The below article was written by Amil Imani. It concerns the death of a 19-year-old Iranian girl at the hands of the Iranian authorities. It is not pleasant reading, but it is necessary to understand the bestial nature of our enemy, Iran. And yes-Iran is our enemy.
http://amilimani.com/2012/02/the-story-of-taraneh-mousavi/
You may not want to hear this, but in my view, it is a fact; we are on a collision course with Iran. Even though we have a weak president, it is the Iranian regime that has been at war with us since 1980. Unless the Iranian people can rise up and overturn this evil regime (and there is little hope they can), it is we, the US and our allies, including Israel who are going to have to do it. It either begins by us and/or the Israelis taking out their nuclear sites, a skirmish in the Strait of Hormuz, or by Iran launching terrorist attacks against us. Absent a revolution, I see no other outcome.
I can only hope that this article is read by the many useful idiots in the West, like Rabbi Ysroel Dovid Weiss of the Neturei Karta sect, or by the idiots at Columbia University who invite Ahmadinejad to their campus when he visits the UN, or British fools like George Galloway and Yvonne Ridley, or by Islamic figures in the US like Abdul Alim Musa or Mohammed al-Asi, idiots all, who actually support this odious regime.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
1980... that would be the year Ronald Reagan cut a covert deal with the Iranians to hold the hostages until he could win the election, in return for which he promised to sell them missiles, for money which Oliver North used to funds the Contras in Nicaragua...
...and you call the president we have now "weak"???
We have been at war with Iran since the hostage crisis. Revolutionary Guard forces have been involved in killing our troops. Iran is a problem for the West and a "revolution from within" is still too far off in the future to be considered a solution to the problem now. Nor are limited naval engagements, "surgical" air strikes, and/or sanctions, of any real use against a determined enemy.
What options are available? What is "on the table" that no one dares speak of?
If Reagan had been "weak", would not the Iranians have insisted and required that he give them the missiles for free rather than their having to pay for them??
If Reagan did all Siarlys says he did, there would be terms to describe his actions but I don't know that "weak" is one of them.
Post a Comment