Login : Register Home : Tags

Ahmadinejad

The West should apologise

Anglosphere

When I was just a young boy, I was quite fond of Michael Jackson. I am older (and wiser) now and while his music no longer interests me that much, at least I can comfort myself knowing the feeling would probably have been mutual. Jacko is no longer of any importance, but fans of nutters need not to worry: another wacko is at large in Iran: President "Ahmadinejacko" Ahmadeinejad.

If you have been living under a rock for the past months: Iran is trying to enrich uranium and has hidden its activities for eighteen years which is pretty much a no-no in international politics. In August, the IAEA recommended referring the Iran issue to the Security Council which so far resulted in all talk and no action. Even though Ahmadinejad wished upon Israel another holocaust in October. Even though NBC warned the UN of being less productive than curling in February.

No wonder Jacko is not at all impressed and seeks an apology from the West:

“Today they tell our nation that nuclear energy is a bad thing and it is not necessary for our people to have it. But the nation of Iran has stood (for its right),” he said in a televised speech to mark the Iranian New Year, which begins Tuesday. “Those who head war and crimes accused the Iranian nation of war seeking. They insulted our nation. I do advise them to apologize.”

I suppose he does has some sort of a point here. Evidently his expressed desire to wipe Israel off the face of the earth was not an insult to that nation. Evidently wiping Israel off the face of the earth is not a quest for war. Therefore we should appease this nutter for a while and not show muscle until demographics turn Europe into Eurabia, leaving Israel completely cornered and out of reach from US support. And once we've apologised and paid for tolerating those pesky Jews, we can get rid of some more infidels and introduce the death penalty for Christianity (by public hanging) just like Afghanistan:

The judge deciding whether an Afghan man should be executed for converting to Christianity does not understand what all the fuss is about.

"In this country, we have a perfect constitution. It is Islamic law and it is illegal to be a Christian and it should be punished," Judge Alhaj Ansarullah Mawawy Zada said in an interview yesterday. "In your country, two women can marry. I think that is very strange."

Strange it may be, so let's apologise for that as well. We're not even done apologising for our right to draw political cartoons, but sure, we're going to apologise some more and bow to the wishes of the caliphate. First we'll allow the slaughtering of six millions Jews (again), then we'll allow persecution of those with a different religious belief (again) and last but not least we'll round up everyone not popular enough to wear a pink shirt.

And then we truly have reason to call ourselves wacko and to apologise.

Palestine from the river to the sea

Anglosphere

It's no secret that I have some concerns about Iran's integrity regarding the nuclear stand-off. It's no secret that I dislike the mullahs' confrontations with the west. So, as a mental exercise, please try and predict how I feel about President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's latest sign of goodwill:

Speaking at a seminar entitled "World without Zionism", Ahmadinejad said that Israel was the product of an ideological war between the "Arrogant World Order" and the "Islamic rule", adding that the Jewish state had to be wiped off the face of the earth.

Excusez-moi? Normally I try to focus on subjects such as terrorism and democracy, filtering out generalisations and other politically incorrect opinions. But as atheist (or agnostic secularist at best) I'm getting closer and closer to simply proposing to wipe Islamic rule off the face of the earth. It'd be a bit of a shame of the democratic Islamic projects in Turkey and Iraq, but to do without those insane, murderous, wet dreams of a caliphate.. it might just be worth it.

(And to think I almost wrote something boring about not wanting to give up ICANN to Chinese censurists!)

Can we trust Iran? The Beeb? The UN?

Anglosphere

I'm not going to state that the Iran crisis over nuclear facilities is escalating, but diplomacy is reaching a stalemate and that's never a good sign in a crisis. A quick update from the Beeb:

Although Iran justifies fuel enrichment by saying this is allowed under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and that the IAEA would monitor all activities, the IAEA says Iran has already broken the rules by hiding an enrichment programme over a period of 18 years.

That is the reason why it could be reported to the Security Council.

Why bother? Because uranium enrichment can be used to create nuclear weapons and let's face it, Iran hasn't been on the best of terms with every nation in the world or even region. Nor will they improve under the newly "elected" hardline President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. As predicted by the US, talks with the EU3 have failed. So what happens when Iran goes on with its nuclear programme?

If so, it could face UN sanctions in due course and one day even a military attack on its facilities by Israel or the United States.

Ah, good old BBC bias. Aren't we describing a situation where the UN agrees Iran is in violation of international agreements and a possible threat? If we are, why single out Israel and the US? Has it become that unlikely other UN members would actually enforce the body's decisions?

© Copyright 1995-2009 Robert John Kaper. All rights reserved.

Tom has more friends but mine are prettier! (#1/1)