Iranians Crack Down on Internet Cafes

Just this week, the New York Times gushed over Mahmoud Ahmadinejad having his own blog. We'll see if they report this news any faster than they did that revelation.

Iran shuts down 24 cafes in Internet crackdown

Iranian police have closed down 24 Internet cafes and other coffee shops in as many hours, detaining 23 people, as part of a broad crackdown on immoral behavior in the Islamic state, official media said on Sunday.

The action in Tehran province was the latest move in a campaign against fashion and other practices deemed incompatible with Islamic values, including women flouting strict dress codes and barber shops offering men Western hair styles.

"Using immoral computer games, storing obscene photos ... and the presence of women wearing improper hijab were among the reasons why they have been closed down," Colonel Nader Sarkari, a provincial police commander, said.

Since Mahmoud Ahmadinejad won the presidency in 2005, promising a return to the values of the 1979 Islamic revolution, hardliners have pressed for tighter controls on "immoral behaviour".

Sarkari told the official IRNA news agency that police had inspected 435 coffee shops in the past 24 hours, and 170 had been warned.

The report did not make clear whether they were all Internet cafes, which have mushroomed in Iran over the past few years and are popular especially among young people. Police were not immediately available for comment.

"Twenty-three people were detained," Sarkari said, adding 11 of them were women.

Many young Iranians are avid users of the Internet, some using chat rooms to socialise with the opposite sex. Mingling between sexes outside marriage is banned and many Web sites considered unIslamic are blocked by the authorities.

Free speech advocate and friend of the Iranians Sean Penn was unavailable for comment.

UPDATE: The hairy munchkin is talking smack today.

Crackpot Krugman: Islamofascism a "Figment of the Neocon Imagination"

The New York Times may want to reconsider the decision to allow everyone to see the nonsense coming from their esteemed stable of columnists, especially this kook.

He works in all the leftist buzzwords: neocons and fearmongering among them, accusing the right of paranoia and racism and basically calls everyone crazy if you don't think like him.

I wonder if he even sits back and reads what he's writing. In one breath, he labels Iran a fourth-rate military power, yet warns that attacking them will only make them stronger.

Huh?

Yes, the Iranian regime is a nasty piece of work in many ways, and it would be a bad thing if that regime acquired nuclear weapons. But let’s have some perspective, please: we’re talking about a country with roughly the G.D.P. of Connecticut, and a government whose military budget is roughly the same as Sweden’s.

Meanwhile, the idea that bombing will bring the Iranian regime to its knees — and bombing is the only option, since we’ve run out of troops — is pure wishful thinking. Last year Israel tried to cripple Hezbollah with an air campaign, and ended up strengthening it instead. There’s every reason to believe that an attack on Iran would produce the same result, with the added effects of endangering U.S. forces in Iraq and driving oil prices well into triple digits.

This piece is so incoherent, he goes from claiming we have nothing to fear from Al Qaeda and Iran, but sums up that they're a real threat, but he's more afraid of paranoid, fearmongering, racist Republicans.

Just to be clear, Al Qaeda is a real threat, and so is the Iranian nuclear program. But neither of these threats frightens me as much as fear itself — the unreasoning fear that has taken over one of America’s two great political parties.

Thanks for clearing that up.

Surrendering The War on Terror

Adam Brodsky points out the obvious today. Many seem to want to give up the fight against the Islamofascist monsters without acknowledging that the enemy is not quite ready to stop fighting.

Ever.

The War on Terror is over. Or, at least, the West seems to be declaring it so.

We've had enough.

There's been too much hostility. Too many lives lost; too many civil liberties trampled on. Too many Muslims offended.

So we're pulling out. We'll just have to "dialogue" more - and fight less.

Who sees any chance of winning militarily, anyhow? We'll have to work things out "politically" instead - offering "flexibility" and a willingness to compromise with the enemy.

Just one little problem: The enemy has yet to sign on to ending the war.

They have no desire to compromise or stand down - and no intention to do so.

We may declare the war over - but they won't. Ever.

Therein lies the main obstacle to ever achieving peace in our lifetimes. We face a bloodthirsty enemy hellbent on destroying us while simultaneously battling the left and the media who think if we just talk to them enough, they'll understand we all want to sing Kumbaya and they will lay down their arms.

Never going to happen.

They say so openly. Repeatedly. And backs up their words with horrific proof.

Still, we pretend - at our peril - that we can just withdraw and declare the war over. Consider the West's record of the past few weeks:

* Democrats keep setting surrender dates in Iraq, even as they fail to provide funding for U.S. troops there. As if our retreat won't plunge the Middle East into disaster - with consequences for America soon to follow.

* House Speaker Nancy Pelosi treats with Syria, a chief sponsor of terror. House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Tom Lantos (D-Calif.) says he's dying to yuk it up with the thugs in Iran.

* Tehran, meanwhile, holds 15 British sailors hostage for two weeks - and Britain, once the greatest naval power on earth, does . . . nothing.

* Italy gets Afghanistan to release five Taliban captives in exchange for an Italian journalist, signaling that kidnappings pay. (After the Italian's released, the butchers slit the throat of his Afghan colleague.)

* Congress greenlights millions in funding for Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas - even though he has partnered with Hamas, a ruthless terror organization.

* President Bush brags about "progress" in blocking foreigners from illegally entering the country, even though - five years after 9/11 - tens of thousands continue to hop the border every month.

* Mike Bloomberg - the mayor of the city where the World Trade Center towered, until terrorists siezed [sic] those aircraft on 9/11 - says there's nothing wrong with retaining a city human-rights commissioner who's actively aiding the attempt by "the flying imams" to deter Americans from reporting suspicious behavior.

* A report in Britain says teachers there are scrapping lessons on the Holocaust and the Crusades, so as not to offend Muslims who deny the historical record.

* A former U.S. national security adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski, argues in The Washington Post that damage caused merely by the phrase "War on Terror" is "infinitely greater than any wild dreams entertained by the fanatical perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks."

* Iran announces (maybe falsely, but who knows?) that it can now enrich uranium at an industrial pace - and the world yawns.

* Israel considers the release of scores of Palestinian prisoners, even ones with blood on their hands, in exchange for an Israeli soldier.

These strong signs that we're losing the will to fight are sure to encourage terrorists and boost the odds that they'll launch new strikes against us.

If a Democrat takes the White House in 2008, no doubt he or she will signal further willingness to have dialogue with our enemies, who will only laugh and attack us further.

We must unleash the full fury of our military might against the enemy worldwide and utterly destroy them. Until we do, we face a bleak future.