The riots should surprise no one who’s been paying attention.

The riots should surprise no one who’s been paying attention.

Courtesy: The Australian.com

Theodore Dalrymple writes 'British degeneracy on parade' in City Journal:

The ferocious criminality exhibited by an uncomfortably large section of the English population during the current riots has not surprised me in the least. I have been writing about it, in its slightly less acute manifestations, for the past 20 years. To have spotted it required no great perspicacity on my part; rather, it took a peculiar cowardly blindness, one regularly displayed by the British intelligentsia and political class, not to see it and not to realize its significance. There is nothing that an intellectual less likes to change than his mind, or a politician his policy. . . . .

Long experience of impunity has taught the rioters that they have nothing to fear from the law, which in England has become almost comically lax—except, that is, for the victims of crime. For the rioters, crime has become the default setting of their behavior; the surprising thing about the riots is not that they have occurred, but that they did not occur sooner and did not become chronic.   Read it all

EuroNews shows the looters as motivated less in reaction to police-brutality, more by greed and status.



British cultural commentator, Pat Condell, indicts the British rioters - and the lax policing and penal standards which fail to thwart criminality in society.

Iranian-American underground explains how Iran's Islamism is a clear & present danger to Western freedom

Iranian insider confides totalitarian, Islamist Iran's threat to Westerners in this 50-minute admission to Democracy Broadcasting.

This prinicipled, Iranian refugee to America (who for security reasons chose to remain anonymous) explains the apocalyptic, Iranian regime's mentality, global ambitions, and the threats to Westerners through their global network of lobbyists, operatives, and spies.

He explains that the totalitarian Islamists exploit Islam as a means to attain their meglomaniacal goals of global, political domination (using Muslims to weaken and conquer the West from within to spread the Caliphate).

In this March, 2007 interview, he explained to DemoCast the need for the West to save the Iranian people through strangling and destabilizing the Mullah regime financially. He compares Washington's hopes of negotiating stopping the regime's hidden nuclear weaponization to 'taking an aspirin for the headache will not rid one's brain of a cancer.'

Analyst, Charles Krauthammer (in "Obama Misses the Point with Iran Response," published today in the Washington Post) admonishes President Obama's administration's failure to speak in support of this week's Iranian election demonstrators.

This incipient revolution is no longer about the election. Obama totally misses the point. The election allowed the political space and provided the spark for the eruption of anti-regime fervor that has been simmering for years and awaiting its moment. But people aren't dying in the street because they want a recount of hanging chads in suburban Isfahan. They want to bring down the tyrannical, misogynist, corrupt theocracy that has imposed itself with the very baton-wielding goons that today attack the demonstrators.

This started out about election fraud. But like all revolutions, it has far outgrown its origins. What's at stake now is the very legitimacy of this regime -- and the future of the entire Middle East.

This revolution will end either as a Tiananmen (a hot Tiananmen with massive and bloody repression or a cold Tiananmen with a finer mix of brutality and co-optation) or as a true revolution that brings down the Islamic Republic.

... Our fundamental values demand that America stand with demonstrators opposing a regime that is the antithesis of all we believe.

And where is our president? Afraid of "meddling." Afraid to take sides between the head-breaking, women-shackling exporters of terror -- and the people in the street yearning to breathe free. This from a president who fancies himself the restorer of America's moral standing in the world.

Is Washington's failure to support anti-Jihadist demonstrators (against Ahmadinejad and the enemies of Zion) actually just misguided (or possibly malevolent) policy-making?

Might the Obama adminstration's Islamist affinities (or Islamists having infiltrated his administration) be inhibiting America's ability to lead the free world to defeat Jihadism in Iran and at home?

'By not supporting opposition ralliers, America aids oppressive Iranian regime' - Wall St. Journal, JPost, Boston Globe

'Anti- Ahmedinejad protests will die out' without Western support, according to The Jerusalem Post's military editor, Yaakov Katz and staff:

"Without support from the United States and other Western countries, Iranian opposition groups will likely stop demonstrations against the Iranian regime and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's declared victory in Friday's presidential elections, senior Israeli defense officials said Sunday.

According to the officials, a Mousavi victory would have been a blow to the regime, which is led by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, since the reformist candidate had called for changes to the implementation of Islamic law, particularly pertaining to the status of women in Iranian society.

"There have been mass arrests throughout Iran," another official explained, referring to the arrest of over 100 members of the reformist groups. "The regime fears the possibility of a revolution and will do everything it can to prevent that from happening."(published June 15, 2009)

Obama's Iran Abdication - Democracy interferes with his nuclear diplomacy script. Wall St. Journal, Review and Outlook, 18 June 2009

As far as we can tell, the CIA or other government agencies aren't directing the protests or bankrolling Mr. Mousavi. Beyond token Congressional support for civil society groups and the brave reporting of the Persian-language and U.S.-funded Radio Farda, America's role here is limited. Less than a fortnight ago, in Cairo, Mr. Obama touted his commitment to "governments that reflect the will of the people."

Now the President who likes to say that "words matter" refuses to utter a word of support to Iran's people. By that measure, the U.S. should never have supported Soviet dissidents because it would have interfered with nuclear arms control.

The Iranian rebellion, though too soon to call a revolution, is turning out to be that 3 a.m. phone call for Mr. Obama. As a French President shows up the American on moral clarity, Hillary Clinton's point about his inexperience and instincts in a crisis is turning out to be prescient.

Jeff Jacoby broadens the analysis in the Boston Globe:

"Engagement'' with the foul Ahmadinejad and the turbaned dictators he answers to has always been a chimera; if that wasn't clear before last week's brazenly rigged election results, surely it is clear now. Iran's ruling clerics, headed by Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, didn't just endorse the Ahmadinejad approach - the pursuit of nuclear weapons, the vile anti-Semitism, the demonization of America, the partnership with terrorists, the trampling of human rights. They unreservedly embraced it. Ahmadinejad's fraudulent reelection was hailed by Khamenei as "a divine blessing'' and "a glittering event.'' With such a regime, no compromise is possible. Neither is impartiality. Like it or not, the White House must choose: Will America stand with the mullahs and their goons, or with the endangered people of Iran?

Eyewitness video shows the brutality this regime is capable of. Solidarity rallies from around the world are shown at the end of the playlist.



The prolific, Jerusalem-based blog, Israel Matsav, elaborates on the situation in Jeff Jacoby rips Obama on Iran:

Obama doesn't want to take the students' side because it would mean admitting that he was wrong until now, and it would mean that he would have to take out Iran's nuclear program - or allow Israel to do so - without first forcing Israel to create a 'Palestinian' state reichlet as a quid pro quo.  That 'Palestinian' reichlet may well be the only defined foreign policy goal this administration has and it is not going to let a few dead Iranians force it to give up that goal.


Taking the students' side would also mean acknowledging that there are blacks and whites in the world - and not just shades of gray. It would mean admitting that we don't live in a utopian community where grievances are resolved by negotiations and no one goes to war.