Thursday, January 20, 2011

Clare Lopez talks about Iran

In this video from the Center for Security Policy, Clare Lopez talks about the danger of a nuclear Iran, and the significance of what happened to the screening of Iranium in Ottawa:

For more background on Clare Lopez, see our earlier post.


Anonymous said...

I wish Clare Lopez would spare us the B.S. about "the wishes of the Iranian people", and establishing in Iran a "secular, tolerant and pluralistic regime".

Hasn't this deluded policy of bringing the "good" to foreign peoples demonstrated its folly in Iraq and Afghanistan ?

America went to war against Iraq in order to react against an Islamic agression, toppled the local dictator in order to bring "democracy", and helped create an Islamic regime with an Islamic constitution, and Islamic terrorism rife across the country.

In Afghanistan, French soldiers bend over backwards to "outreach" to Muslims, order their women officers to wear the veil, and offer toys to children who (literally) take them with one hand, and stone them with the other the next minute.

The West is perfectly entitled to defend itself and protect its liberty and safety.

Pretending to bring "democracy" to peoples on the other side of the world, on the other hand, is just a new-fangled attempt at colonialism, and will end up in humiliation and retreat just as the old-fashioned one.

I mean... a former CIA agent explaining foreigners America is going to chose what's right for them in their own countries... that's called shooting oneself in the foot.

A little less arrogance, please.

Zenster said...

Robert Marchenoir: I wish Clare Lopez would spare us the B.S. about "the wishes of the Iranian people", and establishing in Iran a "secular, tolerant and pluralistic regime".

Hasn't this deluded policy of bringing the "good" to foreign peoples demonstrated its folly in Iraq and Afghanistan ?

Yes it has and provided convincing proof that − so far as Muslim majority nations are concerned − the era of nation building is truly over for once and all time. All this useless encouragement of Muslims to adopt secular Democracy is just so much lipstick on a pig.

You can trowel on the cosmetics thicker than Tammy Faye Bakker and none of it will change the underlying porcine nature of the problem. The Muslim pig will always want to wallow in its shari’a mud. Afghanistan and Iraq have proven this beyond a shadow if a doubt and no further testing of this principle is needed.

The “good” we should be “bringing” is security for the West regardless of the expense to Islam and Muslim quality of life. There is absolutely nothing we can do − short of emptying our collective bank accounts into Islam’s pockets − to alleviate Muslim suffering in Islamic lands. Muslim suffering is built into Islam like girders in a skyscraper. In fact, some Islamic clerics even hold that: prosperity is bad for Islam

What [the late bin Laden confederate] Al-Ayyeri sees now is a "clean battlefield" in which Islam faces a new form of unbelief. This, he labels "secularist democracy." This threat is "far more dangerous to Islam" than all its predecessors combined. The reasons, he explains in a whole chapter, must be sought in democracy's "seductive capacities." This form of "unbelief" persuades the people that they are in charge of their destiny and that, using their collective reasoning, they can shape policies and pass laws as they see fit. That leads them into ignoring the "unalterable laws" promulgated by God for the whole of mankind, and codified in the Islamic shariah (jurisprudence) until the end of time.

The goal of democracy, according to Al-Ayyeri, is to "make Muslims love this world, forget the next world and abandon jihad ." If established in any Muslim country for a reasonably long time, democracy could lead to economic prosperity, which, in turn, would make Muslims "reluctant to die in martyrdom" in defense of their faith.
[emphasis added]

So long as Muslims accept jihad without objection, they will also demand their own impoverishment.


Again, all of the West’s efforts should be directed towards enhancing the security of its own borders without regard for Muslim “sensibilities” or, even, their large scale suffering. In fact, all indications are that only suffering on the very largest scale will have a deterrent effect or pose any chance of bringing about even a slight moderation of Islam.

Instead, we have done the exact opposite. Western militaries − at tremendous cost of life and treasure − have brought a degree of relative prosperity and helped institute “stable shari’a states” (or whatever mayhem is supposed to pass for such a thing), in the countries of our enemies.

It is a losing proposition to confer human rights upon a group that has absolutely no respect for them and would just as soon deprive you of them utterly.

What we must confer upon our Islamic enemies is a deep and enduring dread of incurring even another iota of our wrath. If this cannot be achieved without the use of nuclear weapons, then so be it. Were the positions switched and Islam had all the nuclear bombs − while the West had few or none − we would not even be discussing this right now.

Richard said...

Robert Marchenoir until we remove almost all of the politically correct politicians and civil servents we will continue to search for a substitute for victory in war. I am afraid it will take either a terror attack deadlier then 9-11-01 or several attacks about the same time before we start fighting to win. And when we do start fighting to win we will need to retrain most officers, NCOs and enlisted men.

Gregory said...

When they show this video, I think that everyone attending should go through a metal and bomb detector because I am sure that the damned shiites will try to subvert the film in the most violent way that they can. The sunnis wont be any help about seeing this film gain a following either.