Posts
Islamists are engaging in their latest round of exposure of the true nature of their ideology. Despite the efforts of Islamic infiltrators and their useful idiots in the media and academia, jihadis have ratcheted up a new round of violence in accordance with the Koran and other Islamic texts. This outbreak of jihad spans the entire Islamic bloc.
In Iran, the theocrats in charge of that totalitarian cesspool are on the verge of executing Youcef Nadarkhani for renouncing Islam and converting to Christianity. Where are the criminal coddlers who protest outside American prisons whenever an inmate is about to face ultimate justice? Apparently, they only oppose the death penalty for murder. Hanging for apostasy from Islam does not seem to bother those hypocrites.
President Obama expressed sorrow over the burning of a Koran used as a conduit for communication among jihadis in detention. Why no equal level of outrage over the murders of four Americans by savages in Afghanistan in response to this trifling incident? Do Obama and his cult of personality feel that those deaths were warranted for simply burning a book? Why did the President not apologize for the incineration of Bibles by American personnel in Afghanistan in 2009? Does he think that torching Christian holy books is acceptable but not permissible treatment of Islamic scriptures? Perhaps Obama will bow down to Afghan leader Karzai in an act of contrition before their next meeting in the same manner in which he did in front of the Saudi king.
In Egypt, Islamists continue their campaign of church burnings, rapes, assaults and other violent crimes directed at the Coptic Christian minority. In response, President Obama sought an increase of foreign aid to Egypt to fund a government being infiltrated by Islamists. An ex-Mohamadan turned Christian, Maher el-Gohary, and his daughter Dina personally appealed to the President of the United States to protect their lives from threats by Islamists demanding their execution for apostasy. They received an indifferent response from Obama. Are their lives worth less than a Koran? Is Obama willing to ignore the extermination of Egyptian Christians in order to appease the Moslem Brotherhood and other Islamists?
What is necessary for the entire Free World to unite and confront the Islamic menace? Are daily images of victims brutalized by jihadis capable of piercing the blinders of indifference surrounding a sizeable portion of the population of the United States, Europe and elsewhere? One has to wonder how much more carnage must jihadis inflict and how much more insanity must Islamists spew before all free people mobilize against the Islamic onslaught.
COPYRIGHT BY CHARLES KASTRIOT FEBRUARY 2012
Showing posts with label foreign politics and events. Show all posts
Showing posts with label foreign politics and events. Show all posts
Wednesday, February 29, 2012
Friday, October 21, 2011
Out Go the Dictators and in Come the Islamists
The fall of Kadaffy’s regime and his death marks the most recent end of a dictatorship within the Islamic bloc. Over the several decades since the end of Ottoman then European colonization of the Middle East and North Africa, such violent changes in governments have occurred on a regular basis. While one might hope that Kadaffy’s demise would lead to freedom and justice, onlookers must realize who is consolidating power in Libya now. The logo of the crescent moon and five-pointed star has been an omnipresent symbol among the rebels. That symbol indicates the antithesis of representative democracy and of equal rights for all people.
In Egypt, the autocracy of Hosni Mubarak came to an end earlier this year. Under this regime, Islamists such as the Mooslum Brotherhood could not participate in political campaigns. Thus, Islamists were unable to impose their totalitarian agenda on Egyptian society. The somewhat secular government of Mubarek merely discriminated against Christians by making construction of churches impossible for all intents and purposes. Since the tumult and the new government, Islamists have murdered and assaulted Christians along with vandalizing and destroying churches. Police and military personnel have permitted the jihadis’ crimes against Christians, including siding with the jihadis in committing atrocities then arresting Christians for defending themselves.
The fascist entity of Saddam Hussein never singled out Christians for persecution. Since the American and British-led coalition toppled the Baathists, Islamists have declared jihad on the three percent of the Iraki population, which Christians constitute. Rampant church bombings have driven a large portion of that minority into emigration.
Anyone searching for the model of what will become of post-dictatorial countries in the Middle East and North Africa needs to study Iran. This country under the non-Islamist absolute monarch called the Shah permitted women more freedom than any other within the Islamic bloc. Since the rise of the theocracy, rampant misogyny swept Iran. In a matter of weeks, women with successful careers and control over their lives ended up in suffocating outfits and confided to their homes.
An observer of politics among the nations subjugated by Islam should see more possible seizures of power by Islamists in Turkey. Its staunchly secular legal code has been eroded by the rising tide of Islamization. The current prime minster belongs to an openly Islamist political party. In fact, a wife of his insists on wearing a head-rag in public in defiance of Turkish law forbidding the centuries’ old display of women’s inferior status.
Syria also appears high on the list of imminent victims of Islamist takeover. Despite Bashir Assad’s continuation of his father’s legacy of virulent anti-Jewish policies, including funding jihadist murderers who attack Israel, the Islamists expect more. Nothing short of full implementation of sharia will satisfy Islamists who have organized protests in Damascus and elsewhere.
The nations of the Free World cannot force Mohamadans to renounce their totalitarianism. Additionally, the civilized countries of the world should not favor either side in conflicts between nominally Islamic dictators and blatant Islamists. As long as the supporters of those two factions are destroying each other, the rest of the world remains less of a target of jihad.
COPYRIGHT BY CHARLES KASTRIOT OCTOBER 2011
In Egypt, the autocracy of Hosni Mubarak came to an end earlier this year. Under this regime, Islamists such as the Mooslum Brotherhood could not participate in political campaigns. Thus, Islamists were unable to impose their totalitarian agenda on Egyptian society. The somewhat secular government of Mubarek merely discriminated against Christians by making construction of churches impossible for all intents and purposes. Since the tumult and the new government, Islamists have murdered and assaulted Christians along with vandalizing and destroying churches. Police and military personnel have permitted the jihadis’ crimes against Christians, including siding with the jihadis in committing atrocities then arresting Christians for defending themselves.
The fascist entity of Saddam Hussein never singled out Christians for persecution. Since the American and British-led coalition toppled the Baathists, Islamists have declared jihad on the three percent of the Iraki population, which Christians constitute. Rampant church bombings have driven a large portion of that minority into emigration.
Anyone searching for the model of what will become of post-dictatorial countries in the Middle East and North Africa needs to study Iran. This country under the non-Islamist absolute monarch called the Shah permitted women more freedom than any other within the Islamic bloc. Since the rise of the theocracy, rampant misogyny swept Iran. In a matter of weeks, women with successful careers and control over their lives ended up in suffocating outfits and confided to their homes.
An observer of politics among the nations subjugated by Islam should see more possible seizures of power by Islamists in Turkey. Its staunchly secular legal code has been eroded by the rising tide of Islamization. The current prime minster belongs to an openly Islamist political party. In fact, a wife of his insists on wearing a head-rag in public in defiance of Turkish law forbidding the centuries’ old display of women’s inferior status.
Syria also appears high on the list of imminent victims of Islamist takeover. Despite Bashir Assad’s continuation of his father’s legacy of virulent anti-Jewish policies, including funding jihadist murderers who attack Israel, the Islamists expect more. Nothing short of full implementation of sharia will satisfy Islamists who have organized protests in Damascus and elsewhere.
The nations of the Free World cannot force Mohamadans to renounce their totalitarianism. Additionally, the civilized countries of the world should not favor either side in conflicts between nominally Islamic dictators and blatant Islamists. As long as the supporters of those two factions are destroying each other, the rest of the world remains less of a target of jihad.
COPYRIGHT BY CHARLES KASTRIOT OCTOBER 2011
Saturday, July 30, 2011
Questions for Christophobic Media
The joy of several prominent media outlets in response to the mass murder in Oslo more than a week remains unmistakable. The New York Times proclaimed Anders Behring Breivik as a “Christian extremist”. CNN referred to him as a “Christian fundamentalist”. The Washington Post insinuated that he is a “Christian terrorist”. Even Islamists such as the Council on American-Islamic Relations have gleefully spouted such inanities in the promotion of their totalitarian agenda.
In response, I submit these questions to all the Christophobes among the media and those in the blogosphere.
1. What evidence do any of you possess that Breivik practiced Christianity such as membership in a church? How can you willfully ignore his reference to his oxymoronic term “Christian atheism” to describe himself? Why do you instinctively assign his motivations to his supposed Christianity but not to his atheism?
2. Can you cite any Christian scriptures, Biblical or otherwise, which explain his murderous spree? On what basis do you ascribe his crimes as fundamentally Christian considering that no words attributed to Christ condone murder?
3. Why are you so reluctant to label blatantly and fervently violent jihadis as adherents to and practitioners of Islam? Since Breivik’s rampage, two reminders of the peril of Islamic terrorism to the Free World have occurred. A jihadi, Abdulhakim Muhammad, who murdered Private William Andrew Long, a recruiter for the U.S. Army, in Memphis received a life sentence for his crime committed in June of 2009. Also, a Mohamadan soldier, Naser Abdo, abandoned his assignment in Kentucky and gather weapons for another jihadist slaughter at Fort Hood before being arrested this week. These stand out among numerous other episodes of attempted or actual episodes of Islamic terrorism in the United States.
4. Why do you erroneously deny that Islamic texts repeatedly sanction violence in furtherance of imposition and maintenance of Mohamadan hegemony? Why do you ignore blatant verses that do permit, even celebrate, violence against non-Mohamadans?
5. If Breivik was motivated by hatred of Islam, why were his targets decidedly non-Islamic? Why did he plant a bomb near the Prime Minister’s office and then go on a shooting spree at a Labor Party children’s day camp? Mosks and other obvious Islamic targets dominate the ghettos in eastern Oslo.
6. Why are none of you blaming his homicidal streak on anabolic steroids when you are willing to consider other criminals’ usage of alcohol, stimulants, Twinkies or other substances as the true motivating force behind their horrific deeds?
COPYRIGHT BY CHARLES KASTRIOT JULY 2011
In response, I submit these questions to all the Christophobes among the media and those in the blogosphere.
1. What evidence do any of you possess that Breivik practiced Christianity such as membership in a church? How can you willfully ignore his reference to his oxymoronic term “Christian atheism” to describe himself? Why do you instinctively assign his motivations to his supposed Christianity but not to his atheism?
2. Can you cite any Christian scriptures, Biblical or otherwise, which explain his murderous spree? On what basis do you ascribe his crimes as fundamentally Christian considering that no words attributed to Christ condone murder?
3. Why are you so reluctant to label blatantly and fervently violent jihadis as adherents to and practitioners of Islam? Since Breivik’s rampage, two reminders of the peril of Islamic terrorism to the Free World have occurred. A jihadi, Abdulhakim Muhammad, who murdered Private William Andrew Long, a recruiter for the U.S. Army, in Memphis received a life sentence for his crime committed in June of 2009. Also, a Mohamadan soldier, Naser Abdo, abandoned his assignment in Kentucky and gather weapons for another jihadist slaughter at Fort Hood before being arrested this week. These stand out among numerous other episodes of attempted or actual episodes of Islamic terrorism in the United States.
4. Why do you erroneously deny that Islamic texts repeatedly sanction violence in furtherance of imposition and maintenance of Mohamadan hegemony? Why do you ignore blatant verses that do permit, even celebrate, violence against non-Mohamadans?
5. If Breivik was motivated by hatred of Islam, why were his targets decidedly non-Islamic? Why did he plant a bomb near the Prime Minister’s office and then go on a shooting spree at a Labor Party children’s day camp? Mosks and other obvious Islamic targets dominate the ghettos in eastern Oslo.
6. Why are none of you blaming his homicidal streak on anabolic steroids when you are willing to consider other criminals’ usage of alcohol, stimulants, Twinkies or other substances as the true motivating force behind their horrific deeds?
COPYRIGHT BY CHARLES KASTRIOT JULY 2011
Thursday, March 24, 2011
Do Not Give Them Hell, Barry
On the day after Nazi Germany declared war on Soviet Russia in 1941, Senator Harry Truman stated publicly: "If we see that Germany is winning, we ought to help Russia and if Russia is winning, we ought to help Germany, and that way let them kill as many as possible,” That type of proposal has been branded as cynical, callous and Machiavellian in addition to other negative labels. However, Truman’s wish for mutual destruction of the forces of two different totalitarian ideologies resonates even in the current century. Those who hold the security of the Free World and that of the United States in particular as paramount should be wary of involvement in the ongoing civil war in Libya.
People clamoring for military, financial and other forms of aid should delve deeper into the words and deeds to the insurgents in Libya. Those rebels are shouting “Allahu Akbar!”, the equivalent of “Sieg Heil!” for Nazis and “Destroy the bourgeoisie!” for Marxists. Granted, Muamar Kadaffy has funded and sheltered terrorists who have killed Americans. However, those seeking to topple him show clear indications of having Islamist agenda. Their flag sports the crescent moon and star, the most recognizable symbol of Islam. Kadaffy’s regime instituted a flag without any Islamic reference. Kadaffy’s police have not instituted wide-scale imposition of Sharia such as suffocating clothing for women or stoning for rape victims on the scale as can be seen daily in Saudi Arabia or in Iran. Have any of the cheerleaders for the rebellion considered that the victory of Kadaffy’s opponents could easily turn Libya into another base from which Islamists spawn jihadist terrorism in the future?
If Obama wants to topple a regime headed by terrorist-coddling thugs, why has he not supported the protestors in Iran? Kadaffy gave up its research program into developing weapons of mass destruction. In contrast, the theocrats in Tehran have accelerated their quest to obtain nuclear weapons. His regime’s legal status of women is somewhat permissive by the misogynistic standards of the other Islamic states in the region, especially Iran. Kadaffy has curtailed the anti-American vitriol over the past few years while the verbal venom from Mahmood Ahmadinejad has escalated. In short, support for the opposition in Iran could not result in a government more hostile to freedom and civilization than the one already in power.
It is glaringly logical for the leader of the Free World to avoid doing anything that would assist those who want to destroy liberty and subjugate free people. Truman commented about not committing exclusively to one side in the war between Nazis and Communists, hoping they would annihilate each other in the long run. Likewise, President Obama should heed this example from the past and go one rational step further: sit back and let totalitarians destroy each other without aiding any of them. That provides a bulwark against the victors in this intra-savage war from turning their aggression on the Free World.
COPYRIGHT BY CHARLES KASTRIOT MARCH 2011
People clamoring for military, financial and other forms of aid should delve deeper into the words and deeds to the insurgents in Libya. Those rebels are shouting “Allahu Akbar!”, the equivalent of “Sieg Heil!” for Nazis and “Destroy the bourgeoisie!” for Marxists. Granted, Muamar Kadaffy has funded and sheltered terrorists who have killed Americans. However, those seeking to topple him show clear indications of having Islamist agenda. Their flag sports the crescent moon and star, the most recognizable symbol of Islam. Kadaffy’s regime instituted a flag without any Islamic reference. Kadaffy’s police have not instituted wide-scale imposition of Sharia such as suffocating clothing for women or stoning for rape victims on the scale as can be seen daily in Saudi Arabia or in Iran. Have any of the cheerleaders for the rebellion considered that the victory of Kadaffy’s opponents could easily turn Libya into another base from which Islamists spawn jihadist terrorism in the future?
If Obama wants to topple a regime headed by terrorist-coddling thugs, why has he not supported the protestors in Iran? Kadaffy gave up its research program into developing weapons of mass destruction. In contrast, the theocrats in Tehran have accelerated their quest to obtain nuclear weapons. His regime’s legal status of women is somewhat permissive by the misogynistic standards of the other Islamic states in the region, especially Iran. Kadaffy has curtailed the anti-American vitriol over the past few years while the verbal venom from Mahmood Ahmadinejad has escalated. In short, support for the opposition in Iran could not result in a government more hostile to freedom and civilization than the one already in power.
It is glaringly logical for the leader of the Free World to avoid doing anything that would assist those who want to destroy liberty and subjugate free people. Truman commented about not committing exclusively to one side in the war between Nazis and Communists, hoping they would annihilate each other in the long run. Likewise, President Obama should heed this example from the past and go one rational step further: sit back and let totalitarians destroy each other without aiding any of them. That provides a bulwark against the victors in this intra-savage war from turning their aggression on the Free World.
COPYRIGHT BY CHARLES KASTRIOT MARCH 2011
Tuesday, February 1, 2011
Obama's Missed and Dismissed Opportunities
The specter of a secret allegiance to Islam has hung over Obama since the presidential campaign of 2008. His membership in a church led by a racist and anti-American preacher did little to dismiss the speculation. His pronouncement of his Islamic middle name during his taking of the oath of office seemed like a taunt toward those questioning his affiliation. His Ameriphobic speech in Cairo threw into doubt whether he considered the United States as more of a threat to the world than Islamists whose goal is imposition of a world-wide caliphate, the Mohamadan version of a totalitarian regime. His reaction to uprisings in Islamic countries has further heightened the uncertainty over his true loyalty.
Obama has repeatedly shown his affinity for heavy-handed governmental policies. He and his wife want to dictate how and what people eat and what types of foods are permitted to be sold. He has hinted at suppression of media that have been used to express criticism of governmental officials or historical personalities. His administration has attempted to mandate how and on what Americans spend their money in terms of their own health. Obama and his underlings have committed multiple incidents of overreaching statist commandments while scoffing dismissively at proponents of individual freedom.
Islam manifests itself in similarly collectivist and dictatorial fashion. Islamists demand the banning of consumption of or even the presence of food which its adherents do not eat such as pork. Islamists expect to censor all media that question or criticize their ideology or the megalomaniac who fabricated it. Islamists demand that their cohorts and even non-Mohamadans hand over sums of money in order for redistribution to those deemed worthy by those Islamists in power. Proponents of Islam give its followers license to threaten and kill anyone impeding their seizure of power over societies, dismissing the very concept of freedom of religion, of speech and other inalienable liberties.
Obama has embraced the Egyptian protestors demanding the ousting of an autocratic yet non-Islamist regime. Mubarak would never be confused for a supporter of human rights or representative democracy. However, his government has maintained the bulwark against the tide of complete Islamization which has been overwhelming other areas in the Middle East and starting to infect Europe and North America. The unmistakable presence of the terrorists known as the Mooslum Brotherhood within the demonstrations demands that someone claiming to support democracy should not align himself with those jihadis.
In contrast, Obama refrained from publicly supporting demonstrators against the Islamic theocracy in Iran. Instead of doing anything to exhort those demonstrating against a regime hostile to the Free World, Obama remained mute. He could have fanned the flames of discontent within a hostile state, possibly resulting in the toppling of that totalitarian state. Someone looking out for the vested interests of the United States had an incentive to foment chaos in Iran, if only to disrupt and delay the Iranian program seeking nuclear weapons. The occupant of the White House ignored Rahm Emanual’s credo of “never letting a crisis go to waste” when presented with a chance to sabotage his country’s enemies while distancing himself from any association with Islam.
COPYRIGHT BY CHARLES KASTRIOT JANUARY 2011
Obama has repeatedly shown his affinity for heavy-handed governmental policies. He and his wife want to dictate how and what people eat and what types of foods are permitted to be sold. He has hinted at suppression of media that have been used to express criticism of governmental officials or historical personalities. His administration has attempted to mandate how and on what Americans spend their money in terms of their own health. Obama and his underlings have committed multiple incidents of overreaching statist commandments while scoffing dismissively at proponents of individual freedom.
Islam manifests itself in similarly collectivist and dictatorial fashion. Islamists demand the banning of consumption of or even the presence of food which its adherents do not eat such as pork. Islamists expect to censor all media that question or criticize their ideology or the megalomaniac who fabricated it. Islamists demand that their cohorts and even non-Mohamadans hand over sums of money in order for redistribution to those deemed worthy by those Islamists in power. Proponents of Islam give its followers license to threaten and kill anyone impeding their seizure of power over societies, dismissing the very concept of freedom of religion, of speech and other inalienable liberties.
Obama has embraced the Egyptian protestors demanding the ousting of an autocratic yet non-Islamist regime. Mubarak would never be confused for a supporter of human rights or representative democracy. However, his government has maintained the bulwark against the tide of complete Islamization which has been overwhelming other areas in the Middle East and starting to infect Europe and North America. The unmistakable presence of the terrorists known as the Mooslum Brotherhood within the demonstrations demands that someone claiming to support democracy should not align himself with those jihadis.
In contrast, Obama refrained from publicly supporting demonstrators against the Islamic theocracy in Iran. Instead of doing anything to exhort those demonstrating against a regime hostile to the Free World, Obama remained mute. He could have fanned the flames of discontent within a hostile state, possibly resulting in the toppling of that totalitarian state. Someone looking out for the vested interests of the United States had an incentive to foment chaos in Iran, if only to disrupt and delay the Iranian program seeking nuclear weapons. The occupant of the White House ignored Rahm Emanual’s credo of “never letting a crisis go to waste” when presented with a chance to sabotage his country’s enemies while distancing himself from any association with Islam.
COPYRIGHT BY CHARLES KASTRIOT JANUARY 2011
Saturday, August 7, 2010
Tough Times for Gaza Residents
I wonder if it is possible to ever find an honest assessment such as this hypothetical report about the Philistines...
Tough Times for Gaza Residents
By Mohamad al-Dhimmi for the Al-Jihad Network
Months of restrictions by Israel on the inflow of goods into Gaza Strip has caused shortages of essential items in high demand among the residents. Tensions have been rising among the local population as they scramble to improvise so as to avoid disruption of their lives. Residents gladly spoke to this reporter in order to vent their frustrations and demand that the rest of the world break the blockade.
One of them, Ahmad Waeef-Beetah, lamented the loss of his prized cane.
"It broke last week as I was hitting my second wife. Since then I have had to use one of my shoes to keep her in accordance with the will of Allah. Can you imagine having to beat your wives with an old sandal? Because of the inhuman blockade, I have to remove my shoes, give them to a wife to clean, beat her with it then hand it back to her for another cleaning. It's barbaric what the Jews are forcing me to resort to," Waeef-Beetah moaned.
He continued, "Yesterday, I was so exhausted after discipling wife number one and number two, I didn't have any strength to deal with my other two wives." At this point, tears began welling up in his eyes as his voice began to escalate, "I had to order number three and number four to beat each other. At first, I felt so ashamed that I couldn't perform my duties proscribed by Allah."
Regaining his composure, a smile crept across his face after he wiped his cheeks, "As I sat in my home watching them smack each other, I felt the presence of Allah comforting me. My shame disappeared as I continued to see them striking one another. Soon, the sight of the blood and their shrieking had made my minaret fully vertical. Praise be to Allah!"
A health-care provider, Aiduh Kuttah, also bitterly complained about the dearth of medical supplies available to her. "The Jews have hurt my livelihood with their blockade. It has been harder to find the right type of tools I use to perform cliterectomies. Parents keep contacting me to cut their daughter's private parts as the Prophet proscribed but all my small razor blades are very dull now. I have tried larger objects which I never heard of before. I found something called a 'steak knife' that infidels use. I have heard the infidels use of these items when they sit, men and women together, in the same room, women's faces shamelessly uncovered, eating at the same time. What an abomination! May Allah forgive me for resorting to using the wicked implements of the infidels for a holy practice."
A youth counselor, Anas T. Kaboom complained about shortages affecting his group's activities for the neighborhood children.
"I have struggled to find enough properly fitting vests for the children. Many of the vests are too small to be correctly loaded. Others lack enough pockets and the pockets are too small to hold enough nails, ball bearings or any other type of small objects. Sometimes, the pockets rip open when we try to pack in a lot of shards of glass or screws," he lamented.
He paused to stop himself from sobbing then resumed, "The children are becoming impatient waiting to martyr themselves. They cry every day when I have to tell them that we don't have enough explosives for everybody. So scuffles break out when they stand in line to gather supplies to make their vests to go to Paradise. I bet the wicked Jews are laughing evilly when they see these wonderful boys and girls being deprived of the chance to go to their eternal reward. I curse Israel for this injustice!" He spat on the ground after completing his statement.
Locals are placing hope in rumors of a flotilla of more cargo ships setting sail from Europe and Turkey. Additionally, huge groups of the faithful engage in mass prayer sessions five times per day in between shopping at the newly opened mega-mall which opened in Gaza in July.
COPYRIGHT BY CHARLES KASTRIOT AUGUST 2010
Tough Times for Gaza Residents
By Mohamad al-Dhimmi for the Al-Jihad Network
Months of restrictions by Israel on the inflow of goods into Gaza Strip has caused shortages of essential items in high demand among the residents. Tensions have been rising among the local population as they scramble to improvise so as to avoid disruption of their lives. Residents gladly spoke to this reporter in order to vent their frustrations and demand that the rest of the world break the blockade.
One of them, Ahmad Waeef-Beetah, lamented the loss of his prized cane.
"It broke last week as I was hitting my second wife. Since then I have had to use one of my shoes to keep her in accordance with the will of Allah. Can you imagine having to beat your wives with an old sandal? Because of the inhuman blockade, I have to remove my shoes, give them to a wife to clean, beat her with it then hand it back to her for another cleaning. It's barbaric what the Jews are forcing me to resort to," Waeef-Beetah moaned.
He continued, "Yesterday, I was so exhausted after discipling wife number one and number two, I didn't have any strength to deal with my other two wives." At this point, tears began welling up in his eyes as his voice began to escalate, "I had to order number three and number four to beat each other. At first, I felt so ashamed that I couldn't perform my duties proscribed by Allah."
Regaining his composure, a smile crept across his face after he wiped his cheeks, "As I sat in my home watching them smack each other, I felt the presence of Allah comforting me. My shame disappeared as I continued to see them striking one another. Soon, the sight of the blood and their shrieking had made my minaret fully vertical. Praise be to Allah!"
A health-care provider, Aiduh Kuttah, also bitterly complained about the dearth of medical supplies available to her. "The Jews have hurt my livelihood with their blockade. It has been harder to find the right type of tools I use to perform cliterectomies. Parents keep contacting me to cut their daughter's private parts as the Prophet proscribed but all my small razor blades are very dull now. I have tried larger objects which I never heard of before. I found something called a 'steak knife' that infidels use. I have heard the infidels use of these items when they sit, men and women together, in the same room, women's faces shamelessly uncovered, eating at the same time. What an abomination! May Allah forgive me for resorting to using the wicked implements of the infidels for a holy practice."
A youth counselor, Anas T. Kaboom complained about shortages affecting his group's activities for the neighborhood children.
"I have struggled to find enough properly fitting vests for the children. Many of the vests are too small to be correctly loaded. Others lack enough pockets and the pockets are too small to hold enough nails, ball bearings or any other type of small objects. Sometimes, the pockets rip open when we try to pack in a lot of shards of glass or screws," he lamented.
He paused to stop himself from sobbing then resumed, "The children are becoming impatient waiting to martyr themselves. They cry every day when I have to tell them that we don't have enough explosives for everybody. So scuffles break out when they stand in line to gather supplies to make their vests to go to Paradise. I bet the wicked Jews are laughing evilly when they see these wonderful boys and girls being deprived of the chance to go to their eternal reward. I curse Israel for this injustice!" He spat on the ground after completing his statement.
Locals are placing hope in rumors of a flotilla of more cargo ships setting sail from Europe and Turkey. Additionally, huge groups of the faithful engage in mass prayer sessions five times per day in between shopping at the newly opened mega-mall which opened in Gaza in July.
COPYRIGHT BY CHARLES KASTRIOT AUGUST 2010
Saturday, June 5, 2010
Return to Their Place of Origin
Helen Thomas' comments regarding Jews supposedly occupying Arab lands provided some provocative suggestions. This White House reporter demands that one group of people should return to their place of origin. In order to remain honestly consistent, why is she not demanding the expulsion of recent infiltrators into the United States of America, Canada and Europe?
Thomas' comments included the desire for Jews to return to Poland and Germany. One can rightfully ask where should the Sephardim go? What would be the fate of Jews who left, often expelled involuntarily and under threat of violence, from Yemen, Iran, Morocco and other Islamic nations? Also, what about the Jews living in the territory surrounding Jerusalem for centuries despite the Islamic conquest and subsequent oppression?
So where are Thomas' calls for the removal of outsiders who have been encroaching into the country of her residence? Mohamadans have been infiltrating the United States of American for decades. They have been granted citizenship despite violating standards mandated by Congress as essential for gaining citizenship. The Immigration and Naturalization Act of bars anyone espousing a totalitarian ideology in Section 313 under Title III of the Immigration and Naturalization Act. Considering that Islamic governance is based on enforcing the whimsical utterances of seventh century dictator and his successors instead of consent of the citizens and will of the majority, Islam clearly demonstrates its totalitarian foundation. Additionally, anyone engaging in polygamy or intending to do so cannot legally naturalize under Section 212(10)(A) of the Immigration and Naturalization Act. However, Islam explicitly permits polygamy while considering a man with several simultaneous marriages as the role model for human behavior. Therefore, one can logically assume that anyone adhering to Islam does so in opposition to representative democracy and its ideals.
While discussing the topic of people returning to their place of origin, Helen Thomas should follow her own demands. She has one of two options. First of them is for Helen Thomas to leave the United States to go back to Lebanon, the place of her parents' birth. Otherwise, she must return to her other homeland where she was better suited in her role of hostess of "Tales from the Crypt".
COPYRIGHT BY CHARLES KASTRIOT JUNE 2010
Thomas' comments included the desire for Jews to return to Poland and Germany. One can rightfully ask where should the Sephardim go? What would be the fate of Jews who left, often expelled involuntarily and under threat of violence, from Yemen, Iran, Morocco and other Islamic nations? Also, what about the Jews living in the territory surrounding Jerusalem for centuries despite the Islamic conquest and subsequent oppression?
So where are Thomas' calls for the removal of outsiders who have been encroaching into the country of her residence? Mohamadans have been infiltrating the United States of American for decades. They have been granted citizenship despite violating standards mandated by Congress as essential for gaining citizenship. The Immigration and Naturalization Act of bars anyone espousing a totalitarian ideology in Section 313 under Title III of the Immigration and Naturalization Act. Considering that Islamic governance is based on enforcing the whimsical utterances of seventh century dictator and his successors instead of consent of the citizens and will of the majority, Islam clearly demonstrates its totalitarian foundation. Additionally, anyone engaging in polygamy or intending to do so cannot legally naturalize under Section 212(10)(A) of the Immigration and Naturalization Act. However, Islam explicitly permits polygamy while considering a man with several simultaneous marriages as the role model for human behavior. Therefore, one can logically assume that anyone adhering to Islam does so in opposition to representative democracy and its ideals.
While discussing the topic of people returning to their place of origin, Helen Thomas should follow her own demands. She has one of two options. First of them is for Helen Thomas to leave the United States to go back to Lebanon, the place of her parents' birth. Otherwise, she must return to her other homeland where she was better suited in her role of hostess of "Tales from the Crypt".
COPYRIGHT BY CHARLES KASTRIOT JUNE 2010
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
Did the Earth Move for You?
Hojjat ol-eslam Kazem Sediki, an Islamic prayer leader in Iran, has blamed women’s lack of hiding themselves under oppressively suffocating outfits for an increased number of earthquakes. Conveniently, he overlooked the fact that numerous bare-breasted women on many beaches throughout France have not resulted in calamitous earthquakes in the French Riviera. The resorts along Mexico’s eastern shores and in the Caribbean Sea have not been swallowed by gaping fissures in the ground due to the presence of bikini-clad women. Along the coasts of the Atlantic Ocean and of the Gulf of Mexico of the United States, scantily-clad women have never induced such seismic retribution for decades now. So why exactly are Iranian women the cause of terrestrial rumblings?
This cleric’s remarks are typical of Islamists’ knee-jerk misogyny. The exposure of women’s hair, ankles, arms or faces supposedly causes calamities. Such absurdity makes perfect sense only to buffoons who have been mind-numbed through years of Islamic indoctrination. Who has time to study geology to understand the true causes of earthquakes? These savages certainly do not since they have been pre-occupied with robotically reciting the Koran. Why study an objective science when they can parrot verses which very few of them even understand due to ignorance of the seventh century dialect of the Arabian Peninsula in which Mohamad (May he burn in Hell forever) fabricated the Koranic verses? Anyone with at least a minimal level of scientific education guffawed uproariously upon hearing Sediki’s statements.
Apparently, this numbskull never considered the possibility that his country has experienced earthquakes as punishment for its Islamic regime’s three decades of repression. Certainly a just deity would avenge the frequent stonings of women who report being raped but cannot clear the ridiculous hurdle of proof required by Sharia that four male witnesses observed the crime. Additionally, a wrathful god
would surely punish those who flog women because a few strands of hair peeked through the tents mandated as “appropriate garments” by Islamists like Sediki. Divine retribution is due to the ruling clerics for their continued repression of democracy and secularism advocates.
Such admonishments seem even more hypocritical considering the practice of “temporary marriages” sanctioned by the Islamic regime. Iranian men pay women to sign contracts of marriage which stipulate when their marriage will end and how much the women will receive as compensation. These matrimonial farces often last for just a few days, frequently for a mere hour or two. This institution is de facto prostitution promoted for unmarried young males, especially among those studying to become Islamic clerics in the city of Kom. These arrangements including written documents between the johns and the whores only give a phony veneer of legitimacy in the eyes of the Islamists but not to any clear-thinking person.
Sediki’s ranting has further illuminated the dangerous insanity of the Islamic regime. With such ignorant leaders in charge of this totalitarian regime, how can anyone in the Free World not shudder at the thought of these barbarians safely handling radioactive materials for use in a nuclear power program? Of course, anyone subscribing to the Iranian disinformation about wanting a nuclear power program for peaceful civilian use certainly lacks the wisdom to see through the Iranians’ lies anyway.
COPYRIGHT APRIL 2010 BY CHARLES KASTRIOT
This cleric’s remarks are typical of Islamists’ knee-jerk misogyny. The exposure of women’s hair, ankles, arms or faces supposedly causes calamities. Such absurdity makes perfect sense only to buffoons who have been mind-numbed through years of Islamic indoctrination. Who has time to study geology to understand the true causes of earthquakes? These savages certainly do not since they have been pre-occupied with robotically reciting the Koran. Why study an objective science when they can parrot verses which very few of them even understand due to ignorance of the seventh century dialect of the Arabian Peninsula in which Mohamad (May he burn in Hell forever) fabricated the Koranic verses? Anyone with at least a minimal level of scientific education guffawed uproariously upon hearing Sediki’s statements.
Apparently, this numbskull never considered the possibility that his country has experienced earthquakes as punishment for its Islamic regime’s three decades of repression. Certainly a just deity would avenge the frequent stonings of women who report being raped but cannot clear the ridiculous hurdle of proof required by Sharia that four male witnesses observed the crime. Additionally, a wrathful god
would surely punish those who flog women because a few strands of hair peeked through the tents mandated as “appropriate garments” by Islamists like Sediki. Divine retribution is due to the ruling clerics for their continued repression of democracy and secularism advocates.
Such admonishments seem even more hypocritical considering the practice of “temporary marriages” sanctioned by the Islamic regime. Iranian men pay women to sign contracts of marriage which stipulate when their marriage will end and how much the women will receive as compensation. These matrimonial farces often last for just a few days, frequently for a mere hour or two. This institution is de facto prostitution promoted for unmarried young males, especially among those studying to become Islamic clerics in the city of Kom. These arrangements including written documents between the johns and the whores only give a phony veneer of legitimacy in the eyes of the Islamists but not to any clear-thinking person.
Sediki’s ranting has further illuminated the dangerous insanity of the Islamic regime. With such ignorant leaders in charge of this totalitarian regime, how can anyone in the Free World not shudder at the thought of these barbarians safely handling radioactive materials for use in a nuclear power program? Of course, anyone subscribing to the Iranian disinformation about wanting a nuclear power program for peaceful civilian use certainly lacks the wisdom to see through the Iranians’ lies anyway.
COPYRIGHT APRIL 2010 BY CHARLES KASTRIOT
Thursday, February 11, 2010
Punched into Recognition
So Ahmedinejad much ballyhooed "punch to West" has occurred. Does anyone in the Free World feel punch-drunk or even slightly dazed? Instead of describing the announcement as a punch, it would be more accurate to call it the latest slap to the collective face of the civilized people of the world. Ahmedinejad has repeatedly struck the cheeks of a slumbering Uncle Sam who is determined to continue his dream of willful ignorance.
Uncle Sam keeps brushing away attempts at reveille by his only true friend in Ahmadinejad's otherwise overtly hostile neighborhood. Despite Israel's meager population and limited resources and territory, it is willing to face down the Iranian blowhard. Realistic Israelis can see the imminent atomic assault on their country. The primary factor impeding the Israels' proactive elimination of Iran's capacity for nuclear attacks lie in hope that other civilized nations will find a way to halt the threat of attacks originating from Iran. Up to this date, no member of the Free World has demonstrated any determination to stop the jihadis in Iran from gaining means to propagate Islam through nuclear weapons. Nuclear-armed jihadis will afford the free people of the world the same options they have always proposed: convert to Islam, accept inferior status including paying protection money or die at the hands of the savages.
Perhaps, the popular uprisings in Iran have convinced leaders of the civilized nations that the Islamic regime and its nuclear weapons program are teetering on collapse. The line of reasoning follows: "Why bother to provoke the Iranian regime when, by ignoring it, its oppressed citizens will soon topple it? A bellicose response to Ahmadinejad would just give him a rallying cry against the infidels."
One could be tempted to support those rallying in the streets of Iran simply because they seem to view the Islamic regime as a common enemy. Granted, the unrest may distract the regime from reaching its goal of nuclear capability. This view could prove true but no definite list of the objectives of the protesters has been clearly demonstrated.
Anyone outside Iran must wonder about the goals of the demonstrators. Are they pushing for a complete upheaval of Iranian society, including purging of Islam and other Arabian elements of their society? Do they want to abolish the theocracy in favor of a secular government? Do they demand a Persian version of a fascist state like the one formerly in Irak, led by an autocrat who played on ethnic and sectarian strife to wield absolute power? Do they merely seek more economic opportunities and openness with the West? Will they settle for less odious treatment of women, non-Shi'ites and non-Persians while continuing to chafe under the yoke of Islamic totalitarianism? Before embracing the angry crowds surging in the streets of Iran, the residents of the Free World must delve deeper into words and actions of the individuals within the movement.
Will Uncle Sam eventually rouse himself from this self-destructive slumber? One might be reminded of another allegorical character, Rip Van Winkle, who awoke from his decades-long nap. Unfortunately for him, Rip hardly recognized his surroundings after being unconscious for such an extended period of time. The world had changed noticeably and in ways which Rip did not like. For hope of the Free World, Uncle Sam must snap out of this suicidally somnolent state before his world has declined in a Dark Age of Islamic hegemony.
COPYRIGHT FEBRUARY 2010 BY CHARLES KASTRIOT
Uncle Sam keeps brushing away attempts at reveille by his only true friend in Ahmadinejad's otherwise overtly hostile neighborhood. Despite Israel's meager population and limited resources and territory, it is willing to face down the Iranian blowhard. Realistic Israelis can see the imminent atomic assault on their country. The primary factor impeding the Israels' proactive elimination of Iran's capacity for nuclear attacks lie in hope that other civilized nations will find a way to halt the threat of attacks originating from Iran. Up to this date, no member of the Free World has demonstrated any determination to stop the jihadis in Iran from gaining means to propagate Islam through nuclear weapons. Nuclear-armed jihadis will afford the free people of the world the same options they have always proposed: convert to Islam, accept inferior status including paying protection money or die at the hands of the savages.
Perhaps, the popular uprisings in Iran have convinced leaders of the civilized nations that the Islamic regime and its nuclear weapons program are teetering on collapse. The line of reasoning follows: "Why bother to provoke the Iranian regime when, by ignoring it, its oppressed citizens will soon topple it? A bellicose response to Ahmadinejad would just give him a rallying cry against the infidels."
One could be tempted to support those rallying in the streets of Iran simply because they seem to view the Islamic regime as a common enemy. Granted, the unrest may distract the regime from reaching its goal of nuclear capability. This view could prove true but no definite list of the objectives of the protesters has been clearly demonstrated.
Anyone outside Iran must wonder about the goals of the demonstrators. Are they pushing for a complete upheaval of Iranian society, including purging of Islam and other Arabian elements of their society? Do they want to abolish the theocracy in favor of a secular government? Do they demand a Persian version of a fascist state like the one formerly in Irak, led by an autocrat who played on ethnic and sectarian strife to wield absolute power? Do they merely seek more economic opportunities and openness with the West? Will they settle for less odious treatment of women, non-Shi'ites and non-Persians while continuing to chafe under the yoke of Islamic totalitarianism? Before embracing the angry crowds surging in the streets of Iran, the residents of the Free World must delve deeper into words and actions of the individuals within the movement.
Will Uncle Sam eventually rouse himself from this self-destructive slumber? One might be reminded of another allegorical character, Rip Van Winkle, who awoke from his decades-long nap. Unfortunately for him, Rip hardly recognized his surroundings after being unconscious for such an extended period of time. The world had changed noticeably and in ways which Rip did not like. For hope of the Free World, Uncle Sam must snap out of this suicidally somnolent state before his world has declined in a Dark Age of Islamic hegemony.
COPYRIGHT FEBRUARY 2010 BY CHARLES KASTRIOT
Friday, July 3, 2009
The Case Against Iran
Why should we care about what is happening in Iran? Are any of you worried that your lives will be impacted negatively by the civil unrest there? Do any you have a burning desire to spend your next vacation there? How many of you are eager to see such cultural attractions as a public hanging of a woman accused of adultery or a flogging of a girl for exposing some of her hair in public? Why should anyone living in the United States spend even a few seconds pondering the events unfolding there and their possible implications?
Despite the fact that we live thousands of miles from Iran, we are not immune to the events occurring there. The days of willful isolationism have ended. The people of the United States can no longer rely on the notion that the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans provide sufficient buffers against any harm emanating from that region of the world. The tremendous distance between the United States and one of Iran’s neighbors, Afghanistan, did not prevent the launching of suicide attacks from the other side of the world on the United States on the eleventh of September 2001.
For thirty years, the Iranian regime has been involved in undeclared war against the United States. One of the first acts of the Islamic regime was the seizure of American embassy. On the fourth of November, 1979, militants backing the Islamic regime attacked the American embassy in Tehran and seized the occupants. The Iranian regime imprisoned these fifty Americans for four hundred forty-four days.
On three occasions in 1983, terrorists who received funding and logistical support from Iran attacked Americans. On the eighteenth of April, a suicide bomber from the Shiite terrorist group, Hezbollah, crashed a pickup truck laden with explosives into the American Embassy in Beirut. Seventeen Americans and forty-six others died as a result. On the twenty-third of October, Hezbollah struck in similar fashion; this time the group targeted the U.S. Marines’ barracks in Beirut. The Marines had been sent to Lebanon to serve as members of a multi-national peace-keeping force during the Lebanese civil war. On the twelfth of December of the same year, another Shiite terrorist organization supported by Iran, Al Dawa, sent a suicide truck bomber to attack the American embassy in Kuwait. Five people died and more than eighty suffered injuries.
Attacks on embassies and military installations are blatant acts of war. All embassies are considered sovereign territory of the nation-state maintaining the embassy, regardless of location. However, Americans failed to realize that they had been dragged in this war and refused to reply to repeated attacks.
Iranian regime has been involved in terrorism and other threats to peace and stability in the Middle East. Iranian-backed Hezbollah suicide bombers also struck the French peacekeepers in Beirut the same days as the attacks on the Marines’ barracks. Hezbollah members have repeatedly engaged in kidnappings of Lebanese Christians and foreign journalists, professor, members of the media and others since the mid-eighties. These same militants periodically fire rockets at Israeli civilians from inside Lebanese borders. They smuggle suicide bombers into Israel who then set off explosive vests full of shrapnel on buses or in other public places.
Additionally, the Iranian theocracy has been working to acquire nuclear technology for several years. One must question why a country possessing such an abundance of petroleum would pursue a more costly and less secure form of energy. Iran’s petroleum reserves, one of the largest in the world, serve as the foundation of its economy. Claims for the need to acquire atomic power appear, at best, as a bizarre waste of resources considering Iran’s staggering illiteracy and poverty rates. These problems will only continue to mount considering that nearly a majority of the population is less than thirty years old. Ahmadinejad’s bellicose pronouncements against Israel, the United States and anyone else who may oppose Iranian hegemony in the Middle East betray his regime’s true, malignant designs for the acquisition and implementation of nuclear capability.
Iranians have been suffering under yoke of totalitarian government for thirty years. A pretense of representative democracy has existed in Iran since the revolution. However, these elections should be misconstrued as free and open. All candidates for any office must receive approval by the Guardian Council, twelve men appointed by the true leader of Iran, the unelected and unimpeachable Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Anyone deemed insufficiently adherent to Shiism is disqualified. In the parliamentary elections of 2008, this despotic dozen barred nearly two thousand of the nine thousand candidates who applied to run for seats. Political debates are illegal. No political advertisements ever appear on Iranian television which a governmental monopoly.
Azeri Turks, an ethnic minority comprising a quarter of the Iranian population, are targets of slander in governmental media. News reports have portrayed Azeris as cockroaches and dimwits because Azeris typically speak Farsi, the official language of Iran, with difficulty. The Persian majority of the regime has outlawed the use of Turkish names for geographic locations and children. The mere act of printing anything in Turkish has been deemed a criminal offense.
The Arab minority in Iran face continuous harassment and loss of property. The Arab minority lives in the southwestern portion of Iran. The government regularly seizes their property to give to the burgeoning Persia populace. When the Arabs protest, they are rounded up under the charge of subverting the Shiite regime as agents of the Saudi kingdom.
Oppression of women has been sited as one of the contributing factors to the tumult. An entire generation has grown up under Islamic tyranny yet the governmental propaganda has not fully brainwashed all of those born since the establishment of the Shiite regime. Iranian women and girls catch glimpses of liberated women across the world despite the extensive censorship of foreign media by the Islamic morality police. They realize that women elsewhere do not endure beatings, fines or imprisonment for not covering their hair or wearing anything other than shapeless and oppressively uncomfortable outfits.
Multiple forms of legalized sexual exploitation and abuse haunt Iranian women. Three decades have been blighted with the executions of women and girls for offenses such as adultery, many of whom were in fact raped and did not consent to any extramarital sexual acts. Thousands of teenaged girls from impoverished rural families have been sold off to men in their forties or older. These arranged marriages last only short-term, leaving the girls as destitute as before but also stigmatized as a discarded wife. Additionally, Iranian law permits de facto prostitution under the moniker of “temporary marriages”. These arrangements consist of a man signing a legal contract with a pre-determined termination date of the so-called marriage and a sum paid to the woman. These marriages typically last only a few days or even hours, depending on the whim of the man signing the document.
Persecution of religious minorities has grown rampant under the Islamic theocracy. Applicants to universities must pass a test of knowledge of Shiite Islam, even those Iranian citizens who belong to another sect of Islam or to another religion altogether. Laws forbid the scriptures of any other religion to be translated in Farsi. Only Shiites are allowed to evangelize; members of any other religious group face imprisonment or execution for trying to convert Shiites Iranians to any other faith. All religious minorities must serve in the Iranian military but are barred from becoming officers. If a Shiite kills a non-Shiite, the Shiite cannot be executed under Iranian law. If one member of a non-Shiite family converts to Islam, then that convert automatically inherits all of his/her family’s property regardless of the family’s wishes. If an Iranian was born and raised as a Shiite, he/she faces execution for leaving Islam to accept another religion.
The Jewish population has dwindled to twenty-five percent of its total before the Islamic Revolution. Iranian Jews are forbidden to travel as an entire family outside of the country to prevent their emigration. They are not allowed to operate their own private schools. Officials of the Islamic regime control the school with obvious antagonism such as mandating Saturday as a school day, in violation of the Jewish Sabbath. Any Jewish protests against the hostile policies result in arrests, imprisonment or executions on baseless charges of espionage or subversion under the auspices of Israel.
Since the beginning of Ahmadinejad’s presidency four years ago, persecution of Sufis, a minority sect of Islam, has increased remarkably. Agents of the Shiite regime have destroyed Sufis’ place of worship, shrines and other locations where Sufis gather. Additionally, Sufis are regularly arrested then flogged or forced to sign documents renouncing Sufism.
Christians in Iran have endured oppression since the early days of the Islamic regime. Assyrians and Armenians, ethnic minorities who are Christians, constantly endure governmental surveillance of their religious services. The Ministry of Islamic Guidance has ordered the closing of many churches and other Christian buildings, including all their bookstores in 1990. The Iranian government forbids both groups to accept any new members among other ethnicities in the country.
Zoroastrians, the majority of the people in pre-Islamic Iran, suffer oppression as well. Their faith predates Islam by at least a thousand, seven hundred years yet less than hundred thousand at the present time. They face the same third-class status as other religious minorities.
Bahais, another indigenous religious sect, have not even received the flimsy promises of tolerance accorded to Jews, Christians and Zoroastrians by the Shiite government. This persecution persists despite the fact that the Bahai faith originated in the mid-nineteenth century in Iran when it was called Persia. Almost immediately after Ayatollah Khomeini and his legions seized power in 1978, the mullahs exhorted the followers to pillage Bahai temples and assault the congregants.
The Iranian theocracy has demonstrated similarities to other repressive regimes since its inception thirty years ago. Totalitarian regimes have engaged in banning of any use of minorities languages. The fascist government of Spain suppressed all public use of the Basque and Catalan languages by those two ethnicities. The Communist Chinese government has engaged in a systematic effort to eliminate the Tibetan language and distinctive culture. The Nazi and Soviet regimes fanned the flames of religious hostility toward their Jewish population to rally support for wide-spread imprisonment and seizure of Jewish property. Popular revolts against tyranny met ruthless crackdowns just as those which occurred in Tiananmen Square in 1989 and in Nazi-occupied Warsaw in 1943. The mullahs in charge of Iran have either modeled their oligarchy on preceding authoritarian factions or are engaging in a frightening similar coincidence.
The current resistance movement has been swelling for years. The suspicious outcome of this presidential election only served as the tipping point. Years of misogyny, ethnic chauvinism and religious persecution have all contributed to the boiling cauldron that Iran has become. Finally, the contentious situation has boiled over and spilled into the streets throughout Iran.
The United States stood by passively when the Islamic militants toppled the Shah of Iran. Granted, the Shah headed an autocratic and corrupt regime. However, the most egregious sins of the monarchy pale in comparison to the totalitarians currently in power in Iran. The consequences of the outcome of this tumult far outweigh any importance associated with the death of an androgynous pop singer or that of faded sex symbol from the 1970s.
All of these examples I have cited should motivate every American to support efforts to assist the toppling of the Iranian theocracy. The United States must organize an international boycott of Iran petroleum. Additionally, American naval forces should lead a blockade of Iranian ports used to export its petroleum. Without the profits from the sale of its petroleum, the Iranian regime will soon collapse. Then all of the citizens can unite to establish a true republic with legitimate multi-party elections, equality under the law for women and the end of antagonism toward non-Shiites and non-Persians. Finally, this undeclared war will come to an en
COPYRIGHT JULY 2009 BY CHARLES KASTRIOT
Sources for this article:
http://www.cswusa.com/Countries/Iran.htm
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/02/again_religious_persecution_in.html
http://forums.contracostatimes.com/topic/islamic-republic-of-irans-persecution-oppression-of-minorities-islamic-apartheid
http://www.iranfocus.com/en/human-rights/iranian-authorities-destroy-sufi-holy-site-in-isfahan-17207.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/29/AR2008022903488_2.html
http://parsikhabar.net/irans-last-zoroastrians-worried-by-youth-exodus/
http://www.henryjacksonsociety.org/stories.asp?id=343
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88148974
Despite the fact that we live thousands of miles from Iran, we are not immune to the events occurring there. The days of willful isolationism have ended. The people of the United States can no longer rely on the notion that the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans provide sufficient buffers against any harm emanating from that region of the world. The tremendous distance between the United States and one of Iran’s neighbors, Afghanistan, did not prevent the launching of suicide attacks from the other side of the world on the United States on the eleventh of September 2001.
For thirty years, the Iranian regime has been involved in undeclared war against the United States. One of the first acts of the Islamic regime was the seizure of American embassy. On the fourth of November, 1979, militants backing the Islamic regime attacked the American embassy in Tehran and seized the occupants. The Iranian regime imprisoned these fifty Americans for four hundred forty-four days.
On three occasions in 1983, terrorists who received funding and logistical support from Iran attacked Americans. On the eighteenth of April, a suicide bomber from the Shiite terrorist group, Hezbollah, crashed a pickup truck laden with explosives into the American Embassy in Beirut. Seventeen Americans and forty-six others died as a result. On the twenty-third of October, Hezbollah struck in similar fashion; this time the group targeted the U.S. Marines’ barracks in Beirut. The Marines had been sent to Lebanon to serve as members of a multi-national peace-keeping force during the Lebanese civil war. On the twelfth of December of the same year, another Shiite terrorist organization supported by Iran, Al Dawa, sent a suicide truck bomber to attack the American embassy in Kuwait. Five people died and more than eighty suffered injuries.
Attacks on embassies and military installations are blatant acts of war. All embassies are considered sovereign territory of the nation-state maintaining the embassy, regardless of location. However, Americans failed to realize that they had been dragged in this war and refused to reply to repeated attacks.
Iranian regime has been involved in terrorism and other threats to peace and stability in the Middle East. Iranian-backed Hezbollah suicide bombers also struck the French peacekeepers in Beirut the same days as the attacks on the Marines’ barracks. Hezbollah members have repeatedly engaged in kidnappings of Lebanese Christians and foreign journalists, professor, members of the media and others since the mid-eighties. These same militants periodically fire rockets at Israeli civilians from inside Lebanese borders. They smuggle suicide bombers into Israel who then set off explosive vests full of shrapnel on buses or in other public places.
Additionally, the Iranian theocracy has been working to acquire nuclear technology for several years. One must question why a country possessing such an abundance of petroleum would pursue a more costly and less secure form of energy. Iran’s petroleum reserves, one of the largest in the world, serve as the foundation of its economy. Claims for the need to acquire atomic power appear, at best, as a bizarre waste of resources considering Iran’s staggering illiteracy and poverty rates. These problems will only continue to mount considering that nearly a majority of the population is less than thirty years old. Ahmadinejad’s bellicose pronouncements against Israel, the United States and anyone else who may oppose Iranian hegemony in the Middle East betray his regime’s true, malignant designs for the acquisition and implementation of nuclear capability.
Iranians have been suffering under yoke of totalitarian government for thirty years. A pretense of representative democracy has existed in Iran since the revolution. However, these elections should be misconstrued as free and open. All candidates for any office must receive approval by the Guardian Council, twelve men appointed by the true leader of Iran, the unelected and unimpeachable Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Anyone deemed insufficiently adherent to Shiism is disqualified. In the parliamentary elections of 2008, this despotic dozen barred nearly two thousand of the nine thousand candidates who applied to run for seats. Political debates are illegal. No political advertisements ever appear on Iranian television which a governmental monopoly.
Azeri Turks, an ethnic minority comprising a quarter of the Iranian population, are targets of slander in governmental media. News reports have portrayed Azeris as cockroaches and dimwits because Azeris typically speak Farsi, the official language of Iran, with difficulty. The Persian majority of the regime has outlawed the use of Turkish names for geographic locations and children. The mere act of printing anything in Turkish has been deemed a criminal offense.
The Arab minority in Iran face continuous harassment and loss of property. The Arab minority lives in the southwestern portion of Iran. The government regularly seizes their property to give to the burgeoning Persia populace. When the Arabs protest, they are rounded up under the charge of subverting the Shiite regime as agents of the Saudi kingdom.
Oppression of women has been sited as one of the contributing factors to the tumult. An entire generation has grown up under Islamic tyranny yet the governmental propaganda has not fully brainwashed all of those born since the establishment of the Shiite regime. Iranian women and girls catch glimpses of liberated women across the world despite the extensive censorship of foreign media by the Islamic morality police. They realize that women elsewhere do not endure beatings, fines or imprisonment for not covering their hair or wearing anything other than shapeless and oppressively uncomfortable outfits.
Multiple forms of legalized sexual exploitation and abuse haunt Iranian women. Three decades have been blighted with the executions of women and girls for offenses such as adultery, many of whom were in fact raped and did not consent to any extramarital sexual acts. Thousands of teenaged girls from impoverished rural families have been sold off to men in their forties or older. These arranged marriages last only short-term, leaving the girls as destitute as before but also stigmatized as a discarded wife. Additionally, Iranian law permits de facto prostitution under the moniker of “temporary marriages”. These arrangements consist of a man signing a legal contract with a pre-determined termination date of the so-called marriage and a sum paid to the woman. These marriages typically last only a few days or even hours, depending on the whim of the man signing the document.
Persecution of religious minorities has grown rampant under the Islamic theocracy. Applicants to universities must pass a test of knowledge of Shiite Islam, even those Iranian citizens who belong to another sect of Islam or to another religion altogether. Laws forbid the scriptures of any other religion to be translated in Farsi. Only Shiites are allowed to evangelize; members of any other religious group face imprisonment or execution for trying to convert Shiites Iranians to any other faith. All religious minorities must serve in the Iranian military but are barred from becoming officers. If a Shiite kills a non-Shiite, the Shiite cannot be executed under Iranian law. If one member of a non-Shiite family converts to Islam, then that convert automatically inherits all of his/her family’s property regardless of the family’s wishes. If an Iranian was born and raised as a Shiite, he/she faces execution for leaving Islam to accept another religion.
The Jewish population has dwindled to twenty-five percent of its total before the Islamic Revolution. Iranian Jews are forbidden to travel as an entire family outside of the country to prevent their emigration. They are not allowed to operate their own private schools. Officials of the Islamic regime control the school with obvious antagonism such as mandating Saturday as a school day, in violation of the Jewish Sabbath. Any Jewish protests against the hostile policies result in arrests, imprisonment or executions on baseless charges of espionage or subversion under the auspices of Israel.
Since the beginning of Ahmadinejad’s presidency four years ago, persecution of Sufis, a minority sect of Islam, has increased remarkably. Agents of the Shiite regime have destroyed Sufis’ place of worship, shrines and other locations where Sufis gather. Additionally, Sufis are regularly arrested then flogged or forced to sign documents renouncing Sufism.
Christians in Iran have endured oppression since the early days of the Islamic regime. Assyrians and Armenians, ethnic minorities who are Christians, constantly endure governmental surveillance of their religious services. The Ministry of Islamic Guidance has ordered the closing of many churches and other Christian buildings, including all their bookstores in 1990. The Iranian government forbids both groups to accept any new members among other ethnicities in the country.
Zoroastrians, the majority of the people in pre-Islamic Iran, suffer oppression as well. Their faith predates Islam by at least a thousand, seven hundred years yet less than hundred thousand at the present time. They face the same third-class status as other religious minorities.
Bahais, another indigenous religious sect, have not even received the flimsy promises of tolerance accorded to Jews, Christians and Zoroastrians by the Shiite government. This persecution persists despite the fact that the Bahai faith originated in the mid-nineteenth century in Iran when it was called Persia. Almost immediately after Ayatollah Khomeini and his legions seized power in 1978, the mullahs exhorted the followers to pillage Bahai temples and assault the congregants.
The Iranian theocracy has demonstrated similarities to other repressive regimes since its inception thirty years ago. Totalitarian regimes have engaged in banning of any use of minorities languages. The fascist government of Spain suppressed all public use of the Basque and Catalan languages by those two ethnicities. The Communist Chinese government has engaged in a systematic effort to eliminate the Tibetan language and distinctive culture. The Nazi and Soviet regimes fanned the flames of religious hostility toward their Jewish population to rally support for wide-spread imprisonment and seizure of Jewish property. Popular revolts against tyranny met ruthless crackdowns just as those which occurred in Tiananmen Square in 1989 and in Nazi-occupied Warsaw in 1943. The mullahs in charge of Iran have either modeled their oligarchy on preceding authoritarian factions or are engaging in a frightening similar coincidence.
The current resistance movement has been swelling for years. The suspicious outcome of this presidential election only served as the tipping point. Years of misogyny, ethnic chauvinism and religious persecution have all contributed to the boiling cauldron that Iran has become. Finally, the contentious situation has boiled over and spilled into the streets throughout Iran.
The United States stood by passively when the Islamic militants toppled the Shah of Iran. Granted, the Shah headed an autocratic and corrupt regime. However, the most egregious sins of the monarchy pale in comparison to the totalitarians currently in power in Iran. The consequences of the outcome of this tumult far outweigh any importance associated with the death of an androgynous pop singer or that of faded sex symbol from the 1970s.
All of these examples I have cited should motivate every American to support efforts to assist the toppling of the Iranian theocracy. The United States must organize an international boycott of Iran petroleum. Additionally, American naval forces should lead a blockade of Iranian ports used to export its petroleum. Without the profits from the sale of its petroleum, the Iranian regime will soon collapse. Then all of the citizens can unite to establish a true republic with legitimate multi-party elections, equality under the law for women and the end of antagonism toward non-Shiites and non-Persians. Finally, this undeclared war will come to an en
COPYRIGHT JULY 2009 BY CHARLES KASTRIOT
Sources for this article:
http://www.cswusa.com/Countries/Iran.htm
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/02/again_religious_persecution_in.html
http://forums.contracostatimes.com/topic/islamic-republic-of-irans-persecution-oppression-of-minorities-islamic-apartheid
http://www.iranfocus.com/en/human-rights/iranian-authorities-destroy-sufi-holy-site-in-isfahan-17207.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/29/AR2008022903488_2.html
http://parsikhabar.net/irans-last-zoroastrians-worried-by-youth-exodus/
http://www.henryjacksonsociety.org/stories.asp?id=343
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88148974
Sunday, June 21, 2009
Iranian Rebellion: linear or meandering?
Popular rebellions throughout history have proved extremely difficult to gauge. Pundits and politicians attempt to project their final results. Often sparked by dour economic conditions combined with repressive governmental actions, rebellions open the portals for inundations of demands for economic and social transformations.
The French Revolution started when peasants' crops failed leading to famine. Decades of deficit spending precluded the ability of King Louis the Fourteenth's regime from doing much to alleviate the suffering. The knowledge of the aristocracy's opulence sparked the peasantry's rage. Intermingling with this anger, advocates of the Enlightenment, enthralled with novelties called representative democracy and liberty, joined the anti-monarchical chorus. The fervor eventually led to verbal and physical assaults on Catholic installations and clergy. The urge to overthrow all peripherals of the system even lead to abolition of the Christian calendar and its replacement by a week of ten days and a year that started on the day of the autumnal equinox.
The Russian Revolution grew out of opposition to Czar Nicholas the Second's decision to enter the First World War. Political minorities, factions of Marxism, anarchism and capitalism, became involved in the opposition to the monarchy; they disagreed on what form of government should replace it but all openly pushed for the end of the Czarist autocracy. Eventually, the totalitarianism of the Bolsheviks replaced the autocracy of the Czar. This upheaval led to fundamental changes such as the full-scale oppression of the Orthodox Christian Church and its institutions, even its calendar which the monarchy had used for centuries.
At the present, the world is watching the tumult occurring in Iran. After thirty years under a totalitarian government, the Islam-based oppression is chafing some teens and twenty-somethings. Despite the mullahs' efforts to isolate Iranians, increased ease of communication with the Free World has allowed the penetration of non-Islamic concepts. During the street protests, women have dared to pull back their legally-mandated head-coverings to un-Islamic standards, if not remove them completely. Reports indicate that demonstrators have yelled, "Death to the dictator!" and "Death to Khamenei!" If those have been occurring, the rebellion exceeds a mere burst of outrage by devotees of a candidate who lost an election. The suicide bombing of the mausoleum of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the leader of the revolution which installed the Islamic regime, carries profound significance. That act of violence may portend opposition to the entire theocracy, not simply to the loony figurehead who holds the position of President of the Islamic regime.
Some question Mir Mousavi's alleged reformist agenda. Considering that politicians truly antipathic toward Islamic regime are never permitted to seek offices in the government, such skepticism is warranted. Therefore, one can rightfully question Mousavi's commitment to advocate for personal freedom and legitimate democracy in Iran.
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad never attempted to hide his mental instability. He openly denies the Nazi genocide directed at Jews. He leaves a seat vacant just in case a supposed messianic figure called the "Twelfth Imam" happens to stop by wherever Ahmadinejad is making a public appearance. He actually says with a straight face that Iran wants a nuclear energy program for strictly peaceful purposes. How can any sane person justify the pursuit of nuclear technology for energy production in a country which is one of the largest exporters of petroleum in the world? I suppose Ahmadinejad expects that the "Twelfth Imam" will provide some sort of rational explanation or just bring the nuclear weapons himself, rendering the secretive program obsolete.
No one knows how this tumult will resolve itself. The theocrats in Iran may unleash a torrent of violence to crackdown on the protestors. However, that could possibly fan the blames of opposition causing undecided Iranians to side with the anti-regime forces. Middle Eastern experts might try to predict the outcome yet they have limited access to current developments inside Iran. Intelligence agencies of various countries are undoubtedly extracting all possible information that their agents can obtain. Nevertheless, a multitude of surveillance technology and inside sources cannot provide perfect clairvoyance and clairaudience. In the end, we will only know the fate of Iran after the demonstrations have concluded, either victoriously or in vain.
COPYRIGHT JUNE 2009 BY CHARLES KASTRIOT. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
The French Revolution started when peasants' crops failed leading to famine. Decades of deficit spending precluded the ability of King Louis the Fourteenth's regime from doing much to alleviate the suffering. The knowledge of the aristocracy's opulence sparked the peasantry's rage. Intermingling with this anger, advocates of the Enlightenment, enthralled with novelties called representative democracy and liberty, joined the anti-monarchical chorus. The fervor eventually led to verbal and physical assaults on Catholic installations and clergy. The urge to overthrow all peripherals of the system even lead to abolition of the Christian calendar and its replacement by a week of ten days and a year that started on the day of the autumnal equinox.
The Russian Revolution grew out of opposition to Czar Nicholas the Second's decision to enter the First World War. Political minorities, factions of Marxism, anarchism and capitalism, became involved in the opposition to the monarchy; they disagreed on what form of government should replace it but all openly pushed for the end of the Czarist autocracy. Eventually, the totalitarianism of the Bolsheviks replaced the autocracy of the Czar. This upheaval led to fundamental changes such as the full-scale oppression of the Orthodox Christian Church and its institutions, even its calendar which the monarchy had used for centuries.
At the present, the world is watching the tumult occurring in Iran. After thirty years under a totalitarian government, the Islam-based oppression is chafing some teens and twenty-somethings. Despite the mullahs' efforts to isolate Iranians, increased ease of communication with the Free World has allowed the penetration of non-Islamic concepts. During the street protests, women have dared to pull back their legally-mandated head-coverings to un-Islamic standards, if not remove them completely. Reports indicate that demonstrators have yelled, "Death to the dictator!" and "Death to Khamenei!" If those have been occurring, the rebellion exceeds a mere burst of outrage by devotees of a candidate who lost an election. The suicide bombing of the mausoleum of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the leader of the revolution which installed the Islamic regime, carries profound significance. That act of violence may portend opposition to the entire theocracy, not simply to the loony figurehead who holds the position of President of the Islamic regime.
Some question Mir Mousavi's alleged reformist agenda. Considering that politicians truly antipathic toward Islamic regime are never permitted to seek offices in the government, such skepticism is warranted. Therefore, one can rightfully question Mousavi's commitment to advocate for personal freedom and legitimate democracy in Iran.
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad never attempted to hide his mental instability. He openly denies the Nazi genocide directed at Jews. He leaves a seat vacant just in case a supposed messianic figure called the "Twelfth Imam" happens to stop by wherever Ahmadinejad is making a public appearance. He actually says with a straight face that Iran wants a nuclear energy program for strictly peaceful purposes. How can any sane person justify the pursuit of nuclear technology for energy production in a country which is one of the largest exporters of petroleum in the world? I suppose Ahmadinejad expects that the "Twelfth Imam" will provide some sort of rational explanation or just bring the nuclear weapons himself, rendering the secretive program obsolete.
No one knows how this tumult will resolve itself. The theocrats in Iran may unleash a torrent of violence to crackdown on the protestors. However, that could possibly fan the blames of opposition causing undecided Iranians to side with the anti-regime forces. Middle Eastern experts might try to predict the outcome yet they have limited access to current developments inside Iran. Intelligence agencies of various countries are undoubtedly extracting all possible information that their agents can obtain. Nevertheless, a multitude of surveillance technology and inside sources cannot provide perfect clairvoyance and clairaudience. In the end, we will only know the fate of Iran after the demonstrations have concluded, either victoriously or in vain.
COPYRIGHT JUNE 2009 BY CHARLES KASTRIOT. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
Echos of the 1930s
In the 1930s, adherents to Fascism and to Communism both claimed to stand on the verge of seizing control of various nation-states, with the goal of inevitable global domination. The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics had been carved out of the corpse formerly known as the Russian Empire. Fascists in Italy had bullied their way into power, threatening ideologues who opposed them then bludgeoning or incarcerating those who persisted in resistance. Their German counterparts followed suit several years later. Communists were sowing havoc within the fragile society of China throughout the 1930s, provoking a civil war. With the Great Depression gripping most of the world's economies, it appeared that capitalism and representative democracy were stumbling toward extinction.
Fortunately, Fascists and Communists spent a considerable amount of time and resources attacking each other. These two sects of totalitarianism fought each other in venues such as the Spanish Civil War and in the streets of towns in Germany, the Netherlands and other European lands. In the next decade, they continued their blood feud on the Eastern Front of the Second World War. The Free World survived in part due to the fact they did not focus solely on destroying freedom first before turning on each other.
In our current decade, Islam and neo-Marxism both threaten the Free World.
Neo-Marxists seek to destroy the Judeo-Christian cornerstone of Western societies; Islamists share the same objective. Neo-Marxists have knee-jerk sympathies for "people of color" if those people have disputes with Europeans or descendants of Europeans, regardless of the merits of the claims of either side. Islamists have insidiously convinced their useful idiots that the jihad to destroy Western civilization exists as merely a response to the establishment of Israel and prevalence of American influence in the world. Neo-Marxists instinctively lionize those perceived as "poor", regardless of the poverty resulting from centuries of contempt of scientific research, the creation of works of art or the study of history or philosophy except for those glorify or propagate Islam. Neo-Marxists' immoderate paranoia of receiving accusations of exhibiting any politically incorrect "ism" leads them into moral contortions like justifying or excusing suicide bombings of civilians, oppression of women's rights and freedoms in addition to death threats against and murders of critics of Islam. Socialist governments throw open their borders to Mohamadans for immigration in hopes of gaining future voters. In turn, Islamists readily accept state-supplied housing, food allowances and financial support from the governmental girth created and maintained by Socialist governments. Anyone paying attention can easily discern their symbiotic relationship.
Further credence to this alliance can be found in a widely-reported event from a few years ago. In an audio recording broadcasted on the al-Jazeera Network on the eleventh of February 2003, Osama bin Laden referred to the impending battles in Iraq. He advocated, "Under these circumstances, there will be no harm if the interests of Muslims converge with the interests of the socialists in the fight against the crusaders, despite our belief in the infidelity of socialists." (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2751019.stm) What a ringing endorsement of cooperation from the world's most famous jihadi!
Recent news has demonstrated that the British government has strengthened this totalitarian alliance. Home Secretary Jacqui Smith released the list of personae non gratae. The Labor Party-led government played the role of Socialist appeasers by banning radio talk-show host, Doctor Michael Savage, from entering the United Kingdom. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/16-banned-from-britain-named-and-shamed-1679127.html
Apparently with a straight face and no hint of sarcasm, Secretary Smith stated, "This is someone who has fallen into the category of fomenting hatred, of such extreme views and expressing them in such a way that it is actually likely to cause inter-community tension or even violence if that person were allowed into the country."
Despite having never engaging in public demonstrations against any "community" in Britain, Doctor Savage has been offered as a sacrificial lamb to Islamists. Savage's frequent denouncements of Islam and those who advocate it has already led to the fifth column calling itself the Council on American Islamic Relations to file suit against him in American courts in an effort to silence his dissent. Considering that Savage's show is not broadcast in Britain, one must question how Brown's socialist regime decided that Savage deserved the ban and public defamation accompanying it.
The current British government has revealed its hypocritical enforcement of standards. Where was Smith's concern about tension or violence when five thousand Mohamadans marched in London on the third of February in 2006? (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1509664/Muslim-protests-are-incitement-to-murder-say-Tories.html)
Were their signs with messages such as "Slay those who insult Islam", "Europe, take some lessons from 9/11" and "Butcher those who mock Islam" not likely to provoke tension or violence? Have Britons already kowtowed to Islamists and accepted dhimmitude so those slogans no longer qualify as threats? Who is more of a threat to public order, someone who criticizes a totalitarian ideology or someone who advocates the murder of that critic? This spineless administration has chosen to bar one Savage instead of the tens of thousands of savages already within its borders, poised for a demolition of the last vestiges of liberty in Britain.
COPYRIGHT MAY 2009 BY CHARLES KASTRIOT. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Fortunately, Fascists and Communists spent a considerable amount of time and resources attacking each other. These two sects of totalitarianism fought each other in venues such as the Spanish Civil War and in the streets of towns in Germany, the Netherlands and other European lands. In the next decade, they continued their blood feud on the Eastern Front of the Second World War. The Free World survived in part due to the fact they did not focus solely on destroying freedom first before turning on each other.
In our current decade, Islam and neo-Marxism both threaten the Free World.
Neo-Marxists seek to destroy the Judeo-Christian cornerstone of Western societies; Islamists share the same objective. Neo-Marxists have knee-jerk sympathies for "people of color" if those people have disputes with Europeans or descendants of Europeans, regardless of the merits of the claims of either side. Islamists have insidiously convinced their useful idiots that the jihad to destroy Western civilization exists as merely a response to the establishment of Israel and prevalence of American influence in the world. Neo-Marxists instinctively lionize those perceived as "poor", regardless of the poverty resulting from centuries of contempt of scientific research, the creation of works of art or the study of history or philosophy except for those glorify or propagate Islam. Neo-Marxists' immoderate paranoia of receiving accusations of exhibiting any politically incorrect "ism" leads them into moral contortions like justifying or excusing suicide bombings of civilians, oppression of women's rights and freedoms in addition to death threats against and murders of critics of Islam. Socialist governments throw open their borders to Mohamadans for immigration in hopes of gaining future voters. In turn, Islamists readily accept state-supplied housing, food allowances and financial support from the governmental girth created and maintained by Socialist governments. Anyone paying attention can easily discern their symbiotic relationship.
Further credence to this alliance can be found in a widely-reported event from a few years ago. In an audio recording broadcasted on the al-Jazeera Network on the eleventh of February 2003, Osama bin Laden referred to the impending battles in Iraq. He advocated, "Under these circumstances, there will be no harm if the interests of Muslims converge with the interests of the socialists in the fight against the crusaders, despite our belief in the infidelity of socialists." (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2751019.stm) What a ringing endorsement of cooperation from the world's most famous jihadi!
Recent news has demonstrated that the British government has strengthened this totalitarian alliance. Home Secretary Jacqui Smith released the list of personae non gratae. The Labor Party-led government played the role of Socialist appeasers by banning radio talk-show host, Doctor Michael Savage, from entering the United Kingdom. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/16-banned-from-britain-named-and-shamed-1679127.html
Apparently with a straight face and no hint of sarcasm, Secretary Smith stated, "This is someone who has fallen into the category of fomenting hatred, of such extreme views and expressing them in such a way that it is actually likely to cause inter-community tension or even violence if that person were allowed into the country."
Despite having never engaging in public demonstrations against any "community" in Britain, Doctor Savage has been offered as a sacrificial lamb to Islamists. Savage's frequent denouncements of Islam and those who advocate it has already led to the fifth column calling itself the Council on American Islamic Relations to file suit against him in American courts in an effort to silence his dissent. Considering that Savage's show is not broadcast in Britain, one must question how Brown's socialist regime decided that Savage deserved the ban and public defamation accompanying it.
The current British government has revealed its hypocritical enforcement of standards. Where was Smith's concern about tension or violence when five thousand Mohamadans marched in London on the third of February in 2006? (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1509664/Muslim-protests-are-incitement-to-murder-say-Tories.html)
Were their signs with messages such as "Slay those who insult Islam", "Europe, take some lessons from 9/11" and "Butcher those who mock Islam" not likely to provoke tension or violence? Have Britons already kowtowed to Islamists and accepted dhimmitude so those slogans no longer qualify as threats? Who is more of a threat to public order, someone who criticizes a totalitarian ideology or someone who advocates the murder of that critic? This spineless administration has chosen to bar one Savage instead of the tens of thousands of savages already within its borders, poised for a demolition of the last vestiges of liberty in Britain.
COPYRIGHT MAY 2009 BY CHARLES KASTRIOT. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Three Cheers for the U.S. Navy
After too many hours of dawdling, providing sustenance to the jihadis, communicating with them and otherwise, wasting time, the U.S. Navy finally instituted a suitable response to the savages who had attacked the Maersk Alabama. Happily, the captain of the ship survived while three of his captors succumbed to simultaneous contractions of cranial lead poisoning. Unfortunately, one of barbarians fell into the custody before being sent off the Great Eternal and Celestial Whorehouse for Islamo-murderers. He will have to settle for the fawning and sympathy of the Atheists', Criminals' and Lunatics' Union and other self-loathing American useful idiots.
The United States has a history of confronting jihadis who were plundering ships flying the American flag. In the first two decades of the nineteenth century, American naval forces and members of the fledgling U.S. Marine Corps confronted North African Islamo-pirates. After continuously paying tribute to the savages of the Barbary States, the American government gradually realized that only brutal reprisals would convince the jihadis to cease the attacks. The first conflicts between Islamists and Americans can provide lessons those living in the twenty-first century.
It is incumbent upon the civilized nations of the world to muster their naval forces to crush these jihadis. Let us not repeat the same errors in judgment as those in power throughout Europe committed during the era of the Barbary States' terrorism. Instead of uniting against their mutual foe, the various Western countries rendered protection money to the savages, just as cowardly dhimmis had done when the Islamic hordes conquered new territory. These bribes happened in hopes that the Mohamadans would target the ships of other nations. Those payments, as well as modern attempts at appeasement, only embolden the thieves to raise the costs of future jizya.
COPYRIGHT APRIL 2009 BY CHARLES KASTRIOT. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
The United States has a history of confronting jihadis who were plundering ships flying the American flag. In the first two decades of the nineteenth century, American naval forces and members of the fledgling U.S. Marine Corps confronted North African Islamo-pirates. After continuously paying tribute to the savages of the Barbary States, the American government gradually realized that only brutal reprisals would convince the jihadis to cease the attacks. The first conflicts between Islamists and Americans can provide lessons those living in the twenty-first century.
It is incumbent upon the civilized nations of the world to muster their naval forces to crush these jihadis. Let us not repeat the same errors in judgment as those in power throughout Europe committed during the era of the Barbary States' terrorism. Instead of uniting against their mutual foe, the various Western countries rendered protection money to the savages, just as cowardly dhimmis had done when the Islamic hordes conquered new territory. These bribes happened in hopes that the Mohamadans would target the ships of other nations. Those payments, as well as modern attempts at appeasement, only embolden the thieves to raise the costs of future jizya.
COPYRIGHT APRIL 2009 BY CHARLES KASTRIOT. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Poetic Justice... Almost
Although the existence of karma remains an unsettled issue for humans to resolve, occasional episodes lend credence to its actuality. George Galloway, outspoken apologist for Islam in the British Parliament, has been forced to taste a tiny portion of the bitter hatred and brutal violence that he has supported among the Islamist group, Hamas. His caravan of collaboration received a welcoming consisting of stones thrown at the vehicles and anti-Hamas slogans painted on them. Whether or not someone urinated in the jihadist Kool-Aid he regularly gulps down has not been substantiated.
Unfortunately, it appears that Galloway escaped the attacks alive, unharmed and unrepentant. He has not made any statements yet announcing the error of his words and deeds in support of Islam. Apparently, his exposure to the same tactics employed by the objects of his affection, this time directed at him, have not opened his eyes and mind to reality. One must wonder if one of the hurled stones must strike him in the head in order to enlighten him.
Motivations for Galloway's treachery remain uncertain. If he believes that the Islamic takeover of Great Britain will happen inevitably, he is simply currying favor with his future overlords. Perhaps, he has become seduced by the allure of a totalitarian ideology just as some Britons developed an infatuation with Nazism in the 1930s. The issue might be easily explained by the fact that lives as a closeted Mohamadan.
No one has taken responsibility for the attacks at the time of this article. Therefore, this is an open message to whomever committed these acts: Exemplary effort but so much remains to accomplish. Next time, target this appeasing maggot specifically. Take a careful aim. Pinpoint your hurled stone strikes for the space between his eyes. The Free World will thank you profoundly.
COPYRIGHT MARCH 2009 BY CHARLES KASTRIOT. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Unfortunately, it appears that Galloway escaped the attacks alive, unharmed and unrepentant. He has not made any statements yet announcing the error of his words and deeds in support of Islam. Apparently, his exposure to the same tactics employed by the objects of his affection, this time directed at him, have not opened his eyes and mind to reality. One must wonder if one of the hurled stones must strike him in the head in order to enlighten him.
Motivations for Galloway's treachery remain uncertain. If he believes that the Islamic takeover of Great Britain will happen inevitably, he is simply currying favor with his future overlords. Perhaps, he has become seduced by the allure of a totalitarian ideology just as some Britons developed an infatuation with Nazism in the 1930s. The issue might be easily explained by the fact that lives as a closeted Mohamadan.
No one has taken responsibility for the attacks at the time of this article. Therefore, this is an open message to whomever committed these acts: Exemplary effort but so much remains to accomplish. Next time, target this appeasing maggot specifically. Take a careful aim. Pinpoint your hurled stone strikes for the space between his eyes. The Free World will thank you profoundly.
COPYRIGHT MARCH 2009 BY CHARLES KASTRIOT. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
Bigger Fish to Fry?
In the wake of the Israeli Defense Force's squandered opportunity to obliterate HAMAS, we can only hope that the halt is due to another more dangerous threat. Instead of resolving the situation of regularly launched missiles into Israeli civilian areas from the Gaza Strip, there may exist the likelihood of fewer yet more dangerous missiles from Iran. A homeowner should cease squashing flies infesting his/her home when scorpions are on the verge of invading.
This week, the Iranian regime has launched a satellite, proving it does possess the technology to launch other, more menacing items too. This action has made the security situation clear: the Free World must act now before Iranian missiles start raining down on Israel and other civilized countries. How long before Iranian missiles will be fitted with biological or chemical weapons? Will the world soon find out the true purpose of Iran's allegedly "peaceful" use nuclear technology to attach nuclear warheads to these missiles?(http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-iran-satellite4-2009feb04,0,4385361.story )
The nominal leader of Iran, Mahmoud Akhmadinewhackjob, has betrayed his regime's true intentions in past statements. His blatant anti-Israeli rhetoric, including questioning the historical veracity of the Nazis' genocidal activities aimed at Jews, demonstrates his commitment to the ongoing jihad against Jews. He spouts Islamic rhetoric, straight from the most virulent verses of the Koran. As reprehensibly evil as Mohamad ibn Abdullah, the fabricator of Islam, was, he never possessed the power to destroy tens of thousands of people in a matter of minutes. For that reason, the time to act, not negotiate with savages or deny reality, has arrived.
COPYRIGHT FEBRUARY 2009 BY CHARLES KASTRIOT. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
This week, the Iranian regime has launched a satellite, proving it does possess the technology to launch other, more menacing items too. This action has made the security situation clear: the Free World must act now before Iranian missiles start raining down on Israel and other civilized countries. How long before Iranian missiles will be fitted with biological or chemical weapons? Will the world soon find out the true purpose of Iran's allegedly "peaceful" use nuclear technology to attach nuclear warheads to these missiles?(http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-iran-satellite4-2009feb04,0,4385361.story )
The nominal leader of Iran, Mahmoud Akhmadinewhackjob, has betrayed his regime's true intentions in past statements. His blatant anti-Israeli rhetoric, including questioning the historical veracity of the Nazis' genocidal activities aimed at Jews, demonstrates his commitment to the ongoing jihad against Jews. He spouts Islamic rhetoric, straight from the most virulent verses of the Koran. As reprehensibly evil as Mohamad ibn Abdullah, the fabricator of Islam, was, he never possessed the power to destroy tens of thousands of people in a matter of minutes. For that reason, the time to act, not negotiate with savages or deny reality, has arrived.
COPYRIGHT FEBRUARY 2009 BY CHARLES KASTRIOT. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Thursday, January 8, 2009
Pounding HAMAS into Hummus
Israel has an opportunity to rid itself of the perennial hemorrhoid called HAMAS. Actually, the destruction of this group of murderous jihadis would benefit the rest of the Free World. If Hezbollah continues to launch attacks from Lebanon into Israel, then the same treatment should be meted out to those savages also.
This toughest aspect of this endeavour is resisting the temptation to cave into the demands of the hand-wringing numskulls in the mainstream media and the anti-Jewish elements in positions of political power throughout Europe & North America. Islamists and members of the Appeasement Movement are whining about Mohamadans killed or injured by Israeli counter-attacks. However, they were noticeably silent when HAMAS' provocative attacks killed and injured Israelis, predominately civilians. Do not mistake their concern for the suffering of Mohamadans as concern for all human beings in this conflict. They have obviously aligned themselves with the jihadis in this conflict.
Therefore, this posting stands as a bit of unsolicited advice to all Israelis: DO NOT STOP UNTIL HAMAS IS OBLITERATED! That means every member that can be found must be killed, especially those in positions of power within the organization. Under no circumstances should ANY cease-fire take place. That would only allow the jihadis more time to smuggle in more weapons, other supplies and possibly foreign fighters to continue their attacks. Do not delay operations for any humanitarian reasons to benefit the Mohamadans. They will not hate you any less, no matter how much civility or charity you display toward the savages.
COPYRIGHT JANUARY 2009 BY CHARLES KASTRIOT. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
This toughest aspect of this endeavour is resisting the temptation to cave into the demands of the hand-wringing numskulls in the mainstream media and the anti-Jewish elements in positions of political power throughout Europe & North America. Islamists and members of the Appeasement Movement are whining about Mohamadans killed or injured by Israeli counter-attacks. However, they were noticeably silent when HAMAS' provocative attacks killed and injured Israelis, predominately civilians. Do not mistake their concern for the suffering of Mohamadans as concern for all human beings in this conflict. They have obviously aligned themselves with the jihadis in this conflict.
Therefore, this posting stands as a bit of unsolicited advice to all Israelis: DO NOT STOP UNTIL HAMAS IS OBLITERATED! That means every member that can be found must be killed, especially those in positions of power within the organization. Under no circumstances should ANY cease-fire take place. That would only allow the jihadis more time to smuggle in more weapons, other supplies and possibly foreign fighters to continue their attacks. Do not delay operations for any humanitarian reasons to benefit the Mohamadans. They will not hate you any less, no matter how much civility or charity you display toward the savages.
COPYRIGHT JANUARY 2009 BY CHARLES KASTRIOT. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Thursday, August 14, 2008
Islam at the Olympics
Since the jihadist bombing in Kashgar in early August, Islamists have not been prominently visible in the lead up to and in the early days of the Olympics. That should have been expected since the Communist Chinese officials, like all totalitarians, have no tolerance for other totalitarians expressing opposition to their power. After this violent act of defiance, a brutal crackdown by the Communists on the Mohamedans was a given. One need only look back at how quickly and thoroughly the fascist regimes in Italy, Germany and Spain in the 1930s rounded up Marxists to be imprisoned and executed. Fascists, Marxists and Islamists share totalitarian tendencies but are fiercely jealous and antagonistic toward each other.
Communist crackdown may not stand as the sole reason why jihadis have not yet disrupted the Olympic Games. Perhaps the jihadis have been bored into catatonia after viewing such insipid events as competitive walking and synchronized men's diving. Maybe the jihadis have been too aroused by images of female athletes' uncovered hair or faces to plot violent responses. It must be difficult to build a car-bomb with a perpetually vertical minerette poking through one's man-dress.
A round of applause is due to NBC for its commentator's remark during the parade of nations. One of them pointed out the glaring absence of ANY women on the Saudi Arabian team. The commentator also mentioned the prohibition on women driving or leaving home without permission from a male family member. The Islamists certainly do not want women to become physically fit or gain self-confidence. They might actually resist being beaten, much to Allah's displeasure.
Speaking of women, will NBC commentators point out the rags wrapped around the heads of the three Iranian women competing in archery, rowing and taekwondo. Olympic rules clearly forbid athletes from making religious statements during competition, including wearing of items that displays religious sentiment. Hopefully, for their sakes, their head-coverings remain tightly secure so that no strand of hair becomes visible. No athlete should experience a flogging as part of the return home after the Games.
COPYRIGHT AUGUST 2008 BY CHARLES KASTRIOT. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Communist crackdown may not stand as the sole reason why jihadis have not yet disrupted the Olympic Games. Perhaps the jihadis have been bored into catatonia after viewing such insipid events as competitive walking and synchronized men's diving. Maybe the jihadis have been too aroused by images of female athletes' uncovered hair or faces to plot violent responses. It must be difficult to build a car-bomb with a perpetually vertical minerette poking through one's man-dress.
A round of applause is due to NBC for its commentator's remark during the parade of nations. One of them pointed out the glaring absence of ANY women on the Saudi Arabian team. The commentator also mentioned the prohibition on women driving or leaving home without permission from a male family member. The Islamists certainly do not want women to become physically fit or gain self-confidence. They might actually resist being beaten, much to Allah's displeasure.
Speaking of women, will NBC commentators point out the rags wrapped around the heads of the three Iranian women competing in archery, rowing and taekwondo. Olympic rules clearly forbid athletes from making religious statements during competition, including wearing of items that displays religious sentiment. Hopefully, for their sakes, their head-coverings remain tightly secure so that no strand of hair becomes visible. No athlete should experience a flogging as part of the return home after the Games.
COPYRIGHT AUGUST 2008 BY CHARLES KASTRIOT. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)