h/t Gates of Vienna
[Jpost] In President Barack Obama's defense of his nuclear deal with Iran Wednesday, he said there are only two types of people who will oppose his deal -- Republican partisans and Israel- firsters -- that is, traitors.
At American University, Obama castigated Republican lawmakers as the moral equivalent of Iranian jihadists saying, "Those [Iranian] hard-liners chanting 'Death to America' who have been most opposed to the deal... are making common cause with the Republican Caucus."
He then turned his attention to Israel.
Obama explained that whether or not you believe the deal endangers Israel boils down to whom you trust more -- him or Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. And, he explained, he can be trusted to protect Israel better than Netanyahu can because "[I] have been a stalwart friend of Israel throughout my career."
The truth is that it shouldn't much matter to US lawmakers whether Obama or Netanyahu has it right about Israel. Israel isn't a party to the deal and isn't bound by it. If Israel decides it needs to act on its own, it will.
The US, on the other side, will be bound by the deal if Congress fails to kill it next month.
So the real question lawmakers need to ask is whether the deal is good for America. Is Obama right or wrong that only partisan zealots and disloyal Zionists could oppose his great diplomatic achievement? To determine the answer to that question, you need to do is ask another one. Does his deal make America safer or less safe? The best way to answer that question is to consider all the ways Iran threatens America today, and ask whether the agreement has no impact on those threats, or whether it mitigates or aggravates them.
#1
“I can assure,” Obama told the Jewish leaders, “that Israel will bear the brunt of the asymmetrical responses that Iran will have to a military strike on its nuclear facilities.”
Israel has always borne the brunt of Iranian asymmetrical responses.
[NATION.PK] The announcement of the death of Taliban chief Mullah Omar ... a minor Pashtun commander in the war against the Soviets who made good as leader of the Taliban. As ruler of Afghanistan, he took the title Leader of the Faithful. The imposition of Pashtunkhwa on the nation institutionalized ignorance and brutality in a country already notable for its own fair share of ignorance and brutality... two years ago coincided both with the killing in a police encounter of Malik Muhammad Ishaq, the leading spirit behind the Lashkar-e-Jhangvi ... a 'more violent' offshoot of Sipah-e-Sahaba Pakistain. LeJ's purpose in life is to murder anyone who's not of utmost religious purity, starting with Shiites but including Brelvis, Ahmadis, Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Rosicrucians, and just about anyone else you can think of. They are currently a wholly-owned subsidiary of al-Qaeda ... , and eight companions. It was almost as if rivals of the ISIL were being eliminated. That impression was reinforced by the announcement, again belated, of the death of Maulana Jalaluddin Haqqani, the founder of the Haqqani network. At the same time, it was almost as if the ISI was being deprived of some of its most precious assets, if one accepts that all three were actually controlled by the ISI.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Fred ||
08/08/2015 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11123 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Pakistan
[Investors.com] Christianity, whose presence in the Middle East predates Islam's by 600 years, is about to be cleansed from the Middle East.
Egyptian Copts may have found some respite under Abdel Fatah al-Sissi, but after their persecution under the previous Muslim Brotherhood government, they know how precarious their existence in 90% Muslim Egypt remains. Elsewhere, it's much worse.
Twenty-one Copts were beheaded by the Islamic State affiliate in Libya for the crime of being Christian.
In those large swaths of Syria and Iraq where the Islamic State rules, the consequences for Christians are terrible -- enslavement, exile, torture, massacre, crucifixion.
Over the decades, many Middle Eastern Christians, seeing the rise of political Islam and the intensification of savage sectarian wars, have simply left. Lebanon's Christians, once more than half the population, are now estimated at about a third.
Posted by: Besoeker ||
08/08/2015 12:56 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11127 views]
Top|| File under: Islamic State
#1
If Israel really wanted to be nefarious it would sponsor a Coptic state in the northern Sinai. It would sponsor a true Christian state (not a rump holding) in southern Lebanon and southwest Syria. It would sponsor a Christian mini-state on the West Bank.
In short, Israel would surround itself with Christians. Beats being surrounded by Muslims, it seems...
Posted by: Steve White ||
08/08/2015 15:39 Comments ||
Top||
#2
In short, Israel would surround itself with Christians.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has watched as Israel, once tied to the American hip, has undergone a surgical separation from the United States by a President whose love for a deal with Iran has overcome any semblance of desire for the survival of Israel. Indeed, because the deal hastens the day when an avowed enemy of Israel and the United States (and a foremost state sponsor of global terror) obtains the bomb, it is a suicide pact. Moreover, if anti-semitism is a hatred for the Jewish race, the Obama deal with Iran is beyond anti-semitic, turning hatred into an actual license to kill the Jewish state.
So now that Prime Minister Netanyahu is confronted with an imminent threat to the survival of Israel, what must he do? There is only one real option. He must attack Iran and exert as much force as is necessary to eliminate its nuclear weapon potential, including its ability to manufacture fissile material. That will require a sustained and aggressive war, but it is a war that Israel can win.
Indeed, it is quite likely that if Israel acts unilaterally now to destroy the Iranian regime and eliminate its nuclear weapon potential, most if not all neighboring Arab states will avoid any involvement in the conflict (and will secretly celebrate the removal of the radical Islamist regime). Most Middle Eastern countries harbor bitter resentment over Iran's ever present attempts to export its Shi'ite brand of radical Islam to their countries and either terrorize or topple their regimes. They harbor just about as much contempt for Iran's leadership as Israel does.
They realize that once Iran gets the bomb, it will be in a position to engage in a form of nuclear blackmail, demanding concessions to its geopolitical ambitions. The prospect forces them into an arms race. They cannot allow Iran to be a nuclear power in the region without acquiring a counterweight in the form of a nuclear weapon.
That dynamic, now in play because of the awful Iran nuclear deal, can only be stopped if Israel acts to protect its own interests and strikes Iran now. Iran lacks the wherewithal to withstand a concerted Israeli air and ground assault. Israel has a vastly superior military to Iran's and the means and working intelligence necessary to end the Iranian regime and its nuclear ambitions.
Prime Minister Netanyahu is well aware of the timetable and the imminent threat. He likewise knows that now, with the United States having abandoned Israel, there is nothing to lose from striking unilaterally and everything to gain. The calculus on the timing of intervention depends heavily on preparedness and sustainability. The Israeli economy and people are resilient and can be expected to have the wherewithal to sustain a long and protracted war. While Hezbollah, Hamas and other militant groups in Palestine and the region can be expected to attack Israel if it attacks Iran, they are unlikely to cause great loss of life or more than superficial damage, and Israeli defense forces have long prepared the nation for those attacks.
Significant gains can come to Israel if it destroys Iran's war making ability. Not only will it stem a source of constant supply of military support and weapons to Hezbollah, Hamas, and other terrorist groups, but it will also increase the likelihood that the Iranian population, long thought to be generally opposed to the wishes of the radical clerics ruling the country, will be inspired to foment a revolution against the revolutionary guard and the theocratic dictators who have for so long controlled their fate. If, instead, a new round of radical Islamists take control of the country and threaten Israel, Israel's first intervention will give it the reach and intelligence capability necessary to destroy any such successor.
Finally, a war commenced now by Israel may end within a matter of months in victory but could drag on for years. If it does drag on, a new administration will be in Washington with a President who may reject the policies of the Obama Administration and endeavor to achieve a rapprochement with the Israelis, restoring the historic relationship that President Obama has tried to destroy.
#2
Ref #1, The 'defense of Iran' is already in the works. Lifting of sanctions and delivery of gold bullion from SA should allow the sale of Russian S-300 anti-aircraft missiles to Iran to proceed. Other steps, such as prohibiting U.S. Navy carriers from operating in the Persian Gulf will also assist the 'Iran protect' effort.
#3
...Keep in mind too that for all the Iranian bellowing about Israel being a 'one-bomb country' - in the sense that it is so small that one good-sized bomb would take it out - PM Netanyahu knows that Iran, like ALL dictatorships, is also a 'one-bomb country." Whack Tehran, and Iran ceases to exist as a functioning entity. What's left would be several loosely connected regions each led by a local strongman who will be sure that Allah has specifically chosen him to lead after the ayatollahs are gone. They'll still be screaming 'Death to Israel' and 'Death to America' - hell, at that point they'd be screaming, 'Death to the Universe', but they'd be going after the mullah next door first.
Mike
Posted by: Mike Kozlowski ||
08/08/2015 7:11 Comments ||
Top||
#4
If the jooooooos are hit I can guarantee more than one on Tehran, the Medes & Persians will have been found wanting again. They will cease to exist along with much of Afghanistan
[WND] To understand why his campaign has legs, it is necessary to grasp the difference between The Donald and The Career Politician. Why so? Because although his supporters can ill-articulate these differences, they live them and feel them viscerally. Their reaction to Mr. Trump is informed by a sense of Trump the private citizen, the businessman, the anti-politician. As such, they grasp that Trump's reality, incentives and motives sharply diverge from those of the professional politician. His reasons for doing what he's doing are different.
Differently put: A successful politician and a successful businessman represent two solitudes, never the twain shall meet -- except when the capitalist must curry favor with the politician so as to further his business interests, a reality brought about by corrupt politics. Trump's donations to both parties fit a pattern forced by the regulatory state, whereby, in order to keep doing business, business is compelled to buy-off politicians.
This article is complete, unadulterated nonsense in trying to excuse Trump's business dealings. Trump is the consummate business hookworm: he gives to both (all) sides and benefits thereby. He's constantly playing the corporatist game, and he's really good it -- NINE BILLION DOLLARS good at it. He walks away from his debts, invests where he likes, the plays all the political and tax angles. Donald Trump is a corporatist, and his "positions" on social issues, such as they are, are designed to maximize his ability to take in money on the business end. Trump hasn't been "forced" into this; he plays the game willingly and with full knowledge of what he's doing every single second.
"What, then, is the difference between economic power and political power?"
Capitalism.org supplies a succinct reply: "The difference between political and economic power is the difference between plunder and production, between punishment and reward, between destruction and trade. Plunder, punishment, and destruction belong to the political realm; production, reward, and trade belong to the economic realm."
By definition, a professional politician is opportunistic and parasitic. For his survival, he must feed off his hosts. To convince the host to let him hook on and drain his lifeblood, the political hookworm must persuade enough of them to believe his deception. The energies of this political confidence trickster are thus focused on gaining voter confidence by promising what will never be delivered and what is impossible to deliver.
By the very nature of how he runs his businesses and how he makes money, HE is the parasite on society.
Promise the world, use other peoples' cash to buy a business or property, do 'heavy skims' on any profits that entity might produce, divide up the assets and sell separately (bigger $$s), collect the cash, walk away leaving people hanging and/or out of work (mostly the latter).
Announce a 'new project' to deflect criticism.
Posted by: Mullah Richard ||
08/08/2015 18:21 Comments ||
Top||
#1
(During the Civil War, on hearing complaints that Gen. Ulysses S. Grant drank alcohol to excess)
Find out what Grant drinks and send a barrel of it to each of my other generals!
While everyone seems to be spending time and money and effort to bring the man down, no one is doing anything like him to gain momentum in the polls. They're so solidly ensconced in the PC "don't say anything to offend" and then gravel when the Permanent Party Propaganda Machine demands a self destructing apology, they're all alike. The Left treats this as war. You should never treat the media as anything else but your enemy. The last time I checked the polls, the media is somewhere around root cellar level in public confidence. It's an easy assault if you have the guts to carry it out. Someone apparently has.
[Breitbart] It's still all the Donald. He was the big man on stage.
They challenged him in that first question about supporting the eventual nominee -- whomever it may be -- and he was right to refuse. The issues he represents cannot be subordinated to party. One wishes he had hammered the immigration point in that first question, by saying: "Any candidate who doesn't respond to the threat of uncontrolled immigration cannot represent me." He'd better understand that's his signature issue. Other than that, he sounds informed, smart, and presidential. Brilliant on Obamacare. Brilliant on giving money to politicians. Brilliant on immigration.
Cruz did the best after Trump, including pointing out that he was the only one to vote against Rubio's amnesty, which he called "Schumer's amnesty."
Walker was good, but his best moment came after the debate when he made a point with Hannity of saying he wanted to do something about our uncontrolled legal immigration, too. Trump failed to deal effectively with the Megyn Kelly set up questions regarding 3rd party and comments about wymn. He could have effectively diffused both had he done his homework. Attacking Kelly was a loser move.
#1
I liked Carly Fiorina. She is sharp. You can see she is strong.I think she will move up over the coming year. Maybe into the top five. That sort of solid crisp intelligence deserves that.
That kind of talent and bearing is Presidential.
Perry liked and respected her also. He said she was a good Negotiator.
WHY can't America raise up a LEADER ? WHY, what is it in the American Voter's character, that we can't get anything better than an Obama or a Kerry ?
Incompetent slime, is that all America can hold up to the world? That is all Hillary is too...Crushed Fetal parts and corrupt stink.
#2
Who me? Be a debate moderator? No, er huh, he's a pal, I want no part of that BS! I'll be in Boston doing other things that night. Besides, it's not my schtick.
I disagree. Always attack the media. They are your enemy. I'll repeat, the Left considers politics just another form of war. If you get rid of your guilt and their sales pitch of it and shove right back with the same vehemence they employ, you might have a fight. Cower or even just act polite, and they'll rob and dominate you everyday.
#5
I thought Trump dealt quite well with Megyn Kelly. She pitched him the hardest ball she could pitch when she asked about his comments about a certain woman and he hit it out of the park. He remains upfront, brash and unapologetic. He remains politically incorrect and I, for one, am sick of political correctness.
But beyond that, he knows the effect it's having in the media. Cruz did very well in the debate but he's not getting the kind of attention Trump is getting. Trump knows that and uses it.
Why should Trump support Jeb? Jeb was pathetic. I can't support him either. It's way too early to write him off but Jeb looked weak and tentative compared to all of the rest of the candidates. He looks like all he has going for him is a lot of money. He looked like a bowl of mush next to steak and eggs.
Posted by: Abu Uluque ||
08/08/2015 13:22 Comments ||
Top||
#6
I liked Carly Fiorina.
You probably liked John McCain too.
Posted by: Abu Uluque ||
08/08/2015 13:30 Comments ||
Top||
Hopefully we won't be needing our special forces for long, because it won't take liberals long to use Affirmative Action to destroy them:
Elite units in the military are by and large both white and male. Pentagon officials, however, are hoping for a major demographic shift, citing the benefits of diversity... Yes, 'white, male', and staunchly conservative. Not a very good combination these days.
The benefits of diversity, which is an antonym for indispensable cohesion, are either political or fictional.
Data provided by each individual service to USA Today illustrates current disparities, which are most prominent in units like the Navy SEALs and the Army's Green Berets. For instance, in the Army, blacks comprised 17 percent of the force in 2013, a figure slightly higher than their representation in the overall population. As the ranks start climbing, the numbers shift. Blacks amount to only 9.4 percent of officers in the military.
Since we are not allowed to mention the word "aptitude," the only possible explanation is imaginary racism, which can only be fixed by inflicting real racism against more qualified whites.
In the Navy SEALs, just 2 percent are black, while Native Americans make up about 4 percent, or 99 SEALs.
Only 5.6 percent of enlisted Green Berets are black. But in the Air Force, among para-rescuers, the number drops even further down to .6 percent.
The Pentagon considers this to be a problem.
Obama has had years now to purge the Pentagon of soldiers who care about real problems, like our radically diminished capacity to win the sort of wars Obama's projection of weakness is likely to force us to fight in the future.
The Pentagon in general has made bolstering diversity a major priority in the last several years, with Defense Secretary Ash Carter leading the charge with public pronouncements about the benefits of a diverse force and a recent decision to review the ban on transgender servicemembers. Use the Federal Civil Service system as a model. Diversity is working splendidly there, and no one can be fired !
You can't blame Vladimir Putin, Xi Jinping, Ali Khamenei, and Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi for snickering gleefully.
The military, Carter has argued, needs to reflect the demographic makeup of the future.
That is, the white minority, homosexualized future our liberal ruling class has planned for us.
As such, the services have made a concerted effort to favor minorities, assigning more weight to race when considering officer promotions. Gasp! You don't say.
The effect on morale and retention of letting it be known that promotions are largely based on not being a non--cross-dressing white male should be obvious.
"Diversity makes us a better fighting force," a senior defense official told USA Today. "It's not simply a question of equity."
What utter equum stercoris.
A country that has rejected the concept of merit in favor of political correctness is not going to be winning wars for very long.
#5
Given how we used to read that story by Kurt V in school but all the younger set have never heard of it and Kurt also tries to disavow it, he probably regrets writing the truth alot.
'Diversity' is the code word for anti-Democracy. Remember they were all for Black Majority Rule in South Africa. Now they're for Non-White Rule in America even though it still is largely white.
#9
Anyone spouting off about diversity is someone I immediately label as an enemy of humanity and spawn of evil. Diversity - Doing inhumane things in hopes that it will somehow make them actual human beings.
#10
“I was asked by an NPR reporter once, why don’t I talk about race that often,” Ben Carson said. “I said it’s because I’m a neurosurgeon...”
People are who they want to be. Many young black men are not Seals because they want to be in professional sports or other interests.
If Americans of color choose to be Elite Forces they are free to do so.
When you enter a quota system people are being forced into something they do not really choose to do. People who want to dissolve certain races are themselves racists.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
[NATION.PK] The announcement of the death of Taliban chief 
[Investors.com] Christianity, whose presence in the Middle East predates Islam's by 600 years, is about to be cleansed from the Middle East.
