How Can People Be So Stupid

Redlines and the Problems of Intervention in Syria

May 6th, 2013

By George Friedman

The civil war in Syria, one of the few lasting legacies of the Arab Spring, has been under way for more than two years. There has been substantial outside intervention in the war. The Iranians in particular, and the Russians to a lesser extent, have supported the Alawites under Bashar al Assad. The Saudis and some of the Gulf States have supported the Sunni insurgents in various ways. The Americans, Europeans and Israelis, however, have for the most part avoided involvement.

Last week the possibility of intervention increased. The Americans and Europeans have had no appetite for intervention after their experiences in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya. At the same time, they have not wanted to be in a position where intervention was simply ruled out. Therefore, they identified a redline that, if crossed, would force them to reconsider intervention: the use of chemical weapons.

There were two reasons for this particular boundary. The first was that the United States and European states have a systemic aversion to the possession and usage of weapons of mass destruction in other countries. They see this ultimately as a threat to them, particularly if such weapons are in the hands of non-state users. But there was a more particular reason in Syria. No one thought that al Assad was reckless enough to use chemical weapons because they felt that his entire strategy depended on avoiding U.S. and European intervention, and that therefore he would never cross the redline. This was comforting to the Americans and Europeans because it allowed them to appear decisive while avoiding the risk of having to do anything.

However, in recent weeks, first the United Kingdom and France and then Israel and the United States asserted that the al Assad regime had used chemical weapons. No one could point to an incidence of massive deaths in Syria, and the evidence of usage was vague enough that no one was required to act immediately.

In Iraq, it turned out there was not a nuclear program or the clandestine chemical and biological weapons programs that intelligence had indicated. Had there been, the U.S. invasion might have had more international support, but it is doubtful it would have had a better outcome. The United States would have still forced the Sunnis into a desperate position, the Iranians would have still supported Shiite militias and the Kurds would have still tried to use the chaos to build an autonomous Kurdish region. The conflict would have still been fought and its final outcome would not have looked very different from how it does now.

What the United States learned in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya is that it is relatively easy for a conventional force to destroy a government. It is much harder – if not impossible — to use the same force to impose a new type of government. The government that follows might be in some moral sense better than what preceded it — it is difficult to imagine a more vile regime than Saddam Hussein’s — but the regime that replaces it will first be called chaos, followed by another regime that survives to the extent that it holds the United States at arm’s length. Therefore, redline or not, few want to get involved in another intervention pivoting on weapons of mass destruction.

Interventionist Arguments and Illusions

However, there are those who want to intervene for moral reasons. In Syria, there is the same moral issue that there was in Iraq. The existing regime is corrupt and vicious. It should not be forgotten that the al Assad regime conducted a massacre in the city of Hama in 1982 in which tens of thousands of Sunnis were killed for opposing the regime. The regime carried out constant violations of human rights and endless brutality. There was nothing new in this, and the world was able to act fairly indifferent to the events, since it was still possible to create media blackouts in those days. Syria’s patron, the Soviet Union, protected it, and challenging the Syrian regime would be a challenge to the Soviet Union. It was a fight that few wanted to wage because the risks were seen as too high.

The situation is different today. Syria’s major patron is Iran, which had (until its reversal in Syria) been moving toward a reshaping of the balance of power in the region. Thus, from the point of view of the American right, an intervention is morally required to confront evil regimes. There are those on the left who also want intervention. In the 1980s, the primary concern of the left was the threat of nuclear war, and they saw any intervention as destabilizing a precarious balance. That concern is gone, and advocacy for military intervention to protect human rights is a significant if not universal theme on the left.

The difference between right-wing and left-wing interventionists is the illusions they harbor. In spite of experiences in Afghanistan and Iraq, right-wing interventionists continue to believe that the United States and Europe have the power not only to depose regimes but also to pacify the affected countries and create Western-style democracies. The left believes that there is such a thing as a neutral intervention — one in which the United States and Europe intervene to end a particular evil, and with that evil gone, the country will now freely select a Western-style constitutional democracy. Where the right-wing interventionists cannot absorb the lessons of Afghanistan and Iraq, the left-wing interventionists cannot absorb the lessons of Libya.

Everyone loved the fall of communism in Eastern Europe. What was not to like? The Evil Empire was collapsing for the right; respect for human rights was universally embraced for the left. But Eastern Europe was occupied by Josef Stalin in 1945 following domination and occupation by Adolf Hitler. Eastern Europeans had never truly embraced either, and for the most part loathed both. The collapse freed them to be what they by nature were. What was lurking under the surface had always been there, suppressed but still the native political culture and aspiration.

That is not what was under the surface in Afghanistan or Iraq. These countries were not Europe and did not want to be. One of the reasons that Hussein was despised was that he was secular — that he violated fundamental norms of Islam both in his personal life and in the way he governed the country. There were many who benefited from his regime and supported him, but if you lopped off the regime, what was left was a Muslim country wanting to return to its political culture, much as Eastern Europe returned to its.

In Syria, there are two main factions fighting. The al Assad regime is Alawite, a heterodox offshoot of Shi’ism. But its more important characteristic is that it is a secular regime, not guided by either liberal democracy or Islam but with withering roots in secular Arab Socialism. Lop it off and what is left is not another secular movement, this time liberal and democratic, but the underlying Muslim forces that had been suppressed but never eradicated. A New York Times article this week pointed out that there are no organized secular forces in areas held by the Sunni insurgents. The religious forces are in control. In Syria, secularism belonged to the Baath Party and the Alawites, and it was brutal. But get rid of it, and you do not get liberal democracy.

This is what many observers missed in the Arab Spring. They thought that under the surface of the oppressive Hosni Mubarak regime, which was secular and brutal, was a secular liberal democratic force. Such a force was present in Egypt, more than in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan or Libya, but still did not represent the clear alternative to Mubarak. The alternative — not as clearly as elsewhere, but still the alternative — was the Muslim Brotherhood, and no secular alternative was viable without the Egyptian army.

The Difficulties of an Intervention

There are tremendous military challenges to dealing with Syria. Immaculate interventions will not work. A surgical strike on chemical facilities is a nice idea, but the intelligence on locations is never perfect, Syria has an air defense system that cannot be destroyed without substantial civilian casualties, and blowing up buildings containing chemical weapons could release the chemicals before they burn. Sending troops deep into Syria would not be a matter of making a few trips by helicopter. The country is an armed camp, and destroying or seizing stockpiles of chemical weapons is complicated and requires manpower. To destroy the stockpiles, you must first secure ports, airports and roads to get to them, and then you have to defend the roads, of which there are many.

Eradicating chemical weapons from Syria — assuming that they are all in al Assad’s territory — would require occupying that territory, and the precise outlines of that territory change from day to day. It is also likely, given the dynamism of a civil war, that some chemical weapons would fall into the hands of the Sunni insurgents. There are no airstrikes or surgical raids by special operations troops that would solve the problem. Like Iraq, the United States would have to occupy the country.

If al Assad and the leadership are removed, his followers — a substantial minority — will continue to resist, much as the Sunnis did in Iraq. They have gained much from the al Assad regime and, in their minds, they face disaster if the Sunnis win. The Sunnis have much brutality to repay. On the Sunni side, there may be a secular liberal democratic group, but if so it is poorly organized and control is in the hands of Islamists and other more radical Islamists, some with ties to al Qaeda. The civil war will continue unless the United States intervenes on behalf of the Islamists, uses its power to crush the Alawites and hands power to the Islamists. A variant of this happened in Iraq when the United States sought to crush the Sunnis but did not want to give power to the Shia. The result was that everyone turned on the Americans.

That will be the result of a neutral intervention or an intervention designed to create a constitutional democracy. Those who intervene will find themselves trapped between the reality of Syria and the assorted fantasies that occasionally drive U.S. and European foreign policy. No great harm will come in any strategic sense. The United States and Europe have huge populations and enormous wealth. They can, in that sense, afford such interventions. But the United States cannot afford continual defeats as a result of intervening in countries of marginal national interest, where it sets for itself irrational political goals for the war. In some sense, power has to do with perception, and not learning from mistakes undermines power.

Many things are beyond the military power of the United States. Creating constitutional democracies by invasion is one of those things. There will be those who say intervention is to stop the bloodshed, not to impose Western values. Others will say intervention that does not impose Western values is pointless. Both miss the point. You cannot stop a civil war by adding another faction to the war unless that faction brings overwhelming power to bear. The United States has a great deal of power, but not overwhelming power, and overwhelming power’s use means overwhelming casualties. And you cannot transform the political culture of a country from the outside unless you are prepared to devastate it as was done with Germany and Japan.

The United States, with its European allies, does not have the force needed to end Syria’s bloodshed. If it tried, it would merely be held responsible for the bloodshed without achieving any strategic goal. There are places to go to war, but they should be few and of supreme importance. The bloodshed in Syria is not more important to the United States than it is to the Syrians.

“Redlines and the Problems of Intervention in Syria is republished with permission of Stratfor.”

Posted in: Afghanistan, al Qaeda, Iran, Iraq, Islam, Libya, Mubarak, Muslim Brotherhood, politics, Syria.
Tagged: Afghanistan · Iran · Iraq · Islam · Middle East · politics · Syria

Republicans’ Rediculous Religiosity Lost Them The Election

Nov 8th, 2012

by EdTroy.

1 comment

By now we all know that Obama beat Romney in the presidential election. And, Republicans are asking themselves why. Well, the reasons are simple, with the most glaring problem being the insane religiosity of the Republican platform. This is America, so anyone is free to believe any stupid thing they want to believe–as long as they don’t force that insane belief on other citizens. Republicans don’t seem to realize that issues about birth control and abortion are none of their business. Those issues are between a woman and her doctor. Period. It gets even worse when you have idiots like Judge Andrew Napolitano stating that it should be illegal for a woman to get an abortion even in the case of incest or rape! (In fact, I stated in an article in August how such beliefs could cost the Republicans the election, and I was correct.) And, lets not forget other prominent Republicans making comments to the effect that “real rapes” can’t result in pregnancy! No wonder women (and men) have abandoned the Republican party in droves! With these misogynistic policies, they remind me of the Taliban and al Qaeda.

I don’t know the exact number of women (and men) that have abandoned the Republican party because of its extreme religiosity, but it is a very considerable number. Personally, I switched to the Libertarian party partially because their official platform states that abortion and birth control are between a woman and her doctor, but also because they are the only party that has the only economic platform that has any hope of ever getting this country back on its feet: no personal income tax, reduced corporate income taxes, and slashing the size of the government by at least 50%. (Personally, I don’t think 50% is enough of a cut, since that would only take us back to around 2000 levels, and nobody can state with a straight face that the government was not big enough in 2000. I say we need to go back to 1950s or 1960s levels, which would probably be a cut of more like 80% to 90%.)

While the Republican party outwardly states that it wants to improve the lives of poor people, and bring them out of poverty, their policies on birth control and abortion are one of the main causes of poverty, since children are expensive and if you are essentially forced to have more children than you can afford by government policy, you may be forced into poverty. And, there are few things that are more predictive of both poverty and a lack of proper education than an unwed teenage mom, many of whom are from staunchly Republican (and/or Catholic) backgrounds where both birth control and abortion are forbidden.

This is the 21st century. We know that religion is based on myths, lies, legends, and fears of death that date back many thousands of years. We need to wake up and realize that there is almost certainly no god and stop acting as if some magic, all-knowing, all-seeing bearded being must be appeased for some “sin” that happened thousands of years ago. And, by the way, there is noting in the Bible about birth control or abortion. And, if there is a god, she is the biggest abortionist in the world because of all of the miscarriages that she causes.

Posted in: 2012 election, abortion, al Qaeda, birth control, Judge Napolitano, libertarian, Mitt Romney, Obama.
Tagged: abortion · birth control · Obama · religion · republican · Romney

Pat Condell Gets It Right About Why We Don’t, And Never Will, Respect Islam

Sep 20th, 2012

by EdTroy.

No comments yet

A word to rioting Muslims. (I know, that is redundant.)

Well said, Pat, I could not agree with you more.

Posted in: 911, Muslim riots, Pat Condell.
Tagged: Egypt riots · Innocence of Muslims · Libya riots · Muslim idiocy · Muslim riots · Pat Condell

We Need To Add A New Phrase, “Going Muslim”, To The Lexicon

Sep 14th, 2012

by EdTroy.

No comments yet

It is becoming obvious that we must add the term “going Muslim” to the lexicon, just like “going postal” was added a couple of decades ago. It is also time that our government, the liberals, and the media admit that Islam is inherently violent, and thus steps must be taken to limit it. Unlike Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, or whatever other mainstream religion you want to mention, Islam is not just a religion. It is an ideology. It is a way of life. It is a legal system. It is wrong, and it is evil.

Every time someone points out that Mohammad (if he ever actually existed) was an insane, epileptic, barbarian, misogynist, megalomaniac, pedophile, or refers to his sock-puppet Allah in any way that they find offensive, they “go Muslim”, which is to say that they riot, burn, destroy, pillage, and kill! We all remember when they rioted over a few cartoons. How juvenile! How barbaric! But, the problem is that our government, while mildly chastising the rampaging Muslims, has been severely criticizing the people who drew the pictures, burned a Koran, or made a really bad movie! (If you have not seen it, it is like a really bad high school production.) When people do stupid things, or have an ideology that is every bit as dangerous, fascist, and totalitarian as Nazism, we need to criticize it and strive to limit the spread of that ideology. One way to do that is through satire and humor. If we act like we respect the ideology or Mohammad, that is no different from when Nevil Chamberlain appeased Hitler; and we all know how that ended.

As Sam Harris correctly pointed out in an article in the Huffington Post titled “Loosing Our Spines to Save Our Necks” in response to the violence related to “Everybody Draw Mohammad Day”:

There is an uncanny irony here that many have noticed. The position of the Muslim community in the face of all provocations seems to be: Islam is a religion of peace, and if you say that it isn’t, we will kill you. Of course, the truth is often more nuanced, but this is about as nuanced as it ever gets: Islam is a religion of peace, and if you say that it isn’t, we peaceful Muslims cannot be held responsible for what our less peaceful brothers and sisters do. When they burn your embassies or kidnap and slaughter your journalists, know that we will hold you primarily responsible and will spend the bulk of our energies criticizing you for “racism” and “Islamophobia.”

It is time we started treating the Islamic ideology as the hateful, destructive, misogynist, totalitarian ideology that it is, and stop calling it a religion. Yes, it has a religious element, and I guess that was Hitler’s mistake. If he had quit the Catholic church (which never condemned him or Nazism, by the way) and created his own religion that was integral to Nazism, perhaps we’d all be speaking German now.

Posted in: 911, al Qaeda, Arab Spring, Burn a Quran, Cartoon controversy, Coptic Christian, Egypt, Islam, Koran burning, Libya, Mohammad, Mohammad cartoons, Muslim, Yemen.
Tagged: Egypt · Egypt riots · going Muslim · Innocence of Muslims · Islam · Libya · Libya riots · movie controversy · Muslim rage · Muslim riots

It’s Time To Simply Cut Off The Spoiled Muslim Brats

Sep 11th, 2012

by EdTroy.

No comments yet

Today, (9/11, of all days), the spoiled Muslim brats in Egypt stormed our embassy in Cairo and tore down our flag and burned it. They then went further and demanded that WE apologize to them about supposedly insulting their insane, epileptic, barbarian, misogynist, megalomaniac, pedophile hero Mohammad and his sock puppet Allah! I say enough is enough! We should never, ever apologize to them for anything, and we should insist that they leave the 7th century behind and move into the 21st century. If they refuse to do this, then we should absolutely cut off ALL financial and other aid to their country. That goes especially for military aid.

Since the Islamists took over in Egypt (and Libya, Tunisia, Yemen, Algeria, and soon, Syria), they have become Islamist Sharia states, just like I predicted would happen, not democracies. Democracy and Islam are mutually exclusive. Since the fall of Mubarak, we have seen Christians in those nations severely persecuted and killed and their churches destroyed. We have seen how the 1979 peace treaty has been broken by the fact that Egypt has poured troops and war machines into the Sinai peninsula, and given control of that area over to al Qaeda and other similar organizations. We have even heard proposals that the great pyramids be destroyed, just as the Buddhist temples were destroyed by the Taliban a few years ago.

Egypt, like most Muslim nations that don’t have oil, is an economic basket case. They have virtually no industry and no way to support themselves except through handouts (basically jizzya) from the civilized world and tourism. Of course, now that they are embracing Sharia and re-establishing the Caliphate (which I also predicted a long time ago), no non-Muslim person in their right mind from the civilized world will want to go to Egypt on vacation. Thus, without aid from the civilized world, the nation will perish. Hopefully, Islam will perish along with it. The Islamists have an expression: “Islam is the solution”. Actually, as they will finally find out if we refuse to give in to their temper tantrums and cut off all aid, “Islam is the problem”.

Posted in: 911, al Qaeda, Arab Spring, Christianity, Coptic Christian, democracy, Egypt, hosni Mubarak, Iran, Islam, Islamist, Israel, Libya, Middle East, Mohammad, Muslim, Muslim Brotherhood, religion, Sharia, Taliban, Tunisia, Uncategorized, Yemen.
Tagged: Arab spring · Egypt · Egypt riots · embassy · going Muslim · insult Mohammad · Islamist · Libya riots · Muslim rage · Muslim riots

Judge Napolitano’s Lunacy, “Rape Never Justifies Abortion” Shows Why Republicans May Loose Election

Aug 23rd, 2012

by EdTroy.

No comments yet

First, a disclaimer. I am not a Democrat. I never was and I never will be. I used to be a Republican, but the Party’s insane stand on abortion, its takeover by the religious right, its refusal to slash the size of government and to even discuss eliminating income taxes, have driven me to the Libertarian Party. Sure, the Republicans talk about reducing the size of government, but it exploded under George W. Bush, and while they talk about keeping the immoral income taxes “lower” than the Democrats, they never discuss completely eliminating it. Slashing the size of government and eliminating the income tax are the only two things that the government can do, at this point, to put this country (maybe) back onto a route to recovery. Otherwise, it is doomed.

That being said, Judge Napolitano recently wrote an article in the Washington Times titled “NAPOLITANO: Akin absurdity aside, rape never justifies abortion”. In it, he correctly stated that Akin has a “clearly erroneous understanding of the human female anatomy.” He went on:

In a now infamous statement, in which he used the bizarre and unheard-of phrase “legitimate rape,” the congressman gave the impression that some rapes of women are not mentally or seriously resisted. This is an antediluvian and misogynistic myth for which there is no basis in fact and which has been soundly and justly condemned.

Mr. Akinalso stated that the female anatomy can resist unwanted impregnation. This, too, is absurd, offensive and incorrect.

So far, so good. Napolitano got it correct with these statements. But then, he goes into the usual misogynistic and paternal type of statements that have been driving women and men like me away from the Republican Party for decades. In fact, I personally believe that the real core belief of today’s Republican Party is that women must be forced to have children that they don’t want and maybe can’t afford, and that we need to establish some sort of Christian theocracy. All that talk about less government and lower taxes is just that; talk. The idea that a woman who was raped, or the victim of incest, has to carry that unwanted child to birth is not only absurd and cruel, but it is what might be expected in a paternal society. After all, the father does not have to carry the child for 9 months, go through the pains of birth, and then figure out how the baby is going to be cared for. It is not the father’s life that may be destroyed by having to give up a promising career or drop out of school to raise the child. It is not the father’s life that is put at risk by the act of childbirth. (Sure, Napolitano admits that abortion is ok if a woman’s life is at risk, but sometimes it is the birth, itself, that results in the death of the mother. Furthermore, there is often no way to accurately predict that a particular childbirth will result in the death of the mother, and abortion at that time would be a full-term abortion, or what the Republicans revel in calling a “partial birth abortion”).

I don’t think many people approve of late-term, or full-term, abortions. I certainly don’t. At some point, you are dealing with a human being; that is, a sentient, fully formed, thinking, reasoning being that can survive outside of the womb without extreme medical intervention. And I don’t think that women should use abortion as their primary means of birth control. But to say that a woman who has been raped, or the victim of incest, cannot use a morning-after pill or get an abortion when she finds that she is pregnant after missing her first period, is barbaric. It is as insane as the (again Republican) ban on stem cell research using a few cells in a petrie dish that would be thrown out otherwise. In fact, since men cannot get pregnant, I would say that abortion is none of their business; period. It is up to a woman, or a woman and her doctor. And, if you want to bring religion into the matter (which is the only “rational” way that you can argue against early-term abortion), then God is the biggest abortionist of all time, since a miscarriage is, basically, an abortion. And yet, I don’t see Republicans shaking their fists at the sky and screaming “DAMN YOU GOD” when every miscarriage occurs, any more than I see Tim Tebow shouting “DAMN YOU GOD” every time one of his plays go bad. I guess God is beyond reproach; only his good deeds get recognized. (I’m sure that many individuals, women and what Akin might call their “wanted” partners, DO damn God when a miscarriage occurs, and I fully understand that, but I am talking about the Republican Party here, not individuals who want a child.)

Many Republicans even oppose federally funded birth control for women! Talk about paternalism and misogyny! I’m not sure what their stand is on federally funded Viagra, but that would be an interesting thing to look up if I had the time. Of course, I can see them being against both federally funded birth control for women and Viagra if they were for smaller government and more personal responsibility, thus eliminating most federal health care (and other) funding. But that is not the issue that they harp on. In fact, the Republicans don’t even limit their concern to federally funded programs. Their objection to insurance paying for birth control often extends to private health insurance plans where they have no business poking their heads. In fact, if Republicans really wanted to reduce the cost of health care, they should be anxious to pay for birth control, since birth control, when properly used, usually results in no pregnancy. Pregnancy, and especially the raising of the child after birth, is monumentally more expensive than birth control.

To add to the lunacy of his article, Napolitano then goes on to posit that the reason our economy is so bad is because of abortion! He gets it right when he blames Roosevelt and LBJ for the welfare state that is crushing this country. (And he should have added Woodrow Wilson who forced the personal income tax and the Federal Reserve on us.) But, to say that we would be better off with many more people is absurd. Especially since many of the people that would be born if abortion was not available would be born to poor, often single, poorly educated people who can barely afford to get by themselves, let alone properly raise a child, or 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 or more children. We constantly hear how illegal immigrants are taking jobs away from Americans (which they are). What do you think would happen with many of these babies born to mothers who did not want them and could not afford them? True, they would not be illegal, but they would still be taking jobs from a job market that is rapidly shrinking due to outsourcing, bad economic policies, the devastating decline in the quality of America’s educational system, and high taxes. If having lots of poor, unwanted, uneducated people could make a country rich and prosperous, many African nations would have thriving economies that would be the envy of the world.

Posted in: abortion, birth control, Congressman Akin, election 2012, Judge Napolitano, politics, Republican, Tim Tebow, Uncategorized.
Tagged: abortion · birth control · Congressman Akin · Napolitano Washington Times article · rape · religion · Tebow

Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Lincoln, And Others Could Not Be Nominated President Today

Jul 22nd, 2012

by EdTroy.

1 comment

It is a total disgrace that true patriots and many of the founders of our country like Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, Abraham Lincoln and others could not even be nominated to the office of President, today, much less elected. But, it is true. Many of the stupid, historically illiterate people in America will be astonished by this statement, and many will be in complete denial. But, it is a simple fact. These great patriots and founders of our nation could probably not even be elected dog catcher in some places in America today. Why? Because they were atheists, agnostics, or, at best, deists! How outrageous is it that the very founders of the United States, or, in the case of Lincoln, people who have been held up to almost super-human status, are people who could not hold high political office in today’s United States! It is no wonder that the nation is failing and loosing its greatness. If you believe in a talking snake, what nonsense won’t you believe in? Socialism? Sure, it’s never worked before, but why not? Fascism? Sure, why not? Theocracy? Sure, why not! And, lets not forget that the two most revered people in the Mormon religion, Joseph Smith, the founder, and Brigham Young, its second president, turned their domains into theocracies. Joseph Smith turned Nauvoo, Illinois, into a theocracy and Brigham Young turned Utah into a theocracy. Both of them had warrants for their arrest for treason signed against them by two different Presidents! President Tyler charged Joseph Smith with treason in 1843. Brigham Young was simultaneously the second prophet and president of the Mormon church and governor of the Utah territory. He was charged with treason in 1857 for his refusal to follow the rule of the United States as governor of Utah and for his responsibility for the Mountain Meadows Massacre, which was the “worst incident of organized mass murder of unarmed civilians in the nation’s history until the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing“. (In it, 120 children, women, and unarmed civilian men were massacred by the Mormons under the direct orders of Brigham Young.) Although President Buchanan eventually pardoned him (to maintain peace and to get re-elected), the next governor of the Utah territory, Alfred Cummings, said that Young was “one of the damnedest rascals that ever went unhung” (sic).

As for the “One nation under God” motto, it is important to note that this was not put on all paper currency until 1957, as the following photograph of the back side of a recent $1 bill shows when compared to the back side of a 1928 $1 bill.

Do you notice a difference? “In God We Trust” is nowhere to be found on the 1928 dollar bill.

The “one nation under God” phrase in the Pledge of Allegiance was not put into the pledge until 1954 during the height of the Red Scare.

As for those uninformed morons that keep stating “The United States is a Christian nation”, they need to look at some of our past history. For example, the Treaty of Tripoli, which was UNANIMOUSLY ratified by the U.S. Senate on June 7, 1807, states:

As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen [Muslims],—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan [Muslim] nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

It is interesting that this treaty was with Muslims who were causing us much grief, even then, with their pirating activities in the Mediterranean. We know that Islam is wrong. It was founded by Mohammad, who we know was an insane, epileptic, barbarian, misogynist, megalomaniac, pedophile. In this religion, Allah is considered to be “God”, while he was really nothing more than Mohammad’s sock puppet. We know this because whenever things got “uncomfortable for Mohammad”, like when Mohammad wanted to screw his adopted son-in-law’s wife, his sock-puppet, Allah, conveniently gave him a verse that would allow him to marry her. How convenient!

Many people say that religion is not important, but I say that it is. The religious beliefs of a President can, and do, affect the lives of many millions of people. If you don’t think so, just look at how the lunatic beliefs of George Bush has effectively sentenced millions, and probably hundreds of millions, of people to an untimely death by his moronic, scientifically illiterate policy of declaring embryonic stem cells in a petrie dish human beings with his ban on federally funded stem cell research. Never mind the fact that these cells would be thrown out, otherwise. He considered them “humans”; thus experimentation in the field of stem cell research that would use them was essentially banned in the United States. This stupid and misguided policy terminated most stem cell research in the United States. That ban sentenced millions of people to an untimely death because the ban would post-pone new life saving medical breakthroughs. Furthermore, a whole generation of American scientists was forced to either give up their dream of going into stem cell research unless they wanted to learn Korean, or some other language, and re-locate to places where stem cell research was allowed.

I know, technically stem cell research was not banned; it was “only” federal funding for stem cell research that was banned. But, because of the nature of research centers and university laboratories, it is virtually impossible to segregate funds in such a way that the ban on government funding of stem cell research could be upheld without stopping all stem cell research. Thus, the ban effectively ended embryonic stem cell research in America.

Think about it. The religious idiocy of George Bush will probably result in more deaths than the policies of Hitler, Stalin, and Mao Zedong combined!

We know that the political system in the United States is broken. Basically, the country is run by wealthy individuals and multinational corporations. Policy is not made by scientifically literate people with the best interest of the citizens of the United States, but rather by political hacks who are not, generally, well educated in the sciences and who are totally beholden to their financial benefactors. They vote in whatever way the lobbyists convince them will prolong their stay in Washington. We are stuck with “professional politicians” rather than the “citizen politicians” that the Founders envisioned. (This does not apply to all Senators and representatives, but it does, unfortunately, apply to a significant fraction of them. And, those who are independent are usually replaced fairly quickly by those who will do the bidding of their masters.) I don’t know that their religious credulity and the lack of critical thinking skills that such credulity necessitates leads to people in high political office doing the bidding of lobbyists and other people and companies with strong financial backing rather than figuring out what is best for the people and doing that, but I can’t help but think that their credulity certainly taints their decisions. In fact, one of the best demonstrations of the lunacy of some of the ruling elite in America is shown in the following interview between Bill Maher and Senator Mark Pryor, a Democrat from Arkansas. The “money shot” is in the last few seconds, so, if you’re in a hurry, skip to 3:34 and watch the rest of the video. It is priceless!

In the video, Senator Pryor also states that “Faith has a way of softening people”. He meant this as meaning that it had a way of making people passive and submissive, and, of course, this is true of Christianity. (It is certainly not true of Islam, where the degree of faith generally correlates with the degree to which one is willing to be violent to protect, defend, and promote the faith.) In one of his few correct statements, Karl Marx stated that religion was the “opiate of the people”. And, faith has created a totally credulous citizenry. Perhaps the reason so many Americans (and high government officials) are so willing to swallow the Global Warming propaganda is because they believe whatever they are told and are not capable of thinking on their own or of critically examining the evidence. (Search my website and you will find plenty of examples of the fraud of “Global Warming”.)

While 84 percent of the American population is religious, only 7 percent of the members of the National Academy of Sciences are religious. This is telling, and should be a wake-up call to the world. We need more science and education in our lives and in our schools and less belief in hocus-pokus. In the 21st century, we know, without a shadow of a doubt, that religion is bunk. There is, and was, no virgin birth. Nobody ever arose from the dead. There was no “Garden of Eden”. There was probably never a historical Jesus. Most of what is in the Bible is myths, lies, and legends, built upon Greek, Egyptian, Indian, and Chinese mythological characters like Hercules, Osiris, Ghengis Khan, Odysseus, Chrishna, and Mithra, We have a lot of major problems in the world today and we are not going to be able to address, much less solve, those problems if we continue to believe in myths, lies, and legends. As long as people continue to look for solutions in ancient works of fiction written by men (and I mean men) that were totally ignorant of the way the universe works and how life evolved, we will never be able to advance to a better world. Maybe we do need an IQ test for high political office rather than a test of religiosity!

Posted in: 2012 election, atheism, Bill Maher, Christianity, Congress, democracy, evolution, global warming, Global Warming BS, human stupidity, Mormonism, politics, religion, socialism, Treaty of Tripoli.
Tagged: atheism · bad economic policy · Christianity · climate change · global warming · government corruption · human stupidity · Islam · Mormonism · stupid people

Egyptian Parlimentarian Proposes Legalizing Necrophelia

May 2nd, 2012

by EdTroy.

No comments yet

I have said for over a year that the “Arab Spring” was a total disaster in the making. I said that we would not see liberal, pluralistic democracies arise in Muslim countries, but rather backward, barbaric Islamic theocracies like we see in Iran and Saudi Arabia. In fact, hell holes like Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan will look like paradises (especially for non-Muslims) once the Muslim Brotherhood and al Qaeda are finished turning Egypt, Libya, Yemen, and Tunisia into a new Caliphate ruled by Sharia law. Already, you are seeing Christians being killed and attacked with wanton abandon by Muslims in these countries (especially Egypt), and it is almost certain that the new “government” in Egypt will break their peace treaty with Israel. Christian churches are being burned almost every day. It is only a matter of time before there will be virtually no Christians or Jews in any of these countries, just as is the case with most countries where the Muslims have been allowed to do what their Koran tells them to do.

I have said that Islam is a totalitarian system based on the sayings of an insane, epileptic, barbarian, misogynist, megalomaniac, pedophile and his sock puppet Allah. But, now we apparently need to add the sobriquet necrophiliac to Muhammad.

A week or so ago news came out of Egypt that a parliamentarian wanted to make sex with one’s dead wife legal for up to 30 minutes after her death! While this shocked the West (and even some Muslims), it should not have, as pointed out by Raymond Ibrahim in his recent article “Islamic ‘Death-Sex’ in Context:

Aside from provoking shock, disgust, and denial, last week’s news of Egyptian parliamentarians trying to pass a “farewell intercourse” law legalizing sex with one’s wife up to six hours after she dies has yet to be fully appreciated.

To start, consider the ultimate source of this practice: it’s neither the Muslim Brotherhood nor the Salafis; rather, as with most of Islam’s perversities—from adult breastfeeding to pedophilia marriage—Islamic necrophilia is traced to the fount of Islam, its prophet Muhammad, as found in a hadith (or tradition) that exists in no less than six of Islam’s classical reference texts (including Kanz al-’Umal by Mutaqi al-Hindi and Al-Hujja fi Biyan al-Mahujja, an authoritative text on Sunni Doctrine, by Abu Qassim al-Asbahani).

According to this hadith, Muhammad took off his shirt and placed it on a dead woman and “lay with her” in her grave. The gravediggers proceeded to hurl dirt atop the corpse and the prophet, exclaiming, “O Prophet, we see you doing a thing you never did with anyone else,” to which Muhammad responded: “I have dressed her in my shirt so that she may be dressed in heavenly robes, and I have laid with her in her grave so that the pressures of the grave [also known as Islam's "torments of the grave"] may be alleviated from her.”

What was Muhammad saying and doing? Perhaps his magical shirt would transport the dead woman to heaven, and his blessed body would protect her from the “pressures of the grave”? A more cynical—a more human—reading is that he stripped his shirt as a natural step before copulating; that he precisely, if not sardonically, meant the act of sex would “alleviate” the pressures of death from the corpse; and that the observers covered them with dirt for privacy and/or for shame.
This interpretation is given much more weight when one considers that the secondary meaning for the word I translated above as “lay with” is “intercourse,” further demonstrating that the proposed Egyptian law is, in fact, based on this hadith: after all, the Arabic root-word used for “intercourse” in the phrase “farewell intercourse” is derived from the same root-word that Muhammad used to explain what he did with the dead woman (d-j-’). As if this was not enough, necrophilia finds more validation in Islam’s legal texts. For example, according to al-Sharwani’s Hawashi, “there is no punishment for having intercourse with a dead woman” and “it is not necessary to rewash the dead after penetration.”

Islam is truly a sick perversion and the West needs to wake up to the fact that it intends to take over the world. If we continue to ignore the elephant in the room and continue to insist on stupid (and obviously untrue) platitudes like “Islam is a religion of peace” and refuse to stand up to the gradual imposition (or even recognition of the validity) of Sharia law, we are doomed. We tend to think “it can’t happen here”, but all we have to do is look at Europe, which is rapidly being Islamized, with Eurabia and Londonistan being increasingly appropriate names for some places there that used be cradles of democracy, prosperity, and free speech. The situation is really no different from the way in which socialism gradually got a strong hold in Europe;because of that, much of Europe is now bankrupt. This is especially true in countries where socialism got the strongest hold, such as Greece, Portugal, France, Spain, and Italy. Don’t think it can’t all happen here, from Islamization to socialism. Both are increasingly destroying our freedom and economy.

Posted in: Afghanistan, al Qaeda, Arab Spring, Caliphate, Christianity, Egypt, Greece, Iran, Iraq, Islam, Islamist, Italy, Libya, Mohammad, Multiculturalism, Muslim, necrophelia, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, socialism, Yemen.
Tagged: Egypt · Egypt death-sex · fairwell intercourse · Islam · Muhammad · necrophelia

Excellent Presentation Shows How Cosmic Rays (NOT CO2) Is Primary Driver Of Global Temperature

Apr 23rd, 2012

by EdTroy.

No comments yet

I have written several times that cosmic rays, not CO2, are a primary driver of global temperature. (Here, here, and here.) While this, of course, is ignored by the main stream media and the global warmingistas, it is becoming more and more clear that the primary driver of temperature on the earth is the sun. Imagine that!? Some would ask why the media would ignore an important story like this. It is because the media is generally somewhat left of Carl Marx and likes nothing better than taxes, so that their socialist politicians can have more money to redistribute, thus buying votes. Many “scientists” still cling to the failed theory that CO2 is causing irreversible climate change, in spite of the fact that their theories produce data that simply is not validated by measurements, including the simple fact that while CO2 has continued to increase, there has been no warming in the last 15 years, because their jobs depend on CO2 caused climate change. After all, if the sun is in charge of temperature, there is no “problem” to “solve”. In fact, temperatures are going down, sea levels are lowering slightly, and global sea ice is becoming more wide-spread, especially in the southern hemisphere.
This short video of a presentation by Dr. Henrik Svensmark of the Center for Sun-Climate Research shows more evidence of how solar activity modulates the amount of cosmic rays that reach the earth, which in turn modulates the amount of cloud cover, which, of course, modulates the temperature of the earth. This video even shows the very direct and short term changes in cloud cover caused by coronal mass ejections from the sun.

Posted in: Al Gore, cap and tax, cause of climate change, Center for Sun-Climate Research, climate change, Climate scam, climategate, CLOUD, cosmic rays, cosmic rays and climate, cosmic rays and clouds, Dr. Henrik Svensmark, global warming, Global Warming BS, global warming scam, global warming swindle, little ice age, Maunder Minimum, redistribute wealth, socialism.
Tagged: Center for Sun-Climate Research · climate change · cosmic rays · Dr. Henrik Svensmark · sun causing climate change

The 2012 Voting Dilema

Dec 10th, 2011

by EdTroy.

No comments yet

The all-important election of 2012 is upon us. But, who can rational, realistic, scientific people vote for? The Republican party has a whole bunch of “delusional” (as Jesse Ventura described them) people who believe in an imaginary friend who told them to run for office, or vote for this or that, or whatever. The Democrats have a bunch of candidates that are Communists, Socialists, or Marxists, who, like Obama, have their hearts set on destroying America and the entirety of Western civilization. They would do whatever it takes to destroy America, as the policies of Barack Obama have verified.

There is a real dilemma facing sane, rational Americans who do not want delusional people who have imaginary friends with their finger on the nuclear button being President. We know that the thug-in-chief who rules Iran believes in the 12th Imam, the Mahdi. He believes that when Iran finally brings about Armageddon, the Mahdi, who, they claim, has been hiding at the bottom of a well in Qom for over 1100 years, will come out of that well to lead Shia Muslims to take over the world and to bring about a paradise where the whole population of the world will be Shia Muslims living in peace and harmony. He really believes this ridiculous nonsense. In fact, every time there is a major government decision, he, or one of his personal assistants, takes a letter that explains the situation to the well in Qom and drops it into the well so that the Mahdi can be kept informed. You may think this is crazy (unless you are a 12ther Shia Muslim) but how is this any different from another man believing that God talked to him, or her, and told them to do whatever? (Charles Manson said similar things, as did many people who murdered their children.) How is this any different from a grown person believing that a virgin gave birth or that a person arose from the dead after 3 days? How is this any different from a grown adult believing in Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny? (Especially since the whole half-man-half-god, virgin or strange birth at Christmas and resurrection from death at Easter, was an essential part of ancient Greek, Egyptian, and Indian mythology, encompassing such “gods” as Hercules, Osiris, Krishna, Mithras, Odysseus, and others? For a great overview on the mythology that Christianity is based upon, read “The World’s Sixteen Crucified Saviors”).

The idea that someone who believes such incredibly stupid, idiotic and childish myths, lies, and legends could have his finger on the nuclear button is terrifying. Already we have had two religiously moronic Presidents by the name of George Bush (I and II). One said that an atheist should not be allowed to be a citizen of the United States and two put into law the stem cell research ban. This idiocy will eventually mean that not only will George Bush II be responsible for more deaths than Hitler, Stalin, and Mao Zedong combined, but he will also be responsible for the loss of an entire generation of stem cell researchers, since any American who might have wanted to go into that field had to either give up their dream and do something else or they had to learn a new language and move to South Korea or some other country with a more scientifically literate leadership. As for George Bush I, he would not have allowed people like Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, Abraham Lincoln and others to have participated in government, let alone the founding of this nation, since they were all atheists by their own admission or by any reasonable standard. In fact, many of the very founders of this country beyond those mentioned above were, in fact, atheists, contrary to what the morons who keep talking about a “Christian nation” would have you believe. In fact, the Senate unanimously ratified the 1797 Treat of Tripoli that explicitly stated that the United States is not a Christian nation. “As the government of the United States of America is NOT IN ANY SENSE FOUNDED ON THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION, …as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen…”

While Romney may not be a Christian in the mind of the Religious Right, he belongs to the Mormon religion. This is a religion that was clearly invented by a man much like Mohammad – a corrupt, conniving, womanizing, lier-and it has been thoroughly debunked by modern science. How anyone who belongs to it can be given any credibility is hard to believe. But then very few Americans actually know what is in the Book of Mormon. (Or, as Mark Twain, another well known atheist quipped, “If you took out all the ‘and it came to passes,’ they could call it the Pamphlet of Mormon.”) And this brings to mind another ludicrous “religion”; Scientology. The only real difference between the nonsense in the Book of Mormon and the beliefs of the Scientologists is that L. Ron Hubbard, who invented Scientology, was very forthcoming when he said, about inventing a religion: “You don’t get rich writing science fiction. If you want to get rich, you start a religion.” (1) The differences between Christianity, Islam, Mormonism, and Scientology consist in the fact that while there almost certainly never was a Jesus Christ (and certainly not a person who was half-God, half-man, who arose from the dead), there almost certainly was the insane, epileptic, barbarian, misogynist, megalomaniac, pedophile named Mohammad who invented Islam and the conniving, con-man, womanizer named Joseph Smith who invented the Mormon religion, and the author L. Ron Hubbard who invented Scientology to improve his personal wealth.

Gingrich may be the smartest person in the room, but his religiosity is obnoxious and abhorrent. In a recent debate he kept harping on how an illegal alien should be accepted into the country if he belonged to a church! And, this from a guy whose personal life is so far from that of the teachings of the Bible that he served divorce papers on his first wife while she was dying in the hospital and cheated on his second wife with the woman who would become his third wife. I guess he converted to Catholicism because he figured if it was good enough for pedophile priests and mafia gangsters, who only had to say a few “Hail Mary’s” or whatever to be forgiven for whatever horrendous crimes they had committed, it was good enough for him.

I used to like Ron Paul because he gets it as far as the Fed is concerned and the general corruption of politicians by big business and lobbyists and he was the Libertarian candidate for a couple of elections. But, the Libertarians believe that abortion is between a woman and her doctor and it is not the business of government. In recent debates, I have heard him state that he believed that states, at least, could outlaw abortion. While he used to say that you could not codify abortion to be illegal, his new stand is obviously a change, and I hope that the Libertarian party does not consider him to be their candidate after he gets washed out from the Republican candidacy. Beyond this problem, while I agree that the United States should terminate its endless policy of interfering in the business of other countries and mind our own business, he clearly does not understand the problems posed by Islam. They don’t hate us because we are buying their oil, or have troops on their lands; they hate us because we are not Muslims. Period. Unless we come to worship Mohammad and his sock puppet Allah, they will hate us and do all that they can to destroy us.

Other problems abound. Romney forced all citizens in Massachusetts to purchase health insurance. This is clearly illegal. But, Obamacare is clearly based on Romneycare. Also, many of the candidates are in favor of “cap and tax”, a policy that would further bankrupt an already bankrupt Western world for a total non-problem called man-made “Global Warming.” This has been proven time and again to be nothing but a fraud and an attempt by the global elite, through the United Nations, to tax developed nations into third world status while doing nothing but enriching the global elite, the banksters and certain individuals.

So, the problem remains. Who can a sane and rational person vote for in 2012?

(1) ^ Sam Moskowitz affidavit, 14 April 1993 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology_controversies

Posted in: 2012 election, atheism, cap and tax, Christianity, climate change, Climate scam, communism, Congress, democracy, democrats, George Bush, global warming, Global Warming BS, global warming scam, global warming swindle, global warmingistas, Iran, Islam, main stream media, Mitt Romney, Muslim, Obama, politics, redistribute wealth, religion, Ron Paul, science, socialism, tax the rich, United Nations.
Tagged: 2012 election · atheist · democrat · George Bush · Gingrich · Islam · Obama · religion · republican · Romney · science

Talking About Extremist and Moderate Muslims Is Like Talking About Extremist and Moderate Nazis

Dec 9th, 2011

by EdTroy.

1 comment

OK folks, lets get over it! There is, as a famous Islamist said, no “moderate Islam. Islam is Islam”. I can hear the liberal morons screaming now: Islamophobe!!! Nobody in the main stream ever said that! You are quoting someone like Osama bin Laden or Ayman al-Zawahiri! Wrong! I am quoting the Islamist Prime Minister of a supposed NATO ally, Turkey’s Recep Tayyip Ergogan! In fact, he went so far as to explain that the term “moderate Islam”, often used in the West, is “ugly”. About “moderate” Islam, he said: “These descriptions are very ugly, it is offensive and an insult to Islam. Islam is Islam and that’s it.”

So, there you have it from a Muslim head of state, and, unfortunately, a person who heads a nation that we stupidly allowed into NATO. Just think about it. Turkey is a nation that has been armed by the West with the latest weapons (like Pakistan), and it is a nation that will soon be going nuclear and yet it prefers to side with barbaric states like Iran, Pakistan and Afghanistan rather than the United States and Western Europe!

And, talking about 7th century Hell holes, lets talk about Pakistan. They are now blocking the supply routes for our troops in Afghanistan. And, to make matters worse, we allowed them to get nuclear weapons, just as we allowed North Korea and Iran to get nuclear weapons. It is time to simply read them the riot act and to explain that we can do whatever we want in their country to defend our country because we have given them billions and billions of dollars and billions and billions of dollars worth of military equipment such as modern F-16 aircraft, etc. If they don’t want to accept our right to do what we want in their country to defend ourselves against Islam, then they have to accept the alternative, which we should impose on all nations. If you don’t clean up your act and join the 21st century, you will receive no more money, no more aid, and no more military equipment from us. Furthermore, you will pay a devastation price if anyone from your country attacks our country.

If there is a major Muslim attack in the United States, within 12 hours the suspected country, or countries, whose people originated the attacks, or the countries who did, or probably did, aid the attackers, will be reduced to a radioactive glass parking lot. End of story. No discussion, no mercy. If a person from your country attacks the United States, your country and your people will simply cease to exist. So, you had better clean up your act! We’re tired of trying to do it for you and getting nothing but treachery, deceit, and obstructions related to everything we try to do, not to mention pissing away billions of dollars on your country which we can no longer afford to do.

If we had done this, as we proposed doing after 911, Pakistan and Afghanistan would already be gone, as would Iran (which has been the biggest danger to us since 1979). While that would only have eliminated a few hundred million Muslims, it would have dampened their insane expansionary and destructive spirits and much of the problem would now be gone.

The Western world must wake up to the existential threat Islam represents. They declared war on us in the 8th Century when they started their expansionist, supremacist agenda to take over the Middle East and most of Europe. Now they admittedly want to take over the world. It is time that we finally finished the Crusades that their barbaric actions necessitated about 1000 years ago and wipe them out. It is them or us. They tell us that all the time. We need to listen to what they say and take it seriously and do something about it to defend ourselves.

It really is them or us, and it must be Western Civilization that survives.

Posted in: 911, Afghanistan, al Qaeda, AQAP, Arab Spring, bin Laden, Egypt, human stupidity, Iran, Iraq, Islam, Islam debate, Islamist, Muslim, Pakistan, Palestine, politics, stupid people, Turkey.
Tagged: Afghanistan · Erdogan · Iran · Islam · muslim · Nazi · Pakistan · Turkey

Arab Spring Should Be Renamed Arab Fall Because It Will Probably Lead To Muslim Nuclear Winter

Dec 4th, 2011

by EdTroy.

No comments yet

I wrote a long time ago that the whole “Arab Spring” thing would end badly. While the main stream media was covering the riots and demonstrations with excitement and glee, it was clear to anyone who actually understood Islam and what was happening that what we were seeing was not something that the West should be cheering about. I wrote about how it was clear that Abdel Jalil, the self-proclaimed new leader of Libya, was clearly an Islamist. We now know that many of the people who are heading up the new government in Libya are past (and probably still) members of al Qaeda. We know that tens of thousands of shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles have been appropriated by al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations in Libya and are on their way to an airport near you. We now know that the new “constitutions” in Libya, Egypt, and Tunisia will enshrine Sharia, just like I predicted, thus making those countries no more friendly to the West and things like human rights and woman’s rights than Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and, once we are gone, Iraq.

How could this have been allowed to happen in plain sight and under the noses of Western democracies? If I, a private citizen with very limited resources and no access to classified documents, memos, e-mails, or embassy documents, and no access to the power brokers of the world, could so clearly see what was going to happen months ahead of time, how come the people in power could not see what was going to happen and do something about it? I don’t know the answer, for sure, but I suspect it is political correctness and the inability of anyone in government, whether those at top or their minions in the CIA, FBI, and other agencies to speak out on the evils of Islam. After all, if an extensive report on the murder spree of Nidal Hasan could not even be allowed to mention Islam once, and Islam was clearly the cause of his murder spree, our government has been reduced to the three little monkeys: see no evil, speak no evil, and hear no evil. And Islam is evil.

But, now the damage has been done. And, while allowing these nations to become Islamic theocracies, like Iran, we have done nothing about the 800 pound gorilla in the room; Iran. Iran was behind much, if not all, of the problems related to Palestine and Israel through its control of terrorist groups like Hezbollah. There is strong evidence that 911 was planned in Iran. (1) Iran was clearly in on the deal as it assisted in the transit of many of the terrorists. Also, the same sources who told us that 911 was largely planned in Iran also told us that Iran already has nuclear weapons, and has had them for quite a long time. Additionally, they told us that one of the reasons we had such a hard time finding bin Laden and al-Zawahiri was because they were sometimes being sheltered and hosted in Iran after 911. That bit of information was initially officially scoffed at by US authorities, but now they admit that this information was true. How much of the other information was true? Judging by the fact that we have not done a thing about the biggest terrorist sponsor in the world, and the country at the heart of most of the problems in the Middle East and, especially, Iraq, our government must have known that Iran had nuclear weapons and that is why we were afraid to attack them. (Of course, that fear of attacking nuclear armed thugocracies like Iran and North Korea does nothing but justify and prove their rhetoric that they need nuclear weapons for their own safety against attack.) But, we are going to have to go to war with them, sooner or later. If we don’t start it, they will, on their terms and timetable. The sooner it happens, the fewer nuclear weapons Iran will have to use and, ultimately, the less deadly and destructive the eventual outcome will be.

And, the very fact that we allowed most of the Middle East to go Islamist (including Turkey) means that Israel will probably be forced to use nuclear weapons because that is probably the only way that they could win a war and defend themselves if the entire Middle East, including Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, and Iran attack them at the same time, which is looking more and more likely every day. If they are threatened with extinction, which is Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s wet dream, or even if they are threatened with substantial destruction, I would fully support their right–their necessity–of going nuclear. At some point, if enough forces are aligned against them because of the insanity of Islam, they must do what they must to survive.

So, how many nuclear weapons does Iran already have? My best estimate, for the last few years, has been 6 to 20. I came to this conclusion based on various information gleaned from various sources. Yossef Bodansky in his excellent book The High Cost of Peace stated on page 77 that Iran bought two 40 kiloton nuclear warheads for their SCUD missiles in 1991. In 2005 it was reported in the Financial Times that China and Iran purchased 18 KH-55 nuclear tipped cruise missiles from Ukraine, with 12 going to Iran and 6 going to China. This was confirmed by Svyatoslav Piskun, Ukraine’s prosecutor-general. Although some people claimed that the warheads were not shipped with the missiles, what good is a missile without a warhead? Furthermore, later in 2005, Porter Goss,the director of the CIA at the time, told Turkish officials that Iran already had nuclear weapons, apparently referring to the 12 KH-55′s that they had purchased. By the way, this warhead is a 200 kiloton warhead; not the little, bably warheads that we presume Iran and North Korea are producing, which are similar to the warheads that we used against Japan to end World War II. (10 to 20 kiloton warheads.)

Lt Col. Tony Shaffer, as part of “Able Danger” uncovered the 911 plot in early 2001. But, he was not listened to, and the inconvenient truth of Able Danger was covered up by the government. But, he also stated that Iran had two workable nuclear warheads according to an article in the Washington Times. That article also reports that Matthew Nasuti, during s State Department briefing in 2008, that it was “common knowledge” that Iran had nuclear weapons acquired from former Soviet republics. Other reports state that Iran purchased four 152 mm nuclear mortar shells.

Iran opened its heavy water nuclear reactor in the middle of 2006. This reactor, all by itself, can produce enough plutonium for 2 to 3 nuclear weapons per year. 2 to 3 per year times 5 years is 10 to 15 nuclear weapons, ignoring any that were bought, stolen, or produced from their highly enriched uranium centrifuge cascades. This is a fact that is very seldom reported. Combine this fact with the fact that North Korea’s nuclear program is based, primarily, on Plutonium based weapons, rather than highly enriched Uranium weapons, and the fact that Iran’s nuclear program is intimately entwined with North Korea’s nuclear program, and you see how their often forgotten heavy water research reactor, alone, could have produced over a dozen nuclear weapons.

Finally, you have the simple fact that Iran has been working on a nuclear weapon since the early 1980′s. Yes, they are Muslims, but they are also Persians, unlike most Muslims. Thus, they tend to be more intelligent and better educated. In fact, much of what I have read indicates that the vast majority of Iranians, unlike the vast majority of Arabs, do not want to be bound by Sharia law, and they often embrace the secularism of the West. We missed a huge opportunity in 2009 when the Iranian people rose up to protest the forged election victory of Madman Ahmadimwit, my preferred name for Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. If we had stepped in and given massive support to the protesters, perhaps Iran would now be a productive member of the world community, instead of being an international pariah, slated for annihilation when they finally unleash their nuclear arsenal.

I would not go so far as to say that the United States is a paper tiger. But, the United States is extremely vulnerable. It is vulnerable because of its dependence on electricity. And, all of our enemies, from China to Russia to North Korea to Iran understand that vulnerability. As I pointed our in an earlier article, all that an enemy has to do to completely destroy the United States is to destroy its power grid. This could be done through an EMP (Electromagnetic Pulse) attack, or a cyber attack that destroyed the power grid. Both techniques are totally feasible. We saw in the last few weeks how a hacker took over control of the water system in Illinois. That hacker could have shut down water to that area if he wanted to. In the same way, hackers could take control of the power grid and destroy transformers that are both essential to the grid and for which we have no replacements due to the stupidity of our “leaders”. The simple fact that our “leaders” have not made provisions to stock a supply of the essential transformers that could prevent a natural (ie solar storm) or unnatural (ie EMP attack) from taking out our power grid for 12 to 24 months (or more) is a crime. The citizens of the United States need to demand an explanation! Why, when the cost is only a few hundred millions of dollars, do we not stock the necessary transformers to replace essential transformers that could be taken out by mother nature or terrorists?

It is sad to see what has happened to the United States. Our enemies are now well equipped to destroy us through a cyber or EMP attack. While we might know who attaked us, I doubt if we would be willing to retaliate. And, even if we did retaliate, the country that we retaliated against would not be harmed, much, since they don’t rely on electricity as much as we do. While we could certainly kill most of their citizens, we would be condemned in the United Nations for “over reacting!”, as if killing everyone associated with a government that wiped out your civilization would be an over-reaction.

It is a crime that we did not take out Iran years ago. This is a crime that lays at Jimmy Carter’s feet, just like the crime of loosing the Viet Nam war lays at the feet of traitors such as Henry Kissenger (who knowingly started the war on the false premise of an attack by North Vietnam in the Gulf of Tonkin incident.) One can only hope that someone takes out the nuclear facilities of both North Korea and Iran before it is too late.

1) “Countdown To Crisis: The Coming Nuclear Showdown With Iran” by Kenneth Timmerman pp 9-10

Posted in: al Qaeda, Arab Spring, bin Laden, democracy, Egypt, EMP, Gaza, Hezbollah, Iran, Iraq, Islam, Israel, Lebanon, Libya, Middle East, Muslim, Pakistan, Palestine, politics, Straits of Hormuz, terrorism, Tunisia, Turkey, Viet Nam.
Tagged: Iran · Israel · Middle East · muslim · World War III

Climategate 2.0 – Waiting for the Next Boot to Drop

Nov 28th, 2011

by EdTroy.

No comments yet

Like many scientists who are convinced that the whole anthropogenic global warming subject is nothing more than a political scam designed to transfer wealth from citizens of the world to governments and selected corporate entities and private individuals, I was overjoyed to see the original Climategate e-mail releases. They clearly showed that the whole thing was nothing more than a contrived invention of the United Nations and various private and corporate interests that conspired to convince the people of the world that living, working, moving about, and producing in the modern age was going to bring about cataclysmic changes to the earth’s ecosystem, thus leading to massive death, disease, migration, and destruction unless trillions of dollars were spent to “save the world”. And, they almost succeeded, largely due to their co-conspirators (knowing or unknowing) in the main stream media and the corporate and political elite, and the total lack of scientific literacy in the vast majority of the world’s population, even in the supposedly educated Western world.

I have written many times about how global warming, later re-branded climate change when the warming stopped in 1998, was a fraud and a scam. (See the bibliography at the end of this article.) The actual measurements simply did not fit the predictions of the computer models. And, the whole scam was based on the computer models and the reported warming since the 1800′s. But, since the mid 1800′s, we have been coming out of the “Little Ice Age“, so warming should have been expected. Furthermore, it has been warmer in the past. Nobody, today, would give Greenland its name. But, 1000 or so years ago, it was green. And this is not speculation; there are plenty of archeological sites, as well as ice-core and other proxy data, to support the fact that Greenland was much warmer, even in the geologically recent past, let alone what it might have been tens of thousands, millions, or billions of years ago. One of the most often cited explanations for climate change (by skeptics) is the influence of the sun. Of course, the global warmingistas say that is impossible. The sun, they claim, has nothing to do with climate change. (That claim, alone, should start one wondering about their “science”.) I reported in early 2010 how an experiment at CERN was designed to shed light on the theory that the sun, by varying its output slightly and thus modulating the amount of cosmic rays that reached the earth, could explain much of climate change. The global warmingistas did everything they could to stop the funding for the project, but they failed, and the preliminary results were announced a few months ago. The results supported the theory, as reported in Nature Magazine. (More on the online supplement to the Nature article.)

The theory, in its simplest form, was that clouds are formed by nucleation of water droplets on small chemical particles that are formed when cosmic rays strike the earth’s atmosphere. The more cosmic rays, the more water droplet nuclei you have and thus the more clouds you get. The more clouds you get, the more sunlight is reflected back into space and the less sunlight reaches the earth. Both of these processes tend to cool the earth. (Just think about how much cooler you are when a cloud passes overhead and cools your skin. This same effect works on the whole earth.) Although actual levels of solar radiation do not vary greatly from year to year, decade to decade, or century to century (which is the reason the warmists state that the sun could not be the cause of climate change), these small differences in solar radiation do make enough change in the electromagnetic field surrounding the earth that the cosmic rays reaching the atmosphere are changed. And these changes are thought to increase or decrease clouds, thus modulating the temperature of the earth. Much more needs to be done on this theory, but, as I showed in an earlier article, there is tremendous correlation between cosmic rays and temperature, while there is no correlation between temperature and CO2, other than the fact that CO2 goes up after temperature goes up, and it goes down after temperature goes down. (Contrary to the central point of Al Gore’s “Inconvenient Truth” farce.)

But now, Climategate 2.0 has been released. Obviously timed to derail the Durban conference, which was doomed to failure before it started, this new e-mail release goes way beyond the tasty morsels revealed in Climategate 1.0. Personally, I never expected Climategate 2.0. I thought the initial release was all there was. And, I suspect the various guilty parties hoped that it was the end of the story. But, apparently, it was just the shot across the bow. The new e-mails show further collusion and scientific misbehavior (at best) or scientific fraud (more likely). They put to bed the argument that the released e-mails were just “taken out of context”, or misinterpreted, as in “hide the decline”, or “using a trick”. But, what is even more tantalizing, to me, and probably terrifying to the guilty parties, is the fact that there are many, many more e-mails involved in the release than can currently be read. The FOIA 2001 file that was released contains not only thousands of full-text e-mails beyond what was released in Climategate 1.0, but many thousands of additional e-mails that can only be opened with the proper decryption pass phrase. As described in an excellent post by thepointman, it looks like “Climategate 2 is a bomb with a dead man’s hand detonator attached to it and it may very well be cluster munition as well.” That is, if anyone tries to kill, discredit, or imprison the leaker, all he or she has to do is have the necessary pass phrase released and all of the Climategate e-mails will become public, including those that almost certainly go to the highest levels of government, politics and industry. It is not unlike the file that WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange released with an unknown pass phrase that he would release if harm came to him. That tactic kept harm from coming to him, so far. I suspect it will keep the leaker in the Climategate case safe, too. And, since Climategate involves the conspiracy to extort trillions of dollars from the people of the world, and the continuation of the fraud is necessary to support hundreds of billions of dollars in worthless “research” by corporations and universities, and WikiLeaks only involved the release of mostly embarrassing government screw-ups and intrigue, which all but the most naive people expect, I suspect the stakes are much higher for the leaker of the Climategate e-mails than they are for Julian Assange. It will be interesting to see what happens next. I suspect many “climate scientists” will be deservedly added to the unemployment rolls.

Bibliography:

“Those Who Say Temps and CO2 Have Never Been Higher Have Some ‘Splainin To Do”

“American Physical Society Fellow Resigns Over APS Refusal To Look Into The Science Of Global Warming”

“Where Are Global Warmingistas & Main Stream Media On Reporting That Cosmic Rays May Control Earth’s Temperature?”

“Al Gore Follows Disgraceful Lead of Clive Hamilton And Tells Children They Know More Than Their Parents”

“Time Magazine Shows Its Lunacy Again”

“Disgraced Head of Climategate Scandalized CRU Essentially Admits Man-made Global Warming Not Real”

“Fantastic New Resource: 500 Peer Reviewed Articles That Support Skepticism of “Man-Made” Global Warming”

“2 Part Article In National Post Gives Excellent Layman’s Explanation Of Climategate”

“Important New Article On Greenland Climate In Journal of Climate”

“A Simple Primer On Anthropogenic Global Warming Skepticism”

“Not Only Is AGW Fraud, But Global Warming Itself Might Be A Lie”

“Russia Today: Debate On Climate Change”

“More Damning Climategate Revelations: Apparently CRU Selectively Used Russian Temperature Data”

“Global Governance Is Real Goal Of Global Warmingistas: Don’t Expect Free Speech Or A Free Press In Their Utopia”

“Global Warmingistas Now Resort To Armed Guards To “Hide The Decline””

“The Climate Science Isn’t Settled”

“Why Total Scientific Transparency Is Vital In Climate Studies”

“Global Warmingistas Hit Another Low With Letter To Children “About Your Father””

“Third World Nation Representatives Get Their Panties In A Knot In Copenhagen”

“Global Warmingistas Now Dis NY Times Reporter Who Had Been One Of Their Best Mouthpieces”

“Climategate Professor To Global Warming Skeptic “Shut Up…..Asshole””

“Why Climategate Is So Important”

“I Hate To Say “I Told You So”….Never Mind”

““Hide The Decline” Animated Audio About Climategate”

“Two Incredibly Stupid Commercials Brought To You By The Global Warmingistas”

“All You Really Need To Know About “Global Warming””

“More Global Warmingista Fraud: Gore’s New Book Cover”

“The Skeptics Handbook II: Global Bullies want your money”

“Some “Inconvenient Truths” About “Man-made Global Warming””

“More Evidence That Global Warming Belief Is A Religion”

“What Do Global Warmingistas Do When They Realize People Are Starting To See Through Their Fraud? Loose The Data!”

“Government Running Full Speed Ahead Into Expensive Policies Based On Politics, Not Science”

“More Evidence That Global Warming Is Political, Not Scientific”

Posted in: Al Gore, APS resignation, cap and tax, cause of climate change, climate center hack, climate change, Climate scam, climategate, Copenhagen, cosmic rays, cosmic rays and climate, cosmic rays and clouds, global warming, Global Warming BS, global warming scam, global warming swindle, global warmingistas, little ice age, main stream media, politics, redistribute wealth, science, Skeptics Handbook, supressing science, United Nations, Vostok ice core data.
Tagged: climate change · climategate · Climategate 2.0 · Durban conference · global warming · global warming fraud · global warming scam · global warmingistas

Raped Woman Jailed for Adultery and Forced to Marry Rapist

Nov 28th, 2011

by EdTroy.

No comments yet

Remind me again. Why have we wasted trillions of dollars and thousands of lives in hell holes like Afghanistan and Iraq? I realize that Sadam Hussein had to go. He was a terrorist and supported terrorism. Indications are that he was behind the Oklahoma City Bombing and there were clearly al Qaeda training camps in Iraq. (To learn about the connection between Sadam Hussein and the Oklahoma City Bombing, read The Third Terrorist: The Middle East Connection to the Oklahoma City Bombing. It provides extensive legal documentation that shows, beyond a reasonable doubt, the Iraqi connection to the bombing, even going so far as to name the third terrorist. McVeigh and Nichols were just useful idiots.) We took his government out in a matter of weeks, and captured him in a matter of months. Mission accomplished. To stay in Iraq after that was pure folly. To think that a Muslim nation could be brought into the 21st century with a secular democracy was nothing short of stunningly insane. Now that we are leaving, it will become, essentially, a territory of Iran. (Unless we do something about the real problem in the Muslim world, which is Iran.) To be in Afghanistan and Pakistan for any reason other than killing the Taliban is insane, too, and we can never kill them all, so being there is stupid, especially after we accomplished our mission, which was to kill bin Laden.

But, of course, we think that by giving them billions of dollars and trying to build their infrastructure and improve education we can somehow bring these 7th century hell holes into the 21st century. WRONG! They are Muslims and worship an insane, epileptic, barbarian, misogynist, megalomaniac, pedophile named Mohammed and his sock puppet Allah. The only law they will ever respect or obey is Sharia. And Sharia is barbaric. And, to prove just how barbaric and misogynistic Sharia is, a recent story by CNN explains the all-to-typical plight of a Muslim rape victim. In this particular case, the rape victim was in Afghanistan, but such situations happen everywhere that Sharia rules the land.

Kabul (CNN) — The ordeal of Gulnaz did not simply begin and end with the physical attack of her rape. The rape began a years-long nightmare of further pain, culminating in an awful choice she must now make.

Even two years later, Gulnaz remembers the smell and state of her rapist’s clothes when he came into the house when her mother left for a brief visit to the hospital.

“He had filthy clothes on as he does metal and construction work. When my mother went out, he came into my house and he closed doors and windows. I started screaming, but he shut me up by putting his hands on my mouth,” she said.

The rapist was her cousin’s husband.

After the attack, she hid what happened as long as she could. But soon she began vomiting in the mornings and showing signs of pregnancy. It was her attacker’s child.

In Afghanistan, this brought her not sympathy, but prosecution. Aged just 19, she was found guilty by the courts of sex outside of marriage — adultery — and sentenced to twelve years in jail.

Yes, you read that correctly. The rape victim was accused of adultery and sentenced to 12 years in jail. (She was lucky she was not stoned to death, since that is often the penalty for adultery in Muslim countries.) Now, you ask, how could a rape victim be accused of adultery? Well, that is simple. She got pregnant. To get pregnant, she obviously had sex. If she had sex and is not married, she obviously committed adultery. Case closed. Start gathering the stones. That is the way Sharia works.

But, what about the rape? She knew who raped her and eventually reported the crime. How could she be accused of adultery? The answer, under Sharia, is simple, again. Under Sharia, in order to prove rape, a victim must produce 4 male witnesses to the rape. If she can’t produce 4 male witnesses, then reporting a rape is nothing more than confessing to adultery. Case closed. Start gathering the stones. That is the way Sharia works.

But, the situation gets even worse for Gulnaz, the rape victim. If she wants to get out of jail early, and restore her honor (and that of her family), all she has to do is marry the rapist! Yes, you read that correctly. And, that is ok under Sharia, because the rapist only has one wife, and is allowed to have four, so they can be married. And, it is important that she do something to restore her honor (and marrying the rapist is the only option for her) because otherwise the male members of her family would generally be expected to kill her upon her release from prison because she defiled the family’s honor by being raped. Again, from the CNN article:

The only way around the dishonor of rape, or adultery in the eyes of Afghans, is to marry her attacker. This will, in the eyes of some, give her child a family and restore her honor.

Incredibly, this is something that Gulnaz is willing to do.

“I was asked if I wanted to start a new life by getting released, by marrying this man”, she told CNN in an exclusive interview. “My answer was that one man dishonored me, and I want to stay with that man.”

Tending to her daughter in the jail’s cold, she added: “My daughter is a little innocent child. Who knew I would have a child in this way. A lot of people told me that after your daughter’s born give it to someone else, but my aunt told me to keep her as proof of my innocence.”

Gulnaz’s choice is stark. Women in her situation are often killed for the shame their ordeal has brought the community. She is at risk, some say, from her attacker’s family.

We found Gulnaz’s convicted rapist in a jail across town. While he denied raping her, he agreed that she would likely be killed if she gets out of jail. But he insists that it will be her family, not his, that will kill her, “out of shame.”

Whether threatened by his family or hers, for now, jail may be the safest place for her.

Shockingly, Gulnaz’s case is common in Afghanistan.

CNN asked a spokesman for the prosecutor to comment on the case. The reply was that there were hundreds such cases and the office would need time to look into it.

At least in this case, the rapist was jailed, although the article does not state that he was jailed for this rape. Rape is a serious crime under Sharia, but virtually impossible to prove because of the requirement to bring forth 4 male witnesses.

The specific Koranic reference that requires 4 male witnesses to prove rape is 2:223: (Shakir) “Why did they not bring four witnesses of it? But as they have not brought witnesses they are liars before Allah.” The history behind this verse is very interesting, and serves as an excellent example of how Allah served as Mohammad’s sock puppet.

The story behind the verse is that Aisha, Mohammad’s favorite bride, who he married when she was 6 and consummated the marriage with when she was 9, was accused of infidelity by 3 men. (“The Prophet wrote the (marriage contract) with ‘Aisha while she was six years old and consummated his marriage with her while she was nine years old and she remained with him for nine years (i.e. till his death.” — Bukhari 7.62.88) Mohammad did not want to believe that she had been unfaithful. Of course, Mohammad had many wives; more in fact than the 4 allowed to all other Muslims, because his sock puppet Allah gave him special dispensation in Koran 33:50. Yusuf Ali translation:

“O Prophet! We have made lawful to thee thy wives to whom thou hast paid their dowers; and those whom thy right hand possesses out of the prisoners of war whom Allah has assigned to thee; and daughters of thy paternal uncles and aunts, and daughters of thy maternal uncles and aunts, who migrated (from Makka) with thee; and any believing woman who dedicates her soul to the Prophet if the Prophet wishes to wed her;- this only for thee, and not for the Believers (at large); We know what We have appointed for them as to their wives and the captives whom their right hands possess;- in order that there should be no difficulty for thee. And Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.”

But, while Muslim men can have 4 wives, and all of the concubines that they want, Muslim women must be strictly faithful. The story is described in the Hadith (Traditions of the Prophet), Bukhari (5.59:462):

Narrated ‘Aisha:

Whenever Allah’s Apostle intended to go on a journey, he used to draw lots amongst his wives, and Allah’s Apostle used to take with him the one on whom lot fell. He drew lots amongst us during one of the Ghazwat which he fought. The lot fell on me and so I proceeded with Allah’s Apostle after Allah’s order of veiling (the women) had been revealed. I was carried (on the back of a camel) in my howdah and carried down while still in it (when we came to a halt). So we went on till Allah’s Apostle had finished from that Ghazwa of his and returned.

When we approached the city of Medina he announced at night that it was time for departure. So when they announced the news of departure, I got up and went away from the army camps, and after finishing from the call of nature, I came back to my riding animal. I touched my chest to find that my necklace which was made of Zifar beads (i.e. Yemenite beads partly black and partly white) was missing. So I returned to look for my necklace and my search for it detained me. (In the meanwhile) the people who used to carry me on my camel, came and took my howdah and put it on the back of my camel on which I used to ride, as they considered that I was in it. In those days women were light in weight for they did not get fat, and flesh did not cover their bodies in abundance as they used to eat only a little food. Those people therefore, disregarded the lightness of the howdah while lifting and carrying it; and at that time I was still a young girl. They made the camel rise and all of them left (along with it). I found my necklace after the army had gone.

Then I came to their camping place to find no call maker of them, nor one who would respond to the call. So I intended to go to the place where I used to stay, thinking that they would miss me and come back to me (in my search). While I was sitting in my resting place, I was overwhelmed by sleep and slept. Safwan bin Al-Muattal As-Sulami Adh-Dhakwani was behind the army. When he reached my place in the morning, he saw the figure of a sleeping person and he recognized me on seeing me as he had seen me before the order of compulsory veiling (was prescribed). So I woke up when he recited Istirja’ (i.e. “Inna lillahi wa inna llaihi raji’un”) as soon as he recognized me. I veiled my face with my head cover at once, and by Allah, we did not speak a single word, and I did not hear him saying any word besides his Istirja’. He dismounted from his camel and made it kneel down, putting his leg on its front legs and then I got up and rode on it. Then he set out leading the camel that was carrying me till we overtook the army in the extreme heat of midday while they were at a halt (taking a rest). (Because of the event) some people brought destruction upon themselves and the one who spread the Ifk (i.e. slander) more, was ‘Abdullah bin Ubai Ibn Salul.”

(Urwa said, “The people propagated the slander and talked about it in his (i.e. ‘Abdullah’s) presence and he confirmed it and listened to it and asked about it to let it prevail.” Urwa also added, “None was mentioned as members of the slanderous group besides (‘Abdullah) except Hassan bin Thabit and Mistah bin Uthatha and Hamna bint Jahsh along with others about whom I have no knowledge, but they were a group as Allah said. It is said that the one who carried most of the slander was ‘Abdullah bin Ubai bin Salul.” Urwa added, “‘Aisha disliked to have Hassan abused in her presence and she used to say, ‘It was he who said: My father and his (i.e. my father’s) father and my honor are all for the protection of Muhammad’s honor from you.”).

‘Aisha added, “After we returned to Medina, I became ill for a month. The people were propagating the forged statements of the slanderers while I was unaware of anything of all that, but I felt that in my present ailment, I was not receiving the same kindness from Allah’s Apostle as I used to receive when I got sick. (But now) Allah’s Apostle would only come, greet me and say,’ How is that (lady)?’ and leave. That roused my doubts, but I did not discover the evil (i.e. slander) till I went out after my convalescence, I went out with Um Mistah to Al-Manasi’ where we used to answer the call of nature and we used not to go out (to answer the call of nature) except at night, and that was before we had latrines near our houses. And this habit of our concerning evacuating the bowels, was similar to the habits of the old ‘Arabs living in the deserts, for it would be troublesome for us to take latrines near our houses. So I and Um Mistah who was the daughter of Abu Ruhm bin Al-Muttalib bin Abd Manaf, whose mother was the daughter of Sakhr bin ‘Amir and the aunt of Abu Bakr As-Siddiq and whose son was Mistah bin Uthatha bin ‘Abbas bin Al-Muttalib, went out. I and Um Mistah returned to my house after we finished answering the call of nature. Um Mistah stumbled by getting her foot entangled in her covering sheet and on that she said, ‘Let Mistah be ruined!’ I said, ‘What a hard word you have said. Do you abuse a man who took part in the battle of Badr?’ On that she said, ‘O you Hantah! Didn’t you hear what he (i.e. Mistah) said? ‘I said, ‘What did he say?’

Then she told me the slander of the people of Ifk. So my ailment was aggravated, and when I reached my home, Allah’s Apostle came to me, and after greeting me, said, ‘How is that (lady)?’ I said, ‘Will you allow me to go to my parents?’ as I wanted to be sure about the news through them. Allah’s Apostle allowed me (and I went to my parents) and asked my mother, ‘O mother! What are the people talking about?’ She said, ‘O my daughter! Don’t worry, for scarcely is there a charming woman who is loved by her husband and whose husband has other wives besides herself that they (i.e. women) would find faults with her.’ I said, ‘Subhan-Allah! (I testify the uniqueness of Allah). Are the people really talking in this way?’ I kept on weeping that night till dawn I could neither stop weeping nor sleep then in the morning again, I kept on weeping. When the Divine Inspiration was delayed.

Allah’s Apostle called ‘Ali bin Abi Talib and Usama bin Zaid to ask and consult them about divorcing me. Usama bin Zaid said what he knew of my innocence, and the respect he preserved in himself for me. Usama said, ‘(O Allah’s Apostle!) She is your wife and we do not know anything except good about her.’ ‘Ali bin Abi Talib said, ‘O Allah’s Apostle! Allah does not put you in difficulty and there are plenty of women other than she, yet, ask the maid-servant who will tell you the truth.’ On that Allah’s Apostle called Barira (i.e. the maid-servant) and said, ‘O Barira! Did you ever see anything which aroused your suspicion?’ Barira said to him, ‘By Him Who has sent you with the Truth. I have never seen anything in her (i.e. Aisha) which I would conceal, except that she is a young girl who sleeps leaving the dough of her family exposed so that the domestic goats come and eat it.’

So, on that day, Allah’s Apostle got up on the pulpit and complained about ‘Abdullah bin Ubai (bin Salul) before his companions, saying, ‘O you Muslims! Who will relieve me from that man who has hurt me with his evil statement about my family? By Allah, I know nothing except good about my family and they have blamed a man about whom I know nothing except good and he used never to enter my home except with me.’ Sad bin Mu’adh the brother of Banu ‘Abd Al-Ashhal got up and said, ‘O Allah’s Apostle! I will relieve you from him; if he is from the tribe of Al-Aus, then I will chop his head off, and if he is from our brothers, i.e. Al-Khazraj, then order us, and we will fulfill your order.’ On that, a man from Al-Khazraj got up. Um Hassan, his cousin, was from his branch tribe, and he was Sad bin Ubada, chief of Al-Khazraj. Before this incident, he was a pious man, but his love for his tribe goaded him into saying to Sad (bin Mu’adh). ‘By Allah, you have told a lie; you shall not and cannot kill him. If he belonged to your people, you would not wish him to be killed.’

On that, Usaid bin Hudair who was the cousin of Sad (bin Mu’adh) got up and said to Sad bin ‘Ubada, ‘By Allah! You are a liar! We will surely kill him, and you are a hypocrite arguing on the behalf of hypocrites.’ On this, the two tribes of Al-Aus and Al Khazraj got so much excited that they were about to fight while Allah’s Apostle was standing on the pulpit. Allah’s Apostle kept on quietening them till they became silent and so did he. All that day I kept on weeping with my tears never ceasing, and I could never sleep.

In the morning my parents were with me and I wept for two nights and a day with my tears never ceasing and I could never sleep till I thought that my liver would burst from weeping. So, while my parents were sitting with me and I was weeping, an Ansari woman asked me to grant her admittance. I allowed her to come in, and when she came in, she sat down and started weeping with me. While we were in this state, Allah’s Apostle came, greeted us and sat down. He had never sat with me since that day of the slander. A month had elapsed and no Divine Inspiration came to him about my case. Allah’s Apostle then recited Tashah-hud and then said, ‘Amma Badu, O ‘Aisha! I have been informed so-and-so about you; if you are innocent, then soon Allah will reveal your innocence, and if you have committed a sin, then repent to Allah and ask Him for forgiveness for when a slave confesses his sins and asks Allah for forgiveness, Allah accepts his repentance.’

When Allah’s Apostle finished his speech, my tears ceased flowing completely that I no longer felt a single drop of tear flowing. I said to my father, ‘Reply to Allah’s Apostle on my behalf concerning what he has said.’ My father said, ‘By Allah, I do not know what to say to Allah’s Apostle .’ Then I said to my mother, ‘Reply to Allah’s Apostle on my behalf concerning what he has said.’ She said, ‘By Allah, I do not know what to say to Allah’s Apostle.’ In spite of the fact that I was a young girl and had a little knowledge of Quran, I said, ‘By Allah, no doubt I know that you heard this (slanderous) speech so that it has been planted in your hearts (i.e. minds) and you have taken it as a truth. Now if I tell you that I am innocent, you will not believe me, and if confess to you about it, and Allah knows that I am innocent, you will surely believe me. By Allah, I find no similitude for me and you except that of Joseph’s father when he said, ‘(For me) patience in the most fitting against that which you assert; it is Allah (Alone) Whose Help can be sought.’ Then I turned to the other side and lay on my bed; and Allah knew then that I was innocent and hoped that Allah would reveal my innocence. But, by Allah, I never thought that Allah would reveal about my case, Divine Inspiration, that would be recited (forever) as I considered myself too unworthy to be talked of by Allah with something of my concern, but I hoped that Allah’s Apostle might have a dream in which Allah would prove my innocence. But, by Allah, before Allah’s Apostle left his seat and before any of the household left, the Divine inspiration came to Allah’s Apostle.

So there overtook him the same hard condition which used to overtake him, (when he used to be inspired Divinely). The sweat was dropping from his body like pearls though it was a wintry day and that was because of the weighty statement which was being revealed to him. When that state of Allah’s Apostle was over, he got up smiling, and the first word he said was, ‘O ‘Aisha! Allah has declared your innocence!’ Then my Mother said to me, ‘Get up and go to him (i.e. Allah’s Apostle). I replied, ‘By Allah, I will not go to him, and I praise none but Allah. So Allah revealed the ten Verses:– “Verily! They who spread the slander Are a gang, among you………….” (24.11-20)

Allah revealed those Quranic Verses to declare my innocence. Abu Bakr As-Siddiq who used to disburse money for Mistah bin Uthatha because of his relationship to him and his poverty, said, ‘By Allah, I will never give to Mistah bin Uthatha anything after what he has said about Aisha.’ Then Allah revealed:–

“And let not those among you who are good and wealthy swear not to give (any sort of help) to their kinsmen, those in need, and those who have left their homes for Allah’s cause, let them pardon and forgive. Do you not love that Allah should forgive you? And Allah is oft-Forgiving Most Merciful.” (24.22)

Abu Bakr As-Siddiq said, ‘Yes, by Allah, I would like that Allah forgive me.’ and went on giving Mistah the money he used to give him before. He also added, ‘By Allah, I will never deprive him of it at all.’

Aisha further said:.” Allah’s Apostle also asked Zainab bint Jahsh (i.e. his wife) about my case. He said to Zainab, ‘What do you know and what did you see?” She replied, “O Allah’s Apostle! I refrain from claiming falsely that I have heard or seen anything. By Allah, I know nothing except good (about ‘Aisha).’ From amongst the wives of the Prophet Zainab was my peer (in beauty and in the love she received from the Prophet) but Allah saved her from that evil because of her piety. Her sister Hamna, started struggling on her behalf and she was destroyed along with those who were destroyed. The man who was blamed said, ‘Subhan-Allah! By Him in Whose Hand my soul is, I have never uncovered the cover (i.e. veil) of any female.’ Later on the man was martyred in Allah’s Cause.”

It should also be noted that Mohammad’s pedophilia is an approved and common practice in Muslim countries. (1)

That is the attitude of the Islamic world. The United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) reports that more than half the girls in Afghanistan and Bangladesh are married before they reach the age of eighteen. In early 2002, researchers in refugee camps in Afghanistan and Pakistan found half the girls married by age thirteen. In an Afghani refugee camp, more than two out of three second-grade girls were either married or engaged, and virtually all the girls who were beyond second grade were already married. One ten-year-old was engaged to a man of sixty. In early 2005 a Saudi man in his sixties drew international attention for marrying fifty-eight times; his most recent bride was a fourteen-year-old he married in the spring of 2004.

The Ayatollah Khomeini, leader of the Islamic Revolution in Iran in 1979, and Iranian leader until his death, married a 10 year old girl when he was 28. He considered it a “divine blessing” to marry a prepubescent girl, and he advised the faithful: “Do your best to ensure that your daughters do not see their first blood in your house.” (2)

It is time to abandon all countries that enshrine Sharia. It is time to cut off their financing. It is time to cut off visas. It is time to restrict trade and travel with them. Eventually, if they are strangled, economically, they may seek to join the 21st century, or at least the 19th century. Until then, we should have nothing to do with them. If other countries want to trade with them, let them deal with the problems. We don’t need anything they produce, including their oil. We can, and do, get most of our oil from other sources, and if we used a little common sense and tapped our abundant oil resources, and started making more use of our huge reserves of coal and natural gas, we would be just fine. Let them live in their 7th century nirvana by themselves.

(1) “Religion of Peace? Why Christianity is and Islam Isn’t” by Robert Spencer, P. 188

(2) http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/03/tarek-fatah-call-your-office-muslim-leaders-in-yemen-say-those-who-support-ban-on-child-marriage-are.html

Posted in: Afghanistan, al Qaeda, Ayatollah Khomeini, ban islam, bin Laden, bin Laden dead, democracy, honor killing, human stupidity, Iran, Iraq, Islam, Middle East, Mohammad, Muslim, Pakistan, Sadam Hussein, Sharia, stupid people.
Tagged: adultery · Afghanistan · Islam · Mohammad · Pakistan · rape · sharia

Occupy “Whatever”: Leftists, Morons and Lunatics

Nov 23rd, 2011

by EdTroy.

1 comment

The whole “Occupy” movement is interesting to follow. Although it “seemed” to come out of nothing, it was clearly anticipated and nurtured from the beginning. Indications are clear that leftist Cretans like George Soros, and leftist organizations like SEIU and other arms of the Democratic Party, are behind it. We also know that the government spent billions of dollars to set up FEMA (concentration) camps for American citizens in the last few years, and spent millions to buy (and essentially lock up the supply of) freeze dried food. Why would a government build FEMA (concentration) camps and buy millions of dollars worth of freeze dried foods if they did not expect to need them? The answer is obvious. Just like the “Arab Spring” was a manipulated program to install Islamist governments in many countries (and has now officially succeeded in Tunisia, Libya, and will soon succeed in Egypt), what we have seen in America is an attempt to install a Socialist or Communistic government in the United States. Why would anyone with half a brain want to reinstate the failed policies of socialism and communism? Look how well these philosophies worked in Russia, North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela, Greece, Portugal, Spain, Italy, France, and many other countries around the world, to greater or lesser degrees. Lets not forget that the basic cause of the financial meltdown in Greece and other European countries was the socialist policies that they adopted that guaranteed citizens huge pension and other benefits, long vacations, excessive pay, and early retirement. (Essentially a cradle to grave nanny state.) The outcome was clear, and now they have finally run out of the other persons’ money. The same is happening in the United States. In fact, with a total debt of over $100 trillion (not including over a quadrillion dollars in derivatives held by financial institutions that cannot ever be paid), the United States is even more bankrupt than most other countries. The only thing that is “saving” us is that the Fed can print money, while most other countries cannot. Of course, printing money does not solve the problem; it only makes it worse by devaluing the currency and delaying and making worse the final, inevitable collapse. We can see what happens when currency is devalued by looking at recent history in Argentina and Zimbabwe, or older history in the Wiemar Republic.

And, how could Americans be so stupid? There has never been a successful Communist, Marxist, or Socialist state. Communism and Marxism do not work, because, in the end, most people want to better their own circumstances, and they do not want to be told by the state what their lot in life will be, or how much they can earn, or how successful they can become. (And, China cannot be considered a successful example of Communism because it is actually easier to go into business and make money in China than it is in the United States. There may be a central Communist Party that ostensibly controls the country (and certainly controls the people), but capitalism is alive and well in China. The primary actions of the Communist Party is to crush dissent and control the personal lives of the citizens, not to control business and how much a person can achieve or not achieve.

Some of the “Occupy” lunatics want to impose a minimum wage of $20/hr. Well, how moronic would that be? At present, the “official” unemployment rate in the United States is about 9%. But, that is a fraud. The real unemployment rate, when you take into account people who are not employed as much as they would like to be, and people who have given up and gone on social security or welfare, or dropped off the rolls of the “officially unemployed” because they have been unemployed for too long, it is more like 20%. Also, the unofficial number does not include the self-employed who, if they find themselves out of work, cannot be counted since they are not eligible for unemployment. Now, that means that about 80% of Americans ARE employed. But, the median salary is less than $20/hr. That means that less than 1/2 of the employed Americans make more than $20/hr. Since 1/2 of 80% is 40%, and more than that percentage of people currently make less than $20 per hour, we can approximate and say that about 45 to 50 percent of Americans who are currently working make less than $20 per hour. Lets be conservative and say 45%.

So, what would result from the moronic demand of the “Occupy” crowd that the minimum wage be raised to $20/hr? All of those people making less than $20/hr would have to be fired because the value of their work would not be equal to the minimum wage! Thus, the unemployment rate of 20% would go to 20%+45%=65%! Imagine that: 65% unemployment. Way to go, Occupy!

This is also why the minimum wage is both stupid and harmful to people who are either new to the labor market or without salable skills. As the minimum wage is forced upward by stupid politicians, there are fewer and fewer jobs available for the unskilled. Furthermore, since there are still some necessary jobs for the unskilled, but American companies cannot afford to pay the minimum wage to Americans to fill those jobs, those jobs are exported to foreign countries that do not have such extravagant minimum wages.

Does the “Occupy” have some legitimate beefs? Yes. We all do. The idea that banksters and large financial firms could create absurdly risky derivatives and then get bailed out by the government with tax payer dollars is a crime. No company should be allowed to be too big to fail. And, those that did fail (which was many of them) should have been allowed to fail. And allowing the executives and traders at those banks to continue to get obscene “bonus checks” is also a crime that must be stopped. You don’t reward failure, and they failed.

The “Occupy” protesters are targeting the wrong group of people. (Of course, since they are sponsored by the Democratic Party and various socialists, they could not be expected to target the correct people, since that would mean biting the hand that feeds them.) But, the real cause of the current problems in this country (and the rest of the Western world) are the politicians who are totally controlled by corporate interests and directed by the lobbyists. It is the stupid rules that they impose, like forcing banks to make loans to people who cannot afford them. It is bowing to the interests of the banksters and repealing the Glass-Steagall Act which forced a separation between investment banks and commercial banks. (In many ways, this act, alone, could have prevented much of the financial carnage created by derivatives since the investment banks that held them would have been separate from the commercial banks and would have gone bankrupt, as they should have, instead of being bailed out by the politicians.) Stupid rules like repealing the uptick rule for shorting stocks which at least lent some drag to the downward direction of stocks when they do drop. Stupid rules like raising the minimum wage. Stupid rules like most of the rules imposed by the EPA and so many other government agencies. Stupid rules like forming and keeping useless and harmful agencies like the Department of Education that has been dumbing down Americans since its inception in 1981. While we spend more money on education than any other country in the world, we produce some of the stupidest students in the world. And, of course, that means that we need to bring in foreign students to fill the scientific and engineering jobs that we do have, but they cannot often be filled by Americans because they are too stupid and uneducated. As someone who has spent many years in graduate school in the field of engineering and physics, I can tell you that there are very few “American” students studying at that level. And, those that are American are almost always of Indian, Chinese, or Japanese ancestry, because those cultures still respect and value learning and education. Of course, they will probably be “Americanized” soon, after which they will value nothing but their favorite sports team, reality tv show, and Hollywood gossip.

Another pet peeve of the Occupy crowd is the claim that they went to college and now have this huge college loan but they can’t get a job. So, they feel that their student loan should be forgiven and they should be given a high paying job! The very fact that they could make such a claim shows that they obviously wasted their money on college tuition, since they obviously learned very little “of value”. And, that is the key: “of value”. What did they get their college degree in? Engineering, mathematics, physics, computer science, nursing, medicine, chemistry or pharmacy (not including the chemistry or pharmacopoeia of Cannabis)? If so, they would probably have a job, because there are plenty of American jobs in those areas. In fact, employers are complaining that they cannot find enough qualified people in those fields, especially those with advanced degrees. The sorry fact of the matter is that many American students simply cannot handle those fields because of the failure of the American educational system since the founding of the Department of Education and the adherence in the United States to Agenda 21, which is a UN program designed to deliberately dumb down people and teach them to be good little socialists and worker bees in the New World Order. Many of the Occupy crowd undoubtedly wasted hundreds of thousands of dollars on college degrees in such majors as social work, psychology, business administration, social studies, government, political science, world history, ancient history, etc. Well, guess what? Those “skill sets” have very little value in the real world. In fact, some have virtually no commercial value unless you get a Ph.D. and go out on your own as a psychologist or become a professor in those subjects. Do you really need a college degree in social work to help people to fraudulently fill out paperwork for welfare and food stamps? What do you intend to do with a degree in “government” or “political science”? Of course, again, the education system is to blame for steering students into such economically worthless college majors.

It is time for the Occupy crowd to get over it and find a job.

Posted in: Agenda 21, Department of Education, economy, new world order, Occupy movement, politics, socialism, Soros, stupid people.
Tagged: failed education system · Occupy movement · socialism · stupid people

Syria, Iran and the Balance of Power in the Middle East

Nov 22nd, 2011

by EdTroy.

No comments yet

By George Friedman

U.S. troops are in the process of completing their withdrawal from Iraq by the end-of-2011 deadline. We are now moving toward a reckoning with the consequences. The reckoning concerns the potential for a massive shift in the balance of power in the region, with Iran moving from a fairly marginal power to potentially a dominant power. As the process unfolds, the United States and Israel are making countermoves. We have discussed all of this extensively. Questions remain whether these countermoves will stabilize the region and whether or how far Iran will go in its response.

Iran has been preparing for the U.S. withdrawal. While it is unreasonable simply to say that Iran will dominate Iraq, it is fair to say Tehran will have tremendous influence in Baghdad to the point of being able to block Iraqi initiatives Iran opposes. This influence will increase as the U.S. withdrawal concludes and it becomes clear there will be no sudden reversal in the withdrawal policy. Iraqi politicians’ calculus must account for the nearness of Iranian power and the increasing distance and irrelevance of American power.

Resisting Iran under these conditions likely would prove ineffective and dangerous. Some, like the Kurds, believe they have guarantees from the Americans and that substantial investment in Kurdish oil by American companies means those commitments will be honored. A look at the map, however, shows how difficult it would be for the United States to do so. The Baghdad regime has arrested Sunni leaders while the Shia, not all of whom are pro-Iranian by any means, know the price of overenthusiastic resistance.

Syria and Iran

The situation in Syria complicates all of this. The minority Alawite sect has dominated the Syrian government since 1970, when the current president’s father — who headed the Syrian air force — staged a coup. The Alawites are a heterodox Muslim sect related to a Shiite offshoot and make up about 7 percent of the country’s population, which is mostly Sunni. The new Alawite government was Nasserite in nature, meaning it was secular, socialist and built around the military. When Islam rose as a political force in the Arab world, the Syrians — alienated from the Sadat regime in Egypt — saw Iran as a bulwark. The Iranian Islamist regime gave the Syrian secular regime immunity against Shiite fundamentalists in Lebanon. The Iranians also gave Syria support in its external adventures in Lebanon, and more important, in its suppression of Syria’s Sunni majority.

Syria and Iran were particularly aligned in Lebanon. In the early 1980s, after the Khomeini revolution, the Iranians sought to increase their influence in the Islamic world by supporting radical Shiite forces. Hezbollah was one of these. Syria had invaded Lebanon in 1975 on behalf of the Christians and opposed the Palestine Liberation Organization, to give you a sense of the complexity. Syria regarded Lebanon as historically part of Syria, and sought to assert its influence over it. Via Iran, Hezbollah became an instrument of Syrian power in Lebanon.

Iran and Syria, therefore, entered a long-term if not altogether stable alliance that has lasted to this day. In the current unrest in Syria, the Saudis and Turks in addition to the Americans all have been hostile to the regime of President Bashar al Assad. Iran is the one country that on the whole has remained supportive of the current Syrian government.

There is good reason for this. Prior to the uprising, the precise relationship between Syria and Iran was variable. Syria was able to act autonomously in its dealings with Iran and Iran’s proxies in Lebanon. While an important backer of groups like Hezbollah, the al Assad regime in many ways checked Hezbollah’s power in Lebanon, with the Syrians playing the dominant role there. The Syrian uprising has put the al Assad regime on the defensive, however, making it more interested in a firm, stable relationship with Iran. Damascus finds itself isolated in the Sunni world, with Turkey and the Arab League against it. Iran — and intriguingly, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki — have constituted al Assad’s exterior support.

Thus far al Assad has resisted his enemies. Though some mid- to low-ranking Sunnis have defected, his military remains largely intact; this is because the Alawites control key units. Events in Libya drove home to an embattled Syrian leadership — and even to some of its adversaries within the military — the consequences of losing. The military has held together, and an unarmed or poorly armed populace, no matter how large, cannot defeat an intact military force. The key for those who would see al Assad fall is to divide the military.

If al Assad survives — and at the moment, wishful thinking by outsiders aside, he is surviving — Iran will be the big winner. If Iraq falls under substantial Iranian influence, and the al Assad regime — isolated from most countries but supported by Tehran — survives in Syria, then Iran could emerge with a sphere of influence stretching from western Afghanistan to the Mediterranean (the latter via Hezbollah). Achieving this would not require deploying Iranian conventional forces — al Assad’s survival alone would suffice. However, the prospect of a Syrian regime beholden to Iran would open up the possibility of the westward deployment of Iranian forces, and that possibility alone would have significant repercussions.

Syria, Iran and the Balance of Power in the Middle East

(click here to enlarge image)

Consider the map were this sphere of influence to exist. The northern borders of Saudi Arabia and Jordan would abut this sphere, as would Turkey’s southern border. It remains unclear, of course, just how well Iran could manage this sphere, e.g., what type of force it could project into it. Maps alone will not provide an understanding of the problem. But they do point to the problem. And the problem is the potential — not certain — creation of a block under Iranian influence that would cut through a huge swath of strategic territory.

It should be remembered that in addition to Iran’s covert network of militant proxies, Iran’s conventional forces are substantial. While they could not confront U.S. armored divisions and survive, there are no U.S. armored divisions on the ground between Iran and Lebanon. Iran’s ability to bring sufficient force to bear in such a sphere increases the risks to the Saudis in particular. Iran’s goal is to increase the risk such that Saudi Arabia would calculate that accommodation is more prudent than resistance. Changing the map can help achieve this.

It follows that those frightened by this prospect — the United States, Israel, Saudi Arabia and Turkey — would seek to stymie it. At present, the place to block it no longer is Iraq, where Iran already has the upper hand. Instead, it is Syria. And the key move in Syria is to do everything possible to bring about al Assad’s overthrow.

In the last week, the Syrian unrest appeared to take on a new dimension. Until recently, the most significant opposition activity appeared to be outside of Syria, with much of the resistance reported in the media coming from externally based opposition groups. The degree of effective opposition was never clear. Certainly, the Sunni majority opposes and hates the al Assad regime. But opposition and emotion do not bring down a regime consisting of men fighting for their lives. And it wasn’t clear that the resistance was as strong as the outside propaganda claimed.

Last week, however, the Free Syrian Army — a group of Sunni defectors operating out of Turkey and Lebanon — claimed defectors carried out organized attacks on government facilities, ranging from an air force intelligence facility (a particularly sensitive point given the history of the regime) to Baath Party buildings in the greater Damascus area. These were not the first attacks claimed by the FSA, but they were heavily propagandized in the past week. Most significant about the attacks is that, while small-scale and likely exaggerated, they revealed that at least some defectors were willing to fight instead of defecting and staying in Turkey or Lebanon.

It is interesting that an apparent increase in activity from armed activists — or the introduction of new forces — occurred at the same time relations between Iran on one side and the United States and Israel on the other were deteriorating. The deterioration began with charges that an Iranian covert operation to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to the United States had been uncovered, followed by allegations by the Bahraini government of Iranian operatives organizing attacks in Bahrain. It proceeded to an International Atomic Energy Agency report on Iran’s progress toward a nuclear device, followed by the Nov. 19 explosion at an Iranian missile facility that the Israelis have not-so-quietly hinted was their work. Whether any of these are true, the psychological pressure on Iran is building and appears to be orchestrated.

Of all the players in this game, Israel’s position is the most complex. Israel has had a decent, albeit covert, working relationship with the Syrians going back to their mutual hostility toward Yasser Arafat. For Israel, Syria has been the devil they know. The idea of a Sunni government controlled by the Muslim Brotherhood on their northeastern frontier was frightening; they preferred al Assad. But given the shift in the regional balance of power, the Israeli view is also changing. The Sunni Islamist threat has weakened in the past decade relative to the Iranian Shiite threat. Playing things forward, the threat of a hostile Sunni force in Syria is less worrisome than an emboldened Iranian presence on Israel’s northern frontier. This explains why the architects of Israel’s foreign policy, such as Defense Minister Ehud Barak, have been saying that we are seeing an “acceleration toward the end of the regime.” Regardless of its preferred outcome, Israel cannot influence events inside Syria. Instead, Israel is adjusting to a reality where the threat of Iran reshaping the politics of the region has become paramount.

Iran is, of course, used to psychological campaigns. We continue to believe that while Iran might be close to a nuclear device that could explode underground under carefully controlled conditions, its ability to create a stable, robust nuclear weapon that could function outside a laboratory setting (which is what an underground test is) is a ways off. This includes being able to load a fragile experimental system on a delivery vehicle and expecting it to explode. It might. It might not. It might even be intercepted and create a casus belli for a counterstrike.

The main Iranian threat is not nuclear. It might become so, but even without nuclear weapons, Iran remains a threat. The current escalation originated in the American decision to withdraw from Iraq and was intensified by events in Syria. If Iran abandoned its nuclear program tomorrow, the situation would remain as complex. Iran has the upper hand, and the United States, Israel, Turkey and Saudi Arabia all are looking at how to turn the tables.

At this point, they appear to be following a two-pronged strategy: Increase pressure on Iran to make it recalculate its vulnerability, and bring down the Syrian government to limit the consequences of Iranian influence in Iraq. Whether the Syrian regime can be brought down is problematic. Libya’s Moammar Gadhafi would have survived if NATO hadn’t intervened. NATO could intervene in Syria, but Syria is more complex than Libya. Moreover, a second NATO attack on an Arab state designed to change its government would have unintended consequences, no matter how much the Arabs fear the Iranians at the moment. Wars are unpredictable; they are not the first option.

Therefore the likely solution is covert support for the Sunni opposition funneled through Lebanon and possibly Turkey and Jordan. It will be interesting to see if the Turks participate. Far more interesting will be seeing whether this works. Syrian intelligence has penetrated its Sunni opposition effectively for decades. Mounting a secret campaign against the regime would be difficult, and its success by no means assured. Still, that is the next move.

But it is not the last move. To put Iran back into its box, something must be done about the Iraqi political situation. Given the U.S. withdrawal, Washington has little influence there. All of the relationships the United States built were predicated on American power protecting the relationships. With the Americans gone, the foundation of those relationships dissolves. And even with Syria, the balance of power is shifting.

The United States has three choices. Accept the evolution and try to live with what emerges. Attempt to make a deal with Iran — a very painful and costly one. Or go to war. The first assumes Washington can live with what emerges. The second depends on whether Iran is interested in dealing with the United States. The third depends on having enough power to wage a war and to absorb Iran’s retaliatory strikes, particularly in the Strait of Hormuz. All are dubious, so toppling al Assad is critical. It changes the game and the momentum. But even that is enormously difficult and laden with risks.

We are now in the final act of Iraq, and it is even more painful than imagined. Laying this alongside the European crisis makes the idea of a systemic crisis in the global system very real.

Syria, Iran and the Balance of Power in the Middle East is republished with permission of STRATFOR.

Posted in: Arab Spring, Hezbollah, Hormuz, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Lebanon, Libya, Middle East, oil, Saudi Arabia, Straits of Hormuz, Syria, Turkey, Uncategorized.
Tagged: Iran · Iraq · Israel · Lebanon · Libya · Middle East · oil · Shia · Sunni · Syria · Turkey

Europe’s Crisis: Beyond Finance

Nov 16th, 2011

by EdTroy.

No comments yet

By George Friedman

Everyone is wondering about the next disaster to befall Europe. Italy is one focus; Spain is also a possibility. But these crises are already under way. Instead, the next crisis will be political, not in the sense of what conventional politician is going to become prime minister, but in the deeper sense of whether Europe’s political elite can retain power, or whether new political forces are going to emerge that will completely reshape the European political landscape. If this happens, it will be by far the most important consequence of the European financial crisis.

Thus far we have seen some changes in personalities in the countries at the center of the crisis. In Greece, Prime Minister George Papandreou stepped aside, while in Italy Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi now has resigned. Though these resignations have represented a formal change of government, they have not represented a formal policy change. In fact, Papandreou and Berlusconi both stepped down on the condition that their respective governments adopt the austerity policies proposed during their respective tenures.

Europeanists dominate the coalitions that have replaced them. They come from the generation and class that are deeply intellectually and emotionally committed to the idea of Europe. For them, the European Union is not merely a useful tool for achieving national goals. Rather, it is an alternative to nationalism and the horrors that nationalism has brought to Europe. It is a vision of a single Continent drawn together in a common enterprise — prosperity — that abolishes the dangers of a European war, creates a cooperative economic project and, least discussed but not trivial, returns Europe to its rightful place at the heart of the international political system.

For the generation of leadership born just after World War II that came to political maturity in the last 20 years, the European project was an ideological given and an institutional reality. These leaders formed an international web of European leaders who for the most part all shared this vision. This leadership extended beyond the political sphere: Most European elites were committed to Europe (there were, of course, exceptions).

Greece and the Struggle of the European Elite

Now we are seeing this elite struggle to preserve its vision. When Papandreou called for a referendum on austerity, the European elite put tremendous pressure on him to abandon his initiative. Given the importance of the austerity agreements to the future of Greece, the idea of a referendum made perfect sense. A referendum would allow the Greek government to claim its actions enjoyed the support of the majority of the Greek people. Obviously, it is not clear that the Greeks would have approved the agreement.

Led by German Chancellor Angela Merkel, the European elite did everything possible to prevent such an outcome. This included blocking the next tranche of bailout money and suspending all further bailout money until Greek politicians could commit to all previously negotiated austerity measures. European outrage at the idea of a Greek referendum makes perfect sense.

Coming under pressure from Greece and the European elite, Papandreou resigned and was replaced by a former vice president of the European Central Bank. Already abandoned by Papandreou, the idea of a referendum disappeared.

Two dimensions explain this outcome. The first was national. The common perception in the financial press is that Greece irresponsibly borrowed money to support extravagant social programs and then could not pay off the loans. But there also is validity to the Greek point of view. From this perspective, under financial pressure, the European Union was revealed as a mechanism for Germany to surge exports into developing EU countries via the union’s free trade system. Germany also used Brussels’ regulations and managed the euro such that Greece found itself in an impossible situation. Germany then called on Athens to impose austerity on the Greek people to save irresponsible financiers who, knowing perfectly well what Greece’s economic position was, were eager to lend money to the Greeks. Each version of events has some truth to it, but the debate ultimately was between the European and Greek elites. It was an internal dispute, and whether for Greece’s benefit or for the European financial system’s benefit, both sides were committed to finding a solution.

The second dimension had to do with the Greek public and the Greek and European elites. The Greek elite clearly benefited financially from the European Union. The Greek public, by contrast, had a mixed experience. Certainly, the 20 years of prosperity since the 1990s benefited many — but not all. Economic integration left the Greek economy wide open for other Europeans to enter, putting segments of the Greek economy at a terrific disadvantage. European competitors overwhelmed workers in many industries along with small-business owners in particular. So there always was an argument in Greece for opposing the European Union. The stark choice posed by the current situation strengthened this argument, namely, who would bear the burden of the European system’s dysfunction in Greece? In other words, assuming the European Union was to be saved, who would absorb the cost? The bailouts promised by Germany on behalf of Europe would allow the Greeks to stabilize their financial system and repay at least some of their loans to Europe. This would leave the Greek elite generally intact. The price to Greece would be austerity, but the Greek elite would not pay that price. Members of the broader public — who would lose jobs, pensions, salaries and careers — would.

Essentially, the first question was whether Greece as a nation would deliberately default on its debts — as many corporations do — and force a restructuring on its terms regardless of what the European financial system needed, or whether it would seek to accommodate the European system. The second was whether it would structure an accommodation in Europe such that the burden would not fall on the public but on the Greek elite.

The Greek government chose to seek accommodation with European needs and to allow the major impact of austerity to fall on the public as a consequence of the elite’s interests in Europe — now deep and abiding — and the ideology of Europeanism. Since by its very nature the burden of austerity would fall on the public, it was vital a referendum not be held. Even so, the Greeks undoubtedly would seek to evade the harshest dimensions of austerity. That is the social contract in Greece: The Greeks would promise the Europeans what they wanted, but they would protect the public via duplicity. While that approach might work in Greece, it cannot work in a country like Italy, whose exposure is too large to hide via duplicity. Similarly, duplicity cannot be the ultimate solution to the European crisis.

The Real European Crisis

And here we come to the real European crisis. Given the nature of the crisis, which we have seen play out in Greece, the European elite can save the European concept and their own interests only by transferring the cost to the broader public, and not simply among debtors. Creditors like Germany, too, must absorb the cost and distribute it to the public. German banks simply cannot manage to absorb the losses. Like the French, they will have to be recapitalized, meaning the cost will fall to the public.

Europe was not supposed to work this way. Like Immanuel Kant’s notion of a “Perpetual Peace,” the European Union promised eternal prosperity. That plus preventing war were Europe’s great promises; there was no moral project beyond these. Failure to deliver on either promise undermines the European project’s legitimacy. If the price of retaining Europe is a massive decline in Europeans’ standard of living, then the argument for retaining the European Union is weakened.

As important, if Europe is perceived as failing because the European elite failed, and the European elite is perceived as defending the European idea as a means of preserving its own interests and position, then the public’s commitment to the European idea — never as robust as the elite’s commitment — is put in doubt. The belief in Europe that the crisis can be managed within current EU structures has been widespread. The Germans, however, have floated a proposal that would give creditors in Europe — i.e., the Germans — the power to oversee debtors’ economic decisions. This would undermine sovereignty dramatically. Losing sovereignty for greater prosperity would work in Europe. Losing it to pay back the debts of Europe’s banks is a much harder sell.

The Immigrant Factor and Upcoming Elections

All of this comes at a time of anti-immigrant, particularly anti-Muslim, feeling among the European public. In some countries, anger increasingly has been directed at the European Union and its borders policies — and at European countries’ respective national and international elites, who have used immigration to fuel the economy while creating both economic and cultural tensions in the native population. Thus, immigration has become linked to general perceptions of the European Union, opening both a fundamental economic and cultural divide between European elites and the public.

Racial and ethnic tensions combined with economic austerity and a sense of betrayal toward the elite creates an explosive mixture. Europe experienced this during the inter-war period, though this is not a purely European phenomenon. Disappointment in one’s personal life combined with a feeling of cultural disenfranchisement by outsiders and the sense that the elite is neither honest, nor competent nor committed to the well-being of its own public tends to generate major political reactions anywhere in the world.

Europe has avoided an explosion thus far. But the warning signs are there. Anti-European and anti-immigrant factions existed even during the period when the European Union was functioning, with far-right parties polling up to 16 percent in France. It is not clear that the current crisis has strengthened these elements, but how much this crisis will cost the European public and the absence of miraculous solutions also have not yet become clear. As Italy confronts its crisis, the cost — and the inevitably of the cost — will become clearer.

A large number of elections are scheduled or expected in Europe in 2012 and 2013, including a French presidential election in 2012 and German parliamentary elections in 2013. At the moment, these appear set to be contests between the conventional parties that have dominated Europe since World War II in the West and since 1989 in the East. In general, these are the parties of the elite, all more or less buying into Europe. But anti-European factions have emerged within some of these parties, and as sentiment builds, new parties may form and anti-European factions within existing parties may grow. A crisis of this magnitude cannot happen without Tea Party- and Occupy Wall Street-type factions emerging. In Europe, however — where in addition to economics the crisis is about race, sovereignty, national self-determination and the moral foundations of the European Union — these elements will be broader and more intense.

Populist sentiment coupled with racial and cultural concerns is the classic foundation for right-wing nationalist parties. The European left in general is part of the pro-European elite. Apart from small fragments, very little of the left hasn’t bought into Europe. It is the right that has earned a meaningful following by warning about Europe over the past 20 years. It thus would seem reasonable to expect that these factions will become much stronger as the price of the crisis — and who is going to bear it — becomes apparent.

The real question, therefore, is not how the financial crisis works out. It is whether the European project will survive. And that depends on whether the European elite can retain its legitimacy. That legitimacy is not gone by any means, but it is in the process of being tested like never before, and it is difficult to see how the elite retains it. The polls don’t show the trend yet because the magnitude of the impact on individual lives has not manifested itself in most of Europe. When it does show itself, there will be a massive recalculation regarding the worth and standing of the European elite. There will be calls for revenge, and vows of never allowing such a thing to recur.

Regardless of whether the next immediate European crisis is focused on Spain or Italy, it follows that by mid-decade, Europe’s political landscape will have shifted dramatically, with new parties, personalities and values emerging. The United States shares much of this trend, but its institutions are not newly invented. Old and not working creates problems; new and not working is dangerous. Why the United States will take a different path is a subject for another time. Suffice it to say that the magnitude of Europe’s problems goes well beyond finance.

The European crisis is one of sovereignty, cultural identity and the legitimacy of the elite. The financial crisis has several outcomes, all bad. Regardless of which is chosen, the impact on the political system will be dramatic.

Europe’s Crisis: Beyond Finance is republished with permission of STRATFOR.

Posted in: European Debt Crisis, European Union, Greece, Italy, Spain.
Tagged: austerity · central banks · Debt Crisis · elites · Greece · Italy · sovereignty · Spain

Rethinking American Options on Iran

Nov 8th, 2011

by EdTroy.

No comments yet

By George Friedman

Public discussion of potential attacks on Iran’s nuclear development sites is surging again. This has happened before. On several occasions, leaks about potential airstrikes have created an atmosphere of impending war. These leaks normally coincided with diplomatic initiatives and were designed to intimidate the Iranians and facilitate a settlement favorable to the United States and Israel. These initiatives have failed in the past. It is therefore reasonable to associate the current avalanche of reports with the imposition of sanctions and view it as an attempt to increase the pressure on Iran and either force a policy shift or take advantage of divisions within the regime.

My first instinct is to dismiss the war talk as simply another round of psychological warfare against Iran, this time originating with Israel. Most of the reports indicate that Israel is on the verge of attacking Iran. From a psychological-warfare standpoint, this sets up the good-cop/bad-cop routine. The Israelis play the mad dog barely restrained by the more sober Americans, who urge the Iranians through intermediaries to make concessions and head off a war. As I said, we have been here before several times, and this hasn’t worked.

The worst sin of intelligence is complacency, the belief that simply because something has happened (or has not happened) several times before it is not going to happen this time. But each episode must be considered carefully in its own light and preconceptions from previous episodes must be banished. Indeed, the previous episodes might well have been intended to lull the Iranians into complacency themselves. Paradoxically, the very existence of another round of war talk could be intended to convince the Iranians that war is distant while covert war preparations take place. An attack may be in the offing, but the public displays neither confirm nor deny that possibility.

The Evolving Iranian Assessment

STRATFOR has gone through three phases in its evaluation of the possibility of war. The first, which was in place until July 2009, held that while Iran was working toward a nuclear weapon, its progress could not be judged by its accumulation of enriched uranium. While that would give you an underground explosion, the creation of a weapon required sophisticated technologies for ruggedizing and miniaturizing the device, along with a very reliable delivery system. In our view, Iran might be nearing a testable device but it was far from a deliverable weapon. Therefore, we dismissed war talk and argued that there was no meaningful pressure for an attack on Iran.

We modified this view somewhat in July 2009, after the Iranian elections and the demonstrations. While we dismissed the significance of the demonstrations, we noted close collaboration developing between Russia and Iran. That meant there could be no effective sanctions against Iran, so stalling for time in order for sanctions to work had no value. Therefore, the possibility of a strike increased.

But then Russian support stalled as well, and we turned back to our analysis, adding to it an evaluation of potential Iranian responses to any air attack. We noted three potential counters: activating Shiite militant groups (most notably Hezbollah), creating chaos in Iraq and blocking the Strait of Hormuz, through which 45 percent of global oil exports travel. Of the three Iranian counters, the last was the real “nuclear option.” Interfering with the supply of oil from the Persian Gulf would raise oil prices stunningly and would certainly abort the tepid global economic recovery. Iran would have the option of plunging the world into a global recession or worse.

There has been debate over whether Iran would choose to do the latter or whether the U.S. Navy could rapidly clear mines. It is hard to imagine how an Iranian government could survive air attacks without countering them in some way. It is also a painful lesson of history that the confidence of any military force cannot be a guide to its performance. At the very least, there is a possibility that the Iranians could block the Strait of Hormuz, and that means the possibility of devastating global economic consequences. That is a massive risk for the United States to take, against an unknown probability of successful Iranian action. In our mind, it was not a risk that the United States could take, especially when added to the other Iranian counters. Therefore, we did not think the United States would strike.

Certainly, we did not believe that the Israelis would strike Iran alone. First, the Israelis are much less likely to succeed than the Americans would be, given the size of their force and their distance from Iran (not to mention the fact that they would have to traverse either Turkish, Iraqi or Saudi airspace). More important, Israel lacks the ability to mitigate any consequences. Any Israeli attack would have to be coordinated with the United States so that the United States could alert and deploy its counter-mine, anti-submarine and missile-suppression assets. For Israel to act without giving the United States time to mitigate the Hormuz option would put Israel in the position of triggering a global economic crisis. The political consequences of that would not be manageable by Israel. Therefore, we found an Israeli strike against Iran without U.S. involvement difficult to imagine.

The Current Evaluation

Our current view is that the accumulation of enough enriched uranium to build a weapon does not mean that the Iranians are anywhere close to having a weapon. Moreover, the risks inherent in an airstrike on its nuclear facilities outstrip the benefits (and even that assumes that the entire nuclear industry is destroyed in one fell swoop — an unsure outcome at best). It also assumes the absence of other necessary technologies. Assumptions of U.S. prowess against mines might be faulty, and so, too, could my assumption about weapon development. The calculus becomes murky, and one would expect all governments involved to be waffling.

There is, of course, a massive additional issue. Apart from the direct actions that Iran might make, there is the fact that the destruction of its nuclear capability would not solve the underlying strategic challenge that Iran poses. It has the largest military force in the Persian Gulf, absent the United States. The United States is in the process of withdrawing from Iraq, which would further diminish the ability of the United States to contain Iran. Therefore, a surgical strike on Iran’s nuclear capability combined with the continuing withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq would create a profound strategic crisis in the Persian Gulf.

The country most concerned about Iran is not Israel, but Saudi Arabia. The Saudis recall the result of the last strategic imbalance in the region, when Iraq, following its armistice with Iran, proceeded to invade Kuwait, opening the possibility that its next intention was to seize the northeastern oil fields of Saudi Arabia. In that case, the United States intervened. Given that the United States is now withdrawing from Iraq, intervention following withdrawal would be politically difficult unless the threat to the United States was clear. More important, the Iranians might not give the Saudis the present Saddam Hussein gave them by seizing Kuwait and then halting. They might continue. They certainly have the military capacity to try.

In a real sense, the Iranians would not have to execute such a military operation in order to gain the benefits. The simple imbalance of forces would compel the Saudis and others in the Persian Gulf to seek a political accommodation with the Iranians. Strategic domination of the Persian Gulf does not necessarily require military occupation — as the Americans have abundantly demonstrated over the past 40 years. It merely requires the ability to carry out those operations.

The Saudis, therefore, have been far quieter — and far more urgent — than the Israelis in asking the United States to do something about the Iranians. The Saudis certainly do not want the United States to leave Iraq. They want the Americans there as a blocking force protecting Saudi Arabia but not positioned on Saudi soil. They obviously are not happy about Iran’s nuclear efforts, but the Saudis see the conventional and nuclear threat as a single entity. The collapse of the Iran-Iraq balance of power has left the Arabian Peninsula in a precarious position.

King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia did an interesting thing a few weeks ago. He visited Lebanon personally and in the company of the president of Syria. The Syrian and Saudi regimes are not normally friendly, given different ideologies, Syria’s close relationship with Iran and their divergent interests in Lebanon. But there they were together, meeting with the Lebanese government and giving not very subtle warnings to Hezbollah. Saudi influence and money and the threat of Iran jeopardizing the Saudi regime by excessive adventurism seems to have created an anti-Hezbollah dynamic in Lebanon. Hezbollah is suddenly finding many of its supposed allies cooperating with some of its certain enemies. The threat of a Hezbollah response to an airstrike on Iran seems to be mitigated somewhat.

Eliminating Iranian Leverage In Hormuz

I said that there were three counters. One was Hezbollah, which is the least potent of the three from the American perspective. The other two are Iraq and Hormuz. If the Iraqis were able to form a government that boxed in pro-Iranian factions in a manner similar to how Hezbollah is being tentatively contained, then the second Iranian counter would be weakened. That would “just” leave the major issue — Hormuz.

The problem with Hormuz is that the United States cannot tolerate any risk there. The only way to control that risk is to destroy Iranian naval capability before airstrikes on nuclear targets take place. Since many of the Iranian mine layers would be small boats, this would mean an extensive air campaign and special operations forces raids against Iranian ports designed to destroy anything that could lay mines, along with any and all potential mine-storage facilities, anti-ship missile emplacements, submarines and aircraft. Put simply, any piece of infrastructure within a few miles of any port would need to be eliminated. The risk to Hormuz cannot be eliminated after the attack on nuclear sites. It must be eliminated before an attack on the nuclear sites. And the damage must be overwhelming.

There are two benefits to this strategy. First, the nuclear facilities aren’t going anywhere. It is the facilities that are producing the enriched uranium and other parts of the weapon that must be destroyed more than any uranium that has already been enriched. And the vast bulk of those facilities will remain where they are even if there is an attack on Iran’s maritime capabilities. Key personnel would undoubtedly escape, but considering that within minutes of the first American strike anywhere in Iran a mass evacuation of key scientists would be under way anyway, there is little appreciable difference between a first strike against nuclear sites and a first strike against maritime targets. (U.S. air assets are good, but even the United States cannot strike 100-plus targets simultaneously.)

Second, the counter-nuclear strategy wouldn’t deal with the more fundamental problem of Iran’s conventional military power. This opening gambit would necessarily attack Iran’s command-and-control, air-defense and offensive air capabilities as well as maritime capabilities. This would sequence with an attack on the nuclear capabilities and could be extended into a prolonged air campaign targeting Iran’s ground forces.

The United States is very good at gaining command of the air and attacking conventional military capabilities (see Yugoslavia in 1999). Its strategic air capability is massive and, unlike most of the U.S. military, underutilized. The United States also has substantial air forces deployed around Iran, along with special operations forces teams trained in penetration, evasion and targeting, and satellite surveillance. Far from the less-than-rewarding task of counterinsurgency in Afghanistan, going after Iran would be the kind of war the United States excels at fighting. No conventional land invasion, no boots-on-the-ground occupation, just a very thorough bombing campaign. If regime change happens as a consequence, great, but that is not the primary goal. Defanging the Iranian state is.

It is also the only type of operation that could destroy the nuclear capabilities (and then some) while preventing an Iranian response. It would devastate Iran’s conventional military forces, eliminating the near-term threat to the Arabian Peninsula. Such an attack, properly executed, would be the worst-case scenario for Iran and, in my view, the only way an extended air campaign against nuclear facilities could be safely executed.

Just as Iran’s domination of the Persian Gulf rests on its ability to conduct military operations, not on its actually conducting the operations, the reverse is also true. It is the capacity and apparent will to conduct broadened military operations against Iran that can shape Iranian calculations and decision-making. So long as the only threat is to Iran’s nuclear facilities, its conventional forces remain intact and its counter options remain viable, Iran will not shift its strategy. Once its counter options are shut down and its conventional forces are put at risk, Iran must draw up another calculus.

In this scenario, Israel is a marginal player. The United States is the only significant actor, and it might not strike Iran simply over the nuclear issue. That’s not a major U.S. problem. But the continuing withdrawal from Iraq and Iran’s conventional forces are very much an American problem. Destroying Iran’s nuclear capability is merely an added benefit.

Given the Saudi intervention in Lebanese politics, this scenario now requires a radical change in Iraq, one in which a government would be quickly formed and Iranian influence quickly curtailed. Interestingly, we have heard recent comments by administration officials asserting that Iranian influence has, in fact, been dramatically reduced. At present, such a reduction is not obvious to us, but the first step of shifting perceptions tends to be propaganda. If such a reduction became real, then the two lesser Iranian counter moves would be blocked and the U.S. offensive option would become more viable.

Internal Tension in Tehran

At this point, we would expect to see the Iranians recalculating their position, with some of the clerical leadership using the shifting sands of Lebanon against Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Indeed, there have been many indications of internal stress, not between the mythical democratic masses and the elite, but within the elite itself. This past weekend the Iranian speaker of the house attacked Ahmadinejad’s handling of special emissaries. For what purpose we don’t yet know, but the internal tension is growing.

The Iranians are not concerned about the sanctions. The destruction of their nuclear capacity would, from their point of view, be a pity. But the destruction of large amounts of their conventional forces would threaten not only their goals in the wider Islamic world but also their stability at home. That would be unacceptable and would require a shift in their general strategy.

From the Iranian point of view — and from ours — Washington’s intentions are opaque. But when we consider the Obama administration’s stated need to withdraw from Iraq, Saudi pressure on the United States not to withdraw while Iran remains a threat, Saudi moves against Hezbollah to split Syria from Iran and Israeli pressure on the United States to deal with nuclear weapons, the pieces for a new American strategy are emerging from the mist. Certainly the Iranians appear to be nervous. And the threat of a new strategy might just be enough to move the Iranians off dead center. If they don’t, logic would dictate the consideration of a broader treatment of the military problem posed by Iran.

Rethinking American Options on Iran is republished with permission of STRATFOR.

Posted in: Hezbollah, Iran, Iraq, Islam, Israel, Middle East, Obama, oil, Saudi Arabia, Straits of Hormuz.
Tagged: Iran · Iran's nuclear weapons · Israel · Middle East War · Saudi Arabia · Straits of Hormuz

Pat Condell Tells The Truth About The Great Palestinian Lie

Nov 7th, 2011

by EdTroy.

No comments yet

And, as rebuttal to comments critical of his above posting, he posted the following.

Posted in: Arab Spring, Egypt, Gaza, Hamas, Hezbollah, human stupidity, Iran, Islam, Islamist, Israel, liberals, Libya, Libyan Constitution, Mohammad, Muslim, Palestine, religion, stupid people, terrorism.
Tagged: human stupidity · Islam · Israel · Libya · Middle East · Palestine · Pat Condell · terrorist

Restoring America’s Economy Isn’t Rocket Science

Oct 9th, 2011

by EdTroy.

No comments yet

But, unfortunately, it requires educated voters and common sense, both of which are in short supply in today’s America. Thanks to the failed policies of people like Franklin Roosevelt, Lyndon Johnson, Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, George Bush II, and Barack Obama, America has been reduced to a nation of dependent morons.

America was founded on the basis of rugged individualism and free enterprise. It was founded on the principal that taxation without representation was abhorrent and to be rejected. Today, America is more indebted than almost any nation in the world. It is also a nation blighted by official unemployment at a level of slightly over 9%, while real unemployment is closer to 20%. America has almost 50 million people on food stamps! America has millions of people collecting unemployment benefits, and now, they are collecting it for up to 99 weeks. (And Obama will be extending those entitlements for an even longer period of time.) In some states, like Rhode Island, an unemployed person can collect up to $682 per week, and up to $996 per week if they have dependents, based on a salary when they were working of only $909 per week. Any guess how long these people will be unemployed? (In case you are extremely naive, or math challenged, the answer is 99 weeks–or more if Obama extends unemployment benefits.) Why accept a job when you can make almost as much, or more, while staying home and watching TV, golfing, fishing, or whatever?

America has tens of millions on welfare. Most of them also get food stamps. Many of them also get subsidized housing, often complete with stainless steel appliances and granite counter tops. And, most of them have things like flat screen televisions, cable or satellite tv, microwave ovens, cars, and even cellular telephones, complete with text messaging and data plans. Something is wrong with this picture. If you are so irresponsible and lazy that you can’t even feed yourself, how can you afford (or be allowed to afford) luxuries like cell phones, high definition televisions, and cable or satellite television? The only “luxury” that they should be allowed is basic high speed internet. With that, they can learn and educate themselves, and keep up with world events. (But, of course, most of them probably use their high speed internet to play interactive video games and download videos, audios, and porn.) Also, they can get something like Skype or Magic Jack to get essentially free telephone service, which is important to have. Cell phones, however, are a luxury that they clearly cannot afford if they can’t even afford to put food in their mouths or a roof over their heads. (Of course, since many of these people are dealing drugs and making other money “under the table” to supplement their welfare and other entitlements, they might claim that they need the cell phone to set up their “deals”.)

I realize that millions of people are unemployed, or underemployed. But, the fact of the matter is that if you cannot find a new job in a couple of months, you are either not trying, or your expectations are way too high. Yes, I realize that you may not be able to get your old job back. But, in many cases that is because you worked in an industry like the auto industry where unions strong-armed the car companies to pay outrageous salaries and fund ridiculous benefits packages. Now, because of those unnatural union policies, your company became totally uncompetitive and you are now out of work. It is now being reported that the United States Postal Service is going bankrupt, and will have to lay off over 100,000 employees and severely cut back, or even eliminate, service. Why? Primarily because of union imposed contracts that prohibit layoffs and force the postal service to pay unreasonably high wages and benefits. Thus, it, like many other industries that are dominated by unions, is uncompetitive and must cut back or go completely out of business. Thank your union, suck it up, and get a job! Yes, you will have to live on less, but at least you won’t be sucking off the government’s tit, which lives off the blood of successful, educated people who have jobs and who (unlike most, or almost most, Americans) pay taxes.

If Obama does further extend the unemployment entitlement, it will not create jobs. It will just ensure that the unemployment rate remains high while those on unemployment refuse to get new jobs as long as the unemployment check does not bounce. And, remember, unemployment benefits are based on the salary that you used to have; it has no relationship to what your skill-set (or lack thereof) is worth in today’s economy. Thus, while most receive less in unemployment than they used to receive, in many cases they receive more than they could receive, today. Eventually they are going to have to get the best paying job they can. The sooner they realize that, the sooner the country will get back to work. The longer the government enables them to put off that decision, the more bankrupt the United States will become, and the longer it will take to get America back to work.

Of course, another major problem in the United States is that the quality of the educational system has gone steadily down hill since the founding of the Department of Education in 1981. The first item in the budget cutting process should be to totally disband the Department of Education. It, the democratic party and the teacher’s union, have done more damage to the future of America than any other organizations. While America pays more for education than any other country, it produces some of the least educated students in the world. Sure, they have been brainwashed to believe that it is great that Suzy has two mommies and Billy has two daddies, and that evil corporations, and even their evil parents, are destroying the world by using energy and heating their homes and driving their cars, thanks to the UN contrived rubric of Global Warming, but they can’t read, write, and do arithmetic at a level that is even basically competent, let alone well enough to get good jobs in today’s world. And, competence in the fields of math and science is going to be even more vital in the coming decades. Of course, it is hard to blame the students who are incompetent in science when we have “leaders” who believe the earth is only 6000 years old, that someone was born of a virgin, and that evolution is “just a theory” and that nonsense like “intelligent design” should be taught in schools. In Texas, 45% of high school biology teachers believe the following statement to be definitely true or probably true: “Adam and Eve were the first human beings and were created by God.” In that same 1988 survey of Texas high school biology teachers (1), 19% believed that the following statement was definitely true or probably true: “Dinosaurs and humans lived at the same time.” (The “yabba dabba do” theory.) I think it is safe to say that many of the Presidential candidates, especially on the republican side, believe in the “yabba dabba do” theory. That is scary!

Another thing that must be done to get America back on track is to scale back taxes (or even eliminate the income tax completely), and greatly reduce regulations. Corporate income taxes should be completely eliminated, since corporations do not pay income taxes. A tax, to them, is just another cost of production, like the plastic or metal parts or labor that goes into whatever they manufacture and sell. To stay in business, they must simply add up all those costs, including taxes, add a profit margin, and that is the minimum price that they can sell the item for and stay in business. If another company, in another country (or state), pays a lower tax, or no tax, their cost will be lower, and thus their item will be priced more competitively, thus putting the highly taxed company at a disadvantage. In many cases, that higher cost basis puts the American company out of business. Or, as we see more and more in recent times, the American company is forced to relocate its factories to other countries so as to avoid the US taxes. That, of course, further reduces US jobs. But, it is a choice that they are forced to make if they are to stay in business because of the corporate income tax. Eliminate that tax, and companies can come back into the United States and bring their money back to the United States to be put to good use. As it stands right now, some companies have tens of billions of dollars in offshore accounts that they cannot bring back into the United States because the government will steal 35% of that money in income taxes!

If these things are done, as well as simplifying regulations from bodies such as the EPA, companies will start putting their frozen capital back to work, jobs will be created, and we will again be able to compete in the world marketplace. Government spending of trillions of dollars does not work. Keynesian economics was a failure when FDR used it, it was a failure when Obama repeated FDR’s mistakes, and Keynesian economics will always fail. (Of course, Communism and Socialism always fail, too, but that does not make countries and people keep thinking that “this time it will be different”.) To see where the United States is going with its massive and totally irresponsible social welfare programs, all you have to do is look at Greece, Ireland, Spain, Portugal, and Italy. They have run out of the other person’s money, and the result is chaos and severe economic displacement. If they had not instituted unsustainable social welfare programs ranging from “free health care” to early retirement and others, they would be solvent today.

Of course, the primary cause of the economic turmoil over the last few years in the United States can be placed squarely at the feet of irresponsible social programs such as the Community Reinvestment Act. In the end, this program essentially forced banks to make loans to people who could not possibly afford the homes that they were encouraged to buy. (And the buyers were too stupid to be able to read and understand the mortgage applications that they were signing and understand what would happen when (not if) interest rates increased after the initial “teaser” period.) This glut of unqualified buyers eventually lead to a steep rise in housing prices and the eventual collapse of the housing market which precipitated the market meltdown.

And, what does the government do about these facts that should be absolutely embarrassing to it? It extends unemployment benefits and calls for higher taxes! It is no wonder that America is doomed! First of all, it has been proven, repeatedly, that raising taxes results in reduced tax revenues; if you raise taxes, the rich will find loopholes, and the “greedy” companies that are actually making money will simply move their taxable operations offshore, thus eliminating confiscatory income taxes and reducing US employment. The democrats can jump up and down and shout all they want, but the bottom line is that people and companies will seek out environments where they can maximize their profitability. Staying in the United States, today, is clearly a step toward corporate suicide. And, by extension, remaining in high tax states (or even the United States) spells individual financial suicide for successful people. Successful people are leaving high tax states like New York, Illinois, and California like rats jumping from a sinking ship, and well they should. Why live in a state that bleeds you to death, financially, if you are successful?

The nanny state started with Franklin Roosevelt. He was a failure at everything that he tried, until he became President of the United States. He attempted many businesses, but failed at each. He would have divorced his wife, Elanor, but his mommy told him that she would cut off his allowance if he did that; thus, he stayed “married”, while screwing his lover (and the United States).

Now, we come to modern-day America. We have a nation that is nothing more than a bankrupt banana republic. (The only real difference between the United States and Greece is that the United States can print money; Greece cannot.) But we are not looking seriously at what needs to be done to save the nation. We need to cut taxes, cut regulations, re-instate Glass Stiegal to re-impose the separation of investment banks from commercial banks, re-institute the uptick rule to temper market drops, eliminate personal and corporate welfare, reduce the long term capital gains tax to zero to encourage investment, reduce corporate income taxes to zero, repeal Dodd-Frank, and repeal Sarbanes-Oxley. We need to make it clear that public funds will not be used to “bail out” banks and other businesses that make stupid bets and loose. We need to drop all consideration of “cap and trade”, since the portion of “global warming” that can be attributed to man is negligible and if there is any further long term warming, we can learn to adapt. (Recent developments strongly point to the sun, and cosmic rays, as the primary drivers of climate.) And, higher CO2 levels will increase plant production. We need to open up new areas for oil and gas exploration and encourage the use of alternative energy (but not force it on people and nations.) While alternative energy is a good thing for many reasons, it is not yet cost effective, and it simply cannot provide base load capacity. That can only be done with coal, oil, gas, and, preferably, nuclear, hydro, and geothermal power. We need to be realistic about entitlements, and face the fact that they must be cut back, drastically. Social Security must be privatized so that there really is a “trust fund” that really does earn interest so that benefits can be paid out in the future. (Currently Social Security receipts simply go into the treasury with all of the other tax revenues; it is not segregated and invested in some sort of “trust fund”, contrary to what some may believe.) Other entitlement programs must similarly be restructured or simply eliminated. The size of government must be scaled back by at least 50%, and more would be better. (And that would only take us back to the level that government was a decade or two ago.) Finally, Obamacare must be repealed and federal regulations drastically reduced to allow states and associations to come up with varied, innovative, and affordable insurance plans that fit the very diverse needs of Americans.

It is not going to be easy, but the sooner we recognize that we are on an unsustainable course and take massive action to reverse that course, the better. Global warming is not an imminent disaster; the complete collapse of the United States into insolvency is.

(1) “High School Biology Teachers and Pseudoscientific Belief: Passing It On?” by Raymond Eve and Dana Dunn, “The Skeptical Inquirer”, vol 13, Spring 1989, pp 260-263.

Posted in: 2012 election, Al Gore, cap and tax, cause of climate change, CERN, cosmic rays, democrats, economy, evolution, free market capitalism, global warming, Global Warming BS, global warming scam, government programs, human stupidity, Obama, politics, religion, republicans, retirement, science, Social Security, socialism, stupid people, supressing science, taxes, us income tax.
Tagged: economic recovery · education · entitlements · Franklin Roosevelt · global warming · jobs · Lyndon Johnson · Obama · Obamacare · Social Security · tax reform · unemployment insurance

Interventionist Arguments and Illusions

The Difficulties of an Intervention

Syria and Iran

Greece and the Struggle of the European Elite

The Real European Crisis

The Immigrant Factor and Upcoming Elections

Search

World Climate Widget

Like what you see and want to keep the material coming? All donations gratefully accepted

Support Our Advertisers

Recent Posts

Iranium: Why Iran Must Be Stopped Before They Go Nuclear

Fitna: A short movie by Dutch parliamentarian Geert Wilders.

Excellent Short Clip On CO2 Caused Global Warming Scam

Suggested Reading List

Archives

Amazon Deals

Our Amazon Recomendations

Twitter Updates

Atheist Blogroll

Links

Blogroll

Categories

Boycott the companies that support Copenhagen cap and tax

Tags