Peter C Glover's WIRES (blog)

The Persian National Humanitarian Choir.  A couple of months ago the US conservative site Human Events published a piece I co-wrote with Professor Michael Economides with the above title (go here).

Then the infamous National Intelligence Estimate (NIE report) was published making the ludicrous claim that Iran has no nuclear pretensions (I am sure Israel was relieved to hear the NIE reports claim - written, as it was, by liberal career diplomats in the US State Dept! About as useful as the UK Foreign Office).

To take in the findings of that NIE report Michael and I re-drafted the piece which has today been published (under the same title) here by Energy Tribune magazine.

Not much in the UK papers about this, but US intelligence knew and warned of atacks at Glasgow Airport two weeks ago as this ABC News report reveals:

U.S. law enforcement officials received intelligence reports two weeks ago warning of a possible terror attack in Glasgow against "airport infrastructure or aircraft," a senior US law enforcement official tells the Blotter on ABCNews.com.

The intelligence reports also warned that airports and aircraft in the Czech Republic could be the targets of  al Qaeda-connected terrorists.

The warnings were kept secret for operational reasons, according to officials.  In public, the White House and Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff have continued to maintain they know of no specific or credible threats involving the United States, even though the intelligence reports specify US aircraft as possible targets.

And was the attack heralded on the web hours before it took place? Go here.  

For once, it seems, a Lebanese Government has had enough of the murderous Islamist terrorists in their midst and appears set on eradicating 'the problem'. Good for them. Fatah al-Islam, the terrorist thugs camped in Tripoli in the north of the country, its seems, is about to get its bloodiest nose yet as the Lebanese Army is, right now, massing to attack. Sadly, there are a good few thousand civilians in the same area. And Islamists wouldn't think twice about using them as shields.

Even so, let us hope the Lebanese can get their city back - and put these particular Islamists out of business. For good.

Con Coughlin, exec.editor at The Daily Telegraph here maintains that Israel is currently negotiating to enable their planes to over-fly Iraqi airspace to attack Iranian nuclear facilities. Coughlin's sources are usually quite solid. i suggested yesterday that such an attack may well now be imminent.

But before the Western liberals run around complaining bitterly that "all channels have not been exhausted" let me say this.  Iran has publicly stated its intention that, when it has the capability, it will "wipe Israel from the map!" There is no reason to disbelieve dictatorial tyrannies with an ideological agenda when they make such threats. That is, if we do not wish to resurrect the 'appeasement at any cost' spirit of Neville Chamberlain. 

Unlike for the rest of us armchair critics this is all too real a threat for the people of Israel.  Iran has resisted every attempt by the world community to stop its pursuit of nuclear abilities (a thoroughly nonsense proposition in a country with the world's second largest oil and gas reserves). These lunatic Ayatollahs cannot be allowed to threaten Israel or anyone else, by being allowed to have a nuclear option.

Personally I am for dropping all our Western liberals on them - let them suffer their idealistic fantasies for a change.  In the long run they are actually more of a threat to Western civilization than the mad Ayatollahs.

A large cache of Iranian arms has been found buried in the sand outside a Shiite village north of Baghdad.  The find is a serious problem for Iran as it includes materials specifically designed for use in roadside bombs - and represents real hard evidence against the Iranians for their involvement in Iraqi affairs and the deaths of Iraqis and coalition troops.

It looks as if military action against the Iranians may be closer than we think given the build up of US and British forces in the area of late. Let's face it, Ayatollahs with nukes is simply not an option here.  Just ask the Israelis.

Visitors here may be interested in reading my latest piece published today at World Politics Watch entitled as above.  In essence it makes out the moral case for israel to destroy, if it can, Iran's nuclear bunkers given that Iran has stated its case publicly: we intent to "wipe Israel of the map". Here is a taster from my conclusion:

Yesterday's expose by the Sunday Times alleging the Israelis have drawn up a possible nuclear strike on Iran's nuclear facilities has had the wires buzzing for the past 24 hours. Though it is not the first time the paper has written up such an expose (see this dated 13 March, 2005) today's Jerusalem Post reckons this time the ST may be onto something as both this ST piece and similiar Spectator magazine article (published two days earlier) were written by "veteran journalists with Israeli connection".  

The piece alleges Israeli pilots are flying to Gibraltar to train for the possible hit (though it seems Isaeli pilots often do this run) - potentially with neutron bombs (the only bombs it seems that can bunker-bust where the Iranians are developing the weapons at Natanz).  

 President Bush has already indicated he would not blame the Israelis for putting an end to Iran's nuclear ambitions given the Iranian stated intent of "wiping Israel off the map". Let's face facts:  UN diplomacy  and sanctions hasn't a hope of getting the Iranians to  curb their ambitions. - and the Americans are unlikely to want to be take intervene in Iran as well as Iraq and Afghanistan.  Given that the Iranians have stupidly made clear their intent the moral case for a pre-emptive strike by Israel is more than made out.  The real issue is over the use of neutron bombs.

It may be that the Israelis are planting these stories to test the waters (or to get the world community to actually do something before they HAVE to - otherwise there will be a big hole where Israel used to be).  If it was us (Britain) we would not think twice in defending ourselves with a pre-emptive strike (the moral case for which I have already made out in my book The Politics of Faith).  Strange that the chattering classes don't seem to believe the Israelis  have the right to act accordingly (it is just a theoretic discussion for armchair liberals) - and with very good reason.  Let us not forget the Iranians have stated already what they intend to do with regard to Israel.  NOT believing them is simply NOT an option.

As Christmas 2006 departs and 2007 approaches news-wise it has been a very active Christmas period. Not least in the Horn of Africa where the Islamist invaders (as most of them come from OUTSIDE the country) are crying foul now that the Ethiopian government has leant a hand to the democratically formed government.

Having been given a bloody nose and, ist seems, now staring defeat in the face, the Islamists are talking of abandoning Mogadishu itself today.  And here, we should all note is how the Islamofascists go about their business. They claim to be offended by just about everything that does not conform to their  worldview (culture) in nationals societies. They then press for their right to run their communities as a "state within a state".   And when  they cannot gain power by any other means they start a fight in the streets (as is happening in France). As Islamofasicsm is not a nationalist but an ideological and global movement they they then import thousands of foreign fighters to help overthrow the national government. And so it goes.

In this case, however, the neighbouring Ethiopians - KNOWING FULL WELL THAT THEY WILL BE NEXT - have thrown in superior forces to support the legitimate government. The Islamists have ended up being badly beaten and are crying foul and (ha! ha!) "foreign fighters out!".  Now, surprise, surprise, the "Islamic bloc wants Ethiopian forces out" too.  Here's a thought: why not withdraw both the Ethiopian Army AND all the foreign Islamists fighting for the "Islamic Court" thugs?

Jed Babbin's always worth listening to on Middle East affairs. And here he points out how an array of "incovenient facts" about the situation in Iraq reveal the complete vacuity of the recent Iraq Study Group's proposals. Not least the idiocy that suggests Iran and Syria have an "interest in stabilising Iraq" and that the US et al should sit down and parlay with them accordingly.

Then there is the latest "inconvenient" fact that the Saudis have made it absolutely clear that if the US-led coaltion does indeed "cut and run" (as the ISG reports wants) it is likely to pour in "financial support" on the Sunni side. Given that Iran is likely to do the same (as they already have been doing) on the Shia side the real prospect for civil war lies in doing exactly what the ISG and the anti-war coaltion want: leaving Iraq before the Iraq army is ready to defend the country itself.

So what position should liberals take up now?  Well probably the usual one: being against everything that smacks of the right (if painful) thing to do while not having the first sensible clue how best to proceed.

Rick Warren with Syria's Assad - one of the world's leading sponsors of Islamic terrorismHere's one that just might begin to alert my fellow Christians who have fallen for the lunacy of "seeker-senstive" worship (mostly worship not authorized) and church life. Not least in its Rick Warren-styled 'Purposeless Drivel Church'.

Rick Warren met with Syria's President Baashar al-Assad a couple of days ago - one of the world's leading sponsor's of global terrorism (as we shall see in a moment). What followed could only be described as a "mutual love-in" between Warren and Assad. According to the Syrian Arab News Agency  reported that Warren  "hailed the religious coxistence, tolerance and stability that the Syrian society is enjoying due to the wise leadership of President al-Assad, and the Mufti asked Warren to "convey the true image about Syria to the American people." Warren also hailed Syrian efforts "exerted for mainting peace and harmony."

Now just a few of the facts.

• The International Counter Terrorism organization as awell as the US State Dept. has extensive information regarding Syria's history of using terrorism for politcial ends.

• The US State Dept. reports that th Syrian president desire sthe destruction of Israe and, with his closest ally, Iran, supplies "substantial amounts of finance, training, weapons, explosives, political, diplimatic and organizational aid to Hezbollah".

• Many experts beleive that Syria is a mjor source of the weapons  and insurgents that are taking the lives of Iraqis and US soldiers in Iraq.
  

Warren apparently believes he is a foreign policy expert and a prospective 'international man of peace'.  I have written elsewhere that he is not a good church leader or theologian.  Any idiot can build 'megachurches' by selling out the core Christian gospel that points to our personal sins (as the PD Church does) and panders instead to people's allged (and usually self-centred) 'felt-needs instead.  (I deal with the theology of all all this in chapter 2 of my book 'The Virtual Church' should anyone want to know 'chapter and verse' how squalidly anti-biblical the seeker-sensitive and PD movement is.)

But as the reporter at MichNews.com  (which tipped me off to the story - my grateful thanks to them) says "Warren owes an apology to Israel, to the Amercian people and to the victims of Syrian sponsored terorr whose blood continues to soak the earth's soil."  Sadly, Warren is exactly the kind of 'pharisee' who prefers to teach his own traditions to those God teaches - and empty God's word of its real meaning. Mobs of people in 'churches' proves nothing, Rick...faithful obedience to God and his Word is ALL.

Here's what the confused liberal 'UN-style' mind thinks of as a "good deal" in the fight against terrorism: a UN brokered prisoner exchange between a sovereign state (Israel)  and a bunch of terrorist thugs (Hezbollah). The former wants backs its soldiers captured while defending their homeland. The latter wants back its illegal (to tis own state) killers and criminals.

 And here is what the Un-loving BBC reported on their website  as a sidebar to the story:

While the eco-terrorists among us continue to fret about tiny islands sinking into the briny in 500 years time the rest of us on Planet Reality can know that Kim Song Il is about to explode a second nuclear device, Korean may try to sell a device to terrorists (being desperate for cash) and the Ayatollahs almost have their own device with which they can carry out their threat to re-arrange the Middle East map - and threaten the rest of us.

And to top off a really good day, al-Qaeda has apparently re-grouped, become more sophisticated and has made its top target Britain. It turns out that man-made climate change may be true afater all..thatis, if Kim Song Il, the ayatollahs and al-qaeda have a say in changing all our, more immediate 'climates.

The face of a mother - and would-be mass murdererFailed suicide bomber Sajida al-Rishawi has been sentenced to death for her part in the Islamic terrorist attack which killed 60 people in Amman last year. We were actually on holiday in Amman just two weeks before this incident and we found the Jordanians to be a lovely people (these bombs mostly killed Jordanians).  The country's problem, as elsewhere, is with its the immature youth.  But they take their justice seriously. They have the death penalty - and they use it for murder and conspiratorial murderers. Six others tried 'in absentia' were also given the death penalty.

No doubt Travesty (also known as Amnesty) International will be making some very loud noises in support of Sajida's 'human rights' as her lawyers appeal.  The fact that they caught Sajida wrapped in in a bomb desperately trying to set it off after it failed is apparently grounds for a 'not guilty' plea, which is what she made.  It seems that the Jordanian people understand more about the rights and wrongs of justice than we do.  All human rights lobbies can think of is the criminal - all I can think of are those innocents whose arms and legs she would have blown off, among the many dead that is.

Personally, I would have been content to see with an immediate suspended sentence - but any method would suit just as well as hanging.

The battle in the south of Afghanistan is much more important than most think. It is the very heartland of the Taliban. This is why they have attacked the British and Canadian troops so relentlessly since they took over (and moved further inland) after the Americans handed it over in July. What should have been an occasional guerilla war campaign has meant six weeks of brutal fighting in southern Afghanistan.

See why losing here is NOT an option for NATO - and all who know losing the terror war is not an option. For the full stroy go to World Politics Watch who have just published my piece Can NATO Survive the Killing Fields of Afghanistan? 

The BBC's contribution to the remembrance of the vicitims of 9/11 was to deliver yet another anti-American diatribe this morning. Using a summary of some of the newspapers to achieve its ends the Beeb made various claims that 'we are losing the fight against extremism' and alleging that "America's policies have radicalised Islamists"...et al. What they apparently STILL believe is that it is possible to appease Isalmofascists and win them over. They just don't get it, do they. After all this time and all that the extremists have tried to do to the free West they just don't grasp that we are in a global war of civilizations. They think it will all just go away if we 'give them much of what they want'.

 So what do the nut jobs want? Well they want to kill us - unless we convert to Islam. In a nutshell, that's it, top and bottom.  Their fight is not against oppressors it is against those who disagree with them. Most of the suicide bombers have been profiled as middle class and wealthy Islamists. This is not about poverty it is about ideology. When will we soft Westerners begin to get it right? They declared war, not us. We have two choices. To sit back and wait to see where they will hit us next. Or we can take the fight to them, into the countries that harbour them. 

The liberal West wants to try appeasement again, as if it doesn't alread have a history of disastrous failure.  Those who know their history and have a better grasp of evil (and a nation with far more Christians that any other, like America, can) have chosen to take the fight to them.

This fifth anniversary of 9/11 the greatest memorial we can give the dead and their living families is that we were, and are, relentless in pursuing those who perpetrated this wicked evil and seek to perpetrate more because they hate us - and desire to subjugate us and our values. Get it yet, on Planet Liberal??