|
In this mailing:
- Giulio Meotti: Iran's Leaders at
War with Western Civilization
- Amir Taheri: Iraqi Election
Opens New Chapter
by Giulio Meotti • May 20, 2018 at
5:00 am
- The archipelago of
political Islam in Europe, from Tariq Ramadan to the Muslim
Brotherhood, revolves around the orbit of the Qatar-Iran axis.
Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood openly sided with Khomeini's
revolutionaries as they overthrew the Shah, and now threatens
Saudi Arabia and the UAE and others in the region.
- After the revolution,
for the first time, the Iranians declared war on their own
cultural life: theaters were closed, concerts were banned,
entertainers fled the country, cinemas were confiscated,
broadcasting was forbidden.
- Will Europe – the cradle
of Western culture and civilization – open its eyes and stop
regularly taking the side of the Iran's tyrannical ayatollahs?
The leader
of Iran's Islamic Revolution, Ayatollah Rouhollah Khomeini, pictured
in 1979. (Photo by Asadollah Chahriari/Keystone/Getty Images)
The United States just withdrew from the Iranian
nuclear deal. The move is fully justified not only on the grounds
security, but primarily because Iran's Iranian Khomeinist revolution
is a deadly and propulsive ideology that the West cannot allow to
become a nuclearized one.
At the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo,
everything changed when Said and Sharif Kouachi murdered 11 people in
its Paris office. Among the texts recovered on the Kouachi brothers'
laptop was the Iranian call for death against the novelist Salman
Rushdie, calling it "fully justified". The killers were
inspired by Ayatollah Khomeini's deadly edict against Rushdie. The
bloodbath at Charlie Hebdo is one of the poisoned fruits of
the Islamic Republic. The Iranian ayatollahs fear the allure of
Western culture. That is why, since 1979, they are at war with it.
by Amir Taheri • May 20, 2018 at
4:00 am
In the
recent Iraqi election, the "Victory" list of Prime Minister
Haidar al-Abadi (pictured) failed to impress, partly because it tried
to build a cult of personality around its leader as the
"conqueror" who defeated ISIS. (Photo by Sebastian
Widmann/Getty Images)
During the British House of Commons' stormy debate on
29 August 2013 on whether or not to intervene in Syria to stop
further chemical weapon massacres by President Bashar al-Assad, the
then leader of the opposition Ed Miliband boasted that he could prove
intervention wrong by just one word: Iraq!
For almost two decades that four-letter word has been
used by people with many different shades of politics to describe the
futility, not to mention "the criminality", of intervention
by democratic powers against even exceptionally tyrannical regimes.
As Iraqis went to the polls the other day to elect a
new parliament, and thus their next government, I realized that the
four-letter word mouthed with scorn by people like Barack Obama and
Miliband, was now replaced by a five-letter word: Syria!
If "Iraq" is a symbol of what intervention
could produce, the word "Syria" illustrates what
non-assistance to a nation in danger could lead to.
|
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment