I'll tell you.

"The country that sent these devastating missiles of death to our countries that killed tens of thousands, which claim to be friends of Islam, are not typical of the Muslim community, who are peaceful people. These were rogue Muslims who inexplicably got these nukes.

"We are working with peace-loving Muslim countries to solve the problem of disaffected Muslim nations who have legitimate grievances we should listen to."

To be candid, the problem is not the Muslims, who can be controlled by the correct amount of force, but the Gramscis and the Ailinskys (sp?). These are the ones our fight is against. In our own countries. Burrowing underground, moles, on our own turf.

So, what to do? I don't know. The time for controlling the roiling millions of Islamic immigrants with a mission is past. Cameron, in the unlikely event he ever becomes PM, is not going to order a clear-out. Meaning, he will remain, and keep the British, under their thrall. Because he's a jolly good chap.

Sarkozy is not one of "them". He's a clear thinker and is on our side. He may even strike a deal with Putin.

Under Obama and Brown, for as long as he lasts, and after him under the rather supine and politically correct Cameron, they can continue the aggression they began in the 9th Century. Our forebears knew how to deal with them and kept us safe for 1,000 years.

It's heartbreaking.

jerry

An American:

Re "Women...most often state the stark obvious."

Women who feel safe state the stark obvious better than men, because men shut down the truth that their brains hint at much faster so that they don't have to go to the duel or joust or battlefield. When women get angry, they are angrier than men in the same circumstances, but they try to avoid such emotional arousals a bit longer. If women ran politics, there would be more compromises, but also more wars.

Miranda Rose Smith

Dear Ms. Phillips: What context are you using the word "club" in? I've been saying for years that Mayor Bloomberg should use Kelo vs. New London to get the U.N. off those 18 acres of centrally located, river view Manhattan real estate.

Miranda Rose Smith

Dear Simple Simon: Give the pieman my regards. Israel needs its nuclear arsenal in order to survive. Iran doesn't.

Augustus

Edward Gibbon concludes in his Decline and Fall of The Roman Empire how easily serene little Oxford could have been dominated by tall Islamic minarets before his birth, and how the accents in its markets would have been Arabic: "The interpretation of the Koran would now be taught in the schools of Oxford, and her pulpits might demonstrate to a circumcised people the sanctity and truth of the revelation of Mahomet." The Western world has never taken Islam with the full seriousness it deserved. Throughout history, once Islamic armies conquered a land, with very few exceptions, that land has remained Muslim.

In order to understand what Muslims mean when they say something we must remember that in their minds and culture certain words do not mean anything like the accepted meanings in the West. For Muslims the meaning of any word is closely related to the traditional meaning of that word in the Koran and their other holy texts. Unlike the interpretation of the Bible, for a Muslim the Koran is not just a prayer book, it is the complete guide to his life, and the absolute guiding principle for the world and all who reside in it, both religiously and politically. So because of this, we in the West are naturally dumbfounded by their actions. Because to us where words mean one thing, and to them they mean something entirely different, they are able to manipulate the unenlightened listener into believing that they agree with something, when in fact, for the most part, they do not agree: 'Peace' to them is the cessation of all resistance to Islam. Peace only exists when all Islamic principles are established as the law of the land. 'Freedom' to them exists when Islam and its principles attain complete dominance and constitute the entirety of religious belief and political rule. 'Justice' to them is a state when Sharia law is the law of the land, and all judicial decisions are based on it alone. Justice exists when non-Muslims have no standing before a court, and when testimony of two Muslim women is equal to that of one man. 'Tolerance' is achieved when non-Muslims are properly subdued and subservient to Muslim rule, agree to their second class Dhimmi status, and pay their dues to a Muslim overlord. 'Truth' is the accepted Muslim version of events as laid out in the Koran and the Sunna. Anything else is mere hearsay, and in many cases blasphemy. 'Oppression' is the rule of a state by non-Muslim law, or acts of resistance to Islamic law or Muslim rule. And 'lies' are the act of hiding the truth about Islamic law, either from a Muslim when his safety is in danger, or when it advances the cause of Islam.

An American

Verity,
I see Britain and Europe as the
'canary in the mineshaft' scenario.

These countries have welcomed a large number of unfriendlies into their midst and continue to do so. The US does not yet have the Muslim population problem that the UK and Europe has. But our liberal Congressmen are working hard on achieving that goal.

I find it unbelieveable that the most virulent anti-western, hate preaching muslims are not forced back to their original countries.

Why do Muslims immigrate to other countries if they hate everything these countries stand for?

We have all of these European loving Democratic leaders such as Kerry and Obama. I love many things European too...but can't these politicians see the mistakes and problems that these socialist leaning countries have created for themselves. Can't people learn from other people's mistakes?

Many world powers are now turning away from socialism/communism because it has failed as it always does.

The US under the leadership of Obama and the liberal Congress are plowing full steam ahead toward this supposed nirvana when in reality they are leading us into the bowels of hell and are destroying a great country.

We are in for some very bad years on every front.

We had some French friends visit recently and their question to us was: "Why would a great country like the US have such weak candidates for President?". We had no quick and easy answer. This dire situation we now find ourselves in would have taken an hours long discussion of where this all went so wrong.

An American

Verity,
Do you think it naive to expect Muslims to take on and destroy the hard-liners among them?

If they sit by and do nothing, the jihadists will, in the end, take them down along with the rest of us.

Where is a Thatcher or Reagan when we need them.

Frank P

Verily, verily, Verity. Great post! Have you been subjected to the Govan ghit's globe-hopping photo-opping on TV where you are? He'll even go to the desert battlefields (or - ahem - a safe distance adjacent thereto) to avoid the domestic flak at home: the economy, the Damien Green fiasco, the Stockwell whitewash etc. He has obviously done some sort of deal with Murdoch, as he his getting the full pro-Brown treatment at the moment on Sky News.

There is even a looped blurb advert that purports to be a puff for Sky News by means a little skit that implies Brown always talks to Sky before it talks to BBC when there is breaking news (Adam Bolton - having just finished interview with Gordon oozing gravitas - "If you could just move over to where the BBC crew are now, Prime Minister, I believe they are waiting for you." Short pause then voice over, "Who does she speak to first?" Sky News ....etc.etc.).

It happens three or four times a day and is tacitly a rolling party political broadcast. Sky is getting almost as bad as BBC with its bias. I assume that Brown has made some sort of promise to the Dirty Digger to enable him to rearrange his finances until everything here goes finally down the plughole as it surely must. And of course Bolton's wife is a Brown apparatchik isn't she?

Brown reminds me of a circus clown attempting to re-inflate a balloon that has already been burst - nothing happens but the obscene noises of flatulence emerging from his horrendous gargoyle features rumpled with deceit and duplicity. Oh btw! He has now sorted out Pakistan, as well as saving the World. Israel- Palestine next! In the Hanukkah holiday no doubt. He's now out-Blairing Blair in the bullshit stakes – both Blairs that is. The third Blair that is really present in all this is Eric Arthur Blair.

EC

Frank P,

I prefer the Govan philosopher over its other son that you mention.

Rab C Nesbitt talks more sense!
Rab also has better vision in every respect despite the frequent consumption of the Holy Swally . Rab drinks at the Twoways instead of facing bothways. Rab also has a conscience upon which he always acts if he happens to be conscious at the time.

With the Pound now worth less than a Euro I fear it will not be long before Bliar's Bean Counter and serial spendthrift will have lost all our shirts.

We may soon all be sporting the string vest, Oxfam suit and head bandage.

Crate of Buckfast anyone?

Terry

Melanie, I have believed for many years that the UN should be disbanded and a democratic international organisation set up, excluding criminal autocracies like iran, zimbabwe and saudi arabia.

The un is the most evil, genocidal and racist organisation in the world today - it enables the iranian regime and its like to threaten without reproach. If it were kicked out of Manhatten, only the local hookers would miss it.

I note that some antisemitic posters have trotted out the normal crap about Israel being a nuclear power already - yes, but it has vowed never to be the first to use its nukes and hasn't threatened to annihilate a fellow un member state becaue it dislikes a particular race or religion. Lord knows, it would have plenty of reasons to do so. But Jews remain civilised, even whilst antisemites seeking to deprive us of our one tiny piece of real estate in the world, remain racist.

Verity

An American asks: "Why do Muslims immigrate to other countries if they hate everything these countries stand for?"

Colonising them.

Dixon

Augustus. Excellent post. I am so tired of people who have never read either the Bible or the Koran ranting on about their equivalence. They are nothing at all like each other. The Bible is a set of accounts of events. The Koran is, as you say, a blow by blow set of rules on absolutely everything,down to and including how to conduct a divorce and divvy out an inheritance.

As you say, their use of language...even accross the translation barrier...is elliptical and full of sophistry. There is the example of what they call "hudna" and which is translated as "truce". Whereas to Westerners this means the mutual end of hostilities, to them it means an acknowledged period of rest and rearmament. Its our fault if we dont understand that, it IS what their usage of the word represents.

Then there is "takkiya", the duty of all Muslims to mislead non-Muslims as to the nature of Islam. If only people in the media and government understood this, that when they make an educational scheme or TV series about Islam, it is encumbent upon any good Muslim involved to misrepresent the subject to the advantage of Islam. If only Boris Johnson knew this. Or Ridley Scott, a man whose films, sadly, I cannot now bring myself to watch since the disgusting spectacle of his inviting Muslim leaders to censor his "Kingdom of Heaven" before its release.

There is also the dimension of poetry and of the romantic evocation of a meaning rather than its expliocit statement that is a part of Islamic culture. Something which that nasty man Galloway seems to understand and exploit when he makes utterances calculated to go down well in the Middle East. It permits the sophisticated speaker to add snide dimensions to a statement that are completely overlooked by the pragmatic who interpret things literally.

It is often said how subtle the Persians are. sure, like a fox.

We are the chickens.

Comprehensive boy

I admit a dirty bomb attack is pretty scary (and not unlikely) but isn't the other really scary prospect that we might be 'managed' into losing everything in a state of torpor? If I was leader of the muslim brotherhood/Al Qaida (or whoever is in charge of Islam) I don't think I'd order a dirty bombing because it might wake the enemy (us) up before we are too weak to fight back. If they want Europe they've got do minimize the nuclear fallout at least. The demographic approach would seem a much better bet, coupled with gradually increasing bullying and a preferably 'invisible political sellout' political class over here.

Dixon

Terry: "I note that some antisemitic posters have trotted out the normal crap about Israel being a nuclear power already - yes, but it has vowed never to be the first to use its nukes and hasn't "

Its even simpler than that mate. Israel isnt ever going to threaten US with their weapons, of any kind. So the fact they have them is of no equivalence to certain other states having them.

Dont get drawn into the irrelebant lefty game in which they point out the unfairness of things. The world simply is NOT fair. We can never make it fair. We have to choose whether to go down in a futile attempt at even-handedness or just recognise who our friends are and extend to them license to do what we cannot tolerate our enemies doing.

So, its hypocrisy. SO WHAT! My concept of values is based squarely on what is right for me, my friends, my community, my nation. Against those criteria, anything at all is fair game.

Israel is an ally. It can do anything it likes in my book. Anything.

Verity

Dixon gets it.

Archie

And the astounding thing is that these people (Moslems) are flooding in to the UK, Canada and the US unhindered despite the havoc they have caused! Are we blind as well as stupid?

Conservative Cabbie

Dixon

Amen.

Dixon

Comprehensive boy, you express my views too.

Frankly, and my sincerest apologies to all at The Spectator and anyone commenting here who would be in the "drop zone", but the nuclear obliteration of London would undoubtedly have profound benefits for the rest of the country.

Meanwhile, the gradual dying away in a few decades of everything that is not Muslim in my own land of birth...after centuries of struggle against the tyrranny of our own church... turns my stomach.

The only hope of averting this is if they did indeed launch such an attack.

Verity

Archie - I don't know how often I, and others, have to say this: The populations of our countries are not blind and stupid. Flooding the country with primitive aliens with disgusting habits that the indigenes are ordered to "respect" is a means of demoralising the British and disenfranchising them in their own country.

The Muslims are in Britain as colonisers. They are already imposing their religious habits on the British, and it will get worse. Anyone who doesn't want to pass a bottle of alcohol over a supermarket scanner shouldn't be working in a supermarket. They should not have the "right" to hold up the queue to call another member of staff. If a driver doesn't want to to take anyone with a dog, or anyone carrying even an unopened bottle of alcohol, he shouldn't be driving a taxi. We shouldn't be making up ways to accommodate their religious preciosity. But allowing this behaviour is one more tiny step in disenfranchising the British in their own land. Halal is now the default meat served in many school cafeterias because "the Muslims want it and the British don't mind". (Yes, they do. They weren't given a choice.)

The Muslims are favoured in any dispute. An aggressive Muslim girl refuses to removed her fright mask to prove to a bus driver that she is the person on the bus pass photograph because "it's against my religion". The driver, to his credit told put her off the bus in that particular case, but many would have given in through sheer fear of reprisals - not from Muslims, but from his own employers.

Gordon Brown is paying "benefit", out of British taxpayer revenues, for up to four wives, as long as "the marriages were legal in the country where they took place." So bigamy, trigamy, and quadrigamy are now legal in Britain. The country is littered with their shariah courts. The Somalis in London are running their "gars" in competition with the British legal system.

British sniffer dogs sniffing for chemicals have to wear stupid little bootees to enter an islamic home. Some police forces have ordered their officers to remove their boots before entering an Islamic home to check for terrorists.

Ignorant Muslim girls go around in full face masks, despite that wearing a mask on a public street is illegal. Does any police officer dare tell them to take it off, when she will huffily inform him that it is a "religious requirement". (It's not, by the way; its a sensible dress devised by Saharan nomads two or three thousand years ago, long before Islam. It keeps sand out of the eyes, nose, ears and mouth.)

All this didn't happen by accident. It was started by Tony Blair, a real nutter in his own right, but I suspect at the suggestion of Peter Mandelson, who has his own agenda.

An American

Verity,
Do you really believe that Muslim immigrants have an agenda to colonize other countries? I can believe that some stident mullahs have that agenda.

Most Americans wish our weak leaders would wake up and close the doors.

The UK and Europe are ahead of us on this problem, sorry to say.
The US still has time to stop this invasion...but Obama and the socialists will continue to welcome these people...It's part of their power base. Muslims along with illegal Mexicans voted for them at the election.
Socialists only care about votes and power over the masses.

Verity

Lord Swivel Hips's agenda is the One Worlder agenda. He will have an ally in Barrak Hussein Obama.

Not Sarkozy, though. Sarkozy doesn't like Muslims. I suspect neither does Angela Merkel, although she would have to be awfully circumspect about letting on.

An American

Jerry,
You may be right...I say may. I do know that women are just as capable of hating as men. All you have to do is look at what Muslim women are doing to their children. They are creating future jihadists. A captive said he was forced to watch videos of beheadings and tortures with a very young Muslim child...Where was the mother?

EC

There is a report in the Telegraph today claiming that the Sally Army have been banned from rattling their collection tins this Christmas because of the possibility that they might offend or intimidate the faithful adherents of other religions.

Also a report in The Mail about yet more offence.

Of course one would have to be a massive racist to find anyone floating around dressed up like a Dalek to offensive or intimidating. For anthenticity you might to thrust a whisk and a sink plunger into either hand and you'd have the full Monty.

"Capitulate! Capitulate!

EC

I think Dixon's keyboard probley is cotching!
E&OE

Archie

Verity: absolutely agreed, but Blair was elected, mind you, not once but three times! Which begs my original question.

M Lester

I heartily concur with correspondents responses to Simon.
I would add Simon, that Israel is not a signatory to the Nuclear Proli. Agreement whereas Iran IS & was busily cheating until exposed a few years ago.
It's also worth adding that, of all nations, it makes sense that Israel (presumably) has nuclear weapons - since Jewish scientists contributed probably 40% of the theroetical science which led to nuclear energy.
That's in contradistinction to others - such as Pakistan - who simply stole the blueprints via planted agents.
Incidentally, it's only recently that the UK cottoned on to Iranian "students" in contentious places at our universities altho' I suspect that the Met police & civil service would turn a blind eye.

M Lester

To John Birch: You're quite right that Iran has less economic power than just one US state & that with the falling price of oil, they should be in "stuck".
However, I think this is a dangerous way to look at things:
1. Iran has an inferiority complex & a ruling class of nutters.
2. It has a vast reservoir of skilled young people, many without work
3. It has a very large army & extra-lunatic "Revolutionary Guard"
4. It is, very quickly developing (North Korean sourced) ballistic missiles and a tranche of armaments
5. Despite UN sanctions, many countries & companies are more than happy to trade & supply them with the extra bits they need for their missiles & centrifuges.
Therefore, their capacity to cause real trouble on a wide front is tremendous & the regime's willingness to lose a few million population or troops should not be doubted.

Dixon

EC, I intend to get glasses soon. Ive got a keyboard with shift and space buttons now, and have ripped off the stupid caps lock key, so that should help!

Meanwhile, a measure of how bad things are is to be found at that Charles Johnsons littlegreenfootballs. Whilst supposedly critical of Islamism, he has become so obsessed with anything remotely susceptible of being interpreted as anti Muslim that almost everyone commenting above would be banned by him. I certainly was.
My supposed sins included, allegedly, speaking in support of the BNP!

When the biggest anti-Islamist site on the web starts attacking its supporters on such grounds then we really see how deep in the do do we are!

Verity

An American: "Verity,
Do you really believe that Muslim immigrants have an agenda to colonize other countries?"

Yes.

Did you follow the Mark Steyn/Ezra Levant saga in Canada, where Muslim lawyers accused Levant, who had a wonderful paper called The Western Standard, of religious hatred and had them tried before some tin pot tribunal in British Columbia. (Herbert Thornton, if you're on this thread, maybe you could recap for people who don't know of this episode.) Ezra went bankrupt defending himself. They both "got off" before this kangaroo court, but the cards were stacked in favour of the Muslims. Had they been found guilty, there would have been another giant chunk of free speech gone. The episode did, though, wake up people like The Toronto Globe & Mail who finally got it: the freedom of the press is under attack by aggressive Muslims.

Ask the citizenry in Dearborne, Michigan about aggressive Islam. They went through the courts and forced this old, settled mainly Roman Catholic community to accept their call to prayer OVER LOUDSPEAKERS five times a day, beginning around 6 a.m.

I could go on.

Verity

Indeed, Archie. Electing Blair a second time was when Britain began to take leave of its sense and tolerate absolutely any assault against itself. I didn't even understand how they could have voted for him the first time, his face is so etched with eerie malice.

Verity

I don't know what's happened to Charles Johnson, Dixon. He accused the excellent Robert Spencer, who valiantly runs Jihadwatch.org and Dhimmiwatch, of being a thought fascist and an anti-Semite. The accusation verges on lunacy.

Dixon

Verity, he accuses you of something crass and easily refutable but then bans you before you can reply. In my case exploiting the time difference to do it whilst I was in bed!

Dixon

M.Lester: "Incidentally, it's only recently that the UK cottoned on to Iranian "students" in contentious places at our universities altho' I suspect that the Met police & civil service would turn a blind eye."

I find it deeply ironic that our university / polytechnic crowd rant against the "arms trade" and exporting weapons whilst for decades have been earning dosh for their employers by teaching foreign students all they need to build their very own weapons, including the nuclear, biological and Chemical variety!

Saddams head of biological / chemical weapons research was trainred at reading!

Back in 1983 I shared a flat with a student from Pakistan who was doing a PHD in inorganic chemistry. An ardent Muslim himself, he assured me the study was being paid for by his government so that he could apply it to nuclear research on his return.

More recently, a Muslim of my acqauintance from Malaysia doing a PHD specifically in nuclear physics blatantly...and with a big smirk and a nudge and a wink...told me that it was so he could help his government with things that are "hush, hush"!

It beggars belief that the institutions that provide such instrumental education to any comer able to pay is not in itself categorised as a pa\rt of the arms trade. A part far more dangerous than selling guns and tanks and planes ever could be, for once the genie of knowledge is released, its application can never be inhibited.

How it is that someone can work for a university that profits from such a trade in strategically critical knowledge and yet attack the "arms industry" for exporting mere hardware, without experiencing profound rationalisation dissonance is utterly baffling.

Verity

The accusation against Robert Spencer, who does wonderful, tireless work in the cause of informing people about most strands of Islam, put me off LGF. And he offered absolutely no proof. Just a bald, unadorned accusation.

anglicus

Iran could not build A-bomb:
A senior Russian diplomat says that even if Iran sought to make a nuclear weapon, it does not have the necessary "means" to do so.
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=77931§ionid=351020104

Archie

Dixon: I have to confess that the anti-arms trade ranting/applied research dichotomy had escaped me, but what a good point!

kiwi

Anglicus writes: "Iran coud not build A-Bomb" - Source, Tehran-based Press TV. Claiming to deliver 'unbiased reporting of controversial global news, as well as broadcasting cutting-edge documentaries and programs of political, social, and economic importance'. Putting things in perspective, today's Press TV website carried an article by Arash Parsa, entitled "Mumbai Carnage". The article was going swimmingly well, until this: "There are also other clues which have led to other hypotheses. Some of the terrorists who carried out the Mumbai attacks had lived in the Nariman House for two months. Given the fact that the center was a Jewish institution and was not open to all, some Indian analysts have not ruled out the possibility that Israeli intelligence agency (Mossad) was behind the attack." Oh dear! Tooth Fairy anyone?

Verity

Frankly, the problem with the Iranians is, they're intelligent, effectively. Everyone probably knows an Iranian or two and has been impressed with their quick minds and their charm.

Other than the mad mullahs - whose influence I certainly don't discount! - and some silly, ambulatory sacks of testosterone, I would propose that Iran would be worth coopting as a friend. We'd have to get rid of Dinner Jacket, of course, but that should not be beyond our wit.

Like most of us, I know someone who lived and worked in Teheran before their "revolution", and without exception these people found the Iranians highly intelligent and very likeable. I think, of all the Muslim countries, they are the most motivated to join the modern world. I don't think they like being a pariah.

In his book "Among The Believers", V S Naipaul notes the livelyl intelligence of the average person (outside of the Allah-loons) is. Also, they don't like Arabs.

If they have, as Melanie writes, and I do not doubt her, a disproportionate influence in the UN - more than that of very rich Arab countries - that speaks to their intelligence. How did they manage it, when the infintely richer Saudi Arabia didn't?

And even today, I believe, you can buy pictures of Mohammad in flea markets and antique shops. I believe they're the only Islamic country in the world which doesn't think renderings of Mohammad are sinful.

Just a thought.

Herbert Thornton

Verity -

The various Canadian Human Rights Commissions and Tribunals, both Federal and Provincial, have been pursuing so many "hate speech" allegations against Ezra Levant (for publishing the Danish Cartoon of Mohammed) - not to mention the outrageous "hate speech" complaint against Macleans Magazine for publishing bits of Mark Steyn's "America Alone" that it would take many pages to pages to explain them all. I believe several of the complaints against Mr Levant have still not been dealt with. Other people are still in their clutches - e.g. the Rev Boissoin who, so far as I know still being ordered to keep silent and not even write letters to anybody saying what he thinks. Another case, in Vancouver, involves a low comedian in a night club who made a joke that two lesbians who were in the audience claim to have been offended by.

The "Human Rights" Tribunal decision in the complaint against Macleans Magazine was not released until October 16th this year - which some people say was chosen because there was other important news to that was distracting people & because Canadians were just recovering from the October 13th Canadian Thanksgiving,

Here are a few URLs that partly show what's going on -

http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/795356/the-jihad-of-the-word.thtml

http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=7400042f-4825-450e-9dd9-234749afcf8a

http://www.steynonline.com/content/view/1358/128/

http://www.steynonline.com/content/view/1359/128/

Herbert Thornton

My posting addressed to Verity needs clarification. The Human Rights complaint against Macleans Magazine that it refers to was the one before a Provincial body- i.e. the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal.

The posting also requires correction. The date of dismissal was not October 16th but October 10th.

The Complaint made to the Federal body - i.e. the Canadian Human Rights Commission was dismissed several months earlier, on June 25th.

Verity

Thanks, Herbert Thornton. Many people here are completely unaware of what is happening in Canada on the Islamic thought fascist front.

Herbert Thornton

Verity -

If you've read about the persecution of Pastor Boissoin by the Alberta Human Rights Commission, it will perhaps make this report of a recent Federal Canadian Human Rights Commission The Federal Canadian Human all the more interesting......

http://ezralevant.com/2008/12/chrc-its-ok-to-say-gays-should.html

Verity

For some reason, Canada has gone down the same dhimmi-witted track as Britain whereas the more robust United States and Australia have not. Very interesting.

An American

Verity,
Well...at least not quite yet...but don't think the socialist aren't trying.
I believe what is helping protect us to an extent is conservative radio and
Fox...most probably... Obama and his cohorts have every intention on destroying Limbaugh, Hannity, Laura Ingram, etc. and Fox.