ISIS praises the death of Iranian general and declares it was an act of “divine intervention”
By Julio Severo
“ISIS has claimed the death of Iranian
General Qassem Soleimani was an act of ‘divine intervention’ and that it will
benefit their jihadist cause,” said
Daily Mail, a British newspaper that interviewed Trump personally two
times.
In fact, ISIS itself is glad that Soleimani
was killed. People just do not understand that ISIS is 100 percent comprised by
Sunni Muslims. Sunni Islam, embraced by Saudi Arabia, represents most Muslims. Soleimani
was a Shia Muslim. Shia Islam is a minority, especially confined in Iran. The
main victims of ISIS are Christians and Shia Muslims.
So it was a misinformation that Soleimani
was Sunni and behind the ISIS. The contrary is true. It is not true also to say
that all the left supported Soleimani. Facebook, which is a left-wing social
media company famous for censoring Christians and their conservative stances,
is removing
posts supporting Soleimani, including from Instagram, according to FoxNews.
To attack Iran is an old U.S. goal,
especially after the Iranian revolution violently overthrew an Iranian
government that was just a puppet of the U.S. According to the conservative
news service WND (WorldNetDaily), “Hillary
2008: ‘If I am the president, we will attack Iran to defend Israel.’”
During Bush, Obama and Trump the U.S. has
encircled Iran with lots of military bases. Iran is militarily surrounded by
the U.S. for many years. Only a blind man cannot see that the U.S. wants war with
Iran.
The U.S. that hates foreign interference
in its elections just loves to interfere in other nations’ sovereignty.
If Soleimani was so hated by ISIS, why did
the U.S. kill him? I have no answer, just as I do not know how to answer why
the U.S. did not kill the Saudi dictators after the 9/11. This was the worst
Islamic terror attack against the U.S. Of the 15 Sunni Muslim terrorists, 15
were Saudi. The 9/11 victims’ families have been hindered by Bush, Obama and
now Trump from suing Saudi Arabia. Sunni Muslims, not Shia Muslims, are behind
a number of terror attacks on U.S. and European soil. Even so, the U.S. is
after Iran, not Saudi Arabia. What mystery is behind the excessive condescension
of the U.S. government to Saudi Arabia?
The
U.S. relationship with Saudi Arabia has not been good for the U.S. and for persecuted
Christians. Under Bush, Obama and now Trump Christians keep suffering martyrdom
because of Sunni Muslims. The trail of the U.S. military interventions is covered
with Christian blood because the U.S. is always protecting Saudi interests. If
the U.S. has no courage to confront and invade Saudi Arabia, why invade other
nations to protect Saudi interests? My view is that all U.S. military bases and
troops spread around the world should be moved to the U.S. borders to protect
the U.S. This is patriotism. To keep thousands and thousands of troops abroad
while the U.S. borders are unguarded is unpatriotic and just confirms the accusation
of left-wingers that the U.S. has become an empire — at the service of neocons.
Perhaps Bush, Obama and Trump had no
choice. Neocons, who are connected to the U.S. military industrial complex, are
too powerful for a president to reject. Trump denounced neocons in 2016, but
today only God can free him from their powerful grip.
WorldNetDaily, which has been my main
conservative source for over 20 years, published an interesting article written
by Ilana Mercer, a Jewish author daughter of a rabbi. In her piece, titled “Should
U.S. really be the globe’s judge, jury & executioner?” she said,
Qassem Soleimani, an Iranian major
general, was assassinated by a U.S. drone strike at the Baghdad
International Airport (BIAP). The Iraqi-born Soleimani was traveling with one
Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis.
Like Soleimani, al-Muhandis was an Iraqi,
born and bred. He was even elected to the Iraqi Parliament, in 2005, until the
U.S. intervened. (Yes, we intervene in other nations' elections.)
Iraq's caretaker prime minister, Adel
Abdul Mahdi, was furious, denouncing "what happened [as] a political
assassination." Unanimously, Iraqi lawmakers "responded to the
Soleimani assassination by passing a nonbinding resolution calling on the
government to end foreign-troop presence in Iraq."
Yes, it's a complicated region. And
America, sad to say, still doesn't
know Shia from Shinola.
The consensus in our country is that
"Soleimani deserved to die." That's the party-line on Fox News – and
beyond. It's how assorted commentators on all networks prefaced their
"positions" on the Jan. 3 killing of this Iraqi-born, Iranian
general.
Even Tucker Carlson – the only mainstream
hope for Old Right, antiwar, America-First columns like this one – framed the taking out of Soleimani as the killing of a bad
guy by good guys:
"There are an awful lot of bad people
in this world. We can't kill them all, it's not our job."
However you finesse it, the premise of
Tucker's assertion is that the American government, and the smart set who live
in symbiosis with it, gets to adjudicate who's bad and who's good in the world.
The debate is only ever over whether the
U.S. government should or shouldn't act on its divine rights as transnational
judge, jury and executioner, never over what's right and what's wrong.
Stateside, the only inquiry permissible is
a cost-benefit calculus. Will the assassination of Soleimani – a military
official of a sovereign state, and an avid and effective slayer of Islamic
State terrorists – pay strategic dividends for America in the long run?
This is crass pragmatism bereft of
principle. It's currently on display everywhere, even surfacing on BBC News,
where a female analyst, an American, was deploying the childish "bad
man" meme to outline America's Disneyfied foreign policy.
This angels-and-demons production always
starts with the prototypical evil dictator who is alleged to be messing with
his noble people, until the avenging, angelic empire sends a drone to the
rescue.
Again, even Tucker, whose antiwar
credentials in recent years have been impeccable, conceded that this Soleimani
guy probably needed killing, which is the same thing Iraqis
old enough to remember America's destruction of Iraq, circa 2003, would say
about President George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld and Ms. Rice.
So, who's right? Or, is blind patriotism
predicated on accepting that it is up to the U.S. government and its ruling
elites to determine who lives and who dies around the world?
"Soleimani deserved to die" – an
atavistic bit of jingoism, made by Republicans and Democrats alike, on Fox News
and on CNN – holds true only if you believe that the U.S. government is the
keeper of the flame of an immutably just, universal code of law, which it is
deputized to uphold, wherever it takes up residence.
Such a chauvinistic impulse is true only
if you believe that the U.S. government's might gives it the right to be
universal judge, jury and executioner, deciding who may live and who must die
the world over.
As to whether the U.S. government has a
right to eliminate an Iranian state actor by declaring him a
"terrorist":
Like it or not, Soleimani was a uniformed
official of a sovereign state. He was the equivalent of our Special Operations
commander.
We Americans would not tolerate it were
Iranians to designate America's Special Operations commander, Gen.
Richard D. Clarke, a terrorist.
Moreover, if Iranians took out America's
Special Ops commander somewhere in North America – which is analogous to the
assassination of Soleimani – Americans would consider it an act of war by Iran.
Soleimani was the commander of the
Revolutionary Guards' clandestine and regional operations arm, the Quds Force.
Iranians look upon him as we Americans view the commanders of our clandestine
Special Operations forces the world over.
With a distinction: Our Special Operations
forces and their command encroach on the Iranian neighborhood much more so than
Iranians and their special force command encroach on American territory, unless
you consider the Middle East to be American turf.
To repeat: The crucial difference between
Iran's Quds Force and America's Special Operations forces (SOF) is that the
former is regional, the latter global.
As I write, America's SOF, upwards of
8,300 commandos, are engaged in secret operations the world over. Unknown to
all but a few Americans, "U.S. commandos deploy to 149 countries – about
75 percent of the nations on the planet," reports investigative journalist Nick Turse. Expect that by
the halfway mark of this year, "U.S. Special Operations Command (USSOCOM
or SOCOM), America's most elite troops, will have already carried out missions
in approximately 133 countries."
"If Iran should not be allowed to
interfere in neighboring countries," pondered
Sara, an Iranian mourner interviewed at Soleimani's million-strong funeral,
"why should Americans be allowed to come to our region all the way from
the other side of the Earth?"
Correction: Soleimani patrolled only
Iran's very dangerous neighborhood. His mission was far more modest and
nationalistic than that of the U.S. government, which bestrides the globe,
arming and training foreign troops all over it.
Unlike America's proxy militias, Iranian
proxy militia operate in the region.
As to the "imminent danger" a
single individual, Soleimani, was said to pose to "American lives":
Arrayed against the veracity of the intelligence to that effect are Republican
Sens. Mike Lee and Rand Paul. They characterized Wednesday's intel briefing as
positively "insulting"; "the worst briefing" they had
received.
No wonder. The intelligence was produced
and pushed by the same spooks who've been agitating against President Trump and
all vestiges of his original "America First" plank.
The intel justification for the Soleimani
assassination came from the same intelligence community that cooked up the
anti-Trump Russia monomania and the WMD-in-Iraq casus
belli.
These disgraced sources now insist that
Soleimani was planning future, precision strikes – nefarious atrocities against
U.S. soldiers – and, therefore, needed to be dispatched right away.
However, other more credible sources, including Rand Paul's dad, allude to
Soleimani's involvement in a diplomatic mission that was underway between Iraq,
Iran and Saudi Arabia, and would have cut out the U.S. as middleman.
Skepticism aside, when we accept U.S.
state aggression based on iffy, prior-restraint arguments, then aggress we must
ad absurdum. Consider: Between 1975 and 2015, Saudi Arabian Sunnis murdered 2,369 Americans in the homeland, to Iran's zero.
When it comes to the lives of American civilians, at least in recent decades,
the Saudis (Trump's new BFFs), not the Iranians, have blood on their hands.
Based on the erroneous prior-restraint
reasoning, and our putative, divine American rights as judge, jury and
executioner – we could confine all Saudi Arabian Sunnis to camps, for the
purpose of "reeducation." It's what China is
doing to its Muslim minority.
Preposterous!
So as to survive the onslaught of the
Sunni fundamentalist majority, the endangered Alawite minority in Syria has
formed an alliance with Shia Iran, also a marginalized minority within the
Ummah. The Shia-Alawite alliance has been good for Christians in Syria.
But Saudi Arabia doesn't give a dried
camel's hump about Christians or American casualties. They have managed to
skillfully enlist the West in a proxy Sunni-Shia religious war, also Riyadh's
ultimate aim.
Despite a campaign of "America
First," and much like the Bushes and Clintons before him, the president
has decided to side with Sunni Islam while demonizing the Shia.
Portuguese
version of this article: ISIS louva a morte de general iraniano e declara que
foi um ato de “intervenção divina”
Recommended Reading:
Posts
