Ontario Throws a Bucket of Cold Water on Iran

By Avi Benlolo
President and CEO, Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Centre   
August 2, 2013
 
This week marked an important turning point in Ontario's awareness of determined and well-funded efforts to undermine the values and conceptual underpinnings of Canadian society by groups hoping to import a toxic and foreign ideology to our nation.
 
Nowhere was this effort more evident than the staging of the 'Al Quds Day' rally, held for the past two years on the grounds of Queen's Park. Al Quds Day was proclaimed on the last Friday of the month of Ramadan in 1979 by Ayatollah Khomeini of Iran to spread the demonization of western values of freedom and democracy around the world.
 
In past rallies, participants carried Hezbollah flags, flaunted pictures of despotic Iranian leaders and promoted anti-Semitism by referring to Israel as a "cancer." Chants of "Death to Israel and Death to America" are typical features of Al Quds celebrations. Irans's new "moderate" president-elect, Hasan Rouhani, today re-iterated the same genocidal phrases as his predecessor when he noted, "the Zionist regime has been a wound on the body of the Islamic world for years and the wound should be removed."
 
Hundreds of protesters had planned to gather this Saturday on the grounds of the Ontario legislature, the heart of our provincial democracy, to support a regime that stones women to death, hangs homosexuals, funds the ongoing slaughter of thousands of Syrian civilians and exports terror around the world. From failed terror plots in such disparate locations as Azerbaijan, Thailand and Cyprus, to tragically successful bombings which killed and maimed scores of innocent people in countries including Bulgaria and Argentina, Iran is working to further its influence and ideology through terror. Chillingly, it is gaining support for these goals through Al Quds Day rallies, now held annually around the globe.
 
It is not only Jewish communities and Israelis - threatened repeatedly with annihilation by Iran, who are alarmed by the subversion of our democracy and the staging of this annual pro-Shariah rally. A large percentage of the ex-patriot Persian community, - men and women who escaped the atrocities of the Iranian government and now find themselves battling the same hatred and intolerance they sought to escape, are similarly troubled.
 
I have always believed it is morally wrong to sanction a rally in support of a demagogue and an ideology that is diametrically at odds with the basic Canadian values of freedom and democracy. Ontario is a free society, and its citizens have a right to march, to speak, and to protest freely. However, supporters of a genocidal regime which aims to fundamentally reshape western democracies by exporting the values of Shariah law should not and do not have to receive the blessing of the state to exercise this right. The fundamental values cherished by all Canadians must not be discarded so cavalierly with the acquiescence of our government and the permission of our laws.
 
Ironically, it is this very same right to freedom of speech which is denied to millions of Iranian men and women persecuted by their own government; it is the right to think and speak freely which led so many Iranians to come to Canada, and the fear of losing these precious rights through the negligent support of this rally, and all it stands for, which causes such great alarm.
 
In the words of Marina Nemat, an Iranian-Canadian author who has written and spoken extensively about her imprisonment and torture in Iran's Evin prison by the Khomeini regime at the age of 16, "Freedom is like water in the palms of your hands; take your eyes off it, even for a little while, and it drips through your fingers, leaving nothing but thirst."
 
And so it was a welcome surprise to learn that Ontario's Sergeant-at-Arms has refused permission for organizers to hold the Al Quds day rally tomorrow. It seems discussions I had last year with the Sergeant-at-Arms, as well as meetings he held with other leaders in both the Jewish and Iranian communities, have forced government officials to pay attention to this treasonous event happening in their own front yard.
 
As the Iranian foreign ministry condemns the fledgling peace talks between Israelis and Palestinians, and alarm grows in Washington about the increasing influence of Iran in Latin American countries such as Cuba, Ecuador, Nicaragua and Venezuela, I am proud to see that our government, and the individuals elected to protect the fundamental and indispensable principles upon which our province and our nation are based, finally have their eyes on a truly essential matter.
  
CLICK HERE to read FSWC's letter to the Ontario Speaker of the House re the Al Quds Day Rally

Russia vows response against Israel for future Syria strikes

The story below fits as a scenario that could lead to the prophesied war found in the book of Ezekiel, chapters 38 and 39. In that prophecy, Biblical scholars (among them Joel Rosenberg who I interviewed in 2010) generally agree that Gog, a large kingdom from the north of Israel, will join forces against Israel's enemies to destroy Israel in the last days. 

Carefully read Ezekiel's prophecy above in the context of the story below: Russian President Vladimir Putin is allegedly pledging to retaliate against Israel, if Israel conducts another strike on targets inside Syria. 

At the same time, yesterday (May 15, 2013), the Israeli government publicly pledged to "bring down" Syria's President Assad if Assad retaliates against Israel for Israeli air strikes inside Syria on missiles and weapons systems bound for Iran's terrorist proxy militia Hizballah in southern Lebanon. 

The threat posed to Israel by all of these interconnected alliances is compounded by Israel's long-rumoured potential mission to conduct air strikes against Iran's nuclear facilities and missile sites. In short: the Middle East is at the precipice of total conflagration.

The truth and potential fulfillment of the Bible's prophecies in Ezekiel is becoming explicitly clear, and is worthy of critical assessment by believers and non-believers alike. What if the as-yet-unfulfilled prophecies written 2500 years ago are coming true in this lifetime? Christians are commanded to pray for the peace of Jerusalem (Psalm 122:6). In light of the likelihood of massive global war, perhaps non-Christians should be praying that too. 

Even so, come Lord Jesus (Rev. 22:20).

-R.O.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Syrian-Israeli war of words via Putin edges into Syrian-Hizballah war of attrition"

DEBKAfile Exclusive Report May 16, 2013, 10:58 AM (IDT)

Russian President Vladimir Putin and Prime Minister Netanyahu ended their three-hour meeting in Sochi Tuesday, May 14, at loggerheads on Syria. In fact, Putin warned his guest that Israel and its army, the IDF, were heading for war with Syria in which Russia might well be involved – and not just through the advanced S-300 anti-air missiles supplied to the Assad government.

The case Netanyahu and Military Intelligence chief Maj. Gen. Aviv Kochavi put before Putin and Russian foreign intelligence chief, SVR Director Mikhail Fradkov, fell on deaf ears.

They found the Russian leader further infuriated by the docking that day at Israel’s Red Sea port of Eilat of the USS Kearsarge, carrying 1,800 marines and a consignment of 20 V-22 Osprey helicopters which US Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel had promised to supply to Israel during his April visit.

Putin viewed the stationing of US forces in the Gulf of Aqaba just two hours away the Israeli-Syrian border for repelling Syrian-Iranian-Hizballah aggression against Israel or Jordan – signaled by the Kearsage’s arrival - as an act of bad faith by Washington. On the one hand, they want us to cooperate for an international conference to end the bloodshed in Syria, while on the other, they deploy military forces, he complained to Netanyahu.

The Israeli prime minister countered with a warning that Israel would continue to strike advanced weapons in Syria that were destined for Hizballah. And if President Bashar Assad hit back for Israel’s May 5 bombardment of weapons stores on Mount Qassioun near Damascus, Israel would intensify its bombardments of Syrian military targets and weapons until Assad was left to fight off rebel assaults empty-handed.

Putin rejected this threat as implausible.

Neither Putin nor Netanyahu put all their cards on the table, but the conversation ended with the Russian leader fully confident that his capabilities for safeguarding Assad were greater than Israel’s ability to destroy him.

In the end, Netanyahu and his party arrived home Tuesday evening with a bad feeling. They were certain that Moscow had given Assad the green light to go through with his threat to make the Syrian Golan and the Horan of southern Syria “a front for resistance” – i.e. the platforms for embarking on a war of attrition against northern Israel with the help of a flow of advanced weapons to Hizballah.

The Syrian ruler is strongly encouraged to adopt this path by Tehran. Hizballah’s leader Hassan Nasrallah has embraced it. And the radical Palestinian leader, Ahmed Jibril, head of the Assad-satellite Popular Front-General Command, has eagerly offered his services.

And indeed, Wednesday, the day after Netanyahu’s trip to Sochi, Jibril’s group let loose with mortar fire on the Israeli Mt. Hermon ski site, firing from a Syrian army position.

Israeli military sources confirmed later that these were no stray shells from a Syrian-army-rebel battle as in former cases, but a deliberate attack. In Jerusalem, it was taken as a direct consequence of Moscow’s account to Assad of the conversation between the Russian and Israeli leaders. They concluded that Assad took it for granted that he was now at liberty to go on the offensive against Israel.

Wednesday night, Netanyahu’s office reacted to this deterioration with a swift and strong warning.
Israeli media were informed bluntly that if the Assad chose to retaliate for Israel’s air strikes, he would be removed from power.

That same night, “a senior Israeli official” contacted The New York Times with a more detailed warning quoted by the paper: "If Syrian President Assad reacts by attacking Israel, or tries to strike Israel through his terrorist proxies, he will risk forfeiting his regime, for Israel will retaliate."

Within hours, early Thursday morning, May 16, Jerusalem had its answer from Damascus.
A Palestinian group calling itself “Martyrs of the Abdel Qader al-Husseini Brigades” (named for the commander of a Palestinian force fighting Israel in its 1948 War of Independence) claimed responsibility for the "rockets" aimed at an Israeli military observation post in the Golan Heights. They were fired in honor of Nakba Day, said the statement released in Damascus "We are not celebrating but avenging the blood of our martyrs."

A video showing the launch was appended.

Palestinian terrorist groups habitually use made-up names when claiming attacks, a practice often followed by al Qaeda, but this one was easily identified by Israel and taken to mean that Assad had begun using what the Israeli official referred to in The New York Times as "his terrorist proxies."

Depending on the next move decided on by Prime Minister Netanyahu, Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon and Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Benny Gantz, this incident could mark the tipping-point of a slide towards a war confrontation against Israel by Syria, Hizballah and other Assad proxies.

Source URL: http://www.debka.com/article/22970/

Iranian Official: 'Big War' means Islamic Messiah's arrival

The 'Mahdi' is the prophesied Shi'ite Islamic "Messiah". As the article below explains, 

"Shi’ites believe that at the end of time great wars will take place, and Imam Mahdi, the Shi’ites’ 12th imam, will reappear and kill all the infidels, raising the flag of Islam in all corners of the world."

If anyone had any doubts as to why the Iranian Regime is seeking nuclear weapons, those doubts should be cast aside after reading this news story. When the highest-ranking Iranian military official ties the probable war with Israel (and the U.S.) to the reappearance of the Islamic Messiah, the world should take notice, and fast. The article quotes Iran's Defense Minister Ahmad Vahidi, who stated, 

"Since we are in the era of The Coming, this war will be a significant war.”

This kind of dialogue is not part of an action movie, nor a work of fiction, but rather this represents the underlying narrative that is truly driving forward the present day, real life Iran-Israel nuclear crisis. When Israeli leaders (such as Prime Minister Netanyahu) read/hear these stories, how can they not take the Iranians 100% seriously when the Iranians declare that they seek Israel's literal destruction? No other nation on earth, except Israel, faces such a persistent, pernicious threat from an enemy (and enemies) on nearly every border. These are enemies who believe it is their duty to Allah to carry out acts of martyrdom. As Vahidi stated,

“The Islamic republic is going to create a new environment on the world stage, and without a doubt victory awaits those who continue the path of martyrs. … we can defeat the enemy at its home and our nation is ready for jihad. Martyrdom has taught us to avoid wrong paths and return to the right path. Martyrdom is the right path, it’s the path to God.”

Israel is already (arguably) the most virulently hated nation on earth. For the President of the United States to then tell Israel not to attack Iran, while simultaneously failing to set any 'red lines' on Iran's nuclear weapons program, represents the height of arrogance and is a dangerous sign of non-commitment.

Israel's unilateral military precedents are explicit and numerous: when Israeli leaders declare a threat to be existential, they have acted, every single time. Will the West truly abandon the world's only Jewish State at this perilous time? If they do, and Israel acts against Iran, the riots seen after the release of the anti-Islamic movie will pale in comparison to the vitriol and violence that will be aimed at Israel. The world's military response against Israel may be exponentially worse, mark my words.

We live in disturbing times, and the world is sleepwalking into cataclysmic war. Check out the video at the end of the article for more unnerving proof. - R.O.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Iran Official: 'Big War' means Mahdi's is coming
By: Reza Khalili

For the first time, Iran’s highest-ranking military official has tied the reappearance of the last Islamic messiah to the regime being prepared to go to a war based on ideology.

“With having the treasure of the Holy Defense, Valayat (Guardianship of the Jurist) and martyrs, we are ready for a big war,” Defense Minister Ahmad Vahidi said, according to Mashregh news, which is run by the Revolutionary Guards.

“Of course this confrontation has always continued; however, since we are in the era of The Coming, this war will be a significant war.”

Shi’ites believe that at the end of time great wars will take place, and Imam Mahdi, the Shi’ites’ 12th imam, will reappear and kill all the infidels, raising the flag of Islam in all corners of the world.

Vahidi became the Revolutionary Guards intelligence officer after the 1979 Islamic revolution and later was promoted to chief commander of the Quds Forces. He is on the Interpol most-wanted list for the Jewish community center bombing in Buenos Aires in 1994 that killed 85 and injured hundreds.

Vahidi also played a major role in the 1996 Khobar Tower bombing in Saudi Arabia that killed 19 U.S. servicemen.

Speaking at a mosque in remembrance of the martyrs who died in service to Iran, Vahidi stated that, “The Islamic republic is going to create a new environment on the world stage, and without a doubt victory awaits those who continue the path of martyrs. … we can defeat the enemy at its home and our nation is ready for jihad. Martyrdom has taught us to avoid wrong paths and return to the right path. Martyrdom is the right path, it’s the path to God.”

Vahidi said Iran’s enemies would have taken action in Syria in the past couple of years if they had the capability. Iran is a much more formidable power than Syria, he said, and concluded that Tehran can easily wipe out the “Zionist regime” of Israel.

Several U.S. officials, including Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, have called the officials of the Islamic regime “rational actors.”

Meanwhile, a Revolutionary Guards report quoting the head of the Guards’ public relations, Ramezan Sharif, revealed that Iran has military assets in several countries.

The presence of Quds Forces in Syria and Lebanon, Sharif said, is with the goal of supporting the Islamic nations and for the special situations that exist in those countries.

Sharif said Iranian presence is based on international laws and that, “Currently the Revolutionary Guards has presence in 15 countries, among them Syria and Lebanon, while the Iranian military also has presence in some other countries.”

As revealed recently, terrorist assets of the Islamic regime have been put on high alert for attacks on Israeli and U.S. interests. This extends from the Middle East to Africa, Latin America and the United States.

In a report Thursday in the Washington Times, Kevin L. Perkins, deputy director of the FBI, told a hearing of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee that the agency considered Iran’s assets a “serious threat.”

“Quds Forces, Hezbollah and others have shown they both have the capability and the willingness to extend beyond that (Middle East) region of the world and likely here into the homeland itself,” he testified.

Guard commanders have openly stated that they have recruited assets from Latin America and even some from European countries to avoid suspicion by intelligence agencies and will target America should it get involved militarily against Iran.

Reza Kahlili translated this Iranian video about Islamic prophecies of a coming messiah and the destruction of Israel:

Reza Kahlili is a pseudonym for a former CIA operative in Iran’s Revolutionary Guards and author of the award-winning book “A Time to Betray” (Simon & Schuster, 2010). He serves on the Task Force on National and Homeland Security and the advisory board of the Foundation for Democracy in Iran (FDI).

With Iran Talking Genocide, Obama Must Show Courage

THE most important reason to stop Iran. A timely piece by Goldberg. - R.O.

With Iran Talking Genocide, Obama Must Show Courage
By: Jeffrey Goldberg

Sept. 3, 2012

The U.S. has often been feckless in its response to genocide. In the years leading up to World War II, and even during the war itself, it didn’t do nearly what it could have to offer refuge toEurope’s Jews and to thwart Adolf Hitler’s Final Solution, although much later we did build some excellent museums commemorating the event.

Our words since then have sometimes rung hollow. “Never again,” the slogan goes, but, as David Rieff once said, in actual practice “never again” has meant, “Never again will Germans kill Jews in Europe in the 1940s.”

The writer Ron Rosenbaum, in an essay for Slate that I mentioned last week, asks the question: How much discussion about the Holocaust is too much? Why does he raise this now? Because we’re approaching a pivotal moment in the continuing drama surrounding Iran’s nuclear progress -- and that means the U.S. may once again find itself in a position to confront the threat of genocide.

The rulers of Iran, who deny the historical reality of the Holocaust even as they dream of annihilating Israel, may in the very near future possess the ability to build nuclear weapons and to immunize their nuclear program from outside intervention. Rosenbaum argues eloquently that it isn’t neurotic or hysterical or parochial to worry that a regime that seeks the annihilation of Israel may be gaining the means to achieve it.

Civilized people have condemned the Iranian rhetoric, of course, most recently Ban Ki-moon, the United Nations secretary- general (who nevertheless granted the Iranian regime legitimacy by attending an international conference in Tehran last week). But Rosenbaum is surprised, as I am, that more people don’t seem to grasp the urgency of keeping nuclear weapons away from a regime that openly threatens genocide.
Clear Pattern

With a few exceptions, the American response to genocide, and to threats of genocide, has followed a clear pattern over the years, one characterized first by indifference and timidity, then paralysis, and ultimately regret. The pattern was set by Franklin D. Roosevelt’s administration, and in particular by his State Department, which reacted with depraved indifference to the gathering threat in Europe.

Postwar history is strewn with similar examples. In the late 1980s, the administrations of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush not only did nothing to stop Saddam Hussein’s attempted genocide of the Kurds -- a slaughter that employed chemical weapons -- but even supported Saddam in his war against Iran. It was only when he invaded Kuwait that we took notice. Talk about dispiriting: Genocide didn’t bother us, but a threat to the smooth flow of oil did.

In 1994, President Bill Clinton did virtually nothing to stop the murder of 800,000 Rwandans (although he later expressed very feelingly his remorse at not intervening)

But it isn’t just our elected leaders who respond inadequately to genocide. The news media play a role, too. Here’s one recent example. Last month, the Washington Post published a lengthy article exploring Iraqi attitudes about the future after the final U.S. troop withdrawal from their country earlier this year.

“In dozens of interviews this summer across Iraq, many people said that their lives were safer and more prosperous under Hussein and that the U.S. invasion was not worth the price both countries have paid,” wrote the reporter, Kevin Sullivan.

This struck me as odd. Many Iraqis, particularly members of the Sunni Arab minority that ruled the country until Saddam’s ouster, regret the U.S. invasion, and many in the Shiite majority certainly regret the bungling and negligence that followed. But how do Kurds feel?
Elision of History

Kurds make up about 20 percent of the Iraqi population, and they were the group most victimized by Saddam’s Baathist regime. As many as 4,000 Kurdish villages were eradicated by his army; dozens of those villages were attacked with chemical weapons. Thousands of innocents were tortured. There is broad agreement in the international human-rights community that the anti- Kurdish campaign amounted to genocide.

The American invasion meant that Iraq’s Kurds were finally free from the threat of further slaughter. For this reason, it’s not easy to find a Kurdish Iraqi who opposed Saddam’s overthrow. But nowhere in the article is this mentioned. In fact, nowhere in the article is a Kurdish Iraqi even quoted. My point is not to pick on Sullivan, who’s an intrepid reporter. It’s to note that this elision of history in a prominent newspaper is symptomatic of a collective unwillingness to fully grapple with a mass murder we could have prevented.

The U.S., under Barack Obama’s administration, is now in a position to upend this unfortunate history. Yet we feel insufficient urgency to blunt the Iranian regime’s openly stated genocidal intentions, and we do embarrassingly little to stop the mass slaughter of thousands of mainly Sunni Syrians by their country’s minority Alawite rulers.

It is true that the continuing massacre in Syria doesn’t yet rise to the level of genocide. It is also true that Obama’s passive response makes it more likely that one day it will. In Iran, Obama’s promise to use all means necessary to prevent the regime from getting nuclear weapons -- to forestall the possibility of a future genocide -- may also one day soon be put to the test.

Sometimes, we turn away from issues that seem insoluble or that raise doubts about our humanity. But turning away always -- always -- makes things worse.

(Jeffrey Goldberg, a national correspondent for The Atlantic, is a Bloomberg View columnist. The opinions expressed are his own.)

Taking Iran at its (nuclear) word

Brilliantly unnerving stuff from Jonas. - R.O.

George Jonas: Taking Iran at its (nuclear) word
George Jonas, National Post
Wednesday, Aug. 15, 2012

Criminals confess. They often confess before they perpetrate. They tell us what they’re going to do before they do it, whether in politics, in crime, or in criminal politics.

We rarely listen.

Perhaps “confess” is the wrong word, because it implies admitting guilt, whereas in politics it’s usually a declaration of pride. Some try to be cagey, but most extremists and fundamentalists announce their plans and programs openly. They tell us how they’ll take charge, assume power, change the law, develop the weapons, appoint the judges, restore the moral foundation, get rid of the king, the shah, whoever, the money-changers, the foreigners, the lot. They will rule the land, and make sure we get into paradise.

Extremists telegraph what’s coming. Why not? They think it’s good. They like it. Some tell it in campaign speeches, some offer it in books. It was possible to discern the Gulag in the pages of Marx and Engels’ Communist Manifesto as early as 1848 — and discerning people did.

Stalin perpetrated first, confessed later. His not-so-short Short Course in the History of the Soviet Communist Party (Bolshevik) was a retrospective by the time it appeared in 1939, but Mussolini’s Fascist Manifesto published in 1921 was still prospective, as was Hitler’s Mein Kampf in 1925. Who says Benito and Adolf gave no warning? They hissed, spat and rattled long before they struck.

Others rattled and struck simultaneously. Chairman Mao’s ideas bundled into a little red book became available in English in 1964, and the Ayatollah Khomeini’s instructions emerged in a little green book in 1985.

Unbeknownst to me, I had observed some of Khomeini’s fatwas. He instructed believers not to consume the nasal secretions of camels, for instance. I never did. He also expected followers of the Prophet not to relieve themselves upon the graves of believers unless, of course, they meant it as an insult to them. Doing it on purpose was fine, but not willy-nilly, as it were.

If the little green book came out today, my first reaction would be, “Listen to this, isn’t Mark Steyn funny” — but in 1985, Steyn wasn’t yet publishing political satire. The insights really did come from Iran’s spiritual leader. But while snacking on nasal impurities appeared to me in the same light as it did to the founding father of the Islamic Republic — and he also impressed me with his wise restraint on the matter of graveside micturation — the idea of his regime as an appropriate custodian of nuclear weapons would have struck me as premature.

But that was in 1985. In 2012, is there a nation unqualified to have the same weapons as North Korea? Be serious.

It’s not as if we’re selling Iran a bomb, some decision-makers are saying. They’re making one for themselves. What other qualifications do you need? If, say, France can have a bomb, why can’t Iran? France is a sovereign country, so is Iran; France is a republic, so is Iran; France has had a Napoleon in its history and Iran hasn’t had a Xerxes since it was Persia. So, what’s the difference?

Well, perhaps it’s that France’s current leaders aren’t threatening their neighbours with annihilation. Iran’s leaders are. Threatening annihilation isn’t a confidence builder even on its own, let alone in conjunction with a taste for nasal secretions that requires fatwas to curb.

The threats aren’t new. The syndicated columnist Clifford D. May tells of a private discussion 12 years ago between José Maria Aznar, the former Spanish prime minister, and Iran’s current supreme leader, the Ayatollah Ali Khomenei. The theocrat explained to the shocked Spaniard that “the mission of the Islamic Revolution always has been and always will be to rid the world of two evils: Israel and the United States.”

May reports that when Aznar was asked whether Khomenei meant “a gradual historical process involving the collapse of the Zionist state, or rather its physical-military termination” his unhesitating reply was, “He meant physical termination through military force.”

Okay, here are our options.

(1) We can believe the supreme leader of Iran didn’t say what Spain’s former prime minister thought he said.

(2) We can believe the supreme leader didn’t mean whatever he did say.

(3) The supreme leader may say and mean whatever he likes, but we can believe he isn’t really a supreme leader, and nobody carries out his commands.

(4) The supreme leader is the supreme leader and he means what he says, but we can believe that if we stand firm he’ll blink, and if he doesn’t, hell, it’s just a nuclear war and we’ll win it anyway, and

(5) if worst comes to worst, we can say Uncle, admit our transgressions, reveal ourselves as little Satan and Satan respectively, and trust that the supreme leader will be merciful.

I don’t think so. There’s a sixth option. The time to look for hidden agendas is when people seem nice. Read between their lines, by all means. But when they’re nasty, read the lines. A fellow who says he’s out to destroy you is out to destroy you. Believe him.

National Post