Stop the Presses: UN says Iran ignoring its demands to suspend nuke work

I'm shocked that anyone is shocked that the UN is shocked by this news.

'Peaceful' Nukes.

Again, definitions. The Muslim world is sufficiently detached from reality as to define 'peace' as 'no more Israel.'

Purely a peaceful program, you see!

Someone tell Obama.

Here is a fun comic that deals with the coming nuclear disaster from Iran having nukes.

http://edencrossing.com/100/showTell.html

Here is a fun comic that deals with the coming nuclear disaster from Iran having nukes.

http://edencrossing.com/100/showTell.html

Someone tell Obama.
Posted by: TheOmegaMan
---------------------------

Obama is now backtracking. Today he's saying:
"There's no reason why we would necessarily meet with Ahmadinejad before we know that he was actually in power. He's not the most powerful person in Iran," Obama told reporters while campaigning in New Mexico.

HUH?

He attempted to once again clarify his ramblings by then stating:
In the case of Iran, Obama said, "Preparation means that there are low-level talks in which there's clarity about our concerns around the nuclear weapons program but that we're willing to listen to their perspective."

LISTEN TO THEIR "PERSPECTIVE"? HUH? FOR WHAT? THEY AREN'T GOING TO HAVE NUKES IS THE ONLY CLARITY THAT'S NEEDED.

Our politicians seem to have lost the notions that others might use, *GASP*, deception and lies against them, eh, us?

Fear of confrontation only grows when it's postponed.

"Iran has denied that its uranium enrichment programme is being used for a nuclear weapon, insisting it is only for generating electricity.

Yeah, sure, that's it." --RS

As Misterogers might say, "Kids, can you say "Taqiyya?"

BTW, what does "al-Taqiyya" mean in Arabic? The Deception, or something similar?

I'm shocked. Who would have thought old monkey features armanidinnerjacket would ignore the UN?

If Iran want nuclear weapons why don't we send them some? They could be there in say four minutes?

John McCain just gave a address minutes ago on the old "Atoms for peace" program, and expanding the U.N.'s role and control of nuclear issues.

His older votes are not quite in sync with his current statements, he keeps talking about Russia, and lowering the current stockpile of our two countrys wepons.

The path of our current road, same as the old path. We need a time out, and bold outlook.

The U.N. is NOT the answer as of now, at least that much should be clear to those who want to see the truth.

IRAN IS PLAYING "ROPE-A-DOPE" AS THEY PURSUE, CEASELESSLY, THE ATOM BOMB! OBAMA'S IDEAS MUST HAVE FORMULATED OVER AT A WINE/BRIE PARTY IN CHICAGO'S LEFT-WING BASTION,HYDE PARK, IN CLOSE DELIBERATION WITH AYERS AND DOHRN!

This is a good time to remember what Ben Bella, then Prime Minister of Algeria, said in an interview in 1982, reported and analysed by Bat Yeor on page 137-38 of 'The Dhimmi: Jews and Christians Under Islam'.

I quote here Ben Bella's words and Bat Yeor's commentary. I note also that Jacques Ellul in 'Un Chretien Pour Israel' also drew attention to these words of Ben Bella.

For complete clarity, one should substitute 'Muslims' where Ben Bella says 'Arabs' and 'Arab'.

'A negative attitude {writes Bat Yeor] was expressed in 1982 by Algeria’s first president, in a lapidary formula:

"Ce que nous voulons, nous autres Arabes, c’est etre. Or, nous ne pourrons etre que si l’autre n’est pas."
- i.e. "What we want, as Arabs, is to *be*. However, we can only be, if *the other* is not’.” {or, ‘if the other does not exist’}…{from Ben Bella, ‘Tous Contre Israel’, P.I. 16 (Paris, 1982), p. 108}

'Ben Bella openly approved the assassinaton of leaders whose policies he disapproves of – {same source, p. 107} – a common practice under the Mamluks – and then went on to justify, after the acquisition of nuclear weapons by Arab states, a nuclear war to destroy Israel:

"If there is no other solution, then let there be a nuclear war, and that will be the end of it, once and for all.” {same source, i p. 108}.

'Such a public display of aggressiveness and moral irresponsibility is rooted in a monolithic clear conscience, which has never been affected [p. 138] by any scruples regarding the tragedy of the dhimmis {non-Muslims living under Muslim domination}.'

Bat Yeor adds, in footnote #11, that 'In the 1982 interview, to which frequent reference has been made here, Ben Bella repeats the commonly held opinion of Muslims that Islam, unlike Christendom, is free from any racist prejudice and has always treated its ‘minorities’ well. He conveniently forgot the manner by which nations and communities were reduced to the status of religious minorities in their own countries. Without indulging in broad comparisons, it may be noted that Western countries allow minorities to research and record their own history without hindrance.'

Let's see what happens when we substitute 'Muslim' for 'Arab' (a distinction without a difference, if one views Islam as primarily the Arab Imperial Religion):

"What we want, as MUSLIMS, is to *be*. However, we can only be, if *the other* is not’.”

'Ben Bella went on to justify, after the acquisition of nuclear weapons by MUSLIM states, a nuclear war to destroy Israel:

"If there is no other solution, then let there be a nuclear war, and that will be the end of it, once and for all.”

Brrrr.

1982, that was. 1982. The Arab Muslims - and other Muslims - have been zealously pursuing nuclear weapons. And Ben Bella, way back in 1982, told us exactly why they want those weapons.

Because modern WMDs, especially nukes, offer to Muslims the seductive promise, the heady vision, of finally being able to totally annihilate, in one apocalyptic moment of destructive ecstasy, mass murder to end all mass murders, the despised Other whose very existence offends Muslims so much, whose existence prevents the Muslims from 'being' - Jews and the Jewish state of Israel, first of all; but then...all the rest of us, all five billion non-Muslims in the world.

Destroying Israel-again, will not kill all the Jews.

Are these people stupid or what.

In a thousand years the Jews will be right back there, and they will still be better off then the Muslims.

What is this about Iran filling Million barrel Tankers and leaving them in port?

Are we looking at Iran preparing History's Oldest Naval Weapon. The Fire Ship?

It seems very odd that Iran has filled up to 10(as reported several days ago) and has them sitting around. Especially given its net worth and Iran's recent propensity for spending and giving away Money

"It seems very odd that Iran has filled up to 10(as reported several days ago) and has them sitting around. Especially given its net worth and Iran's recent propensity for spending and giving away Money

Posted by: flowerknife_us"

Iranians and Muslims in general are not rational people. They are desparate people..pursuing the dreams of a 7th century caravan raider.

Seems to me that those 10 ships are a pretty easy way to prevent Iran's exporting any oil. Once an attack sub puts them on the bottom, that is. Problem solved, port closed, money flow into Iran stopped.

Of course, the US could repay the owners of the ships for their part in the war effort, if they are flagged in other than enemy colors.

They had OPEC (oil producing economic community) strangling the world with their hate and greed. Time for FPEC (food producing economic community) to be formed..Muslims have oil, we have food..I forsee food in Muslims countries becoming very very expensive. If they have a problem with this then they can keep their oil and we will keep the food. FPEC, I like the idea.

"Once an attack sub puts them on the bottom, "

Posted by: M.Demetrius

not necessary to ruin a good ship, just mine the waterways, if you move you sink, mines work on those stupid Iranian fast boats too. The subs can stay hidden , ready to dish out real pain if called upon.

Why would Iran sit on excess of 1 billion dollars worth of Oil? They are a bit expensive to lease as Oil storage.