Israel's threats only strengthen our resolve, says Iranian military commander

Israel's threats against Iran only serve to strengthen the resolve of its leaders, said the head of the Revolutionary Guards on Friday.

"The enemies want to stop us continuing our path... but these threats only reinforce our determination to continue in the same direction," said General Mohammad Ali Jafari in a speech to thousands of Basij militiamen.

"That is why, when the Zionists make military threats, they are put in their place by the United States," he added.

His statements were posted on Sepah News, the Guards' website, according to a report published by AFP.

Meanwhile, AFP also quoted General Farzad Esmaili, the head of Iran's air and ballistic missile units, as saying, "If a military attack is launched against our nuclear installations, we promise that the enemies will not escape alive." His comments were published by Iran's ISNA news agency.

On Thursday, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called on the international community to draw a "clear red line"beyond which the Iranian nuclear weapons project would not be allowed to progress. Speaking at the UN General Assembly in New York, Netanyahu warned that Iran would be dangerously close to attaining nuclear weapons capability by next summer.

Also Friday, Iranian news agency FARS reported the results of a Gallup poll which it said had found that "an overwhelming majority of rural white Americans said they would rather vote for Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad than U.S. President Barack Obama."

The poll in question, however, was not a real poll, but afake poll published by the satirical website The Onion.

Apparently not realizing that the poll was a fake, FARS reported that "60 percent of rural whites said they at least respected that Ahmadinejad doesn't try to hide the fact that he's Muslim."
Haaretz

Military conflict 'looms' between China and Japan

The spat over the Diaoyu or Senkaku islands has escalated dramatically in the past month with violent protests across China.

But with a national election approaching in Japan, and a change of leadership in China, politicians on both sides have refused to step back from the brink, afraid that they will appear weak.

"There is a danger of China and Japan having a military conflict," said Yan Xuetong, one of China's most influential foreign policy strategists, and a noted hawk.

"One country must make a concession. But I do not see Japan making concessions. I do not see either side making concessions. Both sides want to solve the situation peacefully, but neither side can provide the right approach," he added.

He warned that unless one side backs down, there could be a repeat of the Falklands Conflict in Asia.

"Generally speaking, according to the theory of international relations, unless one country makes concessions to the other, the escalation of a conflict between two countries will not stop until there is a military clash, like between the UK and Argentina," he said.

He added: "China takes a very tolerant policy elsewhere, with smaller powers. But the case of Japan is different. There is history between us. Japan is a big power. It regards itself as a regional, and sometimes a world power. So China can very naturally regard Japan as an equal. And if we are equal, you cannot poke us. You cannot make a mistake."

Mr Yan is the dean of International Relations at Tsinghua university, the elite college that schooled both China's president, Hu Jintao, and his likely successor, Xi Jinping.

He is also one of China's representatives to the Council of Security Cooperation of Asia-Pacific, a non-governmental body that coordinates security in the region.

Chinese and Japanese diplomats have met this week for talks over the crisis, but no agreement has been reached.

Yesterday, a spokesman for the Chinese Foreign ministry attacked Yoshihiko Noda, the Japanese prime minister, for telling reporters at the United Nations that the islands belonged to Japan.

"There are no territorial issues as such. Therefore, there cannot be any compromise that represents a retreat from this position," Mr Noda said.

"China is strongly disappointed and sternly opposes the Japanese leader's obstinacy regarding his wrong position on the Diaoyu Islands issue," replied the Chinese Foreign ministry.

In the balance is some £216 billion of bilateral trade. Last year, exports to China were responsible for three per cent of the Japanese economy.

Meanwhile Japan's new opposition leader, Shinzo Abe, is, if anything, more determined than Mr Noda. "Japan's oceans and territory are being threatened. It is my mission to overcome these difficulties," he said.

Several Japanese businesses on the Chinese mainland have had to shut down because of the crisis. Nissan, which relies on the Chinese market for as much as 25 per cent of its revenues, has shut down until October 7 after demand for its cars plummeted.

Toyota has suspended plants in Tianjin and Guangzhou until October 8.

Chinese consumers are shying away from Japanese cars not just because of nationalism, but out of fear after one man in Xi'an was beaten into a coma for driving a Japanese marque.

All Nippon Airways, meanwhile, said 40,000 reservations had been cancelled on flights between China and Japan from this month to November. A cruise line between Shanghai and Nagasaki will suspend its operations from October 13. Guizhou television has banned all advertisements by Japanese brands.

Mitsumi, a supplier for Nintendo, has not reopened its factory in Qingdao since September 16, while two toothbrush factories owned by Lion Corporation also remain shuttered.

Mr Yan predicted that if there was a military confrontation between China and Japan, the United States would not physically intervene.

"I do not think they will send soldiers to fight against the People's Liberation Army," he said. "They [the US] will be involved, but they can be involved in many different ways, providing intelligence, ammunition, political support, logistical help and so on."

Mr Yan said he expected whoever wins the US presidential election to continue to toughen policy on China.

"In terms of the economy, China and the US are partners. But in terms of security, they are rivals. We both know we cannot get along. Both sides are always alert to the other's military policy," he said.

"In the future, the military relationship will become more important. There is a simple reason for this: American hegemony is based on military capability and the military gap with China. When China narrows that gap, it will scare the US," he said.

However, he added that China increasingly needs to change the ideology that guides its foreign policy. "Deng Xiaoping said China should not take a leadership role, make no alliances, and focus on the economy.

"This gap, between China's international status and its foreign policy is widening. We have reached the point where China needs to seriously consider having a new policy consistent with its international status. I do not know when it will happen, but it will not be too long," he said.




The Telegraph

As the UN opens its General Assembly it is thinking on new global taxes

A 1 percent tax on billionaires around the world. A tax on all currency trading in the U.S. dollar, the euro, the Japanese yen and the British pound sterling. Another “tiny” tax on all financial transactions, including stock and bond trading, and trading in financial derivatives. New taxes on carbon emissions and on airline tickets. A royalty on all undersea mineral resources extracted more than 100 miles offshore of any nation’s territory.

The United Nations is at it again: finding new and “innovative” ways to create global taxes that would transfer hundreds of billions, and even trillions, of dollars from the rich nations of the world — especially the U.S. — to poorer ones, in line with U.N.-directed economic, social and environmental development.

These latest global tax proposals have received various forms of endorsement at U.N. meetings over the spring and summer, and will be entered into the record during the 67th U.N. General Assembly session, which began this week. The agenda for the entire session, lasting through December, is scheduled to be finalized on Friday.

How to convince developed countries wracked by economic recession and spiraling levels of government debt – especially the U.S. — is another issue, which the world organization may well end up trying to finesse.

As the U.N. itself notes, in a major report on the taxation topic titled, “In Search of New Development Finance” -- the main topic at a high-level international meeting of the U.N.’s Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) this summer -- “These proposals are subject to political controversy. For instance, many countries are not willing to support international forms of taxation, as these are said to undermine national sovereignty.”

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/09/27/as-un-opens-its-general-assembly-session-it-is-already-thinking-up-new-global/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+foxnews%2Fworld+%28Internal+-+World+Latest+-+Text%29&utm_content=Google+Reader#ixzz27lv3TnmG

Nuclear Iran same as nuclear-armed al-Qaeda': Netanyahu full UN 2012 speech

Obama-Netanyahu: handshake cancelled

Regardless of who will do this, a new scandal is in place. Leaders of the two allied countries will not meet on the sidelines of the session of the UN General Assembly, just like there will be no face-to-face talks between Barack Obama and Egypt’s President Mohamed Morsi.

Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu will address the UN General Assembly on September 28. The Israeli prime minister is expected to focus on Iran’s dogged movement towards creating nuclear weapons. He might urge the international community to draw a red line for Iran beyond which a strike should follow. Netanyahu’s earlier attempts to secure Obama’s consent for using force against Iran brought no results. It’s differences over Iran, not Obama’s busy schedule in connection with election debates with Mitt Romney, that preclude a meeting between the two in the White House. Tatiana Nosenko of the Institute of Oriental Studies, comments.

"The US’ major concern is how Iran could threaten its security. At present, Washington doesn’t possess any reliable data that Tehran is close to building a nuclear bomb. For this reason, it finds it senseless to discuss military operations against Iran, particularly since military campaigns of late have demonstrated that using force can do little to resolve problems facing the region. For now, the US administration is abstaining from making statements that contain threats against Iran. At the same, US officials make it clear that all options, including using force, are on the table."

This bundle of controversies is affecting the crisis surrounding Syria, with differences between supporters and opponents of foreign intervention getting more and more pronounced. The US and NATO say they are unprepared to support the military scenario for Syria, while Israel has adopted a wait-and-see attitude. In addition, the US and Israel have been at odds over the construction of Jewish settlements on the West Bank. Washington’s attempts to persuade Tel Aviv to freeze all settlement-building projects invariably lead to more rifts between the two allies.

Israeli-Palestinian relations have been included in the agenda of the session of the UN General Assembly in connection with the Palestinian request for the status of ‘a non-member observer state’. Since Palestinians have the status of an observer but don’t have the status of a state, they want to upgrade their status to ‘an observer state’. Dmitry Maryasis of the Institute of Oriental Studies, comments.

"The Palestinian leader is seeking to boost his image and at the same time divert the world public opinion from internal Palestinian problems. First, Abbas is not a legitimate ruler because his term has long ended with no new elections held for several years running. Second, he has also been unable to strike a deal with Hamas. Third, the Palestinian Authority is split. Finally, the Palestinian administration is going through a severe financial crisis."

Given Mahmoud Abbas’ ‘shaky status’, Palestinian attempts to secure a new status may fail in the same way they failed to win UN recognition as an independent state at the UN General Assembly last year.




Voice of Russia

Barak: Israel can rely only on itself for defense

Defense Minister Ehud Barak on Thursday reiterated that Israel is ready for any challenge, but cautioned it cannot rely on anyone but itself.

Speaking at a memorial service for the 1973 Yom Kippur War's victims, Barak stated: "The region around us is alight." The IDF and security forces, however, "are ready for any challenge, be it near or far."

He continued: "It is our duty to maintain absolute security at all times, not foster false hopes, ambitions and dreams. When faced with the ultimate test, we can rely on no one but ourselves."

Directing his comments at the bereaved families present at the ceremony, Barak added: "If necessary, we will fight and win every battle, even at painful costs."

The Yom Kippur War, he said, was a turning point in Israeli history.

The annual memorial ceremony for the 2,691 fallen soldiers of the Yom Kippur War was held in Jerusalem's Mount Herzl and attended by bereaved families, former Defense Minister Yitzhak Mordechai, IDF Chief of Staff Benny Gantz and Supreme Court Justice Yoram Danziger.

Last week, newly declassified documents released by the IDF archives revealed serious shortcomings leading up to the surprise attack by Egypt and Syria on Israel at the start of the 1973 Yom Kippur War.

The shortcomings include a failure to pass on a warning of imminent war from the Mossad handler of Ashraf Marwan – the son-in-law of then- Egyptian president Gamal Abdel Nasser – who allegedly spied on behalf of Israel.

Jerusalem Post

President Obama Declares The Future Must Not Belong to Practicing Christians

In his speech to the United Nations General Assembly today the President of the United States declared that the future does not belong to practicing Christians. Already, the media and the left are in full denial, probably based on their general lack of understanding of theology. This would have been a gaffe had Mitt Romney said it. But with Barack Obama, he’s just speaking bold truths. His bold truth declares that the future does not belong to practicing Christians.

Pay careful attention to what he says.

The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam. Yet to be credible, those who condemn that slander must also condemn the hate we see when the image of Jesus Christ is desecrated, churches are destroyed, or the Holocaust is denied. Let us condemn incitement against Sufi Muslims, and Shiite pilgrims. It is time to heed the words of Gandhi: “Intolerance is itself a form of violence and an obstacle to the growth of a true democratic spirit.” Together, we must work towards a world where we are strengthened by our differences, and not defined by them. That is what America embodies, and that is the vision we will support.

Now, that’s the full paragraph so no one can claim I took him out of context.

But consider this.

It is an orthodox Christian belief that Mohammed is not a prophet. Actual Christians, as opposed to many of the supposed Christians put up by the mainstream media, believe that Christ is the only way to salvation. Believing that is slandering Mohammed. That’s just a fact. If you don’t believe me, you go into the MIddle East and proclaim Christ is the way, the truth, and the life and see what happens to your life.

Then Barack Obama went on to say “Yet to be credible, those who condemn that slander must also condemn the hate we see when the image of Jesus Christ is desecrated, churches are destroyed, or the Holocaust is denied.” Note he says we cannot “slander the prophet of Islam” but it’s only the image of Christ in the next sentence — not actually Christ himself desecrated. If this is so, why does Barack Obama’s government continue funding the National Endowment for the Arts, which funded Christ in piss, the Virgin Mary painted in dung, etc.?

Now, in point of fact, this is a major difference between Islam and Christianity. Christ came to this world as an enemy of the world and expected to be impugned. He also tells his followers that they should expect to be impugned. There is joy in being persecuted for following the Risen Lord. In Islam, if you impugn Mohammed, you get a fatwa on your butt.

And then there is the first amendment. The President of the United States tried to have it both ways in his speech.

I know there are some who ask why we don’t just ban such a video. The answer is enshrined in our laws: our Constitution protects the right to practice free speech. Here in the United States, countless publications provoke offense. Like me, the majority of Americans are Christian, and yet we do not ban blasphemy against our most sacred beliefs. Moreover, as President of our country, and Commander-in-Chief of our military, I accept that people are going to call me awful things every day, and I will always defend their right to do so. Americans have fought and died around the globe to protect the right of all people to express their views – even views that we disagree with.

We do so not because we support hateful speech, but because our Founders understood that without such protections, the capacity of each individual to express their own views, and practice their own faith, may be threatened. We do so because in a diverse society, efforts to restrict speech can become a tool to silence critics, or oppress minorities. We do so because given the power of faith in our lives, and the passion that religious differences can inflame, the strongest weapon against hateful speech is not repression, it is more speech – the voices of tolerance that rally against bigotry and blasphemy, and lift up the values of understanding and mutual respect.

I know that not all countries in this body share this understanding of the protection of free speech. Yet in 2012, at a time when anyone with a cell phone can spread offensive views around the world with the click of a button, the notion that we can control the flow of information is obsolete. The question, then, is how we respond. And on this we must agree: there is no speech that justifies mindless violence.

Just words, Mr. President? You say “there is no speech that justifies mindless violence,” but all last week you condemned a ridiculous video trailer for a movie that does not exist. Your government ran advertisements in Pakistan denouncing the video. What of free speech, Mr. President? Last week you were saying the violence was understandable given the offensive film and this week you are trying to claim it was mindless.

Oh wait, you did it again in the same speech where you said “there is no speech that justifies mindless violence”:

At times, the conflicts arise along the fault lines of faith, race or tribe; and often they arise from the difficulties of reconciling tradition and faith with the diversity and interdependence of the modern world. In every country, there are those who find different religious beliefs threatening; in every culture, those who love freedom for themselves must ask how much they are willing to tolerate freedom for others.

That is what we saw play out the last two weeks, as a crude and disgusting video sparked outrage throughout the Muslim world.

Time and again the President of the United States tries to have it both ways.

But are they just words?

The fact is, many religions do not recognize Mohammed as a prophet. In the widest swath of Islam, that denial is, in and of itself, slander. So what exactly are you saying Mr. President?

As an exit point, with all of President Obama’s statements on tolerance in his speech, we should remember that tolerance is really not a Christian virtue. As Archbishop Chaput of Philadelphia noted, “We need to remember that tolerance is not a Christian virtue. Charity, justice, mercy, prudence, honesty — these are Christian virtues. And obviously, in a diverse community, tolerance is an important working principle. But it’s never an end itself.” The Archbishop also noted that evil preaches tolerance until it is dominate and then it seeks to silence good. That’s not a statement that the President is evil in any way, shape, or form, but we should be mindful when the secular world demands tolerance for all, tolerance for all means we cannot have standards of faith to live by, because those standards obviously require we be intolerant of sins this world has embraced.

RedState