When is nuclear posturing acceptable?

July 22, 2012

The Iranian regime is using two weapons to fight the west. First, it is using its religion to recruit people for acts of terror. Second, It is developing nuclear weapons. The combination of the two are may lead to a nuclear terrorist attack. Terms such as “saber rattling” are used to abate U.S. domestic prejudice. The problem with this term is that it is not a saber that they are rattling. This metaphorical expression is incongruent and does not even apply to the circumstances at hand. I agree more with how Benjamin Netanyahu equates the situation with the holocaust. After all, a psychotic with a saber may only kill a few people, but a psychotic with a nuclear weapon could kill millions.

Lets not get confused about how dangerous this threat really is. Iran already has rockets that can hit targets almost anywhere in the middle east. http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2012/07/11/exp-iran-missile-improvements.cnn . The regime is more interested in making its people suffer from sanctions than providing transparency to the international community regarding its nuclear program. The west has already offered to provide nuclear material for medical purposes. The regime refused. The regime argues that nuclear technology is its right, but it has no rights to trade with the west. By this logic the regime has a right to make the Iranian people suffer in the pursuit of a secret agenda that may kill millions. How is this rational?

The Iranian regime has indoctrinated many people. It uses them as pawns for terrorism against soft targets. http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2012/07/19/exp-early-labott-bulgaria-bus-blast.cnn. Why does it seem so outlandish to assume that the regime may pass a nuclear weapon on to one of these people? Furthermore, how would the world know what happened in the aftermath? Everything would be so utterly obliterated and irradiated that no one would know who was responsible.

Dr. Zakaria, why are we even discussing anything with this regime? Your program is spinning me around so much that I think I may be ill. For example, the interview you did with Ahmadinejad http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2012/06/13/exp-cnns-fareed-zakaria-interviews-ahmadinejad.cnn . The beginning provides a quote saying “the foundation of our Islamic government is based on freedom of dialogue and will fight against any kind of censorship.” Yet Salman Rushdie was unofficially given the green light for murder because of his book The Satanic Verses. BBC News: On This Day. 26 December 1990. Retrieved 10 October 2006.

I don’t think the Iranian people have forgotten Nedā Āghā-Soltān, who was murdered while participating in a peaceful protest. I know I have not forgotten her.

WARNING EXTREMELY GRAPHIC CONTENT.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JG1hib8DYkE&feature=c-shelf-119&bpctr=1342989282&skipcontrinter=1 

I guess freedom of dialogue is acceptable as long as the Iranian regime is the arbiter. Iran was taken hostage by the Iranian regime, and they use religion as their weapon. Soon they will try to use nuclear terrorism as their weapon. These people are more than goons. They are psychotics poisoning the minds of the Persian people.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s