Friday, September 6, 2013

Barbarism

The September 5, 2013 Daily Caller carries a report of threats of what will be done if Obama attacks Syria:
And in an unprecedented statement, a former Iranian official has warned of mass abductions and brutal killings of American citizens around the world and the rape and killing of one of Obama’s daughters should the United States attack Syria.
Alireza Forghani, the former governor of southern Iran’s Kish Province, threw down the gauntlet last week. Forghani is an analyst and strategy specialist in the supreme leader’s camp and closely aligned with Mehdi Taeb, who heads the regime’s Ammar Strategic Base, a radical think thank, and thus speaks with the blessing of the Islamic regime.
“Hopefully Obama will be pigheaded enough to attack Syria, and then we will see the … loss of U.S. interests [through terrorist attacks],” he threatened. “In just 21 hours [after the attack on Syria], a family member of every U.S. minister [department secretary], U.S. ambassadors, U.S. military commanders around the world will be abducted. And then 18 hours later, videos of their amputation will be spread [around the world].”
A similar act was committed in a video of the torture of William Buckley, a CIA station chief who was abducted in Beirut in 1984 and later killed by Hezbollah on Iran’s order. That video was dropped off at the U.S. Embassy in Athens. Former CIA Director William Casey later described what he saw in the video: “They had done more than ruin his body. His eyes made it clear his mind had been played with. It was horrific, medieval and barbarous.”
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/09/05/iran-threatens-brutal-attacks-on-americans-obama-family-if-us-hits-syria/#ixzz2e8aijwa7
This should not be a surprise.  The Koran approves of sex with female slaves (non-believers taken in battle) [Sura 23:6].  This is the reason that al-Qaeda and its affiliates have repeatedly engaged in rape, at Beslan, in East Timor, and elsewhere.  Do not read this threat as bizarre or non-Islamic.  It is squarely in the mainstream of Islam.  Muslims who want to believe otherwise are good and decent people who have let civilized values and good consciences take precedence over the Koran's clear teachings.

There are many arguments against Obama's plan for Syria:

1. Syria is no direct threat to the United States at this time, and does not have a long history of directly threatening or attacking us.

2. Syria is no direct threat to our allies at this time.

3. An attack, at least an attack that we are likely to perform, is unlikely to impair Syria's ability to continue violating the Chemical Weapons Convention, nor will it make much difference in reducing these crimes against civilians or rebels.

4. If our attack changes the balance of power in the Syrian civil war, it is likely to be putting a bunch dominated by al-Qaeda and at least Islamist rebels in charge of Syria.

5. It is not clear that Obama and those around him have either the wits or the courage to follow such attacks through to a successful conclusion.

There are strong arguments for cutting off the head of the snake: Iran.  But that requires more guts and wits than Obama or the American people have.  It will probably take nuclear weapons going off in American cities before we finally are prepared to face reality on this.

3 comments:

Minicapt said...

The main accusation is that Assad is "killing his people". Unfortunately that's not quite true. Syrians are not just Syrian, they are Sunni, Shi'ite, Alawite and Christian/others. Only one of those groups can qualify as "Assad's people".

Cheers

Mauser said...

The scale that this former official is making his threat in can only be categorized as "Wishful thinking". But there may be one or two.

Windy Wilson said...

To the accusation that Assad is "killing his people", I say, "Hutus and Tutsis".

When the revolt in Syria first erupted, there seemed to be "good guys" on the side of the revolters, but as there was no US Interest we did nothing. Later, Al Quaeda and other extremists on the outs with Hezbollah and Iran became dominant among the revolters, so just as it was in the Iran/Iraq war in the 80's with both sides bad, we did nothing. Now the argument is that we must attack to retain US credibility and stature, and the Administration is looking desparately for some low level of response that will achieve that. In other words, we're going to intervene because the President ran his mouth and he has to put up or shut up. There is no exit strategy to this action, or rather the exit strategy is to fire a few missiles as a symbolic gesture and scram. Real people will die for the President to save face.
We seem to be in this situation because of something said, as in 1950 when the US Ambassador to I-forget-where implied that the containment would not include South Korea, or a similar diplomatic faux pas when Madeline Albright impiled something similar about Kuwait to the Iraqi ambassador.