What facts? The assertion of something being "likely"?

I can understand, very well, Netenyahu's concern over Iran's threat to annihilate Israel. And the reality of being able to achieve that threat with a nuclear weapon.

If Iran is telling the truth, that it wants nuclear power only for peaceful uses, not nuclear weapons, then there is no point to the incessant back and forth attempts at negotiations to restrict or allow Iran's capacities. Nor is there a need for Zakaria to be concerned about Iran's ability to have the bomb in a matter of months.

If Iran is not telling the truth, if it really does want the nuclear capability of building the bomb, and had that desire all along, AS MOST EVERYONE ELSE ASSUMES TO BE THE CASE . . . if Iran is lying, then asserting that if Bush, way back when, had agreed to some deal we would not "likely" be at a point where Iran was month's away from that bomb, is, as Zakaria puts it, never-never land

Spence, the story by Zakaria was clearly a hit job against Bush, Netanyahu, and the West in general. Nuclear nonproliferation has been a U.N. policy since the 1960's. The IAEA was established by the U.N. in 1957 and specified in 1968 to ensure no expansion of nuclear programs designed to create nuclear weapons. This was all well Before Bush.

Iran, under the Shah, had started a nuclear program which was for energy purposes only. It hired outside Western contractors to build it. They operated under IAEA regulations. There was no secrecy, no attempt to build nuclear weapons, no hidden violations. After the revolution, under control of an Islamic State, the nuclear program, which had been discontinued during the war with Iraq, was restarted, but this time strictly under control of Iran, with Iranian contractors to design and build it. There were, very shortly, IAEA concerns about the ultimate purpose.

And the agents who came to Iran's aid this time were not from the West, but from Eurasia. Russia and China, mainly. And IAEA suspicions gradually heightened. For example, China agreed to prevent new cooperation and halt existing projects with Iran in the nuclear field, and to cancel a project to help Iran with a blueprint for the plant. But China continued its aid anyway. Iran, in Nov. 2003, entered into an agreement with Britain, France, and Germany to suspend enrichment, but it continued building the centrifuges anyway. And it has continually advanced enrichment, before, through, and past the Bush era to its present ability. Iran has refused to have its program of enrichment done by outside commercial sources with no political objective, as was done by the Shah, but maintains its own program, in constant secrecy, violation of agreements, and uncooperativeness with IAEA. Even Obama says that if there are no guarantees that Iran will not build nuclear weapons, we will walk away from the negotiation. Long after Bush, there are still no guarantees. If Iran simply wanted peaceful use of nuclear power, it could have gone about it the way the Shah did. Something else is obviously going on, and Bush didn't cause it. And at this point at which Iran is about to have the ability to build the bomb, any "agreement" would be highly suspect, and its "guarantee" by a regime which has continuously broken agreements may not be worth the paper it's written on.

Your query to me to talk about the facts of Zakaria's story is amusing. You often dismiss "stories," simply by sneering at the source, and avoid any further discussion. Which you did with the article that is the subject of this thread. You claimed to get "lost" by one of the initial sentences (which I pointed out was not relevant to the rest of the review), and that was that. No further discussion. No "what about the facts in the story?" At least I expanded my discussion of Zakaria's hit job.

I don't know if you actually did go ahead and read the rest of the article I posted. If you did, you might have seen and discussed what are and have been growing alliances that are not wholly, if at all, interested in alliance with what we call the "West." They, in varying degrees among its participants, actually tend to be anti-Western. And the alliances, including SOC and BRICS comprise half the population of the planet.

The article certainly sheds some light on what is actually happening in Ukraine. And why economic sanctions have had little effect. The alliances afford partners to ameliorate the effects of U.S. or European opposition and sanction. They want to neutralize the power of the West. And to replace the dollar as the go-to currency with their own currency. They see Israel as an extension of Western power into their Eurasian sphere, so tend to back Iran and care little for Israel's security. Iran wants to be part of their alliance, and they will eventually officially accept it, but will back it for the time being. Here's the Wiki entry for SOC and BRIC:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shangha...n_Organisation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BRICS

The SOC, Shanghai Cooperation Organization is strictly Eurasian and won't allow European countries or the U.S. entry. The U.S. had applied for observer status but was denied. Russia and China are the most important members.

The BRICS expands from Eurasia to include the African and South American sphere, but its main members, Russia, China, and India, are Eurasian.

There are many "observer" nations who attend SOC and BRICS conferences, most being potential members and will be wholeheartedly welcomed into the alliance. If numbers and statistics mean much, the combined alliances will have a much larger population than a U.S./Euro alliance.

Interesting how wagons are circling around the U.S./Euro zone, no? How Russia and China are quietly expanding their influence in the rest of the world? And they already have a powerful influence among our own alliances by being two of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council.

I transferred this out of the Hillary email thread to a more appropriate one:

Gosh, I guess you have to load your comment with defamatory insinuations, short-sighted, silly, surreal, strange, in order to give it the "appearance" of validity.

Quote:
"But President Obama is not the only, and certainly not the most significant, opponent of Israel."


Maybe this article can help you to find your way:

http://carolineglick.com/israels-next-22-months/

Apparently, saying that Obama is an opponent of Israel is not so astounding or shocking that it should make you lose your way.

Hope you can find your way through this article.

The following article by Raymond Ibrahim points out the need to understand the motives of Islamists in the same way they understand them. And when we impute our secular Western understanding to what they practice and believe, we will entirely miss the point. And we will be at an insurmountable disadvantage if we "negotiate," for instance, with an Islamic state such as Iran if we believe that the terms and obligations of an agreement are looked at by them in the same way we do . . . :

CIA Projects Western Motives onto the Islamic Jihad

Raymond Ibrahim | Thursday Mar 19, 2015 12:01 AM


By constantly projecting Western standards on Islamic jihadis, CIA head John Brennan has come to epitomize the U.S. intelligence community’s intellectual failures concerning the true sources of the jihad.

Last Friday, March 13, Brennan insisted that Islamic State (IS) members are not Islamic. Instead, “They are terrorists, they’re criminals. Most—many—of them are psychopathic thugs, murderers who use a religious concept and masquerade and mask themselves in that religious construct.”

Note his usage of terms familiar to Western people (“terrorists,” “criminals,” etc.). Islamic State jihadis may be all those things—including “psychopathic thugs”—from a Western paradigm, but the fact left out by Brennan is that, according to Islamic law and history, savage and psychopathic behavior is permissible, especially in the context of the jihad.

But perhaps Brennan knows all this and is simply being “strategic”? After all, the CIA head also “warned against ascribing ‘Islamic legitimacy’ to the overseas terrorist group, saying that allowing them to identify themselves with Islam does a disservice to Muslims around the world.”

Brennan of course is following Barack Obama’s lead; a month earlier the president said:

"We must never accept the premise that they [Islamic State] put forward, because it is a lie, nor should we grant these terrorists the religious legitimacy that they seek. They are not religious leaders, they are terrorists. And we are not at war with Islam. We are at war with people who have perverted Islam. "

The problem is that, according to Western norms—built as they are atop Judeo-Christian principles—Islam has been “perverted” from day one. As far back as the 8th century, mere generations after Islam was born, Byzantine chronicler Theophanes wrote in his Chrongraphia:

"He [Islamic prophet Muhammad] taught those who gave ear to him that the one slaying the enemy—or being slain by the enemy—entered into paradise [e.g., Koran 9:111]. And he said paradise was carnal and sensual—orgies of eating, drinking, and women. Also, there was a river of wine … and the woman were of another sort, and the duration of sex greatly prolonged and its pleasure long-enduring" [e.g., Koran 56: 7-40, 78:31, 55:70-77]. And all sorts of other nonsense.

More to the point, every atrocity IS has committed—beheading, crucifying, raping, enslaving, or burning people alive—is legitimate according to Islamic law and the teachings and deeds of Muhammad, that most “perfect” and “moral” man (Koran 33:21, 68:4), as documented here. [see link to article below for linked documentation]

Based on Islamic historical texts, Muhammad sent assassins to slaughter his critics—including poets and one old woman whose body was dismembered by her Muslim assailants; he had an “infidel” tortured to death with fire in order to reveal his tribe’s hidden treasure; he “married” that same man’s wife hours later (the woman, Safiya, later confessed that “Of all men, I hated the prophet the most—for he killed my husband, my brother, and my father”); and he reportedly used to visit and have sex with his nine wives in a single hour. (For more, read “The Perverse Sexual Habits of the Prophet.”)

Again, all this information is based on Islamic texts deemed reliable and regularly quoted by Muslim scholars and theologians—not fabrications by “Islamophobes.”

Even so, the point here is that, whatever the “truth” about Islam, its origins and founder, the premise that Brennan, Obama, etc., constantly put forth—that it would be counterproductive for “us” to confer any Islamic “legitimacy” on groups like the Islamic State—is fatuous at best. As I explained in a 2009 article titled “Words Matter in the War on Terror”:

Muslims are not waiting around for Americans or their government — that is, the misguided, the deluded, in a word, the infidel — to define Islam for them; much less will subtle word games and euphemisms emanating from the West manage to confer or take away Islamic legitimacy on the Islamists of the world. For Muslims, only Islamic law, the antithesis of international law, decides what is or is not legitimate, or in legal terminology, what is mubah or mahrum.

Furthermore, the U.S. government would do well to worry less about which words appease Muslims … and worry more about providing its own citizenry with accurate and meaningful terminology.

Words matter. Whom those words are directed at matters even more. The world’s Muslims aren’t holding their breath to hear what sort of Islamic legitimacy the U.S. government is about to confer on any given Islamist group, since it is not for non-Muslims — the despised infidels — to decide what is and is not Islamic in the first place. Americans, on the other hand, who still wonder “why they hate us,” are in desperate need of understanding. Using accurate terminology is the first step.

Indeed, for all of U.S. leadership’s fear that we “infidels” not “legitimize” the Islamic State, Al Azhar—perhaps the most “legitimate” of all Islamic institutions—refuses to delegitimize the jihadi terrorists. And little wonder, since Al Azhar’s curriculum teaches everything that IS is doing—including burning people alive.

Meanwhile, Brennan whitewashes and praises the jihad. Speaking back in 2010, the politically correct CIA chief said: "Nor do we describe our enemy as 'jihadists' or 'Islamists' because jihad is a holy struggle, a legitimate tenet of Islam, meaning to purify oneself or one’s community, and there is nothing holy or legitimate or Islamic about murdering innocent men, women and children."

Inasmuch as he is correct that “jihad is a holy struggle, a legitimate tenet of Islam, meaning to purify oneself or one’s community”—he greatly errs by again projecting Judeo-Christian notions of what constitutes “holy,” “legitimate,” and “innocent” onto Islam.

Jihad is nothing less than offensive warfare to spread Islamic rule, a cause seen as both “legitimate” and “holy” in Islam. (Read this “moderate” Muslim scholar’s “logic” on the (invisible) differences between jihad and terrorism. [see link to article below for link to this reference]) Moreover, jihadis regularly seek to “purify” their communities by purging them of “infidels” and their influences. As for “innocence,” by simply being a non-Muslim, one is already guilty in Islam. And when Muhammad’s disciples warned him about attacking non-Muslim tribes in the night, since women and children might get killed accidentally, the prophet replied, “They are from among them” and proceeded with the raid.

All this leads to the following question: If the Islamic State and other jihadi organizations are not animated by Islam, then what, according to the CIA chief, is really fueling their jihad? Brennan spelled this out very clearly back in 2010 when he described Islamic terrorists as victims of “political, economic and social forces.”

In other words, the way to defeat the Islamic State is by offering its members better “job opportunities”—as so eloquently expressed by the State Department recently in the person of Mary Harf.

Ironically enough, Brennan’s invocation of “political, economic and social forces” brings to mind the fact that I warned against precisely these three pretexts, and in the same order, in the opening paragraph of my written testimony submitted to the US House of Representatives on February 12, 2009—since removed from their website—a year before Brennan invoked “political, economic and social forces” as the true sources of Islamic jihad.

I close with that opening paragraph as it appears more relevant now than it was over six years ago when I wrote it:

The greatest hurdle Americans need to get over in order to properly respond to the growing threat of radical Islam is purely intellectual in nature; specifically, it is epistemological, and revolves around the abstract realm of ‘knowledge.’ Before attempting to formulate a long-term strategy to counter radical Islam, Americans must first and foremost understand Islam, particularly its laws and doctrines, the same way Muslims understand it—without giving it undue Western (liberal) interpretations. This is apparently not as simple as expected: all peoples of whatever civilizations and religions tend to assume that other peoples more or less share in their worldview, which they assume is objective, including notions of right and wrong, good and bad. …. [T]he secular, Western experience has been such that people respond with violence primarily when they feel they are politically, economically, or socially oppressed. While true that many non-Western peoples may fit into this paradigm, the fact is, the ideologies of radical Islam have the intrinsic capacity to prompt Muslims to violence and intolerance vis-à-vis the ‘other,’ irrespective of grievances…. Being able to understand all this, being able to appreciate it without any conceptual or intellectual constraints is paramount for Americans to truly understand the nature of the enemy and his ultimate goals.

Originally published by FrontPage Magazine


There are several interesting links within the article which give more in-depth explanations which are not linked in the above. Here is a link to the article if you wish to read them: http://humanevents.com/2015/03/19/ci...tm_campaign=nl

"But President Obama is not the only, and certainly not the most significant, opponent of Israel."

Quote: Spence reply:
"I got sort of lost here."

Sure doesn't sound like Obama supports Israel in this Huffpost article:

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politi...id=ansnewshp11

Is this sort of being an opponent of Israel?

Sounds more like Obama acting as the wiser older brother.

So the "wiser older brother" got pissed when Netanyahu, in order to "scare" people into voting for him, is reported to have said that “The right-wing government is in danger. Arab voters are heading to the polling stations in droves . . . Left-wing NGOs are bringing them in buses.”

And so then, being pissed, Obama said that statement was "contrary to what is the best of Israel's traditions. That although Israel was founded based on the historic Jewish homeland and the need to have a Jewish homeland, Israeli democracy has been premised on everybody in the country being treated equally and fairly . . . And I think that that is what's best about Israeli democracy. If that is lost, then I think that not only does it give ammunition to folks who don't believe in a Jewish state, but it also I think starts to erode the name of democracy in the country."

If that is a danger to democracy in Israel, why is it not the same danger here in the U.S.? Don't our politicians, certainly Obama supporters do, try to "get out the vote" on election days? And don't they warn that the other side will win and bring about disaster for the country if their own side doesn't vote? In fact, there are "reports" (I know you like and often depend on "reports') that Obama actually sent some of his "expert" community election organizers (included in the Left-wing NGOs Netanyahu spoke of) to help defeat Netanyahu? It would seem, therefor, that what Netanyahu said, contrary to Obama's suggestion, would actually level the playing field and ensure "everybody in the country being treated equally and fairly" would happen.

Sounds more like the spiteful hypocrite sibling rival than the wiser older brother.

And then there's the pissy threat that now Obama would not block the Palestinians getting statehood by U. N. decree rather than what he always said was truly necessary--agreement between Israelis and Palestinians. All just because Netanyahu acted like an American politician instead of the idyllic "what's best about Israeli democracy"? Really? When those whom Netanyahu has to "negotiate" and come to some agreement with are not honest democratic angels and who represent those who don't want a two state solution, but one Palestinian state and no Israeli state? And these "negotiations" have been going on for almost 40 years?

So this supposed wiser older brother is so concerned with the well-being of his sibling that he must dictate how that brother acts and what he says? And then talk glowingly about democracy as if he had any significant inkling of what that word means?

And this wiser older brother would glow on about Israel's honorable, fair and democratic traditions and totally neglect to mention the spent blood and violence that was necessary to defend that founding and its traditions? And that it was and is under various assaults and threats, even by those with whom it must negotiate in order to appease the wiser older brother? And if it doesn't keep up the decades old charade of negotiations while under assault, the loving wiser older brother drops the chilling hint that if it doesn't toe the line "then I think that it [will] give ammunition to folks who don't believe in a Jewish state". The wiser older brother, it would be assumed, would be among those "folks" since it all would have come about because little brother didn't do as he was told.

This Iran deal get more unbelievable and disturbing by the moment.
And now this administration has declassified information on the Israeli nuclear program???? Wtf
I can't help but feel that Israel and America are passengers on an airliner , Obama is the copilot, and the GOP and the prime minister of Israel represent the pilot locked out of the cockpit.
Everyone is screaming as the plane suddenly loses altitude but Spence and Paul are sitting there calmly explaining what a brilliant copilot we have.
I now truly don't know who's side Obama is on.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

destination Hale-Bopp

It sure fits the narrative doesn't it, Obama sending operatives to undermine the election because he (queue dark music) HATES NETANYAHU - - - - MUAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA.

Imagine if Jeb called on the right to mobilize because the blacks were being bussed into the polls.

It's not a pissy threat, it's a real threat. For those 40 years the US has used the veto to protect Israel, sometimes more for their interest than ours. It's important because Bibi was elected largely by gathering right wing votes and now those parties will look for actions that only exacerbate tension in the area.

That's not actually true, but reading the usual tabloids you'd certainly get that opinion.

I did the digging for you buck.

It was an unclassified report from 1987 on NATO and Israeli technical capabilities. The document never said they had a bomb but did describe activities that were intended to produce one.

A researcher found mention of the document in multiple public reports and filed a FOIA request. His contention is that since Israel never signed the NPT, the 86 billion $ of taxpayer aid since 1987 along with tens of millions in tax free donations sent back to Israel are illegal under The Symington Amendment to the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961.

The DoD refused so he sued the government. After a lot of heel dragging a federal judge ordered the requested parts of the document to be released. It was reported the DoD was going to review the document with the Israeli government but it's not clear if this happened.

Considering how close the P5+1 are to signing a nuclear deal with Iran, highlighting an obvious double standard isn't exactly in Obama's interest. But it's sure fun to think so huh?

Did you research that while seated in first class or business ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Not flying today. I did it over coffee.

This is a strange comment. So, only the "left wing" will erase tensions in the area? How have elections been gathered in the past 40 years? Have there been no tensions when left wingers were elected? Oh, that's right, the left wing kept giving away land . . . but, somehow, the tensions always remained and the left wing giveaways never satisfied the Palestinians. It seemed that the more they got, the more they wanted. And it never seemed to wash out from the Palestinian rhetoric the desire for the elimination of Israel.

The 40 years have been full of wars and never ending attacks even with multiple cease fires. I don't know how the Israeli right wingers are going to exacerbate this never ending tension--maybe a final war to end it? The "tension in the area" as you put it, does seem to be going in that direction. And that direction is not being guided by Israel or its right wingers, but by the Arabs and Muslim factions all on their own. And the average Palestinian would, at least in Western terms, be much safer and healthier in an Israeli state than in the aftermath of a regional conflagration in which Israel no longer existed. Of course, the Palestinians, or Muslims in general, don't operate through Western perspective. They have their own views and desires none of which really have room for Israelis. And we're supposed to believe that Netanyahu is a racist right winger who wants to oppress, or maybe get rid of Palestinians.

You forgot one .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Oh, I forgot, he's not a Muslim. So he would not be included in the Muslim factions.

More on Islamic Taqiyya and when it is used, and how " Muslims should preach peace when weak, war when strong":

Raymond Ibrahim | Friday Mar 27, 2015 9:50 AM
Obama Trusts ‘Word’ of Ayatollahs in Nuclear Negotiations

As Iran continues edging closer to developing nuclear weapons—a major threat to the entire Mideast region, especially longstanding U.S. ally Israel—U.S. President Obama has come to the aid of the Islamic Republic, by citing an Islamic fatwa no less. In a video recording posted on the White House’s website, Obama said, “Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei has issued a fatwa against the development of nuclear weapons, and President Rouhani has said that Iran would never develop a nuclear weapon.”

This is the same Rouhani who, after recently showcasing Iran’s newly developed missiles, described his nation’s diplomatic talks with the U.S. as an active “jihad”: “Our negotiations with the world powers are a source of national pride. Yesterday [during the Iran-Iraq War], your brave generals stood against the enemy on the battlefield and defended their country. Today, your diplomatic generals are defending [our nation] in the field of diplomacy–this, too, is jihad.”

Other administration officials—such as Secretary of State John Kerry and Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes—have previously referred to the ayatollah’s reported fatwa in the context of the ongoing nuclear negotiations with Iran.

The Obama administration’s citation of this fatwa is utterly wrongheaded on many levels.

First, the Islamic doctrine of taqiyya permits Muslims to deceive non-Muslims. Islamic prophet Muhammad himself regularly lied to his infidel enemies, often resulting in their murder (such as the case of The_Murder_of_Kab_Ashraf”). He also proclaimed that lying was permissible in three contexts, one being war. Moreover, throughout the centuries and due to historic circumstances (discussed here:http://www.raymondibrahim.com/islam/...-rules-of-war/ ), taqiyya became second nature to the Shia—the sect currently ruling Iran.

Then there is the fact that Islamic law takes circumstance into account. When Muhammad was weak and outnumbered in Mecca, he preached peace and tolerance (hence why Meccan Suras appear peaceful); when he became strong in Medina, he preached war and went on the offensive (hence why Medinan Suras are violent and intolerant). This dichotomy—preach peace when weak, wage war when strong—has been Islamic modus operandi for centuries.

Speaking of fatwas, Dr. Yusuf Burhami, a prominent Islamic cleric in Egypt, recently said that destroying churches in Egypt is permissible if not advisable—but not if doing so prompts Western infidels to intervene and occupy Egypt, which they could do “because the condition of Muslims in the current era is well known to the nations of the world—they are weak.” Burhami further added that circumstance is everything, “just as the prophet allowed the Jews to remain in Khaibar after he opened [conquered] it, once Muslims grew in strength and number, [second caliph] Omar al-Khattab drove them out according to the prophet’s command, ‘Drive out the Jews and Christians from the Peninsula.’”

And who can forget Yasser Arafat’s reference to Muhammad’s Hudaybiya pact? In 1994, soon after negotiating a peace treaty criticized as conceding too much to Israel, Arafat addressed an assembly of Muslims and said: “I see this agreement as being no more than the agreement signed between our Prophet Muhammad and the [infidel] Quraysh in Mecca.” In other words, like Muhammad, Arafat gave his word only to annul it once his ranks became strong enough to go on the offensive.

In short, it’s all very standard for Islamic leaders to say they are pursuing nuclear energy for peaceful purposes while they are weaker than their infidel foes—as Iran is today—but once they acquire nukes the jihad can resume in earnest.

Then there is the fact that Shia theology is rife with apocalyptic aspirations. An August 2007 report compiled by the Congressional Research Service said: “Ahmadinejad [previous president of Iran] believes his mission is to prepare for the return of the 12th ‘Hidden’ Imam, whose return from occultation [i.e., “hiding”] would, according to Twelver Shi’ite doctrine, be accompanied by the establishment of Islam as the global religion.”

Like other Iranians, Ahmadinejad cited the eschatological (and canonical) hadith wherein Muhammad said: “The Hour [Judgment Day] will not come until the Muslims fight the Jews and until the Jews hide behind the trees and rocks and the trees and rocks will say, ‘O Muslim, O Servant of God! Here are the Jews! Come and kill them!”

Indeed, during a recent speech, supreme leader Khamenei—whose fatwa Obama is now citing—boasted about Iran’s uranium enrichment, even as his military commanders shouted, “Allah Akbar. Khamenei is the leader. Death to the enemies of the leadership. Death to America. Death to England. Death to hypocrites. Death to Israel.”

Yet despite all this—despite the fact that Islamic doctrine mandates lying to infidels; despite the fact that the Shia—Iran’s leadership—have perfected taqiyya into an art; despite the fact that Islamic law holds that Muslims should preach peace when weak, war when strong; despite the fact that Iranian leadership openly boasts that its nuclear negotiations are a “jihad” against the infidel; despite the fact that Iran has previously been exposed developing uranium enrichments suitable for nuclear warheads—here is Obama and his administration relying on the “word” of the ayatollah of Iran.

wow...sounds just like progressive doctrine..."Progressive Taqiyya"...splains' a lot


so in this negotiation...there's no one telling the truth :rotf2:

I did not properly insert this link into the above article on taqiyya (which I have corrected). If you missed the correction, here is the link http://www.raymondibrahim.com/islam/...-rules-of-war/ It is fundamental to understanding any negotiations with Shia or Sunni Muslims who correctly practice their faith.

It's a long but interesting article, and well worth reading, in terms of understanding an important tenet of Islam.

Here is a very interesting tidbit from the above cited article which may shed some possible insight into the reported 10 year length of the nuclear agreement being negotiated with Iran:

"The perpetual nature of jihad is highlighted by the fact that, based on the 10-year treaty of Hudaybiya (628), ratified between Muhammad and his Quraysh opponents in Mecca, most jurists are agreed that ten years is the maximum amount of time Muslims can be at peace with infidels; once the treaty has expired, the situation needs to be reappraised."

The article is rich with insights into Islam's world view and its relation to non-Muslims. It can help penetrate some of the mysterious fog that masks the reason for Islamic true believers difficulty, from the Western perspective, of entering the modern world. Well worth the time to read it. http://www.raymondibrahim.com/islam/...-rules-of-war/

huh......soooo lying and deception are acceptable to promote an agenda/ideaology...and have over time become an acceptable part of the culture and even celebrated/elected to high office are those with the most forked of tongues....when weak or not in power play the victim card to deflect and move forward or preserve the agenda/ideaology and when strong or in power hammer the opposition and ignore their pleas for the same basic rights and that were claimed when weak all the while pushing an intolerant agenda creating even more victims in the region


yup....sounds familiar...was Saul Alynski a musilm extrmist?:rotf3:

I see, to the issue in Palestine is the complete responsibility of Muslims? That's perhaps the most short-sighted thing you've ever written...

Ironic you'd actually eclipse it with your posts on Taqiyya which take batchit to another level.

What's with all the hate?

Indeed, what's with all the hate, Spence--batchit, shortsighted?

Oh, maybe your just pulling a Dangles.

Quality reading material right here :hihi:

http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borow...t-warns-mccain
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Actually, it's almost funny. Unfortunately, rather than poking fun at some actual absurdity, it first creates the absurdity. Then it spins a made-up narrative intending to destroy with phony ridicule. It's half-wit slapschtick, mixed with political straw man nastiness, in hope of swaying or bolstering opinion, rather than merely being made to evoke laughter. Jon Stewart fans will love it.

What makes it hard to bust out in a guffaw, unless you like anything that ridicules that which you don't like, true or not, is not only the total fabrication, but the actual seriousness of the matter. And what's even more ridiculous is a bunch of half-wits will actually think McCain said that stuff.

Kinda like Fox News and msnbc watchers. ;)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Actually, it's just satire.

No kidding ! It's in the humor section.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So, Spence, we shouldn't be concerned about the concept of a Eurasia, headed by Russia and China, being a serious threat to Western economic power? Let's all play golf. Or play a fiddle.

Vladimir Putin's Deputy Rogozin bragged to a TV show that Russia would develop “our huge EurAsia.”

http://www.inquisitr.com/2119177/vla...nt-need-visas/

And we are "negotiating" with Iran, a Russian ally which is predicted to be a partner in the "Eurasian" project.

And we are shrinking our military power.