Why negotiations are shaping up to be a win-win for the Mullahs.
The mainstream media have ignored and overlooked the Islamic Republic’s recent moves, which threatened regional security. The Islamic Republic’s search for regional hegemony has also been overshadowed by President Obama’s prioritization of signing a nuclear deal.
Iranian leaders and media outlets have given an estimate of how much they have so far gained from the nuclear talks. The Iranian leaders and state-owned media have recently boasted about receiving approximately $12 billion in assets over the period of the nuclear talks by July 7th.
The ruling clerics in the Islamic Republic and Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps have also unveiled and are celebrating the deployment of a new and second long-range Ghadir radar. According to an Iranian state-owned outlet, Brigadier General Farzad Esmaili, commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps’ (IRGC) air defense force, who unveiled the Ghadir phased-array radar, pointed out that “Discovering and tracking micro aerial vehicles (MAV)… is one of the special qualities of the Ghadir radar system.”
Why the Muslim-majority country is outlawing the Islamic attire.
While people who oppose the wearing of facial coverings by Muslim women are routinely accused of Islamophobia, the Muslim-majority nation of Chad has not only banned such garments but ordered one variety, the burqa, burned.
“Wearing the burqa must stop immediately from today, not only in public places and schools but throughout the whole of the country,” said Prime Minister Kalzeube Pahimi Deubet, Chad’s ruler since 1990.
To spend money trying to interfere with the carbon cycle is foolish; to try to bury carbon dioxide is a crime against the biosphere.
“Climate” is formally the thirty year “average” of weather. Climate is what we expect, on average – weather is what we actually get.
It is true that atmospheric conditions (dust, smoke, smog, aerosols, aircraft contrails, clouds and trace gases) can affect Earth’s weather. But none of these minor atmospheric constituents can generate energy – they merely filter, reflect, transfer or redirect a portion of solar energy. The effects of any changes tend to be short-lived, or reversed as the atmosphere clears; or they often trigger negative feedbacks that largely offset the initial effect. In particular, carbon dioxide does not drive the weather. No weather forecaster notes what tomorrow’s level of CO2 is likely to be, and no farmer wonders what it will be next spring.
The sun is the short-term weather wizard. It clearly controls the changing temperatures of day and night, winter and summer; it energizes the atmosphere to give the power to storms and cyclones; together with the Moon it produces tides and gyres and their changing cycles drive weather cycles on Earth. Meteorologists, long-range forecasters who study solar and planetary phases, and many intelligent farmers are best placed to forecast weather. The carbon-centric model predictions have failed dismally, suggesting strongly that carbon dioxide does not control weather.
In the winter of 1993, Colin Ferguson exercised his racial animosity against whites by shooting passengers on a commuter train from Manhattan. Upon investigation, it was found that he had a vendetta against whites.
After the Rodney King case, white truck driver Reginald Denny was savagely beaten by angry blacks. During the ensuing riots, black and Hispanic looters were given a pass under the rubric of “justified social rage.”
The aforementioned material comes from Dinesh D’Souza’s 1995 book entitled The End of Racism: Principles for a Multiracial Society. Now, twenty years later, we see how this “violent expression” is expanding, all the while being promoted by the first black president of the United States.
Currently, we see out-of-control black teenagers attacking people at malls and swimming pools, yet the coverage in the media is, for the most part, nonexistent. Colin Flaherty leads the charge in exposing the brutality and racist motivation, but he is a lone voice in the wilderness.
The Arab world’s anti-Israeli front is crumbling By Moshe Arens
For many Arab countries, averting the mortal dangers posed by ISIS and
a nuclear Iran has become more important than backing the Palestinian
What is generally referred to as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has,
in effect, been over the years, a three-dimensional conflict
involving, in addition to the Palestinians, also the Arab world and
the Muslim world. Hostility to Israel has been the one unifying factor
in the Arab and Muslim world, which overcame disagreements on other
matters between the constituent members. Since the founding of the
Palestine Liberation Organization in 1964, the Palestinian issue has
served as the linchpin around which hostility to Israel has been built
and unity maintained.
What climate-change sceptics have long suspected turns out to be 100% true: Having devoted entire careers to whipping up scenarios of catastrophe and ruin, it seems your settled scientists are anything but. By their own admission, they are case studies in depression and abnormal psychology
Credulous journalists have found a new genre of stories: climate scientists on the verge of a nervous breakdown. If you go by a recent spate of reports detailing the near-suicidal despair afflicting the warmist elite, something called ‘pre-traumatic stress disorder’ is prompting climateers to set aside their computer models and report for treatment. It seems that working long days tweaking temperature records and cherry-picking data to conjure apocalyptic scenarios takes a dreadful toll — especially with the real-world halt to warming now stretching to 18 years and beyond.
The doyen of climate journalists is the UK Guardian’s Roger Harrabin. His July 9 story focused on an un-named “professor of ocean geology” discussing ocean heating and alleged acidification caused by CO2 emissions. Harrabin wrote:
Muslims can, but Islam cannot be saved. Its scripture is innately flawed at source. If a god isn’t about universal love there is no point or product in trying to build society around him or even having him in the mix.
I wrote a piece in April on Hirsi Ali’s book latest book Heretic (“Hirsi Ali’s Quixotic Tilt at Fixing Islam“). Daryl McCann reviewed the book for the June issue of Quadrant and Paul Monk wrote an erudite piece, inspired by Hirsi Ali’s book, for the July/August issue (editor’s note: Paul’s essay is still behind the paywall. Why not subscribe?). So it’s all been done to death, so to speak. Why then bring it up again?
Because, I don’t think that many in the West – aside from people like Robert Spencer (The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam) — quite get it. McCann and Monk realise, as do I, that Hirsi Ali’s reference to the need for a ‘reformation’ in Islam, to parallel the Christian one, is hopelessly wide of the mark. However, they still appear to entertain a flimsy hope that Islam can be saved. This is utterly forlorn.
On the Reformation, Martin Luther was primarily interested in ridding the Catholic Church of indulgences as payment for sins. He had no objective of rewriting scripture. His objective was for the Church to act more in keeping with scripture and with Saint Paul’s direction that we could not gain redemption through our own works but through the grace of God alone. This didn’t mean we should not do good works, of course. And, in fact, such works in Luther’s sensible estimation were worth something, as distinct from the purchase of indulgences.
In response to the recent ratification of a U.S. trade law, the State Department expressed reservations about provisions of the law intended to discourage economic warfare against Israel. These reservations include concern over the law’s alleged “conflation” of the West Bank with the remainder of Israel. Eugene Kontorovich points out that not only does the law make no such conflation, but the State Department’s reservations bespeak a poor understanding of U.S. policy:
The State Department has recently tried to minimize the significance and effect of provisions in the newly enacted trade promotion laws that seek to discourage boycotts and other economic sanctions against Israel. Some have suggested that the State Department’s spin on these laws effectively negates them. But while the administration’s backtracking on a law it just signed proceeds from inaccurate facts and bad policy, it does not — and cannot — annul the legislation.
Both houses of Congress unanimously introduced the provision as an amendment to the Trade Promotion Authority that instructs that the United States to adopt as part of its trade negotiation policy the goal of “discourag[ing] politically motivated actions to boycott, divest from, or sanction Israel” by foreign countries.
The day after President Obama signed the law, a State Department spokesman expressed disapproval of the provisions that make it clear that the law applies in full to “business in Israel or in Israeli-controlled territories.”
How do charges of Israeli crimes in the Six-Day War match up with similar charges against American forces in other wars?
Martin Kramer has performed a valuable public service by investigating the origins of the film Censored Voices and its claims of Israeli soldiers committing war crimes during the Six-Day War. Beyond the specifics of this particular documentary and that particular conflict, his article, “Who Censored the Six-Day War?,” raises larger issues relating to actual or imaginary war crimes committed by the armed forces of liberal democracies, whether Israeli or American, British or French.
Generally, such accusations are publicly aired—often in exaggerated form—during controversial or unpopular conflicts and ignored during more popular ones. There is a particular tendency for allegations of misconduct to seize the spotlight in guerrilla wars where troops have trouble distinguishing combatants from civilians. The circumstances under which troops fight, rather than what they actually do, thus prove more important in determining whether or not “war crimes” become a subject of public controversy.
This isn’t the first time this has happened.
This isn’t the first time this has happened. The BBC did it before. I’ve seen ABC do it here in the US. The goal is to churn out hit pieces against Israel while covering up the racism of the Muslim settlers.
It’s also important to remember that “Yahud”, like a lot of terms for a minority group that the majority doesn’t like, is effectively a slur. In the Arab world, “Yahud” has the sound that “Jude” did under the Nazis. More than a name for a people, it carries a heavy weight of hatred and contempt.
In the Islamic tradition, Jews are one of the more contemptible groups around. While apologists for Islamic terrorism like to distinguish between Islamic anti-Semitism rooted in the Koran and Muslim violence against Jews today as a response to Israel, there is no distinction. They are all tied together by animus toward the “Yahud”. The Jews of the 18th century were still viewed as enemies of Islam who plotted to dominate Muslims… just as they are today.