Best view 1152 x 864 ( +F11 )
Bookmark and 
 Share web counter

Alex News

ALWAYS ON TOP ( Scroll down for recent postings )

PAM ! Pam-para,pam-pam ! PAM ! PAM !

Feb 28, 2010

Me Vs. Pasto #2

Click HERE to see the source.
Alexander Münch said...

I dare not think that you posted this photo just to drive ME "Bananas" !...
I know, that you are a honest man, very intelligent and conscious !
But, you will have to do some 'over time' to convince me that the "camera-man" was just doing his JOB!...
I don't need an UZI or M-16 to whack off the M/F who is holding the sign!
The camera itself is more then enough!!!


Here is some more:- ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

Sunday, February 28, 2010 3:30:00 PM

Blogger Pastorius said...

No, the photo was meant as an example of the threat he is under.

I took your advice (or, whatever that rant was :) and changed the photo.

Sunday, February 28, 2010 4:35:00 PM

Alexander Münch said...

Your place is in Heaven!



Sunday, February 28, 2010 4:58:00 PM

Bookmark and Share

Feb 27, 2010

Israeli electromagnetic pulse bomb.

Daniel Pipes

How to Save the Obama Presidency: Bomb Iran
Circumstances are propitious, and the American people would support it.
I do not customarily offer advice to a president whose election I opposed, whose goals I fear, and whose policies I work against. But here is an idea for Barack Obama to salvage his tottering administration by taking a step that protects the United States and its allies.

If Obama’s personality, identity, and celebrity captivated a majority of the American electorate in 2008, those qualities proved ruefully deficient for governing in 2009. He failed to deliver on employment and health care, he failed in foreign-policy forays small (e.g., landing the 2016 Olympics) and large (relations with China and
Japan). His counterterrorism record barely passes the laugh test.

This poor performance has caused an unprecedented collapse in the polls and the loss of three major by-elections, culminating two weeks ago in an astonishing senatorial defeat in Massachusetts. Obama’s attempts to “reset” his presidency will likely fail if he focuses on economics, where he is just one of many players.

He needs a dramatic gesture to change the public perception of him as a light-weight, bumbling ideologue, preferably in an arena where the stakes are high, where he can take charge, and where he can trump expectations.

Such an opportunity does exist: Obama can give orders for the U.S. military to destroy Iran’s nuclear-weapon capacity.

Circumstances are propitious. First, U.S. intelligence agencies have
reversed their preposterous 2007 National Intelligence Estimate, the one that claimed with “high confidence” that Tehran had “halted its nuclear weapons program.” No one other than the Iranian rulers and their agents denies that the regime is rushing headlong to build a large nuclear arsenal.

Second, if the
apocalyptic-minded leaders in Tehran get the Bomb, they render the Middle East yet more volatile and dangerous. They might deploy these weapons in the region, leading to massive death and destruction. Eventually, they could launch an electromagnetic pulse attack on the United States, utterly devastating the country. By eliminating the Iranian nuclear threat, Obama protects the homeland and sends a message to American’s friends and enemies.

Third, polling
shows longstanding American support for an attack on the Iranian nuclear infrastructure:

Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg,
January 2006: 57 percent of Americans favor military intervention if Tehran pursues a program that could enable it to build nuclear arms.

Zogby International,
October 2007: 52 percent of likely voters support a U.S. military strike to prevent Iran from building a nuclear weapon; 29 percent oppose such a step.

McLaughlin & Associates,
May 2009: When asked whether they would support “using the [U.S.] military to attack and destroy the facilities in Iran which are necessary to produce a nuclear weapon,” 58 percent of 600 likely voters supported the use of force and 30 percent opposed it.

Fox News,
September 2009: When asked “Do you support or oppose the United States taking military action to keep Iran from getting nuclear weapons?” 61 percent of 900 registered voters supported military action and 28 opposed it.

Pew Research Center,
October 2009: When asked which is more important, “to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons, even if it means taking military action,” or “to avoid a military conflict with Iran, even if it means they may develop nuclear weapons,” 61 percent of 1,500 respondents favored the first reply and 24 percent the second.
Not only does a strong majority — 57, 52, 58, 61, and 61 percent in these five polls — already favor using force, but after a strike Americans will presumably rally around the flag, sending that number much higher.

Fourth, if the its strike to taking out Iran’s nuclear facilities and did not attempt any regime change, it would require few “boots on the ground” and entail relatively few casualties, making an attack more politically palatable.

Just as 9/11 caused voters to forget George W. Bush’s meandering early months, a strike on Iranian facilities would dispatch Obama’s feckless first year down the memory hole and transform the domestic political scene. It would sideline health care, prompt Republicans to work with Democrats, and make the
netroots squeal, independents reconsider, and conservatives swoon.

But the chance to do good and do well is fleeting. As the Iranians
improve their defenses and approach weaponization, the window of opportunity is closing. The time to act is now, or, on Obama’s watch, the world will soon become a much more dangerous place.

Daniel Pipes is director of the Middle East Forum and Taube distinguished visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution of Stanford University. © 2010 by Daniel Pipes. All rights reserved.

It’s time to play the war card

Everyone has suddenly noticed an elephant in the room: Play the War Card! So right after Daniel Pipes’ column in National Review Online last week, “How to Save the Obama Presidency: Bomb Iran,” pundits from Arnaud de Borchgrave, to Pat Buchanan, to Sarah Palin rushed to approve or disapprove of the idea. They all bring their agendas to the debate, but they all agree a U.S. attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities would significantly raise Obama’s disastrous approval poll ratings. Like politics, all warfare is domestic.

Even with the issue finally out in the sunlight, questions remain like: Why attack Iran when sanctions and ballistic missile defenses are available? Would an attack be effective anyway, and what about the Muslim response? Examination of those key points is timely.

First, no serious observer doubts Iran’s intentions except Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair, who told Congress last week he did not know whether Iran has decided to produce nuclear weapons. Although this has been the posture of the Bush and Obama administrations for years, officials now publically concede that Tehran’s huge uranium enrichment program is designed to build nuclear weapons. In addition, the German newspaper Sueddeutsche Zeitung just reported that with the help of a Russian expert in advanced warhead design, Iran is developing a nuclear warhead small enough to fit in their Shahab 3 intercontinental ballistic missile. The paper added that Western intelligence agencies and diplomats confirmed the report; other reports suggest Iran already has a warhead but it is too large for their missile.

Whatever the status of Iran’s program, the Prime Minister of Israel Benjamin Netanyahu gave a thinly veiled warning to Iran on Jan. 27 (Holocaust Memorial Day) saying, “From this site, I vow as the leader of the Jewish state that we will never again allow the hand of evil to destroy the life of our people and the life of our state. Never again!”

Tempo increased with a statement on Feb. 9 by Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, that his country would “punch” the western powers during the annual celebration of the revolution on Thursday, Feb. 11. He said: “The Iranian nation, with its unity and God’s grace, will punch the arrogance (western powers) on the 22nd of Bahman (11 February) in a way that will leave them stunned.” (Agence France-Presse).

What might that “punch” be? If Iran tests a nuclear device the calculus of terror in the Middle East changes dramatically, and things will surely happen on several fronts. Such a test is unlikely, however, and the “punch” is probably some new conventional armament. Nevertheless, Iran’s promise to wipe Israel off the face of the earth would spur that nation to action should Iran demonstrate a nuclear arsenal. And Israel is not the only concerned Middle East nation. A nuclear arms race is already under way in the region and would accelerate. The purchase of Pakistani nuclear weapons by Shiite Iran’s fearful Sunni neighbors cannot be ruled out.

With China refusing to endorse an embargo on gasoline sales to Iran, and with Russia dragging its feet, the peaceful option of sanctions is a dead horse. Ineffectual promises of sanctions and vague threats were hallmarks of the Bush presidency. To that Obama has only added lapsed deadlines and the offer of ballistic missile defenses (BMD) to Iran’s neighbors. Why does Washington follow such failed policies? The answer is that a nuclear-armed Iran is a distant threat to the United States, and even if Iran somehow landed a missile on American soil we would absorb the blow and completely incinerate them. So Washington delays action, counsels patience, and hopes that something will happen soon—even if that something is an Iranian nuclear capability. Israel does not have the luxury of distance or land mass, and a single Iranian nuclear missile slipping through the Aegis or Patriot BMD systems would be a catastrophe. Into this mix comes the debate of whether or not American military action against Iran would bolster poll standings of president Obama. I believe U.S. military action is a moot point, since there is absolutely nothing to indicate that Obama would consider playing the war card.

White House meetings on the subject of Iran must be interesting. If we attack Iran we face a tsunami of condemnation while Islamic leaders whip the ‘Muslim Street’ into a frenzy. Terror attacks on Americans will take place here and abroad. And if Israel attacks Iran instead, we will be named a co-conspirator and face the same tidal wave. Damned if we do, and damned if we don’t. Meanwhile, the military ball is in Israel’s court.

The world knows the U.S. military can destroy any target in the world without using nuclear weapons. But what about Israel? That country, with a population less than that of New York City, has developed a “triad”—the capability to launch a nuclear strike from aircraft, missile silos, and submarines. Besides Israel, only the US, Russia, and China have that deterrent power. But would Israel use nuclear weapons in a pre-emptive strike on Iran? I suggest that is unlikely because, as we will see below, it is unnecessary in the usual sense. As for a non-nuclear pre-emptive strike, Israel cannot successfully attack Iran with conventional weapons or aircraft. The distance is great, the defenses formidable, and the casualties would be very high. Instead, I believe Israel will use an electromagnetic pulse (EMP) weapon. What’s that?

In 1962 the U.S. conducted an atmospheric test called Starfish Prime. In it, a 1.4 megaton weapon was detonated 400 kilometers above Johnson Island in the Pacific. The EMP from that test knocked out street lights in Hawaii, 900 miles away! The Soviets held similar tests and discovered EMP effects can penetrate far underground. If Israel used one of its Jericho III missiles to detonate 400 kilometers above north central Iran there would be no blast or radiation effects on the ground. In fact, if the strike was at noon on a sunny day the people below would not know it happened except their lights would go out, cars stop, fridges die, power line transformers short out, refineries shut down, and yes, those uranium enrichment centrifuges in caverns stop spinning. This bloodless annihilation, coupled with a selective cyber attack, would freeze Iran for decades.

What could be Iran’s response to such an attack? If they can find a working radio they can announce they have mined the Strait of Hormuz. Because of depth, width, and its hydrographic features the Strait cannot be mined, but if Iran says it is mined it would have the same effect. Lloyds will cancel insurance for any tanker transiting the Strait. Then we revisit “Tanker War” tactics of 1985, and the U.S. Navy would escort any ship anxious to cash in on the crisis. If shore missile batteries were somehow still operational, a battle group in the area together with bombers from Diego Garcia would reduce them to rubble, along with associated infrastructure like military harbors. A rain of missiles from Hezbollah in Syria would have to be endured by Israel, unless another EMP weapon was used. Terror attacks would be made on Israelis and Americans, but those can be dealt with by law enforcement and military forces, especially if they are forewarned. Of course the price of oil and gold would spike for a while. On the positive side, Iranian “Green” opposition forces would have an opportunity to take to the darkened streets of Tehran and rid themselves of the corrupt clerical regime.

So it seems the “war card” is in the hands of Israel, and the card has “EMP” on it.

Chet Nagle is the author of IRAN COVENANT.

Bookmark and Share

Magnitude 8.8


2010 February 27 06:34:14 UTC

Bookmark and Share

"Pallywood" at its best !

"Pallywood" at its best !
February 9, 2010

Anthony Lawson on Gaza: Comments please

Richard Landes Print This Post

I just received the link to this piece from someone on my Class of ‘71 Listserv. She presents herself to everyone as a lover of peace, but she apparently is drawn to some of the worst war-mongering propaganda around. I don’t have time to tackle this right now. I welcome your comments both on the film itself (and its two authors Joe Mowrey, scriptwriter, and Anthony Lawson), and the way in which such a piece of work can appeal to people who think they are in the peace camp.

Take your time and see il all ! ( total:- 9m 41s )
MUST READ ! Comments (245) ( All of them ! )

Please note:-
During the whole 9m & 41s, you'll not hear a single word about the 8000 mortar shells, Kassam rockets and other stuff that HAMAS fired at Israel for 8 YEARS !


Bookmark and Share














Bookmark and Share

Old, but good as new!

The Syria-Iran Alliance

by Tony Badran

inFocus Spring 2009

In recent years, a number of erroneous notions have been re-injected into the policy discourse on the thirty-year old alliance between Syria and Iran. Statements such as "prying Syria away from Iran," or "flipping Syria," or "ending Syria's marriage of convenience with Iran" have quickly become stock phrases in policy circles, both in the U.S. and Israel. This position fundamentally misrepresents the nature of the Syria-Iran alliance and recycles a flawed argument that is almost as old as the alliance itself.

Resurging Rhetoric

While running for president in August 2007, now-Vice President Joe Biden told the Jerusalem Post that while Syria was "Iran's closest ally," the U.S. "should work to break up its marriage of convenience with Iran."

Similarly, in 2008, Anthony Lake, a senior advisor to then-Senator Barack Obama, told the New York Sun that one advantage of engaging Syria was "in part to break its unnatural alliance with Iran."

This line of reasoning was also embraced by a number of Republican stalwarts. Former Secretary of State James Baker, for example, has been advocating the "marriage of convenience" position for years. In a December 2006 television interview with CNN's Larry King, the former Secretary of State explained that Syria sought to "come back" to "the United States and moderate Arab nations."

The following year, as the head of the Iraq Study Group, Baker testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on January 30, 2007, that the U.S. had a "tremendous opportunity here to perhaps move them away from a marriage of convenience with Iran..."

More recently, Baker appeared on CNN in September 2008 and asserted that the U.S. "could flip Syria away from Iran." In January 2009, he told Newsweek that in return for the Golan Heights and normalized relations with Washington, "we might wean them from Iran."

Brent Scowcroft, another veteran Republican, contended in January 2007 that "Syria cannot be comfortable clutched solely in the embrace of Iran, and thus prying it away may be possible."

The Old Is New Again

Apart from the substantive dubiousness of these arguments, they are neither new nor original. What might appear new is that some portray Syria's strong and intimate relationship with Iran as a result of misguided policies from the George W. Bush administration. The two rogue states, according to this line of thinking, were drawn together because they were both isolated. Syria, it is argued, had no choice but to embrace Iran to avoid isolation.

These arguments, however, date as far back as 25 years, just after the alliance between the Assad regime and the Islamic Republic was first formed. In 1983, the Washington Post reported that the Syria-Iran alliance was "unnatural."

The term "alliance of convenience," however, was first applied in the pages of Middle East Insight by scholar Shireen Hunter in 1985. As the alliance endured beyond the Iran-Iraq war (1980-1988) and Operation Desert Storm (1991), in an essay titled "Syria and Iran: From Hostility to Limited Alliance," Hunter labeled the alliance as "limited" and "uneasy," adding that it was "troubled" and "strained" due to "underlying incompatibilities in their respective interests and aspirations."

The Dividers

Analysts provide several reasons for their claim that Syria and Iran are unnaturally matched. The argument usually revolves around the following two categories:

Ideology: The official regime ideologies?Syrian Pan-Arab nationalism/Baathism and Iranian Khomeini-style Islamic Revolution?are said to be incompatible since the first is seen as secular while the latter is theocratic. It is then deduced that the alliance between the two must be transient, particularly because the ideologies of the two regimes are deemed to be at odds.

Religion and Ethnicity: Iran is a pre-dominantly Persian and Shiite regime, while Syria is a majority Sunni Arab country, even if ruled by a minority Alawite clique. These divides are deemed too deep to allow for more than a temporary, tactical convergence. Herein lies the origin of the theory that Syria will return to the "Sunni Arab fold." (Ironically, the Alawites are often categorized as a "Shiite offshoot," which was used by some to explain Syria's affinity with the Iranians and the Shiites of Lebanon, particularly Hezbollah.)

The Uniters

Given these alleged differences, analysts then posit that two factors have drawn Syria and Iran illogically together.

Economy: Since these two regimes had little in common ideologically, ethnically, and religiously, the reasoning went, shared economic hardships (i.e. Western sanctions) drew them closer out of necessity. The New York Times touted this argument in 2007, arguing that Syria, paralyzed by the Bush administration's isolation policies, had no other options than to turn to Iran; the Bush administration had unwittingly drawn the two "unnatural" allies closer together.

Reaction To Regional Threats: It is further argued that Iran and Syria are ultimately drawn together in a realist, defensive pact against common aggressive regional foes, namely Saddam Hussein's Iraq (before the 2003 invasion) and Israel (backed by the U.S.). However, now that the Iraqi threat has waned, one pillar of this alliance is gone. Thus, according to this logic, if Israel returns the Golan Heights and signs a peace treaty with Syria, the raison d'etre of the alliance will disappear. In other words, whenever external threats and isolation ease, so too will Syrian-Iranian ties. The premise here is that the Syrian-Iranian alliance is reactive.

Proactive, Not Reactive

The above arguments, however, ultimately fail to explain the endurance of the 30-year old alliance between Tehran and Damascus.

Scholars Nimrod Raphaeli and Bianca Gersten persuasively argue that the alliance is not driven by economic considerations. While there has been a great deal of excitement generated over car manufacturing plants, oil refineries, and other projects totaling more than "$10 billion over the next five years," the numbers simply don't add up. True, Iran supplied Syria with oil during the Iran-Iraq war, and has financed Syrian military programs in more recent years. But the economic relationship cannot be seen as the lynchpin of Syria-Iran ties. This is especially so, now that oil prices have plummeted.

Similarly, the religious-sectarian issue must also be rejected. As far back as 1983, Syrian officials declared Islam to be the common bond between Damascus and Tehran, transcending the Arab-Persian divide. As scholar Martin Kramer noted in Shi'ism, Resistance and Revolution, the Iranian-born Lebanese Shiite cleric Musa Sadr offered the Assad regime religious legitimacy through a 1973 fatwa declaring Alawites to be Twelver Shiites. Sadr paved the way not just to a longstanding relationship between the Assad regime and the Lebanese Shiite Amal movement (founded by Sadr), but also acted as liaison between Assad and Khomeini's aides before the 1979 Islamic Revolution in Iran.

Today, Syrian officials, including Bashar al-Assad, routinely talk about Arabism and Islam as twin pillars of strength. The product of this amalgam can be seen in the discourse of Hezbollah, which is sponsored both by Damascus and Tehran. Hezbollah reinforces this ideological marriage by marketing its brand of "resistance" to the broader Sunni Arab world via al-Manar television and other sophisticated public relations outlets. The group's narrative of "resistance" is today the common ideological banner of the Syrian-Iranian axis.

Thus, "ideology" should not be narrowly defined in describing the underpinnings of this axis. As author Jubin Goodarzi notes in Syria and Iran: Diplomatic Alliance and Power Politics in the Middle East, it is precisely because the two regimes have different ideologies that their alliance has endured. Moreover, Goodarzi notes that the political elite in both countries have important shared perceptions, and that their secular and fundamentalist ideologies overlap in certain respects:

An examination of how the bilateral ties between Syria and Iran evolved... reveals the flawed conclusions of those who argued that the alliance was a marriage of convenience, a short-term tactical link between two regimes with disparate ideologies and objectives. It also exposes the limits of the realist school of thought in explaining the behaviour of these two states. If immediate security concerns and material interest had been the driving forces in their foreign policies, particularly in Syria's case, the relationship would have collapsed. However, both parties had broader, long-term strategic concerns derived from their national security priorities and based on their respective ideologies and world views. They saw a unique role for themselves in the region and utility in preserving the alliance to pursue an independent foreign policy to shape events in the Middle East?

Syria traditionally views itself as inhabiting the center of the Arab order, and has long vied for the leadership position of the Levant, which it considers its rightful patrimony. In order to do so, it must undercut and neutralize rival Arab states. Only Iran affords it the ability to do so. Indeed, given Syria's weakness, its natural weight would not allow it to actualize this lofty goal. It would be relegated to a marginal regional position, which would have severe implications for the legitimacy of the regime.

Far from being reactive, the Syria-Iran alliance seeks to overturn the balance of power in the region. As such, both states have an interest in undermining Arab states like Egypt and Saudi Arabia, as well as other U.S. allies and interests in the region.

Ultimately, Iran offers Syria the ability to pursue its agenda, which is often done through blackmail and violence, and through the support of terrorist non-state actors such as Hamas and Hezbollah. Indeed, the alliance with Iran, Hezbollah, and Hamas allows Syria to manipulate Palestinian politics (and even project itself into Jordan), while undercutting Egypt and rendering itself a veto-wielding usurper of the Egyptian role.

Goodarzi sums up this approach: "Hafez Assad, Ruhollah Komeini and their successors have viewed the region as a strategic whole and regarded their alliance as a vital tool with which to further Arab-Islamic interests and increase regional autonomy by diminishing foreign penetration of the Middle East. As a result, to advance their common agenda over the years, both countries have put long-term interests before short-term gains."

If the goal is to project leadership and subvert and fundamentally reshape the regional architecture, then not only is the alliance not "reactive," but the converging interests, shared assets, and common objectives dictate that any notion of driving a wedge between Iran and Syria is hopelessly facile and off target.

Policy Options

Advocates of the "flip Syria" argument articulate no basis for their theories, offering instead empty rhetoric and inconsistent assessments. For instance, the International Crisis Group in 2006 stated that mere peace negotiations between Israel and Syria would "alter the regional atmosphere," and a peace deal would "fundamentally alter? [Syria's] relationship with Iran." Such claims have repeatedly been dispelled by events. Indeed, while Syria and Israel negotiated for a full decade in the 1990s, Syria maintained, consolidated, and enhanced its alliance with Iran.

This has led the advocates of this theory to tone down their assertions to state that engaging Damascus would not "flip Syria," but rather, in the words of Aaron David Miller, lead to a long-term process of "weaning the Syrians? gradually" from Iran, while showering Damascus with "economic and political support." These shifts in positions only confirm that the "flip" policy requires tangible U.S. and Israeli concessions in return for little more than wishful thinking.

In the end, the Syrian-Iranian relationship has not changed much over three decades. Consider Goodarzi's assessment of the relationship in 1986:

Why Assad refused to distance himself from Iran and join mainstream Arab politics to minimize the risk of conflict with Israel and the West baffled many observers, for he would have derived considerable benefits, including oil and financial rewards, from the pro-Iraqi camp. Indeed, the USSR, Saudi Arabia and Jordan put considerable pressure on Syria to sever its links with Iran and mend fences with Iraq. Such a move could have eased its security dilemma with Israel, improved its regional and international standing and ensured a flow of economic and financial aid to remedy its dire domestic economic situation.

Syria's alliance with Iran continues to baffle observers. Yet, its position tells much about its priorities, interests, and objectives?if Washington is willing to listen.

Tony Badran is a research fellow for the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and the author of

Bookmark and Share

Feb 26, 2010

What? The Swiss don't speak Hebrew?...

What? The Swiss don't speak Hebrew?... They'll learn!!

Gaddafi urges jihad against Switzerland

Libyan leader calls European country 'an infidel, obscene state which is destroying mosques'

Published: 02.26.10, 08:23 / Israel News

Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi called on Thursday for a "jihad" or armed struggle against Switzerland, saying it was an infidel state that was destroying mosques.

"Any Muslim in any part of the world who works with Switzerland is an apostate, is against (the Prophet) Muhammad, God and the Koran," Gaddafi said during a meeting in the eastern Libyan city of Benghazi to mark the Prophet's birthday.

"The masses of Muslims must go to all airports in the Islamic world and prevent any Swiss plane landing, to all harbors and prevent any Swiss ships docking, inspect all shops and markets to stop any Swiss goods being sold," Gaddafi said.

The Swiss Foreign Ministry said it had no comment on Gaddafi's remarks.

Libya's relations with Switzerland broke down in 2008 when a son of Gaddafi was arrested in a Geneva hotel and charged with abusing domestic servants.

He was released shortly afterwards and the charges were dropped, but Libya cut oil supplies to Switzerland, withdrew billions of dollars from Swiss bank accounts and arrested two Swiss businessmen working in the North African country.

One has been released but the other was forced this week to leave the Swiss embassy in Tripoli where he had been sheltering and move to a prison to serve a four-month sentence, apparently avoiding a major confrontation.

Libya says the Geneva arrest and the case of the two businessmen are not linked.

"Let us fight against Switzerland, Zionism and foreign aggression," said Gaddafi, adding that "this is not terrorism," in contrast with the work of al-Qaeda which he called a "kind of crime and a psychological disease."

"There is a big difference between terrorism and jihad which is a right to armed struggle," he said.

Gaddafi accused Switzerland of being an "infidel, obscene state which is destroying mosques," in reference to a Swiss referendum verdict barring construction of minarets.

He called for a "jihad against it with all means."

Gaddafi was speaking before leading prayers in a Benghazi square in the presence of envoys from dozens of Muslim countries.

Swiss nationals voted 57.5% in favor of the minaret ban in the November 29 referendum backed by the right-wing Swiss People's Party. The federal government had urged voters to reject it, warning it would contravene religious freedom.

Bookmark and Share

Freedom of expression!... ART!

If you'll call this SHIT "A piece of Art" or "Freedom of Expression", I'll SPIT ON YOU!
Israel angered by Uzi, menorah sculpture in Spain

Spanish artist also displays sculpture of Jew standing on priest kneeling on Muslim. Israeli Embassy protests, says 'offensive message remains offensive even when expressed in art'

Roni Sofer

Published: 02.18.10, 07:31 / Israel Culture

A display by a Spanish artist, including a candelabrum growing out of the barrel of an Uzi sub-machinegun and a sculpture of a haredi figure standing on a priest, who kneels on a prostrate Muslim, has drawn fire from the Foreign Ministry. The Israeli Embassy in Madrid issued a statement Wednesday protesting the display at the International Art Fair in the Spanish capital.

"Values such as freedom of speech and creative freedom are sometimes used to disguise stereotyping, prejudice and provocation for the sake of provocation," the statement said. The sculptures are two of five works on display by the well-known artist Eugenio Merino.

Merino denied that he had tried to provoke. "The aim was to display the wonder in the co-existence of the three religions, each making a common effort to reach God," he told reporters.

One of Merino's works on display (Photo: Reuters)

Israeli Ambassador to Spain Rafi Schutz decided to limit his protest to the release of the statement, and not to call for the removal of the works, in order to avoid presenting Israel as a state that suppresses art.

"In the body of this Spanish artist's work there are elements offensive to Jews, Israelis and undoubtedly others as well," the statement said. "An offensive message doesn't stop being offensive simply because it aims to be a work of art."

"We express our opinion on this issue though we recognize that provocations like this are successful only because it is not possible not to respond," continued the statement, which was issued to media outlets in Spain.

Diplomatic sources emphasized that the term "anti-Semitic" was deliberately avoided, for fear of provoking a wave of anti-Jewish and anti-Israeli feeling in Spain.

Bookmark and Share

Holocaust deniers? Holocaust desiners !!!

Holocaust deniers? Holocaust desiners !!!

Iranian president, Hezbollah chief join Syrian president for dinner following series of meetings with Hamas leader Mashaal, heads of other Palestinians factions. Al-Manar network reports Ahmadinejad, Nasrallah discussed 'Israel's threats'

Roee Nahmias

Published: 02.26.10, 09:41 / Israel News

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Hezbollah Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah on Thursday evening joined Syrian President Bashar Assad for dinner in Damascus. The meal was also attended by other Syrian officials. There was no official statement about the issues discussed during the event.
It was the first joint meeting between the three men during Ahmadinejad and Nasrallah's visit to the Syrian capital. Earlier Thursday, The Iranian president held separate meetings with his Syrian counterpart and the Hezbollah chief.

Hezbollah's al-Manar television network reported that Ahmadinejad and Nasrallah discussed "Israel's threats".

Ahmadinejad also met with heads of the Palestinian factions in Syria, including Hamas politburo chief Khaled Mashaal, Islamic Jihad Deputy Secretary-General Ziad Nahla and Ahmed Jibril, leader of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine ? General Command.

Ahmadinejad, Assad and Nasrallah in Damascus

During the meeting with the heads of the Palestinian factions, the Iranian leader warned that any Israeli attack will be met with stiff resistance. "If the Zionists want to repeat their mistake again, they must be uprooted from the source," he said. "This criminal regime is doomed and the grand victory is imminent."

Ahmadinejad made similar remarks after his meeting with Assad on Thursday. In a joint press conference in Damascus, the two conveyed a clear message to Jerusalem, saying that any move on Israel's part could ignite a conflict with all of the region's nations.

The Iranian president also threatened that Arab nations would usher in a new Middle East "without Zionists and without colonialists."

Assad addressed recent statements made by Israeli officials, saying that "we believe we are facing an entity that is capable of aggression at any point, and we are preparing ourselves for any Israeli aggression, be it on a small or large scale. We must be prepared for any Israeli response, under any pretext."

More stuff, straight from the oven...

  1. If the Zionists want to repeat their mistake again, they must be uprooted from the source ... This criminal regime is doomed and the grand victory is imminent.
    SOURCE: Ynetnews 2 hours ago
  2. We tell them that instead of interfering in the region's affairs, to pack their things and leave.
    SOURCE: Miami Herald 1 day ago
  3. Ambassador Ford is a highly accomplished diplomat with many years of experience in the Middle East ... His appointment represents President Obama's commitment to use engagement to advance U.S. interests by improving communication with the Syrian government and people.
    Robert Gibbs Robert Gibbs SOURCE: Miami Herald 1 day ago
  4. We must have understood Clinton wrong because of bad translation or our limited understanding, so we signed the agreement to cancel the visas
    SOURCE: Al Jazeera 17 hours ago
  5. We hope that others don't give us lessons about our region and our history
    SOURCE: Al Jazeera 17 hours ago
  6. We are the ones who decide how matters will go and we know our interests. We thank them for their advice. I find it strange that they (Americans) talk about Middle East stability and peace and the other beautiful principles and call for two countries to move away from each other
    SOURCE: Al Jazeera 17 hours ago
  7. efforts to advance a comprehensive peace in the Middle East?one that brings peace for Israelis, Palestinians, Syrians, and Lebanese, as well as the full normalization of relations between Israel and the Arab states.
    SOURCE: The Daily Caller 2 days ago
  8. Iran does not have a nuclear military programme.
    SOURCE: Lebanon Daily Star 2 days ago
  9. reach anywhere that the Israeli air force needed to reach.
    SOURCE: The Daily Caller 2 days ago
  10. Sanctions are not a solution [to the problem] between Iran and the West ... We are trying to engage a constructive dialogue between the two parties in order to reach a peaceful solution.
    SOURCE: Lebanon Daily Star 2 days ago

  11. One of the major aims behind this manifesto is to firmly entrench Hezbollah as a Lebanese movement... to codify it as a Lebanese party par excellence
    SOURCE: Miami Herald 1 week ago
  12. The preparations should be of the level that, if they (the Israelis) want to repeated the mistakes of the past (by attacking), then their case should be closed once and for all and the region delivered from their evil ways forever
    SOURCE: Jerusalem Post 1 week ago
  13. We talked candidly about the areas in which we disagree, but also identify the areas of common ground on which we can build
    SOURCE: Miami Herald 1 week ago
  14. Welcome to the Lebanese political club
    SOURCE: Miami Herald 1 week ago
  15. The people of Iran will stand by the peoples of Lebanon and the region in this
    SOURCE: Jerusalem Post 1 week ago
  16. Whoever thinks territorial concessions will disconnect Syria from the axis of evil is mistaken.... We must make Syria recognize that just as it relinquished its dream of a greater Syria that controls Lebanon.
    SOURCE: CNN 1 week ago
  17. We are heading toward a new confrontation in the north, but I don't know when it will happen, just as we did not know when the second Lebanon war would erupt
    SOURCE: CNN 1 week ago
  18. It?s not a secret that Israel has vicious intentions toward Lebanon because Israel is the enemy
    SOURCE: Irish Times 2 weeks ago
  19. most powerful weapon in our hands to face up to Israeli threats
    SOURCE: Irish Times 2 weeks ago
  20. Lebanon against any possible Israeli aggression
    SOURCE: Irish Times 2 weeks ago
  21. repeated Israeli threats on countries in the region and Israeli extremism which can kill chances for peace and bring war to the region
    SOURCE: Rantburg 2 weeks ago
  22. Syria will stand alongside the government and people of Lebanon against any possible Israeli aggression launched on Lebanon
    Bashar al-Assad Bashar al-Assad SOURCE: Rantburg 2 weeks ago
  23. his family will lose power
    SOURCE: Rantburg 2 weeks ago
  24. Experience of the past 40 years shows that Syria is willing to have the Palestinians and the Lebanese to fight Israel to their last drop of blood, as long as the Syrians don't have to be involved
    SOURCE: Haaretz 2 weeks ago
  25. with Egypt and Jordan and we aspire to do so with Syria and the Palestinians. We can achieve this with two conditions: The first is that we hold negotiations without preconditions. We will not accept the notion that Israel makes major concessions in advance. We will not enter negotiations for which ever...
    SOURCE: Haaretz 2 weeks ago
  26. would stand in the face of Israeli ambitions
    SOURCE: Haaretz 2 weeks ago
  27. When you compare the rhetoric of past statements, there is practically no difference
    SOURCE: Haaretz 2 weeks ago
  28. The party that has the weapons tries to force itself on the others
    SOURCE: Haaretz 2 weeks ago
  29. the side that possesses weapons bullies others.
    SOURCE: Lebanon Daily Star 2 weeks ago
  30. In 1982, during the siege of Beirut ? I told [former Syrian President] Hafez Assad that we are with Syria and we will resist ... And today amid the Israeli madness and threats, I say to the Syrian people and to their leadership that we support them beyond all considerations.
    Walid Jumblatt Walid Jumblatt SOURCE: Lebanon Daily Star 2 weeks ago

Bookmark and Share