Attacks on Sensitive Centers
Advocated by connected Iranian op-ed writer/editor in response to Zionist, infidel offenses. MEMRI:
“The slaughter being carried out by the Zionists in Gaza – which includes the mass murder of Palestinian men, women, and children, cutting off the electricity, water, and fuel, stopping the supply of medicines and food products – along with various other savage crimes, is disgraceful for the Zionists, and for America and its European allies.
“However, it is even more embarrassing and disgraceful for, first and foremost, the heads of several Islamic countries, [including] Egypt, that is insisting on adhering to the abject Camp David Accords and closing the Rafah border crossing [to the Palestinians]; for the cowardly and characterless rulers of Bahrain and the U.A.E., who awarded a prize to the murderer [i.e. President Bush] of the oppressed Palestinian people during his recent trip to the region; and for the Saudi [royal] family, that bears the appellation ‘Custodian of the Two Holy Places’ but is indifferent to the crimes and violations of the infidel Zionists in the Muslim holy places, and so on.
“But aren’t most of the sensitive centers of the Zionists, of the Americans, and of some European states that support Israel already situated within the arms’ reach of the Muslims? And aren’t the Zionists [vulnerable] and located within arms’ reach of the Muslims at the four corners of the earth? What human and legal basis can prevent an attack on these centers and people? Why must the savage, blood-letting Zionists and Americans be permitted to choose the field of battle as they wish? [Why are they permitted] to besiege the oppressed Palestinian brothers and sisters and their children, on the land that belongs to that helpless people, and to shoot at them night and day and to massacre them?
“America and its European and Zionist supporters must know that their support for Israel’s crimes will cost them very dearly. Once they discern that this support will cost them the property and lives of their citizens, they will doubtless reconsider their support for the savage Zionists… And didn’t the Imam [Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini] teach that if every Muslim pours out one bucket of water, there will be a flood that will sweep away Israel, and destroy it?
“Every time a movement rises up against the Zionist occupier and acts to liberate its homeland, America and its allies accuse it of terrorism, and every state that supports these movements is punished. Why wouldn’t the Muslims act the same way, and attack all the supporters of the Zionists everywhere in the world?”
On the other side of the debate, here’s an advisor to former president Khatami wacking Ahmadinejad over his disastrous domestic and foreign policy. MEMRI again:
Interviewer: “[Ahmadinejad] is the right man at the right time, using the right means, and consequently, his foreign policy and his discourse are right too. Do you agree with this position?”
Mohammad Shariati: “No, I don’t. First of all, in the elections, foreign policy issues have little impact on public opinion, and these issues are dealt with in broad terms only. All the presidential candidates agreed on the basics of our foreign policy.
[...]
“Our foreign policy under Ahmadinejad could have yielded better results, if the methods of previous [governments] had been used. With regard to foreign relations and the countries of the region… When President Ahmadinejad was elected, he had very little experience in foreign policy, compared to his experience in other fields. Iran’s initial conduct vis-à-vis its neighbors – the most important aspect of Iran’s foreign relations, as was determined by the National Security Council – is different from Iran’s conduct today, two and a half years later. The government has returned to the language of previous [governments], and to their attitude towards friendly countries, as well as to their [policy] regarding the nuclear issue. The previous governments emphasized international cooperation, as well as transparency towards the U.N. and its agencies. They did not say – as we now hear time and again – that we would withdraw from the NPT and similar statements.
“In addition, Larijani resigned because he reached the conclusion that the path taken by Khatami, Rafsanjani, and Rowhani on the [nuclear] issue is more realistic than the path taken by Ahmadinejad. With regard to Iraq too – in my opinion, if a reformist policy had been employed, Iran would not have made all its mistakes in Iraq, and the problems we face throughout the Arab world would have been avoided. [Iran] supported some of the militias, which had no understanding of the Sunni-Shi’ite issue, and acted tyrannically. In my opinion, if they had adopted a reformist policy, as was the case in the past, there would have been fewer perils and fewer alliances against us.
[...]
“The factories used to operate for longer hours, there was work, and the standard of living was higher. Everybody admits that investments have declined significantly, and that [the government] signed fictitious contracts that have not been implemented, because others avoid investing here, and [the government] wants to create the impression that it has investments, because the price of oil has changed.
[...]
“Even the government admits that this is the situation, but says that this is the price of our steadfastness, and that it is due to the external pressure and the international resolutions.
[...]
“[This government] supported peoples in the region because they are Shi’ite or of Iranian origin. In contrast, in the governments of Rafsanjani and of Khatami, we have reached the conclusion that the [Shiite] citizens of these countries can achieve their rights better than we can defend these rights. With regard to Hamas and Hizbullah, one cannot sever our ties with the peoples, because ties between peoples are the essence of the Revolution, but these relations must be within a general framework, avoiding internal differences.
“Take Lebanon, for example. If there is a conflict there, we must invest all our efforts into resolving this domestic conflict. We have seen others who came to Lebanon, and said that interference in domestic affairs is not allowed.
[...]
“During the civil war, we had ties with everybody. Today, Iranian diplomacy does not accept [Lebanese Prime Minister Fuad Al-]Siniora, for example. In my opinion, this is a flaw.
[...]
“If we want to support Hamas, we must exert pressure on it with regard to national unity.”
Meanwhile, via Fars, Iran’s FM warns of “serious and logical” consequences to new U.N. anti-nuke sanctions. No word on what is serious/logical.
Topics: Iran, Zionists, hated Crusaders
Posted by Jules Crittenden at 9:13 am Comments (6) on Monday, January 28, 2008
6 Responses to “Attacks on Sensitive Centers”
Leave a Reply
Trackback URLYou must be logged in to post a comment.
January 28th, 2008 at 11:10 am
What human and legal basis can prevent an attack on these centers and people?
It seems that hyping the necessity of attacks on “the Zionists” is easier and more personally fulfilling than restoring Persia to any sense of honor and respect in the world. Let alone addressing its increasing internal fiasco.
A few words from Winston Churchill on Mohammedanism, forgotten by today’s politically correct ignoramuses.
1899 (The River War):
How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property – either as a child, a wife, or a concubine – must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.
Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the Queen; all know how to die; but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science – the science against which it had vainly struggled – the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome.
January 28th, 2008 at 1:22 pm
“But aren’t most of the sensitive centers of the Zionists, of the Americans, and of some European states that support Israel already situated within the arms’ reach of the Muslims? And aren’t the Zionists [vulnerable] and located within arms’ reach of the Muslims at the four corners of the earth?
Hey, here’s an idea. Aren’t most of the sensitive centers of your “disgraceful” Egyptian and Bahraini and Saudi brethren who “insist on adhering to the peace accords” even closer within the arms’ reach of the Muslims? Or is that just a little too risky for your brave jihadis?
January 28th, 2008 at 11:13 pm
Somebody should remind this clown that the sensitive centers of the Pharaohs of Tehran are situated within reach of Jericho 3 and Trident missiles, and that the minute Iran uses a nuke, or even if we think they used a nuke in a terrorist act, there won’t be any more Iran.
January 29th, 2008 at 12:31 am
“What human and legal basis can prevent an attack on these centers and people? ”
I assume we’re talking about terror attacks carried out against mainly non-combatants by Muslims disguised as civilians, seeing as how there isn’t a Muslim army on planet earth that could stand up to a determined, and well-armed girl scout troop.
The Muslims are so limp-wristed that the Italian army of WWII could crush any Muslim army in existence without breaking a sweat (see recent attempts by Muslim “armies” to stand up to the Israelis, Americans, British et al).
Let’s face it, when it comes to being warriors saying that Muslims fight like little girls is an insult to little girls.
They should stick to terror attacks against pizza parlors and buggering their camels, because they just don’t cut it as warriors.
January 29th, 2008 at 12:38 am
OTOH, to give credit where due, Muslim fighters did prove on 9/11/01 that three or four muslim warriors can overpower and cut the throat of an airline stewardess…if they catch her by surprise…and she’s unarmed.
January 29th, 2008 at 1:09 am
“Why must the savage, blood-letting Zionists and Americans be permitted to choose the field of battle as they wish?”
Because when the IDF or the Marines come out to play the Arab Muslim armies scamper for safety like a pack of frightened bunny rabbits.
In the October 1973 campaign the heroic Arab/Muslim armies had the IDF outnumbered by more than 2-1, had the Israelis totally surrounded, caught them completely by surprise…and three weeks later the Arabs came crawling to the United States begging us to stop the Israelis from destroying the cut off Arab armies and from marching into Damascus and Cairo (which we stupidly did to avoid offending the Soviets and the Saudis).
You Muslim losers couldn’t fight your way out of a paper sack, and that means anytime we meet up, we Judeo-Christians will be selecting the field of battle…assuming you cowardly dogs are in the mood to put on uniforms, carry your arms openly and fight against our soldiers instead of against our airline stewardesses or Israeli kids in pizza parlors.
You’re our bitches, pal. Learn to deal with it.