Liberals deny threat from Iran

By Benyamin Solomon
In this article, I will discuss the threat from Iran that is being denied by liberals especially those who hate President Bush so much that they don't understand the terrorist threat including the threat from Iran.

Iran is building nuclear weapons to fight Israel and the US. Iran supports terrorist organizations such as Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Al Quada, Hezbollah and the insurgents in Iraq. Liberals, however, deny that Iran is a threat. The Iranian people are not a threat, but the Iranian regime is.

Crooks and Liars, a liberal left-wing propaganda site, has sponsored a petition that calls for the normalization of relations between the US and Iran. That means a petition that calls for the US to normalize relations with an Apocalyptic government that calls for the destruction of America and Israel. Fox News host Alan Colmes, (do you think he knows how much his liberal friends attack his news station?) once asked former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu if he would take action against a foreign power that thought your nation was evil and had to take you out before you take them out.

Liberals including Colmes say that Iran is reacting to our rhetoric about how they're evil. But what about their rhetoric, which is far worse? What about the fact that the current President of Iran Mahmoud Ahmadinejad denies that the Holocaust happened, threatens to wipe Israel off the map as well as speaks in demonstrations [speaks to the demonstrators] that say ''Death to Israel'' and ''Death to America.'' Netanyahu said in that interview that Iran calls for the destruction of Israel while no one calls for the destruction of Iran. Since the Iranian revolution in 1979, the Iranian regime, along with the rest of the radical Islamist movement, is dedicated to having their form of Islam as the dominant religion of the whole world [though Iran, since the 1979 Islamic revolution, wants a Fundamentalist Shiite caliphate to dominate the world while the Sunni radical Islamist movement wants a Fundamentalist Sunni caliphate to dominate the world]. Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the first Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran, said, "Establishing the Islamic state world-wide belong to the great goals of the revolution." He also said, "We will export our revolution throughout the world, and must abandon all idea of not doing so, for not only does Islam refuse to recognize any difference between Muslim countries, it is the champion of all oppressed people." He also said, "We are at war with infidels. Jihad must triumph."



Mahmoud Ahmadinejad also said that Islam will conquer the mountain tops of the world. There is evidence that he was behind the hostage crisis, in which American embassy workers were kidnapped and were released in the beginning of Ronald Reagan's presidency.

Current Supreme Leader of Iran Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said that saying death to America is like saying they want refuge from the Satan [the Iranian regime since the 1979 Iranian revolution considers America the great Satan and Israel the small Satan], which he says is that it is to remind them that Satan is ready to attack them, their spiritual shield and their faith.

Leader of the Iranian supported Hezbollah terrorist organization Hasan Nasrallah says ''Death to America'' and ''Death to Israel" when speaking in demonstrations [to demonstrators] in Lebanon that calls for those actions. Ahmadinejad also said in demonstrations [when speaking to the demonstrators], ''Death to Israel,'' and also spoke in demonstrations [when speaking to the demonstrators], that called for the

''Death to America.''

This threat is not fake. Liberals want to make the comparison between Iran and Iraq. In terms of having WMDs, unlike the Iranian regime, Saddam Hussein's Iraq was under tight control by the UN, which made sure that Saddam had no WMDs. What happened with Iraq was that Saddam didn't cooperate with the UN inspectors. Saddam's defectors said that Saddam was creating WMDs. And American intelligence and the intelligence of many nations also said so. There's plenty of evidence that Iran is making WMDS. The US found out Saddam had no WMDs after the US-led coalition started to invade of Iraq. But Iran really is making WMDs.



Ayatollah Ali Khamenei told Jose Maria Aznar in 2001, then Prime Minister of Spain, that Iran plans to launch a war with the US and Israel until America and the Jewish state are completely destroyed. Ali Khamenei also stated that Iran's number one agenda includes "setting Israel on fire."

During the Second Lebanon war, a book was found based on Ali Khamenei's radical Islamic teachings. It was made for the revolutionary Guards in Iran. It was being distributed by Hezbollah in Lebanon. The book is called Al-Jihad. It calls for holy war on infidels.

Dr. Hassan Abasi, theoretician of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard intelligence, said, ''Our missiles are now ready to strike at their civilization, and as soon as the instructions arrive from Leader [Ali Khamenei], we will launch our missiles at their cities and installations. Our motto during the war (in Iraq) was: Karbala, we are coming, Jerusalem, we are coming. And because of Khatami's policies and dialogue between the civilizations, we have been compelled to freeze our plan to liberate the Islamic cities... And now we are [again] about to carry out the program.''

He also said, ''The global infidel front is a front against Allah and the Muslims, and we must make use of everything we have at hand to strike at this front, by means of our suicide operations or by means of our missiles. There are 29 sensitive sites in the U.S. and in the West. We have already spied on these sites and we know how we are going to attack them.''

Ali Khamenei called for ''the annihilation and destruction of the Zionist state."

Deputy of Hezbollah Sheikh Naim Qassem admitted that Hezbollah needs permission from Iran to commit its terrorist attacks. Iran has also sought to turn Iraq into an Islamic republic and make Iraq into America's enemy and opposed to Israel's right to exist.

Iran is willing to make alliances with any anti-American regime, even non-Muslim ones such as Venezuela and Cuba. Iran also makes alliances with anti-American [and anti-Israel] Sunni radical Islamist terrorists and even Sunni regimes such as the Syrian one.

Iran seeks to destroy US interests in the Middle East. Yet while it's becoming more clear that Iran is a threat, liberals are in denial. Liberals whitewash the Iranian regime, a regime that has persecuted non-Muslims for 29 years.

This article is not an attack on all Iranians or all Iranian Muslims. It's an attack on the Iranian regime. I showed in this article the threat from Iran that liberals are denying.

In Iran, a woman's life is worth half as much as a man's. The Iranian regime even arrests women for not dressing like a religious Muslim.

The threat from Iran is a Nazi-like threat. When Hitler made clear about his goals, the world ignored him. The same thing is happening with Iran.

Refuting Noam Chomsky on the Middle East

Noam Chomsky distorts what happened in the Arab-Israeli conflict. According to Chomsky, it’s the poor Palestinians are committing terrorist attacks fighting for their land while America and Israel are committing evil and rejecting peaceful solutions.

America, Israel and the PLO

According to him, while the PLO has been fighting for a two-state settlement, the US and the Israel reject it. It is safe to say that is false. The US and Israel always supported the two-state settlement. The PLO fought to eliminate Israel. In 1974, the PLO made the ten-point program calling for the PLO to accept any Israeli territorial concessions as a step toward their goal of destroying Israel. Chomsky points to a 1976 UN proposal calling for a two-state settlement. According to Paul Bogdanor, it calls for the right of return, which would demographically destroy Israel. The US vetoed the resolution and Israel voted against it because they knew the PLO did not want peace with Israel but would view anything that involved Israel giving concessions as a step toward destroying the state of Israel. Arafat told the Venezuelan newspaper El Mundo in 1979 that peace for us means the destruction of Israel. The PLO continued to be dedicated to destroying Israel. In 1988, while the PLO influence was dying out and after years of being pressured of recognizing Israel’s right to exist and giving up terrorism, the PLO decided to officially recognize the right of Israel to exist and officially denounced terrorism while unofficially remaining dedicated to destroying Israel and use terrorism when “necessary’’ for their aims. The US even believed the PLO. The US, which went along with Israel in calling the PLO a terrorist organization, had a dialogue with the PLO. Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir did not trust the PLO. In 1990, the PLO committed a terror attack on an Israeli beach in Tel Aviv and on US embassy. The US halted its dialogue with the PLO. Chomsky claims Arafat was Israel’s police man. To the contrary, he was inciting a violent Jihad toward Israel and compared the Oslo agreements to a peace agreement between Muhammad and the Quraysh, in which Muhammad attacked the Quraysh tribe when he was stronger. The PLO violated all their agreements. Even after Arafat’s death, which some people claim provided hope for peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians, Fatah’s PLO continued to violate all the commitments they made for peace. Abu Mazen the so-called moderate called Palestinian terrorists “strugglers,” “martyrs” and “heroes fighting for freedom.’’ Abu Mazen is fighting Hamas not for peace, not for Israel but cause they have too much power. He only speaks up against terrorist attacks on Israel whenever it’s the ‘’wrong time’’ to do it when it’s not in the Palestinian interests to do it yet. His controlled media, textbooks, TV and radio call for the elimination of Israel through violent Jihad.

Lebanon

Chomsky supports Hezbollah, a radical Islamist terrorist group bad for Israel and Lebanon. He compares Israel to WWII Japan and Hezbollah to WWII China. Yet, there is evidence that Hezbollah is not simply a nationalistic group, which is primarily concerned about Lebanon and would fight off any occupying force there. It’s important to know that when Syria illegally occupied Lebanon and controlled their political system and when independence parades are where Syrian soldiers march up and down, Hezbollah did not fight Syria. Syria was supporting the so-called Lebanese nationalist group even back then. Israel did not control the political system and was willing to withdraw from all of Lebanon. After 2000, the Lebanese government and Hezbollah claimed the Shebba farms. However, there is also evidence that Hezbollah’s real aim is the destruction of Israel and the spread of Islam. This is an eye-opening excerpt from Jeffrey Goldberg [who is a contributor to the New Yorker] the following in his article, A reporter a Large inside the Party of God part I:

“[Hasan] Ezzeddin seemed to concede that the Hezbollah campaign to rid Shebaa of Israeli troops is a pretext for something larger. “If they go from Shebaa, we will not stop fighting them,” he told me. “Our goal is to liberate the 1948 borders of Palestine,” he added, referring to the year of Israel’s founding. The Jews who survive this war of liberation, Ezzeddin said, “can go back to Germany, or wherever they came from.” He added, however, that the Jews who lived in Palestine before 1948 will be “allowed to live as a minority and they will be cared for by the Muslim majority.” Sayyid Nasrallah himself told a conference held in Tehran last year that “we all have an extraordinary historic opportunity to finish off the entire cancerous Zionist project.”

Also, the 1985 Hezbollah program on Israel, which was omitted from the original translation by the Jerusalem Quarterly, says the following:

“We see in Israel the vanguard of the United States in our Islamic world. It is the hated enemy that must be fought until the hated ones get what they deserve. This enemy is the greatest danger to our future generations and to the destiny of our lands, particularly as it glorifies the ideas of settlement and expansion, initiated in Palestine, and yearning outward to the extension of the Great Israel, from the Euphrates to the Nile. Our primary assumption in our fight against Israel states that the Zionist entity is aggressive from its inception, and built on lands wrested from their owners, at the expense of the rights of the Muslim people. Therefore our struggle will end only when this entity is obliterated. We recognize no treaty with it, no cease fire, and no peace agreements, whether separate or consolidated. We vigorously condemn all plans for negotiation with Israel, and regard all negotiators as enemies, for the reason that such negotiation is nothing but the recognition of the legitimacy of the Zionist occupation of Palestine. Therefore we oppose and reject the Camp David Agreements, the proposals of King Fahd, the Fez and Reagan plan, Brezhnev's and the French-Egyptian proposals, and all other programs that include the recognition (even the implied recognition) of the Zionist entity.”

Also, Middle East Media Research Institute [Memri] has caught Hasan Nasrallah on Lebanese demonstrations saying, ’’Death to America.’’ He also said that if all the Jews gather in Israel, it would save us the trouble of going after them worldwide. A Lebanese Shiite who teaches a tan American university by the name of Saad Amal-Ghorayab, who is not a supporter of Israel and talks to Hezbollah leaders, confirms that Hezbollah is anti-Semitic. Hezbollah is a radical Islamist organization. Frontline correspondent David Lewis interviewed Muhammad Mugrabi, a Lebanese human rights activist and attorney. Under the story section on frontline of Hezbollah talking about the documentary about the Party of God says the following:

“But attorney and human rights activist Muhammad Mugrabi tells Lewis that Hezbollah's presence "is a recipe for trouble for Lebanon ...They are not subject to the rule of law." Hezbollah is "untouchable" because Syria -- with 20,000 troops in Lebanon -- still backs Hezbollah and holds sway over Lebanon's President Emile Lahoud.”

Many Lebanese want Lebanon to be known as the westernized nation it was. They want it’s capital Beirut to be known as ‘’Paris of the Middle East again.’’ They don’t want to have Lebanon continue the war with Israel. They don’t want their country to continue to be a hotspot for conflict and want their country to be known as that. Hezbollah is that obstacle to what those Lebanese want because it does want to continue the conflict with Israel and cause it’s a radical Islamist party. As long as Hezbollah continues its unofficial military dictatorship and attacks on Israel, Lebanon will remain a hotspot for conflict. Hezbollah is a threat for Israel cause they build up more strength to get the strength they need to destroy Israel, attack Israel when they feel strong enough and also bad for the stability in Lebanon.

Yet despite these facts these facts, Chomsky has the nerve to compare Hezbollah, the terrorist organization that opposes peace with Israel and an obstacle to stability in Lebanon, to WWII china and Israel, the nation that seeks to live in peace, with WWII Japan.

Proof of Noam Chomsky's Anti-Semitism

You may be thinking that I'm calling Chomsky anti-Semitic for criticizing Israeli policies. But I will make clear that I'm not calling Chomsky anti-Semitic for criticizing Israel. I will go a step forward to say that if you believe that the Israeli occupation is the root cause of Palestinian terrorism on Israel and of the Arab-Israeli conflict, you are not anti-Semitic. You would be naive. This is not mainly about Chomsky's position on the Middle East. This article may talk a little bit about that. It's not mainly about that.

Let’s look at the evidence one by one. Chomsky has said the following in his response as to why he did not get that much reviews by American Jews about his book the Fateful Triangle:

"The Jewish community here is deeply totalitarian. They do not want democracy, they do not want freedom. Israeli doves like Meir Pail and Matti Peled have been saying for years that the American Jewish community is their worst enemy, that it is a totalitarian community, that it does not want democracy in Israel, that it does not believe in democracy in Israel, that it does not believe in democracy here."1

I will never say this to people who critique Israel or the occupation of the West Bank [Gaza is no longer under Israeli rule since the disengagement in 2005]. But I say this on Chomsky. After saying a shockingly hateful thing like this, I say, "Shame on the big publishing companies for publishing his books. Shame on the people who interview him." I must admit that I do have a Noam Chomsky book called What We Say Goes. This also proves that Chomsky can't handle the fact that American Jews don't react to his book. So he attacks the whole community. Yes, thumbs up for Chomsky. But did he realize he attacked himself to. It is a well-known fact that Chomsky himself is an American Jew. After hearing that, how can you say Chomsky is smart? Unless you look at it as him hoodwinking people into believing he's an intellectual bringing the truth.

Decades earlier, Noam Chomsky said that saying that the Palestinians don't deserve a second homeland cause they have Jordan is like saying that the Jews don't deserve a homeland cause they have New York with their Jewish run-media, Jewish control of economic and cultural life and a Jew mayor. Chomsky admitted he said that himself to counter the claim that the Palestinians don't deserve a second homeland cause they already have Jordan in the chapter Supporting evidence: The Middle East in his book "Failed States."

Faurisson Affair

Some of Chomsky's critics talk about his association with Holocaust deniers such as Robert Faurisson. Chomsky claims to just be "defending their freedom of speech." There is proof that what the critics say is right. Chomsky signed the following petition:

"Dr. Robert Faurisson has served as a respected professor of twentieth-century French literature and document criticism for over four years at the University of Lyon-2 in France. Since 1974 he has been conducting extensive historical research into the "Holocaust" question.

Since he began making his findings public, Professor Faurisson has been subject to a vicious campaign of harassment, intimidation, slander and physical violence in a crude attempt to silence him. Fearful officials have even tried to stop him from further research by denying him access to public libraries and archives.

We strongly protest these efforts to deprive Professor Faurisson of his freedom of speech and expression, and we condemn the shameful campaign to silence him.

We strongly support Professor Faurisson's just right of academic freedom and we demand that university and government officials do everything possible to ensure his safety and the free exercise of his legal rights."

Notice the petition put Holocaust in parentheses and actually praised him rather than just defending his “freedom of speech.” Chomsky does not criticize Faurisson. He says this, “Let me add a final remark about Faurisson's alleged "anti-Semitism." Note first that even if Faurisson were to be a rabid anti-Semite and fanatic pro-Nazi -- such charges have been presented to me in private correspondence that it would be improper to cite in detail here -- this would have no bearing whatsoever on the legitimacy of the defense of his civil rights. On the contrary, it would make it all the more imperative to defend them since, once again, it has been a truism for years, indeed centuries, that it is precisely in the case of horrendous ideas that the right of free expression must be most vigorously defended; it is easy enough to defend free expression for those who require no such defense. Putting this central issue aside, is it true that Faurisson is an anti-Semite or a neo-Nazi? As noted earlier, I do not know his work very well. But from what I have read -- largely as a result of the nature of the attacks on him -- I find no evidence to support either conclusion. Nor do I find credible evidence in the material that I have read concerning him, either in the public record or in private correspondence. As far as I can determine, he is a relatively apolitical liberal of some sort."

Oh, so I guess according to Chomsky, the American Jewish community is totalitarian and does not want democracy in America or Israel for not responding to his book the Fateful Triangle. But Robert Faurison denying the Holocaust is ok. He is after all, an "apolitical liberal," according to Noam Chomsky. Why is Chomsky for "freedom of speech" for holocaust deniers, but not for the American-Jewish community? While he viciously attacks American Jews for not responding to his book, he does not criticize Robert Faurisson or any Holocaust deniers he is associated with and is supposedly defending their "free speech."