Archive | September, 2010

Is Stuxnet an Israeli demonstration? A “shot across Iran’s bow?”

26 Sep

Could Stuxnet be the “shot across the bow?”

Even though only a small sample of cyber weaponry have shown itself in Iran, the Iranian government is already voicing concern, and is complaining because the country cannot actively deal with computer malware.

Iran’s famous “Revolutionary Guard,” can cross the border into Iraq, but such force cannot deal with any threat should it Command and Control systems be taken over by cyber weapons. In spite of Iran’s Ahmadinejad boasting, Iran does not have the sophisticated technology required to deal advanced malware, and is very vulnerable to such threat.

Malware such as Stuxnet which seems to already infected Iran’s Bushehr nuclear facility is only the tip of the iceberg. It is not clear who owns and controls Stuxnet, but one should not doubt that Israel, one of the most sophisticated source of software, if it had not already, can generate malware that can render all of Ahmdinjad threats just boasts without being of real concern.

One must realize that Israel is concerned about Iran’s nuclear progress that Barak Obama and his Administration seem unable to address in an effective manner. Should the Israeli decide to “take out” Iran’s nukes, a cyber attack against Iran’s C&C would render any defenses the Islamic republic may have, useless.

Until more is known, Iran would be wise to tone down its rhetorics about Israel’s demise, and about its own progress in the nuclear arena, or it make wake the sleeping giant and be silenced in more than just one way.

Israel’s options: Cyber, air, sea; to removing Iran’s nuclear threat. [Shared with: www.zyonism.com]

26 Sep

Since Barak Hussein Obama still insists on keeping the diplomatic door to Iran open, while Ahmadinejad keeps mocking and ridiculing the American President, Israel may be forced to as early 2011 “take out” Iran’s nuclear capabilities. Israel may well use a three prong attack on Iran’s nukes: Missiles from submarines, smart “bunker-busting” bombs from the air, and cyber weapons which will simply render Iran’s nuclear operations, and other Command and Control mechanisms, useless.

Missiles from submarines are feasible since Mubarak already demonstrated his willingness to allow Israel’s subs to go through the Suez to the Gulf, and Israel has both the submarines and missiles to do the job, at its disposal.

Planes, unless the Obama Administration intends to shoot down Israeli planes over Iraq, Israel’s air-force can do the job. Even though Russia is in the process of supplying Iran with anti-aircraft missile defense system, such system will not be operational in time, and Israel has sophisticated counter measures to deal with the Russian missiles.

Finally, a malware cyber weapon such as Stuxnet may have already injected into the “delayed” Iranian Bushehr nuclear plant, and could likely infect all of Iran’s nuclear, Command and Control, and other energy sources.

In spite of tough talk by Ahmadinejad, the Iranian military could not effectively stop any of these three possible sources of Israeli attack. Not only that, retaliation can be dealt with, and stopped by using cyber weapons to effectively render Iran’s ability to use its air force, useless.

It may well be that President Obama’s reluctance to confront Islamic nations, regardless how much danger they represent to the free world, will force Israel to be the “tail that wags the dog,” and deal with any Iranian nuclear capabilities, sooner rather than later.

Obama @ UN: Trying to save legacy through peace talks.

23 Sep

In less than two years President Barak Hussein Obama seemed to have managed to catch up, and perhaps surpass, George W. Bush, and Jimmy Carter, as the Co-worst contemporary presidents of the United States.

Trying to salvage his terrible image by speaking at the United Nations about an Israeli-Palestinian peace, President Obama is not only “grasping at straws,” he is promoting an oxymoron that peaceful and friendly relations between Muslims and Jews can indeed exist. Trying to shift attention from miserable domestic performance to the Middle-East, Obama miscalculates the fact that domestic issues trump out international situations, and that the international problem he selected to deal with, the Israli Palestinian issue, is beyond his ability to solve.

President Obama keeps speaking of a Palestinian state, and Middle-East peace, in spite of realizing that Muslims, and the Muslim world, cannot be at peace with a Jewish Israel as long as Islam accepts the Quran is the FINAL WORD. If one must abide by Quranic teachings, one cannot accept Jews (and other infidels) as having equal rigths under god. Having spent many of his formative years in Islamic environment, Barak Obama must understand that the Quran does not allow for its followers to befriend Jews (and other infidels/non-belivers.)

Adding to the knowledge that Islamic nations will not accept infidels as equals, Obama must realize that the most recent poles of Palestinians suggest that 78% are striving for a Palestine with border from the Jordan river to the Mediterranean, not leaving any room for a Jewish state in the region.

Promoting an effort that cannot succeed unless at least one the two parties to the conflict, the Arabs, can agree to formally reject their gospel, the Quran, and accept the rights of a Jewish to exist in what once was Palestine, is dishonest. Short of a rejection of Quranic teaching the peace efforts is doomed to fail, and Obama’s chance at successful Middle-East accomplishments, evaporate.

Moderate Muslim, an oxymoron. The Quran dictates radicalism!

21 Sep

A great deal can be said about this subject, more will be written in future publication; for now, however a brief overview should suffice:

Based on Quranic teachings, making a reference to a Muslim as a moderate is an OXYMORON!

If a person is a believer in Islam and accepts the Quran as god’s (Allah’s) FINAL word, then said person must be radical since the Quran calls for the elimination of all non-believers (infidels) from planet earth.

A Muslim who does not formally reject the Quran is by simple definition a radical. One must simply read items 9:29; 9:5; 47:4 (and there are many others) of the Quran, to understand that moderate and muslim, are contradictory concepts.

Quran: Guide to world domination; should it be outlawed?

15 Sep

By virtue of the fact that the Quran, Islam’s Gospel (and Allah’s FINAL WORD,) requires that Muslims eliminate all infidels (non-Muslims) from the planet, and do so by any means necessary; Islam should not be considered a religion, but rather a geo-political entity that strives for control of earth and its population.
Muslims are required to either convert all non-believers to Islam (while also paying alms,) or otherwise eliminate them from this world. Islam is not much different from was the Communist party when it was outlawed in the United States because it called for removing, by force, if needed, of non Communist governments, such as that of the United States.
Until and unless, Islam formally rejects Quranic thinking about world domination, Islam should be disallowed from functioning in the United States, including, but not limited to building mosques…

Obama’s Islamization of America; the Pastor Jones saga!

10 Sep

President Obama is a practicing Christian. Barak Hussein Obama, however, was born a Muslim and spent his formative years in Islamic environments, with Muslim influences. Birthrights notwithstanding, President Obama is a Christian, he is a Christian with Islamic instincts, and sympathies.

Early in his Administration, when this American President gave his conciliatory speech to the Islamic world, the young American President set up the tone of his Administration; an Islam sympathetic operation. The Cairo speech, and other overtures towards Islam, however, do not seem to endear President Obama to Muslims who ridicule and often ignore the young President.

Obama’s treatment of Israel which demonstrate he favors “the other side,” is another clear bit of evidence that the President Islamic roots are deep, and are not to be denied.

When President Obama and many of his spokespersons suggested the Pastor Jones plan to burn Quran’s should not go forward, the pressure made the Pastor yield; the action added another display of Islamic pressure towards trashing the Constitution via the 1st amendment.

When President Obama went on record as supporting the ground-zero Mosque, the President showed his unwavering sympathies towards Islam. Knowing that 70% of the American public objects to the ground-zero Mosque, and in election year, the President further risked his low popularity in order to advance the cause of Islam. The President quoted free speech in the Mosque case, while in the Quran burning he ignored that argument.

It may not be planned, or even a conscious effort by President Obama, but the President in both words and deeds is enhancing the power of Islam in the United States while further contributing to an Islamization of the country, a dangerous situation, to say the least.

Obama: “Let Muslims ‘manage’ Constitution!” Or, is Islam to manipulate the US Constitution?

9 Sep

Obama stance against burning Quran, according to the “C.i.C,” is, at least in part, due to the fact that it will become an excellent recruitment tool for al-Qaeda…Should those things that please al-Queda determine the behavior of America’s public?
Obama most important General, Petraeus, is on record that burning Quran’s will endanger his troops. The general fails to realize that those troops’ most important undertaking is to protect the Constitution, and suggesting that giving up some 1st amendment rights is contrary to his mission?
Secretary Clinton, who likely never read the Quran, and its instruction to believers that they eliminate all non-believers by conversion (with alms,) or death, was “appalled” by the suggestion of Koran burning. How is burning an “instruction book” that suggests that those who do not accept its teaching be eliminated, be appalling?
Since President Barak (the name of Mohammad’s horse,) Hussein Obama’s Cairo speech apologizing to the Islamic world for the way it was treated in the past, the United States has been trying to appease the Muslim world, but was blatantly rejected. Obama’s attempts to communicate with Iran’s Ahmadinejad met not only with scorn, but with ridicule. In spite of demonstrating Islamic instincts and sympathies, the American President is not favored by Muslims since he rejected his birthrights as a Muslim, not an act allowed by the Quran.
The United States under Obama seems to be willing to sacrifice constitutional rights in order to appease the Muslim world. Since Muslims burn United States and Israeli flags with impunity, how is the burning of Quran any more offensive?
President George W. Bush suspended quite a few civil rights granted by the Constitution. President Bush did so because of nineteen Muslims young men who attacked the World Center, he did so in the name of “national security.” President Obama seems to not only continue with many of the Bush policies, but to add to them by suggesting that 1st amendment rights are suspended to appease the Islamic world.
Isn’t it time that the United States stops yielding to the Muslims as if they, the Muslims, represent the most important people in the world? When Muslims agree to accept non-Muslims as equals under god (Allah,) and not call for the destruction of all infidels, then, and only then, may be the time the can join the twenty-first Century family of nations; until then the US must deal with Islam as the dangerous cult that it is, and not make special allowances, as President Obama is attempting to do.

Denounceation of Quranic world domination before US mosques!

9 Sep

The “ground-zero” mosque issue notwithstanding, as long as Muslims accept the Quran, and follow its teachings of eliminating all non-believers (infidels) from this world, no [new] mosques should be authorized in the United States.
The Quran calls for the elimination of all infidels, either by conversion (with alms,) or death, not a mission that allows Muslims who accept the Quran as their Gospel, to be accepted as members of non-Muslim civilized societies.
The Islam hierarchy must formally denounce Quranic teachings regarding [religious] world domination, and the elimination of infidels; before the United States allows any more places of Islamic worship (mosques) in the United States.
Since the Quran refers to Jews, Christians, and other non-believers as “vile,” and instructs its followers to eliminate them all, it is essentially an instrument of terrorism, a call for the “overthrow” of existing institutions (“governments”) that do not comply with its teaching; and must change before allowing it to be practiced in non-Islamic countries!
Burning Qurans may not be a positive demonstration of disagreement with Islam, but it is protected by the 1st amendment, and is much less provocative than were US actions against Communists who represented a much smaller danger to world peace, than Islam does in its present form.
As long as most terrorist acts in the twenty-first Century have Islamic roots, and as long as Islam follows Quranic teaching, it is up to the Islamic hierarchy to comply to civilized rules of society and formally take steps to comply with the global community, not the other way. Muslims must denounce those items in the Quran that are not compatible with membership in twenty-first Century family of nations, before Islam is accepted as an equal member.
Until Islam changes its mission and remains the major source of terrorism in the world, it will, as it should, remain an entity that must be treated with extreme caution.

Quran burning versus 1st amendemnt! Petraeus misguided view…

7 Sep

On 9/11, nineteen young Muslims changed the United States, forever!
As the result of their actions, US President George W. Bush, suspended some civil rights and took away the “untouchable” status that the US constitution enjoyed since the country’s foundation.
Now, the most revered US General, General Petraeus, suggests that parts of the First Amendment be stripped in order to save military lives, he suggests that burning Qurans will endanger lives. Aren’t those military people out there primarily to protect the constitution, and maintain all rights it offers?
Burning Qurans in the US falls under first amendment rights, and should not be suspended. If anytime the United States, or any of its citizens, plan to do anything that may offend Muslims, is stopped in order to keep the Islamic world happy, what kind of a country will the US become?

The farce: Obama’s imposed “peace talks.” (Shared with Zyonism.org)

5 Sep

Until his recent action of “forcing” Netanyahu and Abbas to hold what he (Obama) calls “peace talks,” Barak Obama, often seems to be a dreamer, but he can now be labeled a liar, since he must know that the two leaders have no authority to negotiate some critical issues which represent “show stoppers.”

Let us deal with a few very obvious issues that neither the Palestinian Authority leader, Abbas, not the Israeli Prime Minister, Netanyahu, has the authority, or a mandate by their respective people, to discuss. Benyamin Netanyahu has no authority to make any concessions regarding the status of Jerusalem, the united city of Jerusalem is so Divinely conceived, and no elected official has the authority to change that. Netanyahu is also in no position to deal with the right of refugee return, since he is not authorized to change the Jewish character of Israel.

Mahmoud Abbas, of course, cannot speak on behalf of Hamas which controls a large part of the PA land, and population. As long as Gaza is controlled by Hamas which is formally committed to destroy Israel, how can Abbas, a man who has no authority over Hamas, speak for the whole Palestinian “nation?” (If there indeed is such a thing…)

Are the Israeli/Palestinian “peace talks” a means to replace American, and world concerns, about the abysmal [American] economic performance, and the marginal conduct of the war in Afghanistan, by the Obama Administration? Did Obama and his Administration rose once again to their level of incompetence, are they again a demonstration of the “Peter Principal,” in practice?