You can always rely on Fareed Zakaria to pull the Islamic wool over your eyes and ears…

The words of a 1980 speech in Qom by Ayatollah Khomeini ring clear:


  • We do not worship Iran, we worship Allah. I say, let this land [Iran] burn. I say let this land go up in smoke, provided Islam emerges triumphant.’

Can it be any more clear that Islam seeks only our destruction at whatever cost to itself? Can we deny any longer that Islam, and not just its radicals, are the enemy?

  • “We are not fighting so that you will offer us something. We are fighting to eliminate you.”

—Hussein Massawi, the former Hezbollah leader behind the slaughter of U.S. and French forces 20 years ago.

  • Mahmud Ahmadinejad, president of Iran: Wipe Israel off map’

Now comes Zakaria:

They May Not Want The Bomb

And other “unexpected truths.”

Readers of this blog know that Fareed Zakaria, the Indian born son of an imam, is an Islamic agent provocateur. To give this man a soapbox at Newsweek, Time or CNN is the same as allowing Joseph Goebbles during WWII to pump Nazi propaganda into American living rooms. It never ceases to amaze me that 8 years after 9/11 America is still so ignorant and naive. To allow this enemy agent to make a good living behind enemy lines while obfuscating, minimizing and denying the threat from Islam is as fantastic and unreal as the Marxist Muslim POTUS. Zakaria is engaging claissic taqiyya and spins Islamic fairy tales all the while telling us there is nothing to worry about. Is the whole nation on crack?


By Fareed Zakaria | NEWSWEEK

Everything you know about Iran is wrong, or at least more complicated than you think. Take the bomb. The regime wants to be a nuclear power but could well be happy with a peaceful civilian program (which could make the challenge it poses more complex). What’s the evidence? Well, over the last five years, senior Iranian officials at every level have repeatedly asserted that they do not intend to build nuclear weapons. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has quoted the regime’s founding father, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, who asserted that such weapons were “un-Islamic.” The country’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, issued a fatwa in 2004 describing the use of nuclear weapons as immoral. In a subsequent sermon, he declared that “developing, producing or stockpiling nuclear weapons is forbidden under Islam.” Last year Khamenei reiterated all these points after meeting with the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohamed ElBaradei. Now, of course, they could all be lying. But it seems odd for a regime that derives its legitimacy from its fidelity to Islam to declare constantly that these weapons are un-Islamic if it intends to develop them. It would be far shrewder to stop reminding people of Khomeini’s statements and stop issuing new fatwas against nukes.

  • I think we have more than enough evidence that the Iranians are lying. So does Zakaria and Mohamed El Baradei. Could it be that they have an agenda?
  •  Doesn’t Fareed Zakaria, the son of an Islamic scholar, know his Koran, wherein it is written: …and make ready against them all you can of power, including steeds of war (tanks, planes, missiles, artillery) to threaten the enemy of Allah. . . Surah 8:60.

Following a civilian nuclear strategy has big benefits. The country would remain within international law, simply asserting its rights under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, a position that has much support across the world. That would make comprehensive sanctions against Iran impossible. And if Tehran’s aim is to expand its regional influence, it doesn’t need a bomb to do so. Simply having a clear “breakout” capacity—the ability to weaponize within a few months—would allow it to operate with much greater latitude and impunity in the Middle East and Central Asia.

Iranians aren’t suicidal. In an interview last week, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu described the Iranian regime as “a messianic, apocalyptic cult.” In fact, Iran has tended to behave in a shrewd, calculating manner, advancing its interests when possible, retreating when necessary. The Iranians allied with the United States and against the Taliban in 2001, assisting in the creation of the Karzai government. They worked against the United States in Iraq, where they feared the creation of a pro-U.S. puppet on their border. Earlier this year, during the Gaza war, Israel warned Hizbullah not to launch rockets against it, and there is much evidence that Iran played a role in reining in their proxies. Iran’s ruling elite is obsessed with gathering wealth and maintaining power. The argument made by those—including many Israelis for coercive sanctions against Iran is that many in the regime have been squirreling away money into bank accounts in Dubai and Switzerland for their children and grandchildren. These are not actions associated with people who believe that the world is going to end soon.

One of Netanyahu’s advisers said of Iran, “Think Amalek.” The Bible says that the Amalekites were dedicated enemies of the Jewish people. In 1 Samuel 15, God says, “Go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.” Now, were the president of Iran and his advisers to have cited a religious text that gave divine sanction for the annihilation of an entire race, they would be called, well, messianic.

Iran isn’t a dictatorship. It is certainly not a democracy. The regime jails opponents, closes down magazines and tolerates few challenges to its authority. But neither is it a monolithic dictatorship. It might be best described as an oligarchy, with considerable debate and dissent within the elites. Even the so-called Supreme Leader has a constituency, the Assembly of Experts, who selected him and whom he has to keep happy. Ahmadinejad is widely seen as the “mad mullah” who runs the country, but he is not the unquestioned chief executive and is actually a thorn in the side of the clerical establishment. He is a layman with no family connections to major ayatollahs—which makes him a rare figure in the ruling class. He was not initially the favored candidate of the Supreme Leader in the 2005 election. Even now the mullahs clearly dislike him, and he, in turn, does things deliberately designed to undermine their authority. Iran might be ready to deal. We can’t know if a deal is possible since we’ve never tried to negotiate one, not directly. While the regime appears united in its belief that Iran has the right to a civilian nuclear program—a position with broad popular support—some leaders seem sensitive to the costs of the current approach. It is conceivable that these “moderates” would appreciate the potential benefits of limiting their nuclear program, including trade, technology and recognition by the United States. The Iranians insist they must be able to enrich uranium on their own soil. One proposal is for this to take place in Iran but only under the control of an international consortium. It’s not a perfect solution because the Iranians could—if they were very creative and dedicated—cheat. But neither is it perfect from the Iranian point of view because it would effectively mean a permanent inspections regime in their country. But both sides might get enough of what they consider crucial for it to work. Why not try this before launching the next Mideast war?

  • So much for Zakaria’s fantasy productions.

Back to reality:


“This will be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades.”
–Arab League Secretary General Azzam Pasha, May 15, 1948, the day five Arab armies invaded the new state of Israel, one day after the nation declared its independence

“The Arab nations should sacrifice up to 10 million of their 50 million people, if necessary, to wipe out Israel … Israel to the Arab world is like a cancer to the human body, and the only way of remedy is to uproot it, just like a cancer.”
–Saud ibn Abdul Aziz, King of Saudi Arabia, Associated Press, Jan. 9, 1954

“I announce from here, on behalf of the United Arab Republic people, that this time we will exterminate Israel.”
–President Gamal Abdel Nasser of Egypt, speech in Alexandria, July 26, 1959

“We shall never call for nor accept peace. We shall only accept war. We have resolved to drench this land with your (Israel’s) blood, to oust you as aggressor, to throw you into the sea.”
–Hafez Assad, then-Syrian Defense Minister, May 24, 1966, who later became Syria’s president.

“Our basic objective will be the destruction of Israel.”
–President Gamal Abdel Nasser of Egypt, May 27, 1967, nine days before the start of the Six-Day War.

“The existence of Israel is an error which must be rectified. This is our opportunity to wipe out the ignominy which has been with us since 1948. Our goal is clear — to wipe Israel off the map.”
–President Abdel Rahman Aref of Iraq, May 31, 1967

“All countries should wage war against the Zionists, who are there to destroy all human organizations and to destroy civilization and the work which good people are trying to do.”
–King Faisal of Saudi Arabia, in a speech in Uganda, Beirut Daily Star, Nov. 17, 1972

“The battle with Israel must be such that, after it, Israel will cease to exist.”
–Libyan President Mohammar Qadaffi, al-Usbu al-Arrabi (Beirut) quoted by Algiers Radio, Nov. 12, 1973

“After we perform our duty in liberating the West Bank and Jerusalem, our national duty is to liberate all the Arab-occupied territories.”
–Jordan’s King Hussein, Radio Amman, Dec. 1, 1973

“Yes, the existence of a separate Palestinian identity is there only for tactical reasons. The establishment of a Palestinian state is a new expedient to continue the fight against Zionism and for Arab unity.”
–Zoheir Muhsin, head of the PLO Military Operations Department and member of the PLO Executive Council, 1977

“I have never met an Arab leader that in private professed a desire for an independent Palestinian state. Publicly, they all espouse an independent Palestinian state — almost all of them — because that is what they committed themselves to do at Rabat (the 1974 Arab League summit conference).”

–President Jimmy Carter, at a 1979 press conference

“There has been no change whatsoever in the fundamental strategy of the PLO, which is based on the total liberation of Palestine and the destruction of the occupying country. … On no accounts will the Palestinians accept part of Palestine and call it the Palestinian state, while forfeiting the remaining areas which are called the State of Israel.”
–Rafiq Najshah, PLO representative in Saudi Arabia, Saudi Arabian News Agency, June 9, 1980

“The struggle with the Zionist enemy is not a struggle about Israel’s borders, but about Israel’s existence. We will never agree to anything less than the return of all our land and the establishment of the independent state.”
–Bassam Abu Sharif, a top Arafat aide and PLO spokesman, quoted by the Kuwait News Agency, May 31, 1986

“There are two different approaches in the Arab world: that Israel can be overwhelmed militarily, or that a military victory is impossible. The power struggle between Israel and the Arabs is a long-term historical trial. Victory or defeat are for us questions of existence or annihilation, the outcome of an irreconcilable hatred.”
–Al-Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, July 11, 1986

“The establishment of an independent Palestinian state on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip does not contradict our ultimate strategic aim, which is the establishment of a democratic state in the entire territory of Palestine, but rather is a step in that direction.”
–Salah Khalaf (Abu Iyad) interview with Al-Safir, Lebanon, Jan. 25, 1988

“This is the ideology of the PLO and of Yasser Arafat: To destroy the state of Israel and to establish a Palestinian state instead. They will accept the territories — but only as a beginning, as a base for further attacks to conquer all of Israel. Why give them this opportunity to strengthen their efforts to attack us?”
–Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir, U.S. News & World Report, March 21, 1988

“The armed struggle must continue, everywhere, against the Zionist enemy and his allies. … We have no alternative but to carry out armed activity in order to vanquish the enemy and establish our state.”
–Salim Zaanoun, Deputy PNC speaker and member of the Fatah Central Committee, in Al-Anba, Kuwait, Dec. 23, 1988

“The PLO will not stop the armed struggle.”
–Yasser Arafat, June 6, 1989 at a press conference in Kuwait, Associated Press.

“The Middle East peace efforts have reached a stalemate. … The PLO now has no alternative but to escalate armed struggle outside the occupied territories in support of the uprising.”
–Arafat’s number two man, Salah Khalaf, Jan. 22, 1990, Associated Press

“We will enter Jerusalem victoriously and raise our flag on its walls. … We will fight you (the Israelis) with stones, rifles, and ‘El-Abed’ (the Iraqi missile)…”
–Yasser Arafat, reported by the Associated Press, March 29, 1990, at the start of the Gulf War

“In the name of Allah, we shall cause fire to devour half of Israel. …”
–Iraqi News Agency, April 2, 1990

“We say to the brother and leader Saddam Hussein — go forward with God’s blessing.”
–Yasser Arafat, the next day, Iraqi News Agency, April 3, 1990

Bat Yeor writes:

“A negative attitude was expressed in 1982 by Algeria’s first president, in a lapidary formula:

What we want, as Arabs, is to *be*. However, we can only be, if *the other* is not’. [Ben Bella, ‘Tous Contre Israel’, PI i.e. International Political Review/ Revue Politique Internationale, 16 (Paris, 1982), p. 108]


12 thoughts on “You can always rely on Fareed Zakaria to pull the Islamic wool over your eyes and ears…”

  1. * I say, let this land [Iran] burn. I say let this land go up in smoke …

    This part is doable:

    “With pestilence and with blood I will enter into judgment with
    him; and I will rain on him and on his troops, and on the many
    peoples who are with him, a torrential rain, with hailstones, fire
    and brimstone.” Ezekiel 38:22

    … provided Islam emerges triumphant.

    This part is a fantasy. By the time this is over, islam will be little
    more than piles of bodies and body parts, awaiting disposal.

  2. Zakaria is technically not a bastard but is a bastard in my eyes.

    He has a weekly show on CNN_Int’l which is a showcase for the house of Sod, a platform for hating Israel ( which employs johnathan mann, a good jewish boy, graduate of Bialik High School in Mtl, Canada), and will never utter the “M” word even when these monsters are shooting children in the back ( Breslan, 2004).

    He is master at miscomboobulation; speaking and saying nothing

    In an interview with the father of Daniel Pearl ( who himself regards Israel as an outpost for the western powers – poopoo about his son, most likely encouraged to go there by his old man), the Z man found Daniel’s father to be very hopeful about West-East relations.

    The bigger enemy is CNN, followed by BBCABCNBCCBSCBC.

    The other enemy are the left wing self haters in the West; including the left wing Israelis and Jews. I do not know what side they are on.

  3. The country’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, issued a fatwa in 2004 describing the use of nuclear weapons as immoral. In a subsequent sermon, he declared that “developing, producing or stockpiling nuclear weapons is forbidden under Islam.”

    Wow, they had nukes 1400 years ago? They truely are an advanced people!

  4. I don’t mean to sound judgmental, but wouldn’t Fareed Zakaria be a bit more credible than you are? I mean, he has a B. A. from Yale University, received his Ph.D. from Harvard and has honorary degrees from an assortment of colleges, including Brown University.

    He may be Muslim, but he’s a very smart Muslim. . .

    1. Nice try, Xona.

      Thanks Xona.

      So Fareed Zakaria is more credible than me because he is the son of an imam, a slick taqiyya artist who has degrees from Yale and Harvard?

      And you are offended by the claims on this blog? Well, you have no right not to be offended. For the most part we report what we hear from Muslims, and they tell us that Islam is not to be “interpreted” but taken straight up, undiluted, because Allah has already decided all matters for them.

      Let me tell you that we are offended by the behavior and the demands of muslims, by their claims of entitlement, by their stupidity, their arrogance and their mindless fanaticism.

      I left you a longer answer on Female genital mutilation “is part of the Sunna of the Prophet” just in case you come back to this thread…..

  5. To be credible, smart and intelligent without objectivity, honesty
    and spiritual balance wont do the job.
    Plus in the natural: ‘the bigger the mind, the bigger the beast”.
    Too many are too smart, only in order to advance their agenda’s
    according to their prejudice, so muslims are no exception to the rule.
    the only solution is renewal through the Spirit YHWH (in Yehoshuwa )not by outward form religion as proclaimed in strict christianity,
    judaism (torah), islam (sharia) or in any other religion.
    the beginning of wisdom is to fear (respect) YHWH.
    without this, it will remain a guessing game.

  6. Sheikyermami, I can smell that you are a jew and hence biased. You do not underatnd the emotions and feeling of muslims. there are certian things which a normal muslim regime will never lie about. fareed Zakariya is a very sensible man and he has got it right.
    You will never understand the muslim mind about his beliefs as you a fake and slimy product of modern deciet who has limited understanding of values and morals.
    And of course Fareed is far more credible that you can ever be.

    1. Thanks for that, Jackman.

      I can smell that you are a moslem and hence biased. Perhaps you should know that I don’t give a hoot for emotions and feelings (of muslims).
      I also can’t be bothered about a “normal muslim regime” since the whole thing appears to be quite abnormal altogether.
      Zakaria is a slimy Islamo-agit prop and he should be interned and deported, (if not executed for treason) just like a Gestapo spy when we were fighting the Nazis.

      I am aware that “only muslims understand Islam” (a standard nonsensical claim often made by mohammedans) and I see your attack on me as a “a fake and slimy product” due to your belief system that perverts values & morals.

      We shall see who’s credibility prevails.

  7. Fareed Zakaria is one of the most brilliant men in the country. Your drivel reviling him should embarrass you, though my guess is you are far too arrogant to understand why. You yourself are a lost cause; I hope some of your readers are not/

  8. Only Cowards Stone People to Death: An Islamic Religious Ritual
    August 19, 2010 – by Phyllis Chesler

    Yesterday, I appeared on Fox News’ The Strategy Room to discuss a recent stoning in Afghanistan and the issue of stoning in general. Kimberly Guilfoyle interviewed me both skillfully and graciously. The subject is a very distressing and somewhat mysterious one for most westerners.
    What does it mean when a mob of men, numbering anywhere from 50 to 200, stone a female child to death — as happened in October of 2008 in Somalia? That poor soul was not only a 13-year-old child, she had also just been raped. Indeed, that was her sole “crime” and the reason for her torture-execution. She was forced into a hole and buried nearly up to her neck. She took a long time to die and kept crying out for her life. In addition to the 50 active stoners, 1000 more men cheered them on.
    What does this tell us?
    First, that barbarians are mainly cowards who do not view themselves as responsible for their actions. Everyone is the murderer and therefore, no one is the murderer. The group both absorbs and atones for any possible guilt or hesitation that even one individual might have felt. However, as we shall see, there is also another way of looking at this.
    For a culture presumably so concerned with “honor,” so consumed with concepts of responsibility towards the family, clan, or “ummah” (Muslim people), those who stone a living being to death utterly shrink from any individual responsibility for carrying out their bloody deeds. Entire families become conspirators in an honor killing; village and religious councils collaborate to issue a death sentence; Muslim men sexually harass women in the streets (of Egypt) — and in large mosque-inflamed mobs (in Algeria).
    In terms of stoning, which is primarily a contemporary Muslim-only custom, not only do cowardly men hide behind each other, clearly they lack the ability to act as individuals. That power is reserved for one man, one leader, one ruling cabal only. In Afghanistan, the Taliban hooligans threw the first stones.
    This tells us something else that is important. The need for a mob is, in a sense, proof that the individuals who compose it are all being held hostage to the will of the psychopathic criminals who rule them. Oppose them, and you yourself might be stoned to death. Hostage-mobs also share the “guilt,” or rather, their leaders’ point of view. The leaders cannot be held accountable for their actions either — everyone did it.
    In addition, sharing a so-called Muslim sinner’s blood, especially female blood, is yet another way to forge a blood-brotherhood that is based on male supremacism.
    Stoning is practiced in contemporary Afghanistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, and Nigeria. In 2006, a poll conducted in “moderate” Indonesia found that 50% of Muslims there supported stoning in cases of adultery, however it is defined. Adultery might include: a married woman who is raped by a stranger, or a woman promised in marriage to one man but who chooses another. This is precisely what happened in the recent case in Afghanistan.
    The Grand Torturer Khomeini brought stoning back to Iran. Uneducated mullahs in the provinces rather liked it. They also liked drugs, drug trafficking, forcing girls into prostitution and then jailing or hanging them for it; temporary “marriages”; forced veiling, etc. Although stoning is now under legal review in Iran, to date, eight men and three women await stoning execution.
    In Iran, one woman, accused of adultery, was sentenced to be lashed 99 times — and then sentenced to be stoned to death. Due to an international campaign and due to the hard work of Iranian dissidents, Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani’s sentence was delayed. But she was lashed 99 times and her teenage son was forced to witness her helplessness, humiliation, and torture — and, in a sense, forced to both share these emotions, second-hand with his mother. Her son’s presence before her nakedness was meant to shame them both and challenged him to become a very hard man as a way of avoiding an eventual nervous breakdown.
    I am not sure whether there is any connection, but think about this. When Muslims go on pilgrimage to Mecca, part of their three day ritual includes stoning “The Devil.” Large groups literally throw stones at giant concrete pillars. This suggests that stoning is a Muslim religious ritual, not a tribal custom. Therefore, stoning a living human being is not only an act of human sacrifice — it is a classic religious ritual meant to glorify the stoners’ God.
    A little like jihad if you ask me.

Comments are closed.