Friday, January 10, 2020

ISIS praises the death of Iranian general and declares it was an act of “divine intervention”


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.
It was not my intent to write anything about the death of the Iranian general, because Islam for me is synonymous of persecution of Christians. But when I saw people saying that it was good for him to be killed because he was a mastermind of ISIS, I thought: A correction is necessary.
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.
Recommended Reading:

1 comment :

samir sardana said...

US assassinates Solomon-I, in Iraq, in a Quasi-Shia State, in the wee hours of the morning - Part 1

Y would a Iranian Gen – who is anti-Israel and America, fly from a Commercial/Military Airport in Iraq – when the US embassy was firebombed just a few days ago ? He would have known that all his e-signatures would be tracked by the Americans,second by second,and there would be no dearth of spies at the hangar,ATC,Airport who would ply the Americans with precise coordinates of the General’s flight patterns ?

Surely after the US embassy bombing the Good General would have been told by his team to exit Iraq ? Could a general be so careless or foolish – that he would think that he could exit from a designated airport,after the US embassy escapade – and with another designated terrorist (designed by USA) – with makes it a double prime target – and with no collateral baggage ? In ISIS days – he was fighting with the Americans – and those days are over.

Persian Shia’ism is not a suicide cult – it appears to be one – but it is not.So the general was misled into complacency and entrapped by some , in the Iraqi state, to take that flight – and the US embassy firebombing might also have been a false flag operation as the US troops shot no one – id.est., no firebomber was killed.But the sons of Xerxes and Cyrus cannot be so naive and foolish.The General would not have boarded that plane unless he was secured by the Russians and Tehran.2000 years ago, the Jews inserted a fake verse into the Old Testament and Talmud – to state that Cyrus was the messiah- and showed it to Cyrus – who like a fool, believed it, and rebuilt the Temple !The General had read the Torah,Talmud,Hebrew Bible and the History of the Jews and the Nassara

CNN portrays the killing as a “Trump rash reaction” – but it is not.Ultimately,the USA will go to war with Iran – as the Americans do not trust the Persian Shias – on the N-Bomb,and the Persians do not trust the Jews or the Nassara. Soleimani was just the catalyst to push the Persians into the N- Suspension, and go full N-throttle – which is what the Persians have done – and which is what the Americans wanted.

Iraqi govtt will kick out the US troops and the US troops will not leave – as that is what the Americans (and Kurds,Nassara,Sunnis) really want.To be precise, the Kurds,Suniis do not want the Yankii to leave – but that they be asked to leave – so that their mortal fears of living under Persian Shias is brought to the fore – for a partition of the Iraqi state

What the Americans want is to trifurcate Iraq – which will happen inevitably post Soleimani – and which is what the Persians also seek,although the Persians would like to Shia-ise the whole of Iraq.Persian security interests are preserved by destabilising and burning Iraq to create a “sea of fire” between them and the US/Israel and satellite Hezbollahs all over the Gulf,especially encircling the Saudis (The Soleimani Doctrine).But now,they will be happy with a trifurcation

After trifurcating Itaq the Persians will export their franchise and the brand to all Shia regions in GCC and Africa (where the USA has lesser troops and even lesser interest).Even the EU/PRC will be pleased – and this will look like an amicable solution (already crafted) – after creating a well planned disaster (assassinating Soleimani).dindooohindoo