Friday, August 30, 2013

How The Independent censors dissenting opinion

Posting in papers of the western world has become pointless.  Here is an example what happened to my posts to the article 

Why Syria and not Iran? The Iranian nuclear threat is orders of magnitude more dangerous that the Syrian chemical one.
Google: the House of Commons abdicating its duty regarding the Iranian nuclear threat?
      There isn't an Iranian nuclear threat. It's a fabrication by the US and Israel. Just like the military coup and overthrow of a democratically elected government in Iran was orchestrated by the CIA in the 1950s so they could shove their puppet (the Shah) into power.
It's lie after lie after lie coming from America, and the gullible, the paranoid and the stupid believe them.
Weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? Nope.
Murder of civilians by Assad with chemical weapons? Nope. Evidence coming out points to the rebels.
"We don't spy on the world" - America for decades. Thanks to Edward Snowden, we now know differently.
"We didn't orchestrate the military coup that overthrew an Iranian government in the 1950s" -- CIA insisted for more than 50 years. Earlier this month, the American government finally admitted "Yep. It was us".
America, no matter which government is in office, does nothing but concoct lies about other countries and other leaders to further its own aims. You are colossally stupid if you don't understand this.

Well, we are back where we were 80 years ago. From the speech by Anthony Eden as FO undersecretary during Ramsay Mac Donald’s government in the House of Commons on March 23, 1933, taken from William Manchester’s The Last Lion: Winston Spencer Churchill: Alone 1932-1940, page 98:
How could anyone misinterpret the prime minister’s reply to the rising Nazis? It was certain, Eden earnestly told the House, to “secure for Europe that period of appeasement which is needed.” If appeased, Hitler’s anger would vanish; his fear of encirclement would disappear; the Nazis, freed from anguish and insecurity, would become sensible, stable neighbors in a Europe free of rancor. The House gave him a standing ovation – Churchill and those around him remained seated
In the House of Commons, on May 2, 1935, Winston Churchill said:
“When the situation was manageable it was neglected, and now that it is thoroughly out of hand, we apply the remedies which then might have effected a cure. There is nothing new in the story. It is as old as the Sibylline books. It falls into that long dismal catalogue of the fruitlessness of experience and the confirmed unteachability of mankind. Want of foresight, unwillingness to act when action would be simple and effective, lack of clear thinking, confusion of counsel until the emergency comes, until self-preservation strikes its jarring gong – these are the features which constitute the endless repetition of history."


Not remotely the same thing.

Really? And you know more about Iran than Bernard Lewis the leading scholar of Islam in the west, Reza Kahlili,former member of the Revolutionary Guards , Raphael Israeli, Matthias Kuntzel, Harold Rhode and James Woolsey?
Bernard Lewis:
In this context, the deterrent that worked so well during the Cold War, namely M.A.D. (Mutual Assured Destruction) , would have no meaning. At the End of Time, there will be general destruction anyway. What will matter is the final destination of the dead-- hell for the infidels, and the delights of heaven for the believers. For people with this mindset, M.A.D. is not a constraint; it is an inducement...
Google: Why are Bernard Lewis's views on MAD ignored?
Matthias Küntzel:
There are other dictatorships in the world. But only in Iran are the fantasy-worlds of antisemitism and religious mission linked with technological megalomania and the physics of mass destruction. The specific danger presented by the Iranian nuclear option stems from the unique ideological atmosphere surrounding it – a mixture of holy war and high-tec, of antisemitism and weapons-grade uranium, of death-wish and missile research, of Shiite messianism and plutonium
Matthias Küntzel - Antisemitism, Messianism and the Cult of Sacrifice:The Iranian Holy War

one thing is that it could be of interest to 'disarm' Iran the purported nuclear armaments but not until israel, that evil little good for nothing country, has agreed to give up it's nuclear capability - until then Iran is fully entitled to e nuclear armed!

My answer below to the above post was censored twice. The second time I removed  "this garbage' .  The post disappeared as well.
You write "that evil little good for nothing country"
Well, the Intel processor you are writing this garbage on was designed by Intel Israel and so was the disk on key you use, not to mention the Waze software that Google just bought for $1.1 billion
And let's not forget the 6 Israeli science Nobel prizes - Dan Shechtman, Chemistry, 2011, Ada E. Yonath, Chemistry, 2009, Robert Aumann,, Economics, 2005, Aaron Ciechanover, Chemistry, 2004, Avram Hershko, Chemistry, 2004 , Daniel Kahneman, Economics, 2002 which is three times more than the whole Muslim world of 1500000000 people contributed since they all together have only Ahmed Zewail, Chemistry, 1999 and Abdus Salam, Physics, 1979

Friday, August 16, 2013

As Egypt erupts, U.S. dithers

This article in the New York Daily News is not directly related to MAD, but it is so good that I had to include it in this blog.


Egypt’s security forces have now moved decisively to eliminate Muslim Brotherhood protest camps in Cairo, producing the bloodshed foretold by daily confrontations between the Brotherhood’s supporters and opponents. Six weeks after the ouster of President Mohammed Morsi, Egypt remains deeply and violently divided — and American policy is confused and irresolute.

While confusion and irresolution are nothing new to the Obama administration, this is not the place to dither or make strategic mistakes. We must define precisely what U.S. priorities are in light of Egypt’s strategic significance, and given the potential for protracted hostilities there between armed combatants.

By identifying our interests, we can concentrate our energies and resources on advancing them in practical ways, avoiding an essentially academic debate over issues we can’t significantly influence. Because our resources are not unlimited, we have to focus our political time and attention, as well as our more tangible assets and capabilities, where they can do the most good.

First, Egypt’s continued adherence to the 1979 Camp David peace agreements with Israel is essential. Anwar Sadat’s courageous decision to negotiate directly with Israel was critical not only to establishing this foundation of America’s overall Middle East policy, but also evidenced Egypt’s momentous shift, after the death of longtime dictator Gamal Abdel Nasser, away from the Soviet Union. Sadat’s sea change in allegiance provided an opening the U.S. used to undermine Moscow’s extensive regional influence, and was an early sign that the Cold War was entirely winnable.

In 1981, the Muslim Brotherhood assassinated Sadat for his troubles, reflecting that then, as now, the Brotherhood has only contempt for Egyptian leaders who seek peace with Israel. If Morsi had enjoyed only a slightly longer tenure in office, he would likely have abrogated Camp David entirely. The treaty’s demise would have even further reduced U.S. influence throughout the Middle East, renewed opportunities for anti-American, anti-Israeli radicals and increased threats to friendly Arab regimes prepared to live with Egyptian (and Jordanian) peace treaties with Israel. Make no mistake, if Washington takes Camp David for granted, it will disappear, and quickly.

Second, the economically vital Suez Canal runs through Egypt. If passage is blocked, as it was in the 1956 Suez Canal crisis, or for years after the 1967 Six-Day War, Europe and America will suffer, and so will Egypt. Already, 21/2 years of domestic instability have made the Sinai Peninsula a haven for terrorists and devastated Egypt’s economy, with both foreign investment and tourism revenues plummeting.

Until political stability is restored, the nation’s Gross Domestic Product will continue eroding, impoverishing the entire society and further straining already weakened social cohesion.

What Washington needs to do is clear. U.S. policy should be to support only Egyptian leaders unambiguously committed to Camp David, both to its terms and to its broader regional significance. And we must assist those who place highest priority on repairing Egypt’s badly weakened economy and securing its international economic obligations, particularly safe transit through the Suez Canal.

Both Egypt’s military and its “pro-democracy” elements support Camp David, while the Brotherhood does not. There is, accordingly, no reason to advocate including the Brotherhood into a “coalition” form of government or, frankly, to welcome them into the political process at all.

After World War II, we struggled without qualms to keep Communist parties from prevailing in Western European elections; there is every reason to take the same role here.

In particular, that means keeping aid flowing to Egypt’s military, which since 1979 has brought its leadership close to Washington. We should fix whatever U.S. statutory problem exists, and encourage Europe and friendly Arab states to follow our lead. We should also leave our Egyptian friends flexibility in their internal political debates.

This does not mean granting them a completely blank check. It does mean rejecting the Obama approach of essentially supporting the Muslim Brotherhood, which is as much an armed militia as a political party, and condemning the interim government.

We all have admirable philosophical ideals about perfect democracy, but these must now be for university debates, not judging the punctilio of daily Egyptian politics.

What is happening in Egypt now is not pretty. We should take care that our efforts to improve things don’t make them worse, disrupting our larger regional and worldwide interests.

Wednesday, August 14, 2013

Netanyahu vs. Obama… Whom do you trust more on Iran?

Two days ago in someone commented on my post with a question. Here was my answer:

Since Israel has released prisoners on several past occasions, and has little to show for it, how is this prisoner release any different?
This prisoner release is different for two reasons 1) because Israel has learned from previous prisoner releases that prisoner releases achieve absolutely nothing in the area of the “peace process” because the concept of peace is defined differently in Islam and the west. In Islam peace implies submission to Islam, which is not what Israel intends to do. In other words, Israel has learned that releasing prisoners is not only useless but counterproductive. And yet both Netanyahu and Bogie decided to release prisoners. Why? Because of reason 2) that makes this release different. It is happening at the time when the Iranian threat is reaching the critical point.
So what is going on? On the one hand, we have an American administration which supports the Muslim Brotherhood, (which, in itself shows how clueless it is), appeases Iran while not understanding the magnitude of the Iranian threat, and is trying to solve the Israeli-Palestinian problem which in essence does not have a solution because the solution the west proposes and which involves compromises on both sides goes against the basic tenet of jihad.
On the other hand, we have an Israeli government which is fully aware of the Iranian threat, fully aware of the cluelessness of the Obama administration with regard to both to the Palestinians and Iran, but which has to do everything it possibly can to save the country from the existential threat emanating from Iran.
Enter John Kerry with the equivalent (in terms of the depth of his understanding) of Marie Antoinette’s “Let them eat cake (brioche)”. What is Israel supposed to do? Do something, anything which would allow Israel to concentrate back on the main threat - Iran. Will the release of 104 prisoners help in that respect? If in any way it helps Israel resolve the main problem it is justified.
Basically, I have a choice in believing that either both the Israeli and American governments have no idea what they are doing, or that only the US government does not have a clue what it is doing. I opt for the latter.

Saturday, August 10, 2013

Explain the real context in which the decisions of the Netanyahu government are made – the death of MAD

Martin Sherman continues to elaborate why Netanyahu should resign in his article Resign (continued)... Responding to readers

Martin Sherman is probably quite aware that the MAD doctrine does not work with messianic regimes and ideologies, and if he is, why does he not clearly state this in his articles in order to educate the population which is not aware and display the real context in which the decisions of the Netanyahu government are made?

He refuses to mention the main motivating force behind the Iranians, the reason they are so dangerous. He cannot talk about Iran and ignore the eschatology, the Twelvers and the Mahdi which motivates them to start a nuclear war in which they expect 2/3 of humanity would perish.  Only in facing such a crazy regime, undeterred even by nuclear weapons, should the moves of the Netanyahu government be analyzed.  If he skips the religious/ideological background he has no right to attribute to Netanyahu motives for his actions which could be much better explained by Netanyahu trying anything to prevent a nuclear Iran.  

The realization of the fact that there is absolutely no way to stop Iran except by military means redefines the importance or weight factors of all other issues relative to Iran. They become insignificant, save as a possible way to help the primary cause which is stopping Iran. Is there a point in considering any other aspect of releasing the 104 prisoners except that it may somehow help Netanyahu stop Iran? If Netanyahu fails in the primary task of saving Israel from an Iranian nuclear strike the 104 prisoners issue would not exist since Israel would cease to exist.  If Netanyahu succeeds, the prisoners issue would be remembered in the context of being the tool of achieving the primary goal of stopping Iran. Some will say that the prisoner release has nothing to do with Iran whatsoever, but we will only know the truth years from now and with the information available now it is the only explanation that makes sense.  

Tuesday, August 6, 2013

Video: Rouhani boasting how he duped the European nuclear negotiators

It seems that the road to nuclear war is paved with Europeans  wishing not to create bad feelings and look foolish.


The day that we invited the three European ministers (to the talks), only 10 centrifuges were spinning at (the Iranian nuclear facility of) Natanz. We could not produce one gram of U4 or U6 (uranium hexafluoride). … We did not have the heavy-water production. We could not produce yellow cake. Our total production of centrifuges inside the country was 150. 

We wanted to complete all of these – we needed time.

Mr Fisher states that he went to Tehran and promised  that Iran’s dossier will not be referred to the United Nations.

European official;

We went to Tehran to get them to agree to stop the enrichments and anything to do with enrichments. They should stop it forever so we wanted to get them into that by getting them to agree to a suspension, to a halt.  


Of course they promised more, France and England even promised to use their veto power, they promised to oppose America, they said “we won’t allow this dossier to go to the UN”

Jack Straw:

Rouhani looks at his watch and says it is time for us to go and report to the president and then something extraordinary happened, quite unscripted

European official:

And Yoshka banged the table and said look there is no point of us going to the president or talking to the to the press, we have not agreed on anything,

Yoshka Fisher:

We would be fools, I mean, to sit there at the press conference people arrived, nobody had an interest to create bad feelings


This is what I say that the threats must be changed to opportunity. Mr El`baradei in his book which has recently been translated into Farsi has stated that the three European ministers told him that they became human shields so America cannot attack  

European official:

Rouhani said, well, this as much we can agree to, and Yoshka said, well in that case  we might as well go and catch are plane.


We must change threats if not to opportunity but to harm, then from harm to ordinary conditions and then to opportunity.  The negotiations… there was no agreement, this is all for the uneducated . Look, Tehran declaration, the statement of Tehran, in that declaration there was a resolution that all nuclear activities must stop, but we did not allow it

From the Tehran declaration:
The Iranian government has rights within the NPT to expand its nuclear energy for peaceful purposes and agrees to suspend all Uranium enrichment activities per IAEA guidelines.  The commitment by three European countries would recognize Iran has right to nuclear energy under the NPT in return for the treaty


Our policy during the 22 months was under the direct supervision of the supreme leader and I was his representative in the Supreme National Council then as well as today.

We did not stop, we completed the program.

Do you know when Bushehr’s (Iran nuclear power plant) first phase was completed? The beginning of 2004“Do you know when the next phase was inaugurated? The fall of 2004. Do you know when the project was completed? March of 2005. How about the heavy-water plant? Do you know when the production started? The summer of 2004. Do you know when yellow cake was produced? The winter of 2004. Do you know when the number of centrifuges reached 3,000? In 2005

The day I left the project we had 1700 centrifuges 

Sunday, August 4, 2013

Give the Netanyahu government the benefit of the doubt

Friday's Jerusalem Post featured articles by leading Jerusalem Post columnists, both of whom severely criticized Netanyahu for releasing the 104 Palestinian prisoners. Caroline Glick writes that Netanyahu "behaved like a coward"  while Martin Sherman asks for his resignation.    My interpretation  on why Netanyahu did what he did is here.

Caroline Glick and Martin Sherman would be right in any other circumstance except now when we have the threat of annihilation from Iran and at the same time when we have a US president who supports the Muslim Brotherhood and appeases Iran. Survival is paramount. Netanyahu’s choices are limited and he probably has no other choice. One day we will read how this decision to release these murderers was reached. Either that or we will not be there any more if Netanyahu and Bogie fail.
Netanyahu is faced with the consequences of the global media silence regarding the nature and magnitude of the Iranian threat. The media, including Caroline Glick and Martin Sherman, have been avoiding the debate regarding the problem that the doctrine of mutually assured destruction (MAD) would not work with Iran, but the problem has not gone away just because the media are not tackling it, and the Israeli government still has to plan its actions fully taking into account the possibility that Iran CANNOT BE DETERRED and would be capable of sacrificing its own population and 2/3 of humankind in order to set the conditions for the Mahdi to emerge  from occultation.

So it is not right that Caroline Glick writes that Netanyahu “behaved like a coward ”  while Martin Sherman asks for his resignation,  when neither of them have themselves fully explained to their readers the constraints the government is under.

It may well be that Bernard Lewis is wrong. But surely the opinion on MAD by one the most respected scholars on an issue of such crucial consequences for the world and Israel should have been discussed in the media, all the more that his views are shared by Raphael Israeli, James Woolsey ,  Reza  Kahlili  and Matthias Kuntzel 

The media have chosen to ignore the issue and therefore have no right to criticize the government which must deal with it while the population remains in the dark precisely because of the media.   

Friday, August 2, 2013

How BBC distorts reality on Israel and Iran

Iran's Hassan Rouhani: Israel an 'old wound that should be removed' - When will American politicians become accountable for their stupidity?

Will the 131 members of the House, including 114 Democrats and 17 Republicans, now issue a statement admitting they had been duped?   

Iran's Hassan Rouhani: Israel an 'old wound that should be removed'

Hassan Rouhani, the incoming Iranian president, has lashed out at Israel calling it an "old wound" that should be removed as the Islamic regime marked Jerusalem Day by staging rallies throughout Iran.

Mr Rouhani raised hopes of a change in Iran's outlook when he won election in June on calls for "moderation" and "hope" but his hardline language on the eve of elction is a demonstration that Iranian politics is fundamentally radical.
A report in the ISNA news agency said Mr Rouhani took part in an annual pro-Palestinian rally in Tehran on Friday.
"The Zionist regime has been a wound on the body of the Islamic world for years and the wound should be removed," he said.
Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, responded by saying Mr Rouhani had shown his "true face".
"The true face of Rowhani has been revealed earlier than expected," he said.

"Even if the Iranians work to deny these comments, this is what the man thinks and reflects the regime's plans," he said.
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the man he will replace on Sunday as Iranian head of state, told a rally that Israel would be uprooted from the Middle East.
"I will inform you with God as my witness, a devastating storm is on the way that will uproot the basis of Zionism," Ahmadinejad said.
He added that Israel "has no place in this region".
Mr Ahmadinejad's presidency has been dogged by his repeated attacks on Israel most notoriously his remarks that the Jewish state should be "wiped off" the map. The statements compounded Iranian isolation at a time when Iran was already under increasing pressure on the world stage as a result of its defiant pursuit of a nuclear programme despite UN sanctions.
Mr Rouhani has indicated that he will try to mend broken diplomatic relations when he takes office. On his Twitter feed he has boast that he will use his inauguration on Sunday to reach out to the international community. "40 states to attend Rouhani's inauguration on Aug 4th," he said. "Foreign guests participating in Iranian Presidential inauguration for the first time."
State television showed hundreds of thousands of people marching across the country, chanting "Death to Israel" and "Death to America".
The demonstrators also denounced any renewed peace talks between Israel and the Palestinian Authority.
In his remarks, Mr Ahmadinejad accused Israel and its Western supporters of fomenting discord in the Middle East, saying "it was their dream to see the will of regional countries bent on destroying (Israel) diverted towards civil war".

Including 18 Republicans.
3:09 PM, JUL 19, 2013 • BY MICHAEL WARREN
Send to Kindle
131 members of the House, including 114 Democrats--a majority of the conference in the House--and 17 Republicans, have signed a letter to Barack Obama asking the president to engage with the newly elected president of Iran, Hassan Rouhani. Read the text of the letter below:
Dear President Obama,

As Members of Congress who share your unequivocal commitment to preventing a nuclear-armed Iran, we  urge you to pursue the potential opportunity presented by Iran's recent presidential election by reinvigorating U.S. efforts to secure a negotiated nuclear agreement.

As you know, on June 14 the Iranian people elected Hassan Rouhani president with over 50 percent of the vote in the first round, overcoming repression and intimidation by the Iranian government to cast their ballots in favor of reform.  Dr. Rouhani campaigned on the promise to “pursue a policy of reconciliation and peace” and has since promised “constructive interaction with the outside world.”  As Iran’s former lead nuclear negotiator, he has also publicly expressed the view that obtaining a nuclear weapon would run counter to Iran’s strategic interests and has been critical of the nuclear “extremism” of outgoing President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
We are mindful of the limitations of the Iranian presidency within the country’s political system, of the fact that previous Iranian presidents elected on platforms of moderation have failed to deliver on promised reforms, and of the mixed signals that Dr. Rouhani himself has sent regarding Iran’s nuclear ambitions.  It remains to be seen whether his election will indeed bring significant change with regard to Iran's relations with the outside world.  His government’s actions will certainly speak louder than his words.
 Even so, we believe it would be a mistake not to test whether Dr. Rouhani’s election represents a real opportunity for progress toward a verifiable, enforceable agreement on Iran’s nuclear program that ensures the country does not acquire a nuclear weapon.  In order to test this proposition, it will be prudent for the United States to utilize all diplomatic tools to reinvigorate ongoing nuclear talks.  In addition, bilateral and multilateral sanctions must be calibrated in such a way that they induce significant and verifiable concessions from Iran at the negotiating table in exchange for their potential relaxation.
We must also be careful not to preempt this potential opportunity by engaging in actions that delegitimize the newly elected president and weaken his standing relative to hardliners within the regime who oppose his professed “policy of reconciliation and peace.”  Likewise, it will be critical for the United States to continue its efforts to foster unprecedented international cooperation on this issue so that the international community remains united in its opposition to Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon.
We look forward to working with your administration on this important issue in the months ahead.