Sunday, September 28, 2008

Islamic Crusades Episode 2: Before Islam: Story of the Islamification of Egypt, Iraq and Iran



In the 21st century, the dominant narrative of American history is one of white European Christian exploitation. We are told from an early age that we are invaders, aliens, usurpers; that we gained this territory through aggression, colonialism, and genocide of the native population. Further, we are told that there is no remedy to this situation. Our nation was conceived in sin, and no matter how far we progress in ethnic, religious and racial tolerance; no matter how much money we lay out in benefits and reparations, we cannot wash the blood from our hands.

Accordingly the progressive view is that we must always show deference, humility, and passivity in foreign policy; that our interactions with other nations should take the form of eternal apologies and bottomless unaccountable foreign aid. And God forbid we should make a moral judgment on a genocidal dictator, or a backwards theocracy, because in light of our past it would be an enormous hypocrisy.

This interpretation by definition assumes that the West was the only society on earth that behaved in such a way; that the rest of the world was a harmonious Eden. That native cultures lived peacefully, in the territory where they had always lived, in balance with nature and the surrounding peoples. Well, any thinking person should know that humans and their societies are much more complicated than that. For example, it’s a common assumption that Arabs have always populated North Africa, and that Islam is the native religion of Iran and Turkey. Here I will provide some brief examples that represent the way in which the Arab world became the Arab world, and how Dar-al-Islam, the domain of Islam, became the domain of Islam.

Before Islam, Arabs were only found in the Arabian Peninsula, hence the name. Muhammad was an Arab of the tribe Quraysh, from the Mecca region. By grasping firmly to his new religious and political ideology, the Arab people and their new Muslim faith were spread across the Middle East in a rapid series of violent conquests.

The following is the full text of the video. Find supplementary links at the bottom:




Before Islam, Egypt was a Christian land. When the Arab Muslims invaded in 641AD, they called the local people Copts, a derivation of the Greek word for Egypt, "Ekyptos". Thus, the Arabs called the local people simply “Egyptians”, underlining the fact that they were foreign invaders. The capital of Christian Egypt was Alexandria, named after Alexander the Great. The Church of Alexandria was founded in 42 AD, which makes it the longest uninterrupted institution of Christianity on earth. After the invasion the Copts were relegated to Dhimmi status under Islamic Sharia law. Christians could continue to worship but were not allowed to build new churches, or renovate the churches that already existed. Dhimmis were required to pay a tribute tax to the Muslim rulers and acknowledge Muslim supremacy. Dhimmis were prohibited from bearing arms, or giving testimony in court cases involving Muslims. Obviously these laws were designed to eliminate the indigenous religions, making it too humiliating and costly to maintain a different faith in a Muslim land, and in Egypt they’ve had their desired effect. The former Coptic Christian majority now makes up only 10% of the population, under siege and decreasing every day. Their second-class status is underlined periodically by violence and destruction. In October 2005 angry Muslim crowds gathered around St George’s Coptic Church in Alexandria, one man burst into the church shouting “Allahu Akbar”, and stabbed a nun and a male parishioner.

Before Islam, Iran was Persia. Persia had existed as an empire and a fountain of civilization and culture for more than a thousand years. On the eve of the Arab Muslim invasion in 637 AD, the religion of Persia was Zoroastrianism. Zoroastrianism is a monotheistic faith that rose in Persia at about the same time that Judaism developed in the Levant, and it had a profound influence on the three Abrahamic religions as well as the religions of the East. After Persia’s fall to Islam, Zoroastrians were relegated to dhimmi status. Today they number less than 200,000 worldwide, the largest community being India where refugees from Iran found some tolerance. In Iran itself about 22,000 Zoroastrians remain, or less than 0.1% of the population.

Before Islam, Iraq was called Assyria. Prior to the Arab Muslim conquest, the majority of its inhabitants were Assyrian Christians. By the dawn of the 20th century, dhimmi laws, persecutions and conversions had reduced their numbers to about 5% of the Iraqi population. On the eve of the US-led invasion in 2003, they had dropped to 1%. A lot of noise has been made about the plight of Iraqi refugees since 2003. What is less widely known is that Assyrian Christians make up 40% of the 1 million refugees that have left Iraq, despite making up less than 1% of the population. These refugees represents 2/3 of the pre-war Christian population. The removal of the tyrant Saddam Hussein allowed the Sunni and Shia Muslims to revert to the customary persecution of their Christian neighbors. Frivolous events such as the Danish Muhammad cartoons have had very real repercussions for Iraq’s dwindling Christian community, in the form of bombings and murders. Seven churches were bombed in January 2006, in retaliation for the dreaded cartoons of blasphemy. Since the start of the war at least 46 Churches and Monasteries have been bombed.

These are three brief examples, but this story has been repeated wherever Islam has asserted itself. When Islam comes to a new nation, its purpose is not to adapt to the fabric of the host society, or to become just one religion among many equals. Its goal is to become the dominant religion. The Muslim belief is that once a territory has been under Muslim rule, it can never be relinquished again. And so former Muslim colonies such as Spain, Israel and the Balkans, are high on the list for reconquest. But make no mistake, any territory is fair game.
The territories where Islamic law is in force are known as "Dar-al-Islam", the "domain of Islam". Territories ruled by infidel law are known as "Dar-al-Harb", the "domain of war". This means that any non-Muslim territory, whether it be ruled by humanists, atheists, Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, etc., is fair game for conquest. In 2003, UK-based Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi said “It has been determined by Islamic law that the blood and property of people of Dar-Al-Harb is not protected.”

These are the unvarnished politically-incorrect truths about the way in which Islam views the rest of the world. The three vanquished societies I have highlighted are tangible evidence that this creed is translated into action when the conditions are favorable for conquest. Please keep this in mind as you make decisions that will determine the future path of your own societies.

Further reading on Egypt and the native Copts:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copts
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/three-die-as-muslims-sack-church-in-dvd-protest-512127.html
http://freecopts.net/english/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=90&Itemid=9
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coptic_Orthodox_Church_of_Alexandria
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copthttp://www.copts.net/history.asp

Further reading on Iraq and the native Assyrians:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assyrian_people
http://www.christiansofiraq.com/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/04/21/ST2008042103252.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/17/world/middleeast/17christians.html
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2007/oct/01/iraqi-christians-forced-to-leave/

Further reading on Iran and the native Zoroastrians:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoroastrianism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoroastrians_in_Iran
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/picture_gallery/05/middle_east_zoroastrians_in_iran/html/1.stm
http://plateauofiran.wordpress.com/2008/07/11/zoroastrians-and-islam-in-iran/

Dar-al-Islam, Dar-al-Harb, and Dhimmitude:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divisions_of_the_world_in_Islam
http://jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhimmi
http://www.dhimmitude.org/
Read further...

Friday, September 26, 2008

Supplement to Occupation of Constantinople: First-Hand Account





I didn't have much time to read from direct accounts of the atrocities in the original video. This is a reading from "History of Mehmed the Conqueror" by Kritovoulos, with my own analysis.

This is meant to be a counterpoint to the many horror stories of the Christian Crusades that are well known in the West.

[post ends here]
Read further...

Thursday, September 25, 2008

Islamic Crusades Episode 1: The Occupation of Constantinople




Here's the first installment folks. The following is a full transcript of this video:




Welcome to Islamic Crusades, Episode 1: The Occupation of Constantinople. In the introduction to this series, I quoted Bill Clinton’s 2001 address in which he cited the Crusades as a root cause for the 9/11 attacks, and specifically singled out the sack of Jerusalem in 1099 as an example of Western brutality that still poisons our relations with the Muslim world today. In this video I will tell the story of the merciless siege, destruction and exploitation of a great Christian city. The atrocities were at least as horrific as those in Jerusalem; men, women and children were massacred, the city was burned and looted, and ancient Christian churches were destroyed or converted into Mosques. It not only marked the fall of a city, but the death of a culture, and the end of a 1,100 year old empire. This terrible event occurred in 1453 AD, 354 years closer to our own time than the siege of Jerusalem; yet it is not used by Christians to justify violence, it is not cited as motivation for Christian suicide bombers to kill civilians, in fact you would be hard-pressed to find it mentioned anywhere in the public discourse. Here’s the story:

By the 4th century AD the Roman Empire, in steep decline, was divided in two. A Western Latin-speaking half governed from Rome, and an Eastern Greek-speaking half ruled from its purpose-built capital city of Constantinople, completed in 330AD. As the West went through its death-throes, buckling under barbarian invasions over the next few centuries, the East managed to preserve itself and thrive, and would continue for another thousand years as the sole remaining repository of Roman civilization. The Emperor Constantine I, a convert, legalized Christianity in the Empire, a revolutionary act which laid the very foundations of Christendom. For reasons of clarity, historians refer to this long-lived Christian incarnation of the Eastern Roman Empire as The Byzantine Empire.

The capital, Constantinople, was built at the strategic meeting point of East and West, of Europe and Asia, of the Mediterranean and the Black Sea. Its heart was known as the Golden Horn, featuring an ideal natural harbor and a commanding overlook of the strategic Bosporus Straits. Great basilicas and churches were constructed, as well as a forum, and a hippodrome that could hold 80,000 people. The pinnacle of the great city was the Hagia Sophia, or Church of Holy Wisdom. Completed in 537 AD by the Emperor Justinian, it stood as the largest cathedral in the world for nearly a millennium. Its central dome was 182 feet high and 102 feet in diameter, and it was filled with stunning mosaics, architectural wonders from across the empire, and holy relics including a 50 foot tall silver icon.

Throughout the Middle Ages, Constantinople was the largest and richest city in Europe, dwarfing Rome, Paris and London. It was the prime hub of a trading network that stretched across Eurasia. It preserved libraries full of invaluable ancient Greek and Latin manuscripts, when instability and disorder caused the mass destruction of this valuable knowledge elsewhere.

Byzantine security relied on pacifying an assortment of barbarian tribes to the West, and keeping the sophisticated Persian Empire at bay to the East. The Byzantines and Persians warred continuously for a century, battling for control of Armenia, the Fertile Crescent and the Holy Land. When the determined and zealous Islamic juggernaut burst out of the Arabian Peninsula in the 7th century, both empires were too weak to mount a proper defense. Christian Syria fell to the Muslims in 637, Christian Armenia and Egypt in 639, and North Africa in 652. By 661 the Byzantines had lost all their holdings in the greater Middle East, and nearly half of their core territory of Anatolia. In 674 the Arabs laid siege to Constantinople itself, but were thwarted by a harsh winter and their inability to breach the famous Theodosian Walls. They tried again in 717. This time they were defeated at sea by the Byzantine fleet, with a revolutionary naval weapon known as Greek Fire. This 2nd victory delayed the Muslim crusaders for nearly 700 years.

The Byzantine Empire acted as a firewall for that period, preventing a major Islamic incursion into a Europe that was both fragile and fragmented. Those seven centuries however, saw a slow and steady decline of Byzantine power.

The Arab threat had been replaced by a newly Islamized horde of Turkish nomads from the steppe. A new breed of horseback warrior, known as the Ghazis, endlessly harassed the Byzantine frontiers. They sustained a continuous series of raids into the empire, plundering valuable resources and slowly chipping away at Byzantine territory. Several of these Ghazi tribes united under Osman I, and created the Ottoman Empire. By the mid-15th century the Ottomans controlled most of Anatolia, and had crossed the Dardanelles to seize a sizeable beachhead of territory on the European side. They had bypassed the city of Constantinople, which was now confined to a small pocket, surrounded on all sides, slowly squeezed and choked. It was a ripe, vulnerable prize for the Islamic conquerors.

In 1453, the Mediterranean, Europe, Christendom, and the world, changed forever. The Ottomans under Sultan Mehmed II amassed 100,000 troops outside of Constantinople, including 20,000 Janissaries, an elite guard made up of Christian slaves.

They bombarded the city for 40 days, and finally breached the ancient walls on Tuesday May 29th of 1453, a date which the Greek world considers unlucky to this day. The following is a contemporary account of the destruction:

“Bands of soldiers began now looting. Doors were broken, private homes were looted, their tenants were massacred. Shops in the city markets were looted. Monasteries and Convents were broken in. Their tenants were killed, nuns were raped, many, to avoid dishonor, killed themselves. Killing, raping, looting, burning, enslaving, went on and on. The troops had to satisfy themselves. The great doors of the Hagia Sophia were forced open, and crowds of angry soldiers came in and fell upon the unfortunate worshippers. Pillaging and killing in the holy place went on for hours. Similar was the fate of worshippers in most churches in the city. Everything that could be taken from the splendid buildings was taken by the new masters of the Imperial capital. Icons were destroyed, precious manuscripts were lost forever. Thousands of civilians were enslaved; soldiers fought over young boys and young women. Death and enslavement did not distinguish among social classes. Nobles and peasants were treated with equal ruthlessness.”

The Turks built four Minarets around the defiled Hagia Sophia, transforming it into a mosque. It served as the chief mosque of Constantinople, now known as Istanbul, for over 500 years. If you visit the site today you will find the Christian features replaced by the mimbar from which the Muslim Imams preached, huge Medallions honoring Islamic Caliphs, works of art showing the Qaba in Mecca, and Islamic footbaths used for cleaning before prayer… these are the same footbaths that Muslim pressure groups have successfully installed at airports, universities and other institutions across the Western world.

A process of ethnic and religious cleansing begun by the Arab Muslims in the 7th century, and continued by the Ottoman Turkish Muslims in the 15th century, was completed by the new modern state of Turkey in the 20th century. The remaining pockets of Greek Christians on the North and West coasts were massacred or exiled, while 1.5 million Armenian Christians were decimated in the East, in a genocide that foreshadowed the Holocaust. It was an inspiration to Adolf Hitler who justified the viability of his radical plans by asking, “After all, who speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?”

And indeed, who speaks today about the Fall of Constaninople? Turkey today is 99% Muslim. The native populations have been exterminated or expelled. There is no one to protest, no one to start an uprising, no one to appeal to the UN and EU to send troops and break the occupation. For 555 years the city of Constantinople has suffered a deep cosmic humiliation, and only the skeletons of the ancient buildings, silent witness to it all, are there to protest.

The next time the intimidating voices of Islam, or their leftist apologists in the West, excuse murder, violence, rioting and grievance mongering by invoking the Occupation of Jerusalem, you need to tell them about the Occupation of Constantinople.

Read further...

Tuesday, September 23, 2008

NEW SERIES! "Islamic Crusades" An Introduction




You can find the full text of Bill Clinton's speech at Georgetown here.

The following in a full transcript of this video:



On November 7, 2001, less than two months after the 9/11 attacks, former President Bill Clinton addressed our new state of affairs with a high-profile speech at Georgetown University. In addressing the root causes of the conflict, he said the following:

“Those of us who come from various European lineages are not blameless. Indeed, in the first Crusade, when the Christian soldiers took Jerusalem, they first burned a synagogue with 300 Jews in it, and proceeded to kill every woman and child who was Muslim on the Temple mound. The contemporaneous descriptions of the event describe soldiers walking on the Temple mound, a holy place to Christians, with blood running up to their knees. I can tell you that that story is still being told today in the Middle East and we are still paying for it.”

This statement, along with many others that point to past Western sins to excuse modern-day anti-Western atrocities, are conventional wisdom for the Left. Similar thoughts have been repeated on college campuses, media outlets, workplaces, bars, throughout public discourse. Yet to anyone with a solid grasp of history, this statement is absurd and non sequitur. Not because the event is described inaccurately – though the president should have realized that the “up to our knees in blood” line was a common medieval exaggeration – but because the conclusions drawn are spurious.

First, Clinton points out that Jews as well as Muslims were victims in the Siege of Jerusalem. Indeed, European Jews were also victims; as religious fervor swept the continent, some restless Christians without the means to march to the Holy Land took out their aggression on local non-believers. The Western Latin Christian crusaders also fought with the Eastern Orthodox Christians who lay between them and the Muslim Middle East, climaxing in the Crusader sack of Constantinople in 1204. Western Christians even committed atrocities against each other, as they fought over rights to newly conquered lands and jockeyed for influence back home. If we follow the Left’s warped logic, all of these groups would have legitimate grievances against the West for the crusades, and all would have been justified in carrying out a 9/11-style attack in 2001. Yet it was only the Muslims who saw fit to carry out such an act, and I can’t help but think that Clinton would have been less sympathetic if a group of Jews or Orthodox Christians had murdered 3,000 people on that day.

Second, the chain of responsibility makes no sense. As we know, the United States of America did not exist during the Crusades; Columbus would not even land in the New World for another 300 years; and so Clinton references our European lineages as proof of our guilt. Yet 1/3 of American citizens are not of European descent. Of the 2/3 that did come from Europe, many are not Western Christians, and many more came from nations that did not take part in the Crusades or only participated peripherally. The United Kingdom, our founding colonial power, and the source of many of our laws, traditions, and early citizens, was one of these peripheral nations. Indeed, most crusaders were from France, which is why the Muslims at the time referred to all Crusaders simply as “Franks”. And France sticks out as the only large European nation that never sent great numbers of immigrants to America.

I hope this brief explanation has illustrated to you why I refer to the statements of Clinton as absurd, but my aim here is not merely to debunk the Crusades. My aim is to diminish the Western world’s self-destructive obsession with the perceived sins of our past interactions with the Muslim world; whether it’s the Crusades, the legacy of European colonialism, tensions over oil resources, or the existence of Israel. These flashpoints, while they are legitimate subjects for debate and reflection, have been taken out of context, scandalized, and fashioned into a weapon that threatens to destabilize Western society as a whole.

The liberal establishment highlights selected Western sins, and wraps a layer of current events around them to further their political goals. In this series, I will highlight what I believe are the far more horrific episodes in Islamic history that are neglected, marginalized or simply ignored by the media and academic establishment. I will explore the history of Islamic imperialism, Islamic colonialism, Islamic genocide and Islamic crusades; and believe me there is plenty of material to work with.

For those who already see America and the West as positive forces in our world, I hope this will provide you ammunition for arguments with liberal friends. I hope it helps you continue the conversation, when they try to blunt it by citing the wrongs of the Crusades or colonialism to excuse any and all Muslim actions in the present. My purpose here is to put the Crusades in context; as a brutal religiously-inspired conquest of land, yes, but just one among many, most of which were committed in the name of Mohammed rather than Jesus.

For those on the left who bother to hear me out, I hope you treat my testimony about the victims of the Islamic violence with the same seriousness that you treat the stories of Western exploitation that you are so quick to catalog. I believe in the course of this series you will come to understand, as I did, that your apologetics for Islam work directly against the values you claim to promote. That whatever sins the West has committed, the Islamic world has committed them more often and more severely, and that you who strive to tear the edifices of your own civilization down have been allowed to thrive in the West, while your counterparts in the Muslim world are executed, imprisoned, or intimidated into a deep silence.

And so it is in this spirit, that I ask you all to join me in an exploration of what I call, the Islamic Crusades. I promise you at the very least that it won’t be boring. And I suspect that all of us, myself included, will learn something in the process. Let’s begin.

The first installment on the Fall of Constantinople coming soon! Be sure to subscribe to my YouTube channel for the latest updates.
Read further...

Monday, September 15, 2008

Russian Hypocrisy - The Unstable Bear




Russia's invasion of Georgia was a clever power-grab, and a strategic embarrassment for the United States, highlighting our hypocritical policies in Kosovo. However, Moscow's actions have emboldened a slew of separatist movements within Russia itself, which could cause disaster.

Here's a transcript:




I was alive during the waning years of the Cold War, but not at the age of reason. My knowledge of the political climate in the Reagan years, the late Cold War, comes from reading books and articles or watching old speeches. Perhaps that’s why, after 9/11, I was one of those who thought that Russia could be our ally. I thought, “How great that they’ve thrown off the shackles of Communism, just in time to confront the new civilizational enemy.” Here was a European nation with a Christian background, a rich artistic and literary history, and great ancient cities. I thought in this post-9/11 environment, their interest must be in making common cause with the West. I was one of those who believed it, perhaps because it was comforting. The sheer size of Russia makes it a useful ally. It would be a huge buffer against the Islamic nations of the Middle East and Central Asia; a firewall for Europe. I still believed this deep down, even as they appeared to align with China and insisted on not-so-secretly helping Iran build a nuclear weapons program. For people like me, the invasion of Georgia was a wake-up call.

Russia is different from Europe, and always has been. It was too isolated from Europe in the Renaissance and modern period to take part in the same cultural, religious, and political shifts that were revolutionizing the continent. The Russians maintained a powerful king, a Czar, long after Western European monarchs had been dethroned or stripped of meaningful power. Their peasants were serfs. These were true, legal slaves to the landowners, who were only liberated around the time that black slaves were liberated in the American South. Russia has always seen itself as a world apart. Global trade, global tourism, the fall of Communism, and the advent of the internet have not changed that. In the years since 1991, Russia has been actively working against American interests. They have been fighting a new Cold War against us, and we didn’t realize it until they invaded Georgia. Just as 9/11 brought into focus the war that Islam had been waging against the United States for decades, the Georgian invasion underlined Russia's antagonism towards our interests.

At first glance it seems a propaganda coup for them. They've masterfully highlighted our hypocrisy. After all, in the 1990’s we bombed Russia’s ally Serbia into submission, forcing them to relinquish the separatist Muslim enclave of Kosovo. To add insult to injury we recognized Kosovo as an independent state this past winter. So why can’t Russia bomb Georgia on behalf of an Ossetian minority that desires separation from Georgia? First let me make clear that I am the first to condemn our Kosovo policy. It was a classic example of liberal post-modern international thought, conceived under the Clinton administration. The rule for Clinton, and keep in mind this would be the rule for Obama as well, is that we only help countries or peoples who are under threat when it is not important to our interests, or even better if it’s against our interests. In Kosovo we empowered the same Saudi-funded, al-Qaeda affiliated Muslim thugs who would literally blow up in our faces on 9/11, because the Kosovars were perceived to be the underdogs. And of course, there was no oil, no economic or political benefit for the US to fight in the Balkans, so it passed the liberal test. Destroying a regime that is demonstrably evil, but is in our interests to destroy, is of course a war crime; for example the war in Iraq. Thus the leftists were the first to cry “hypocrisy” in defense of Russia’s invasion of Georgia. After all, Bush attacked Iraq with no provocation, who are we to hold Putin to a higher standard?

Well, Russia’s chess-like move in Georgia may have highlighted the hypocrisy of the United States, but it simultaneously created a precedent that may threaten Russia’s very existence as a unified nation. By militarily supporting anti-Georgian separatists in South Ossetia and Abkhazia, Russia has lent great credibility and moral confidence to separatist movements within its own country, who have been waiting for an excuse to rise up against the Moscow government.


First let’s look just 100 miles northeast of South Ossetia, where we find the Russian territory of Chechnya. You might remember Chechnya from the 1990’s; it was the breakaway republic that Russia crushed in two bloody wars to underline its supremacy in the area and teach a lesson to other feisty separatist republics that might get out of line. The first war from 1994-1996 left approximately 5,000 Russian soldiers dead, and between 40,000 and 100,000 Chechens dead, mostly civilians. The second war from 1999-2000 left anywhere from 25,000-50,000 dead, again mostly Chechen civilians. The capital city of Grozny was a profound ruin, recalling scenes of World War II Stalingrad or Berlin. Compare this to Ossetia where Russia claimed that Georgian forces killed 2,000 civilians. In light of this, surely Russia would have supported a Georgian or American military foray into Chechnya in the 1990’s to protect indigenous Chechen rights. They would have recognized the independence of the poor, oppressed minority Chechens, and would have allowed peacekeepers in to guarantee that independence. No, I think not. This is what we call blatant hypocrisy, and we only have to look next door to find it, not hundreds of miles away in the Balkans.

Next, speaking of South Ossetia, did you know there was a North Ossetia? Yup, it’s just across the border, and is a province of Russia. Russia was so very quick to intervene on behalf of the South Ossetians in their quest for independenc. Certainly then independence for North Ossetia is just as important. Do you think they’ll allow their province of North Ossetia to join the South Ossetians, and create a nice consolidated Republic of Ossetia? Again, I think not.

And these are just small examples in the direct vicinity of the recent Georgian combat zone. See the links I’ve provided in the sidebar for more information on Tatarstan, Bashkortostan, Adygeya, Karachayevo-Cherkesiya, Kabardino-Balkariya, and many other hotbeds of separatist resistance in Russia you’ve never heard of.

Other important things to keep in mind; there are 20 million Muslims in Russia, or 15% of the population. That’s more than the Muslim percentage in France and close to the Muslim percentage in Israel. It’s a population that has grown 40% in the past 15 years, while the ethnic Russian population has been dropping steeply.

Also, in Russia’s thinly-populated Far East, immigrants from poorer and more crowded nations like China and Korea have been flooding in and changing the demographic makeup. Unofficial estimates put the numbers at 1 to 3 million. How long before they agitate for independent status?

And so, fellow Americans, Europeans, and pro-Western peoples formerly under Russian or Soviet domination, don’t fret. Russia may have won the battle, but in doing so they have set a dangerous precedent, that may have ensured that they will lose the war.


Read further...

Saturday, September 13, 2008

Iran: An Object Lesson In EU Impotence

The European Union is a first in the annals of power politics; a quasi-state with pretensions of power, whose only weapon is politics. Attempts to create an EU Rapid Reaction Force have foundered for years, and even if such a thin and casualty-averse core force got off the ground, it would be useless against an aggressive strike such as Russia's recent foray into Georgia, or a swift moveby a cunning regime in the Middle East. The EU is fully invested in “soft power”; i.e. negotiating, diplomatic massaging, and begging.





Let’s examine the “progress” the EU has made in 5 years of nuclear negotiations with Iran:


October 21, 2003: As a confidence-building measure, Iran and the EU-3 agree to negotiations under the terms of the Paris Agreement, pursuant to which Iran agrees to temporarily suspend enrichment and permit more stringent set of nuclear inspections in accordance with the Additional Protocol, and the EU-3 explicitly recognizes Iran's right to civilian nuclear programs in accordance with the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

December 18, 2003: As agreed in the Paris Agreement, Iran voluntarily signs and implements the Additional Protocol to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Though the Protocol was not binding on Iran until ratified, Iran voluntarily agrees to permit expanded and more intensive IAEA inspections pursuant to the Protocol, which fail to turn up a nuclear weapons program in Iran. Iran ends the voluntarily implementation of Additional Protocol after two years of inspections, as a protest to continued EU-3 demands that Iran abandon all enrichment.


October 24, 2004: The European Union makes a proposal to provide civilian nuclear technology to Iran in exchange for Iran terminating its uranium enrichment program permanently. Iran rejects this outright, saying it will not renounce its right to enrichment technologies.


November 15, 2004: Talks between Iran and three European Union members, the United Kingdom, France, and Germany, result in a compromise. Iran agrees to temporarily suspend its active uranium enrichment program for the duration of a second round of talks, during which attempts will be made at arriving at a permanent, mutually-beneficial solution.


November 22, 2004: Iran declares that it will voluntarily suspend its uranium enrichment program to enter negotiations with the EU. Iran will review its decision in three months. The EU seeks to have the suspension made permanent and is willing to provide economic and political incentives.


November 24, 2004: Iran seeks to obtain permission from the European Union, in accordance with its recent agreement with the EU, to allow it to continue working with 24 centrifuges for research purposes.


August 5, 2005: The EU-3 submit a proposal to Iran pursuant to the Paris Agreement which requires Iran to permanently cease enrichment. The proposal is rejected by Iran as a violation of the Paris Agreement and Iran's Non-Proliferation Treaty rights.


Confused yet? That’s the point. By introducing a bewildering array of proposals and incentives, the EU seeks to create the illusion of progress. Meanwhile, Iran plays them like a violin, agreeing, backing off, and teasing, in an elaborate dance meant to buy time for their unwavering pursuit of nuclear weapons.



Since the de facto failure of EU-3 talks, the UN Security Council has introduced several rounds of trade sanctions. These have been relatively weak, owing to the fact that Council member Russia is actively collaborating with Iran on nuclear and general military development. China is also running interference due to significant energy ties and a strong willingness to oppose US interests whenever possible.


Check out the 60-day window on this resolution, providing the ideal environment for Iran to bait, switch, and lie until the 60 days are up and they can cajole the West into another artificial deadline:

December 23, 2006: United Nations Security Council Resolution 1737 was unanimously passed by the UN Security Council. The resolution, sponsored by France, Germany and the UK, punishes Iran uranium enrichment program according to Resolution 1696. It banned the supply of nuclear-related technology and materials and froze the assets of key individuals and companies related to the enrichment program. The resolution came after the rejection of UN economic incentives for Iran to halt their nuclear enrichment program. The sanctions will be lifted if Iran suspends the "suspect activities" within 60 days to the satisfaction of the International Atomic Energy Agency.


So why all the obvious footdragging from European nations on meaningful sanctions against Iran? Money and oil. The EU has been abused by Russia’s energy blackmail in the past few years, and for some reason they see dependence on Iran as a safer alternative.


Despite this, unilateral American sanctions are having some effect on Iran, mainly because of the tight financial restrictions that make European investment in Iran more risky. France and the UK have greatly downscaled the trade staff at their embassies in Tehran. But this is due to cold economic calculation rather than a moral stand; the US sanctions have simply dried up a good chunk of their former business interests.


Meanwhile, Iran is one of Germany’s principle trading partners. German companies exported $5.7 billion worth of goods to Iran in 2006, up from $5 billion in 2004. There was a slight dip in 2007, but in the first four months of 2008 the numbers went up 18% from the same period last year. German recently approved an export license worth 100 million Euros to provide Iran with high-tech gas plants.


Israeli member of Knesset, Ephraim Sneh has said that "investing in Iran in 2008, is like investing in the Krupp steelworks in 1938, it's a high risk investment." On a continent where appeasement has a long and storied history, this latest episode has advanced the rich tradition of emboldening antagonists while simultaneously earning their contempt.



More links:

Iran Mocks EU Nuclear Offer

Iran's Trade Grew Despite US Sanctions

Iran is France's Primary Trading Partner in the Middle East

In Spite of German Talk, Trade with Iran Growing

Germany's Special Relationship; With Iran

Israel Concerned Over Germany-Iran Deal
Read further...

Wake Up: Confront Iran's Holocaust Bomb




This is a rallying cry for Americans to stand up to the greatest threat of our time. Come out of your election sound-byte malaise and focus on the issues that affect our future.

This is a refutation of the Leftists who seek to undermine America and Western Civilization as a whole. Appeasement is not an acceptable policy, and nihilism is not an honorable philosophy. Accept the responsibility of your citizenship or accept your slide into the dustbin of history.



UPDATE:

Great thanks to Baron Bodissey at Gates of Vienna for linking to my video. If you are active in the counter-jihad you are already aware of the great resources at GOV.

[post ends here]
Read further...