Monday, September 18, 2006

Sanctions on Iran? Non, Nyet, Not....

Terrorist poodle Jacques Chirac seems to be most honest when he's backpedaling; in this case from the thought of placing sanctions on Iran for, you know, planning a nuclear genocide:

French President Jacques Chirac' said on Monday talks with Iran on its nuclear ambitions should be pursued since U.N. sanctions have never worked well, a fresh hint of EU misgivings over Washington's calls for punishing Tehran.

The Washington Post goes further:

French President Jacques Chirac said Monday that he is "never in favor of sanctions" and suggested that the United States and other nations could begin talks with Iran on its nuclear program before Iran formally suspends its nuclear activities

The next time France (or the NY Times) calls for sanctions, we should heed Jacques' words...meanwhile, the Iranians can smell fear, and they are advancing on a cringing Europe:

Iran's atomic energy chief repeated Tehran's insistence that its nuclear activities are for peaceful purposes, its wish for talks without preconditions and a veiled threat to bar U.N. inspections if met by sanctions

So they offer us...nothing, and threaten us if we act to prevent them fropm becoming a 7th century regime with a 21st century weapon. Well, I guess that outcome is better than sanctions, no?

The BBC would agree, as it is already laying down the foundation for an anti-sanctions campaign with lies and disinformation. Drinking from Home exposes their breathtaking manipulations:

A recent BBC online article about the crash of a Russian-built plane in Iran included a disgraceful attempt by the BBC’s Tehran correspondent Frances Harrison to blame the accident on US sanctions...
Harrison obviously took offence because she's been at it again, this time on the World Service’s Newshour. This seems to be part of a wider drive by the BBC to undermine any talk of action, sanctions or otherwise, against Iran. Here’s Harrison’s BBC colleague Julian Marshall introducing her report:

Washington talks about smart sanctions which target the government and not the Iranian people, but Iran has already been under American sanctions for three decades and every year Iranian civilians die as an indirect result. Current US sanctions prevent Iran buying new planes or spare parts for their ageing fleet. Since 2000 there have been 9 plane crashes killing nearly 700 people.

Drinking does his research and discovers:

Julian Marshall gave the clear impression that since the year 2000 nearly 700 Iranian civilians have died in air crashes as a result of American sanctions. I have identified 11 crashes with a wide variety of causes resulting in 675 deaths. Of these accidents, five were in American-built planes, and only one of those was a civilian flight in which just 3 civilians died, including a child who fell in a river exiting the plane.

Doesn't matter to the BBC (or Chirac); their religion is anti-Americanism, and like radical Islam, it is impervious to fact and reason...


Debbie said...

Did you hear that not only does al-Qaeda want to do something big inside the US in October, during Ramadan, ... but Iran wants to do something big in Iraq at the same time. I don't have references yet, but I'm looking.

The JerseyNut said...

It would make sense, Debbie - they could very easily pull off a simultaneous multi-front attack...Al-Qaeda attacking within the US, and Iran using terror cells in Iraq, combined with a joint Hezbollah/Hamas offensive against Isreal. Add in a Taliban offensive in Afghanistan for good measure.
I'm sure they have cells in Europe that could be activated as well at the same time.
A multi-front Islamic attack against the West to celebrate Ramadan? I wouldn't bet against it...