|
Friday, February 28, 2014
Eye on Iran: Congress Concerned Iran's Oil Exports May Be Up
Demystifying Nuclear Power
Fairewinds Energy Education’s mission to demystify nuclear power.
Margaret and Maggie discuss the current conditions at nuclear power
plants in the US and at Fukushima Daiichi, including the harmful effects
of exposure to tritium. Margaret Harrington also asks how Maggie and
Arnie met while working in the nuclear industry.
“Iran is prepared for the decisive war against the U.S. and the Zionist regime”
Thanks to JihadWatch for this,,
same old shit,, different day,,
“The Americans will know [Iran's true power] when their warships, with over 5,000 aboard, sink during a confrontation with Iran, and when they have to search the depths of the sea for their bodies.” Yes, this nuclear agreement with Iran certainly looks like Peace In Our Time has been secured. Can Obama be given another Nobel Peace Prize? He certainly deserves it as much as he did the first!
“On Iranian Revolution Day 2014, Commander of IRGC Navy Says: The Americans Will Understand When Their Warships With Over 5,000 Crew Aboard Sink To The Depths Of The Sea And They Have To Search For Their Bodies,” from MEMRI, February 27 (thanks to Pamela Geller):
same old shit,, different day,,
“Iran is prepared for the decisive war against the U.S. and the Zionist regime”
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2014/02/iran-is-prepared-for-the-decisive-war-against-the-u-s-and-the-zionist-regime
“The Americans will know [Iran's true power] when their warships, with over 5,000 aboard, sink during a confrontation with Iran, and when they have to search the depths of the sea for their bodies.” Yes, this nuclear agreement with Iran certainly looks like Peace In Our Time has been secured. Can Obama be given another Nobel Peace Prize? He certainly deserves it as much as he did the first!
“On Iranian Revolution Day 2014, Commander of IRGC Navy Says: The Americans Will Understand When Their Warships With Over 5,000 Crew Aboard Sink To The Depths Of The Sea And They Have To Search For Their Bodies,” from MEMRI, February 27 (thanks to Pamela Geller):
On February 11, 2014, Iran celebrated Revolution Day, the 35th anniversary of the regime of the Islamic Revolution, against the backdrop of the start of permanent agreement nuclear talks between Iran and the superpowers, and of the ongoing struggle within Iran between the ideological stream led by Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, and the pragmatic stream led by Hashemi Rafsanjani, on the issue of how Iran should deal with the U.S. Revolution Day 2014 was marked by regime officials’ harsh anti-U.S. statements and by calls for maintaining Iranian hostility towards the U.S.
In two separate speeches, Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei stressed that the main enemy of the revolution was the U.S. and extolled fighting it as the revolution’s central value. He added that the 1979 takeover of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran was “an even greater revolution than the first one,” that is, greater than the removal of the Shah and the seizure of power by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. Khamenei also called on Iranians not to be taken in by the U.S.’s overtures, and not to trust it, because its aim – that is, to topple the revolutionary regime – remains unchanged.
As part of the Iranian regime’s dismissal of the U.S. military threat, many of this year’s Revolution Day marches and demonstrations featured signs bearing the slogan in English, “We Are Eager For The Options On The Table,” – a slogan praised by both Khamenei’s and Rafsanjani’s circles. Moreover, Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) naval commander Ali Fadavi stated that the U.S. would understand Iran’s might when Iran began to sink U.S. warships, with their crews of over 5,000. At the same time, Iranian Navy Adm. Rezai Haddad announced that an Iranian flotilla was en route to the Atlantic for “a first approach of U.S. maritime borders”[1] and that this was meant to be a “message” for the U.S [2]
In his Revolution Day message, both Iranian Defense Minister Hossein Dehghan and Iranian Army chief of staff Hassan Firouzabadi stressed that Iran longs for the decisive battle with the U.S., in light of the latter’s threat to use the military option if the nuclear talks fail. In other speeches, government officials stressed that hostility towards the U.S. – “the Great Satan” – would continue even if the nuclear issue were resolved, and that Iran’s smiles at the negotiating table were merely a tactical move aimed at obtaining Iran’s nuclear rights.
Following are excerpts from Iranian government officials’ statements for Revolution Day 2014. (For photos from the demonstrations and marches, see Appendix.)
Iranian Military Officials: “The Americans Will Know [Iran's True Power] When Their Warships, With Over 5,000 Aboard, Sink During A Confrontation With Iran”; We Are Prepared With Ballistic Missiles, Swift Boats, And Mines; “The Iranian Nation Will Hand Them [The Americans] A Crushing Defeat”
In a February 11, 2014 interview with the Fars news agency, Defense Minister Hossein Dehghan said: “The Defense Ministry is working to ensure that the Iranian people are armed and ready to confront any enemy threat. Yesterday’s successful test of Iranian-made ballistic missiles was also a crushing response to the nonsense of the American officials who frequently threaten Iran. It is a clear answer to their military option. The Defense Ministry and the Iranian nation are always ready [for battle], and Iran will welcome it if the Americans again put themselves to the test and face the consequences. The Americans will again be defeated, just as they were in the [1980-1988] Iran-Iraq war. If they implement their nonsense [i.e. their threats], the Iranian nation will hand them a crushing defeat.”[3]
The next day, February 12, Iranian Chief of Staff Hassan Firouzabadi told Fars: “Iran is prepared for the decisive war against the U.S. and the Zionist regime.” He added, “Iran has been making plans, conducting maneuvers, and preparing its forces for this battle for years now.”[4]
Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) naval commander Ali Fadavi threatened that in battles at sea, his forces would sink American warships: “The Americans can spot swift boats, sea mines, and anti-ship missiles but they cannot grasp axioms such as… ‘God, the Islamic Revolution, and the Supreme Leader [Khamenei].’ On the chest of the IRGC is the [Koran] verse that clearly says that the use of measures against the infidels and the enemies must be promoted. The Americans notice only some of our capabilities; only on the battlefield will they fully internalize the bulk of our capabilities. The Americans will know [Iran's true power] when their warships, with over 5,000 aboard, sink during a confrontation with Iran, and when they have to search the depths of the sea for their bodies.”[5]…There is much more. Read it all.
Latest Headlines from ENENews
Latest Headlines from ENENews |
- CBC: Radioactive particles arrive ‘far earlier than predicted’ for N. America — Mag: ‘Plumes stretch 4,800 miles across ocean!’ — Experts: There’s great alarm… Legitimate concern… Expected to dilute, but don’t really know — US Govt: ‘Monitoring beaches for debris from Fukushima nuclear disaster’ (VIDEO)
- Officials: More may be affected by WIPP radiation release — TV: They don’t know how serious it is or how it affects community; Could take months to fix leak — CBS: Ceiling collapse or punctured canister suspected; Still in ‘guinea pig’ stage; EPA monitors requested in area (VIDEO)
- TV: “Disturbing new development in WIPP radiation leak, surprising words today” — “What went wrong and why, those are some of the questions swirling around” — County official calls it ‘a disaster’ (VIDEOS)
Britain: Islamists Create Climate of Fear to Curb Free Speech
 |
   |
|
In this mailing:
Britain: Islamists Create Climate of Fear to Curb Free Speech
by Soeren Kern
February 28, 2014 at 5:00 am
  Be the first of your
friends to like this.
"My intention was to carve out a
space to be heard without constantly fearing the blasphemy charge, on pain of
death." — Maajid Nawaz, Liberal Democratic Party candidate for Britain's
Parliament.
"The media's vaunted concern for
minority welfare is at direct odds with its indifference to the minority within
Islam that is trying to reform its orthodoxy's disgraceful attitude to
blasphemy—a minority that is gravely endangered and in need of friends."
— Abhishek Phadnis, free speech activist, London School of Economics.
Muslim fundamentalists in London have threatened to behead a fellow
British Muslim after he posted an innocuous
image of Mohammed and Jesus on his Twitter account.The death threats against Maajid Nawaz, a Liberal Democrat Party candidate for British Parliament, add to a growing number of cases in which Islamists are using intimidation tactics to restrict the free speech rights of fellow Muslims in Europe. (Efforts to silence non-Muslims are well documented.) Nawaz—a former member of the Islamist revolutionary group Hizb ut-Tahrir and co-founder of the Quilliam Foundation, a London-based counter-extremism think-tank—on January 12 posted on Twitter a cartoon of Mohammed and Jesus greeting one another ("Hey" and "How ya doin'?") with the caption: "This Jesus & Mo @JandMo cartoon is not offensive&I'm sure God is greater than to feel threatened by it الله أكبر منه". Nawaz's tweet followed a BBC Big Questions program in which the "Jesus and Mo" cartoons, which have been around since 2005, were discussed and Nawaz was included as a studio guest. Nawaz, who is also author of the book "Radical: My Journey out of Islamist Extremism," said he posted the image to trigger a debate among Muslims about what should and should not be acceptable within Islam. Not in the mood for debate, furious Muslims responded by bullying and issuing threats of violence—including beheading—and also launched a petition (it quickly garnered more than 20,000 signatures) to have Nawaz deselected as a candidate for parliament. Labour Party Councilor Yaqub Hanif of Luton, a town situated 50 km (30 miles) north of London and known as the Islamic extremist capital of Britain, said the depictions of Mohammed were "totally unacceptable" to Muslims and called on Nawaz to step down. "It's appalling that this guy is a parliamentary candidate because this behavior is not conducive to being an MP," Hanif said in an interview with the International Business Times. "If you want to be an MP then you must respect all faiths. He's not doing that." A counter-petition has now been set up (it has only 8,000 signatures) calling on the Liberal Democrats to give Nawaz their full support. The petition states: "Islamists and political opponents have mounted a campaign against Maajid Nawaz, resulting in numerous threats to his life. We note that this campaign, rather than being based on legitimate concerns of Muslims, is a political campaign which is being spear-headed by a group of Muslim reactionaries with a track record of promoting extremism. They are seeking to use Muslim communities in order to whip up hatred against a liberal and secular Muslims. We are concerned that this campaign will also be used by anti-Muslim extremists as evidence of Muslim intolerance and incompatibility with liberal values which could, in turn, fuel anti-Muslim bigotry." The leader of the Liberal Democrats, Nick Clegg, has expressed his support for Nawaz. "We simply cannot tolerate anyone in a free country—where we have to protect free speech, even if that free speech might cause offense to others—being subject to death threats and them and their family being put under extraordinary pressure to recant what they said," Clegg said. Muslims eventually retaliated by rescinding the Quilliam Foundation's nomination for the annual British Muslim Awards, held in Manchester on January 30. Quilliam had been listed in the "Spirit of Britain" award category, but a statement on the awards' Facebook page reads: "In light of recent activity, the British Muslim Awards, after careful consideration, have come to the decision that it can no longer promote the Quilliam Foundation as a finalist, and thus its nomination has been removed with immediate effect." More worrisome for the principle of free speech is that British mainstream media have censored reporting of the Jesus & Mo cartoon controversy. For example, Channel 4 News blacked out a cartoon image of the Prophet Mohammed during a news broadcast on January 28 in order not to cause offense to Muslim viewers. In an open letter to the editor of Channel 4, the National Secular Society wrote that by "making this decision you have effectively taken a side in a debate where a Muslim man has suffered violent death threats after he explicitly said he did not find the cartoons offensive. You have taken the side of the reactionaries—the side of people who bully and violently threaten Muslims, such as Mr. Nawaz, online." "By redacting the picture of 'Mo,' you have contributed to a climate of censorship brought on by the unreasonable and reactionary views of some religious extremists. Rather than defending free expression, one of the most precious pillars of our liberal democratic society, you have chosen instead to listen to extremists and patronize British Muslims by assuming they will take offense at an irreverent and satirical cartoon. By taking the decision you did, not only did you betray the fundamental journalistic principle of free speech, but you have become complicit in a trend that seeks to insidiously stereotype all Muslim people as reacting in one uniform way (generally presented as overly sensitive and potentially violent)."
"My intention was to carve out a space to be heard without constantly fearing the blasphemy charge, on pain of death," Nawaz wrote. "Modern Islamist attempts to impose theocratic orthodoxy on us will be resisted." Others are not so sure. In an essay entitled, "Publish and be Damned," Abhishek Phadnis, a free speech activist at the London School of Economics, writes: "The media's vaunted concern for minority welfare is at odds with its indifference to the minority within Islam that is trying to reform its orthodoxy's disgraceful attitude to blasphemy—a minority that is gravely endangered and in need of friends. Theirs is a spirited rear-guard against a gigantic global power of untold wealth and influence (namely Islamism, or the "loudmouths who have hijacked" Islam, as Maajid Nawaz puts it) which has a wretched record on freedom of expression, and every intention of exporting it." "Since 1988, it has suborned the murder of foreign cartoonists, translators, artists, publishers and filmmakers who have offended its sensibilities, and has blighted the life and career of our most gifted contemporary novelist [Salman Rushdie]. Its blasphemy code has been visited upon Western universities, publishers, magazines, museums, art galleries, television productions, operas, independent cartoonists, artists and filmmakers and even Wikipedia, and it has sought to sabotage the economies and wreck the diplomatic missions of democracies that refuse to implement that code." "It is a damning indictment of the press's confusion that every publication has ended up on the wrong side of its own politics in this matter," Phadnis concludes. Soeren Kern is a Senior Fellow at the New York-based Gatestone Institute. He is also Senior Fellow for European Politics at the Madrid-based Grupo de Estudios Estratégicos / Strategic Studies Group. Follow him on Facebook and on Twitter.
Related Topics: United
Kingdom | Soeren Kern
Iran: Death Sentence for Two Kurdish Political Prisoners Confirmed
by Shabnam
Assadollahi
February 28, 2014 at 4:30 am
Be the first of your
friends to like this.
They are currently being housed at Orumieh Central Prison. According to Rashid Afshari, the family is not able to provide the bail. As reported by Freedom Messenger.
Related Topics: Iran
| Shabnam
Assadollahi
The Taste of Integration
by Denis MacEoin
February 28, 2014 at 3:00 am
Be the first of your
friends to like this.
In the city of Bradford, the local
Reform synagogue was about to close its doors when members of a nearby mosque
and some Muslim businessmen stepped in with money and advice -- and the
synagogue has been saved. The two sides have started what they hope will
become a tradition.
Although immigration can be of great benefit to societies, when it goes
wrong -- such as illegal immigration, or when incomers cannot find work, or
when new citizens refuse to adapt to the societies they enter -- the benefits
are eroded and the native population starts to resent the people it had
originally invited to join them.The United States seems to have done a good job on integrating its immigrants, to the point where its many groups have made such wonderful contributions to life in their new country that it is hard to see what America would be without them. Although, as Moynihan and Glazer revealed in Beyond the Melting Pot, the pot never completely melts, the Poles have learned to speak English; they pledge allegiance to the flag and they serve -- and die -- in the military. But they still eat pierogi, attend mass in a Polish church, play Polish music (however corrupted) and preserve memories of their grandmothers and grandfathers. To them, the future is American, and tastes of pierogi, kieÅ‚basa, and hamburgers. The situation in Europe, particularly here the United Kingdom, is not so rosy. We have a largely positive history of deserving migrants wending their way to our shores. Huguenots, Jews, Hong Kong Chinese and others have all contributed well to these islands -- although the Jews have often been treated badly in return. During and after the Holocaust, Britain let very few Jewish refugees from Germany and Eastern Europe enter the country; blocked many thousands from travelling to Mandatory Palestine, and put many more thousands on Cyprus, where they lived under harsh conditions, hemmed in by barbed wire in detention camps. Thirty years ago and more, Britain started to bring in immigrants from what had been its wide-flung empire, the greatest the world had known (except at one time, the Portuguese empire or the Ottoman). The French did much the same (mainly with North Africans) and the Portuguese, chiefly from the 1990s. In Britain, most immigrants came from former colonies and related territories such as India (including Pakistan and Bangladesh), Hong Kong, and Africa. More recently, large numbers of both legal and illegal immigrants have come from eastern Europe. There is a challenge in all this -- integration -- and so far Britain is not handling it well. There have been some, but it is still rare to see a couple of mixed race walking through my local shopping center. Groups of Africans stay together, groups of Chinese, and groups of Pakistanis, Arabs and others seem to do the same. It is common to hear any language but English spoken on the street or in a café, and in one café I go to, Arabs sit at the tables at the front, quite separate from everyone else. To make things worse, most official publications, leaflets for the health service, and other sources of information are published in a dozen or more languages, making it easier for immigrants to avoid learning English. In Iran, I had to cope with the reality that everything was written in Farsi, which I could read. One community that stands out for what seems a reluctance (and sometimes refusal) to integrate is that of British Muslims, who now number some two million. By 2030, nearly one in ten Britons will be Muslim.[1] They have a strong presence in some cities and towns and cities: 24.7% in the northern mill town of Bradford, 18.6% in Leicester, 24.6% in Luton, 15.8% in Manchester (a major conurbation), 23.6% in Slough. In the London borough of Tower Hamlets (where the notorious East London Mosque is situated), they form 36.4% of the population and are the largest minority group as well as the largest proportion of Muslims in the UK.[2] Some Muslims do their best to integrate. Others do not. A particularly large obstacle to integration seems to be a doctrine known as al-wala' wa'l-bara,' which roughly translates into "Love and Enmity." According to this, a true Muslim is expected to avoid becoming friendly with non-Muslims and adopting non-Islamic practices [Qur'an, al-Ma'ida 5:51; al-Mumtahina 60:1-9, 13] -- so, no celebrating Christmas with your Christian friends or Chanukah with Jews; no sending your boss a birthday card; no visiting churches or synagogues; no attending Holocaust Memorial Day events, and so on. In 2008, the well-known British Islamic extremist Anjem Choudary stated: "Every Muslim has a responsibility to protect his family from the misguidance of Christmas, because its observance will lead to hellfire. Protect your Paradise from being taken away – protect yourself and your family from Christmas." Sometimes this pressure to divorce oneself from one's fellow citizens can, with radical Muslims, take on a more dramatic form: in 2010, for instance, British soldiers who had returned from Afghanistan, parading through their home town of Barking, were greeted by a mob of Muslim extremists hurling insults. The clashes came little over a year after Muslim extremists screamed "baby killers" and "rapists" at soldiers from 2nd Battalion Royal Anglian Regiment, who were marching through Luton after a tour of duty in Iraq. The Muslim contingent also spat. Everyone who was there to cheer the parade is likely to have been deeply alienated by this insult to the courage of their soldiers. Last year brought us several other incidents involving Muslim extremists. In Tower Hamlets, with its dense Muslim population, a number of individuals set up a "Muslim Patrol;" they put posters on walls declaring a ban on alcohol, drugs, immodestly-dressed women and apparently anything else considered non-Islamic. Later, they accosted citizens for their immodest dress or for carrying alcohol, and threatened to kill anyone who broke shari'a law. More seriously, two converts attacked and beheaded a British soldier, Lee Rigby, in Woolwich in London. The men have now been tried and sentenced to life in prison. Their attack was seen by several witnesses and filmed, yet they maintained in their trial that they were not guilty, because, "as Jeremiah Adebolajo claimed, his brother Michael had sought to 'please Allah by fighting in his cause.'"[3] These are, of course, extremists, and their actions are far from typical of moderate or liberal Muslim opinion or activity. But these individuals do much to alienate non-Muslims everywhere. A more regular demonstration of Muslim separateness can be seen any day of the week in any British town, where there are growing numbers of Muslim women wearing some form of hijab, or headscarf, in public. A small but noticeable group wear the niqab, the veil that covers everything but the eyes. All ages participate in this, but while it is not surprising to see middle-aged and elderly women clinging to the traditions of their upbringing, the practice owes its current growth to young women and teenagers, including well-educated students and graduates. For some it is a symbol of resistance to Western influence, and serves to keep them on the outside. I have lost count of the number of young Muslim women, often startlingly beautiful, wearing tight jeans or short skirts and stockings, in fashionable Western clothes, with expensive designer shoes, yet wearing large, colorful hijabs around faces glowing with skillfully applied make-up. Why do so many Muslim girls dress that way while sporting what is surely a religious garb? Is there pressure from family or friends? Are they only partly Westernized? Do they wish, deep down, to remain apart? Wearing the hijab or the niqab or any other form of headcovering is not legislated in the Qur'an, the Hadith, or any other scriptural source. The determination to enforce it -- and to call any woman who does not cover up a "prostitute" -- has deep roots in Arab and other Muslim societies, yet there have been a few reform movements that have challenged it. In the mid-nineteenth century, the Babi poetess and scholar Qurrat al-'Ayn taught men, but she did not wear a veil. She was executed as a heretic in Tehran in 1852. Her religious successors abandoned the veil, but to do so they had to pass outside Islam. If I were young and unmarried I might fall in love with a Christian, Jewish or Hindu woman and hope to marry her. But A Muslim woman may not marry anyone but a Muslim man. This is not a cultural decision, it is shari'a law. While Muslim men often marry Western women (and usually ask them to convert), Muslim women are off limits to Western men. And that reduces yet again any chance of integration -- and is possibly the leading reason the law was established in the first place. The answer, it would seem, despite the many barriers, is still integration; and here is why. In the city of Bradford, a rather grim northern town with a very high Muslim population, the last remaining synagogue faced closure in December 2012. The congregation of the Bradford Reform Synagogue, like many others, had dropped to 45; between them, they could not pay for the repair work needed to keep the synagogue up during the coming years. The town's only remaining Orthodox synagogue had just closed its doors a month before that. Members of a nearby mosque and some Muslim businessmen stepped in with money and advice -- and the synagogue has been saved.
Dr. Denis MacEoin, a Distinguished Senior fellow at Gatestone Institute, was previously a board member of the original UK Centre for Social Cohesion.
Related Topics: United
Kingdom | Denis MacEoin
|
|||||||||||||||
|
To subscribe to the this mailing list, go to http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/list_subscribe.php |
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
