The Witch-Burners are Alive and Sick in Kansas: Stand Up for Dr. Kristin Neuhaus against the Kansas Theocracy's Anti-Abortion Ji

When religious and secular class hierarchies both promote EXCLUSION, DUPLICITY, we get combined Fascism:

Iran, threats and the UN Charter

http://politics.salon.com/2012/03/03/iran_threats_and_the_un_charter/singleton/

EXCERPT:

"The Washington Post‘s David Ignatius today persuasively argues that President Obama, in his interview with The Atlantic‘s Jeffrey Goldberg, issued his most absolute and inflexible threat yet to attack Iran — not if Iran attacks or is about to attack another country, but merely if it appears to be developing a nuclear weapon:

The other point that struck me was Obama’s clarity about establishing a “red line” between an Iranian civilian nuclear program (acceptable) and a weapons program (unacceptable). . . . His message to Israel: If the Iranians cross this red line, the United States will attack. . . . Is Obama bluffing? Who can say, but if you’re an Iranian decision maker (or, perhaps more important, Netanyahu) you have to weigh a bit more heavily the possibility that the president really does mean what he says.

And that is indeed what Obama did, as Goldberg makes clear in describing the interview:

Obama told me earlier this week that both Iran and Israel should take seriously the possibility of American action against Iran’s nuclear facilities. “I think that the Israeli government recognizes that, as president of the United States, I don’t bluff. . . . I think both the Iranian and the Israeli governments recognize that when the United States says it is unacceptable for Iran to have a nuclear weapon, we mean what we say.” . . .  In the interview, Obama stated specifically that “all options are on the table,” and that the final option is the “military component.”.....

the U.N. Charter, to which the U.S. is a signatory, explicitly prohibits not just a military attack on another nation, but also the issuance of threats of such an attack. From Chapter II, paragraph 4:

All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

Does this matter at all? Should we even pretend to care in any way what the U.N. Charter prohibits and whether the U.S. Government’s threats to attack Iran directly violate its core provisions? I’m not asking this simple question rhetorically but rather to hear the answer....

UPDATE: A few other related points: (1) the U.N. Security Council in 1981 harshly condemned the Israeli air attack on Iraq’s nuclear power facility as a “clear violation of the Charter of the United Nations and the norms of international conduct”; that Resolution also “call[ed] upon Israel urgently to place its nuclear facilities under IAEA safeguards” (via MediaLens, which notes that “even the US didn’t abstain”); (2) former Obama Pentagon official Colin Kahl argues today that, contrary to conventional wisdom, the 1981 Israeli attack on Iraq made Iraqi proliferation more likely, not less likely; (3) a cartoon from VastLeft on Obama, Iran and sanctions; and (4) Chris  Toensing of the Middle East Reserach Information Project has an excellent article rebutting the claim (issuing from the predictable circles) that Obama is not to blame for the sky-high tensions and possible war..."

 

YES OBAMA IS A WAR CRIMINAL, WAR MONGERER, FASCIST, AND LIKE THE CHRISTIAN/JEWISH RELIGIOUS FASCISTS

HAVE LINKS TO THE SECULAR CLASS HIERARCHIES DOING THEIR OWN JIHAD, WAR AGAINST THE ARAB WORLD, I.E.

WESTERN FASCISTS.