Fireworks Over Attacking Iran — On The Glazov Gang

Jamie Glazov is Frontpage Magazine's editor. He holds a Ph.D. in History with a specialty in Russian, U.S. and Canadian foreign policy. He is the author of the critically acclaimed and best-selling, United in Hate: The Left’s Romance with Tyranny and Terror. His new book is High Noon For America. He is the host of Frontpage’s television show, The Glazov Gang, and he can be reached at jamieglazov11@gmail.com. Visit his site at JamieGlazov.com.


This week’s Glazov Gang hosted a discussion on what to do about Iran’s quest for the bomb. The dialogue escalated into a heated exchange. Our guests were Rob Nelson, former Fox News talk show host, Doris Montrose, President of Children of Jewish Holocaust Survivors and Mark Tapson, Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center. Below is Part II of a three-part series. To see Part I, which involved a verbal brawl about the true nature of Islam, click here. To see Part III, which entails a heated debate on the Republican presidential contest, click here.

  • Guy from Europe

    Don't do anything. What you've done in Libya and Iraq and now doing in Syria is more than enough. We are tired of muslim refugees. Take them to your country, arrogant bastards!

    • Stan Lee

      Hello Guy from Europe:
      I really do understand how you feel about the Muslim "incursion." However, I don't believe the USA has sent these Muslims to Europe, but rather it's the European Union "open door" policy that's brought so many into Europe, 5 millions in France alone! The UK is infested with them and their Sharia law. In the UK, they openly demonstrate and promise to take over the entire UK. And, the British sleep as they did in Hitler's rise to power.
      Oddly, Muslims don't try emigrating to Russia,(which has a 'Russified" Muslim population of about 12 million+ Muslims) probably because Russia hasn't the liberal social policies of western Europe.
      Whatever nation it is in which you're a citizen, your government ought to be accommodating the free will of its citizens. If you and fellow citizens say "no" to further Muslim immigration, then your government needs to close its doors, except for its exit door. Good luck!

  • Guest

    All major wars begin like this… each side believing that the other lacks the will to fully participate in conflict.

    We are living in one of the longest periods of sustained peace-time in several centuries – largely because of the thermonuclear weapons that Obama seeks to eliminate. While there have been localized conflicts in numerous places, those conflict have been successfully quarantined and fought in defined geographic areas. By and large, there has been no generalized national jeopardy – conflict – for Europe, North Africa, North and South America, and most of Asia since the end of WWII.

    Iran, having anticipated an attempt to erase their nuclear capability, has buried their capacity deeply in stone, and disbursed it widely. Only neutron type devices probably have the capacity to penetrate the Iranian facilities… but because of the philosophy of neutron devices – small explosion, lots of neutrons to kill the people – the facilities will remain largely in tact, necessitating some additional method of destroying the hardware, after the people are killed. This means neutron bombs to kill the people, and something additionally is necessary to destroy the hardened facilities perhaps by sealing the limited number of entrances to the deep facilities – perhaps deep penetrating nuclear devices (these devices make a big bang but do not generate the large neutron flux that is necessary to kill the knowledge bearing people).

    What ever the plan for the destruction of the numerous, widely disbursed Iranian nuclear facilities, the task will not be easy, and it will be messy – what it won't be is a "surgical" operation.

  • 080

    We have a cunning plan. Don't attack now. Wait until they have the bomb. Then we attack.

  • TopAssistant

    Exactly what did Sidi Haji Abdrahaman, Tripoli’s Ambassador to London mean by what Adams and Jefferson wrote on March 28, 1786?
    "The Ambassador answered us that it was founded on the Laws of their prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every musselman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise."
    Would the ambassador be considered a moderate Muslim, radical Muslim, Islamist militant, Islamic Supremacist, a Islamic fundamentalist, "unprecedented extremism", or a mainstream Muslim?
    Islamist?
    You can read the original photographed letter at: http://memory.loc.gov/master/mss/mtj/mtj1/005/040
    The typed version is here: http://freepages.misc.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~argy
    Has there ever been a House or Senate committee hearing on Shariah/Islamic law or finance that looks at our history with Islam an d the application of the Koran? We need more articles that reflect our history with Islam.

    Here is what our forefathers thought about the Koran when it was first printed, October 1806 in America.
    What do you think their impression of the Koran is by the first two pages?
    Go to this website, http://www.archive.org/details/korancommonlycal00… and look to the upper left side of the first web page and you will see “View the book” right above the flashing Koran. Next click on “Read Online” below the flashing book and click on it. It will bring up the cover of the Koran, look to the lower right and you will see forward and backward arrows, click on the far right one and it will take you to, “To the Reader”
    Please read the next two pages and ask yourself what you think it says.

  • Mark J. Koenig

    Montrose and Tapson do their best during this show to criticize Nelson's opinions without attacking him personally. That's a good thing. As absurd as many of his opinions are, it's illustrative with what zeal he presents them, lacking any supporting evidence. Then when challenged, he simply shouts over those with whom he disagrees. This is a tactic used by an intellectually lazy individual who doesn't want his world-view challenged in any way. It is not indicative of intellectual honesty.