Executing Soleimani, Executing Heydrich: Justified In Both Cases

Why did Trump order the killing of Suleimani? There is something like enough is enough. Soleimani’s agents in Iraq alone, caused the death of 608 US soldiers (said the State Dept. last year). Soleimani was in charge, if not the soul, of Fundamentalist Islamist State Iran’s aggressive expansion throughout the Middle East, in areas that, long ago, were part of the Greco-Roman states.

Fundamentalist Islamist States are not compatible with Secular Democracy, because they don’t keep with the times (that’s what being non-secular means, fundamentally): they are still stuck in the Middle Ages, executing people for being unbelievers, as when Ali (fourth Caliph), and his sons Hussein and Hasan, ruled. Ali was the cousin and son-in-law of Mohammed. The Shiite branch of Islam regards him and certain descendants as inspired rulers, only true heirs of Mohammed. Ali was the son of Abu Talib, Mohammed’s uncle and for a time his guardian, He was also the first male convert to Islam. He died in two days from a strike of a follower of another Muslim sect, with a poisoned sword.

Ali was neither nice nor enlightened. He ordered Muslims and others he viewed as unfaithful, to be burned alive.

Democracy, the people-power, is not compatible with regimes where one religious fanatic, like Khamenei, drenched with and molded by superstition and an imaginary world full of prophets, djinns and demons rules over millions.
Moreover the Islamist State regime in Iran over which Khomeini, Khamenei and Soleimani ruled wants nuclear weapons. What for? Destroy Israel (as ordered by Literal Islam)? Destroy us? In the name of their demon in the sky?

[I tried to post a picture of Soleimani, but was prevented to do so by the internet dictators who mind us. After wasting a full hour on this, I give up. Forbidding to post a picture is as anti-democratic as it gets!]

Suleimani (saluting) and Iranian Pope-Emperor Khamenei.

This is a small planet, and there is no space for secular democracy, and its deadly enemies, brandishing nuclear weapons.
Time to review, and thus learn, history. So as not to repeat it, the nuclear way.

In the Second World War, the French Republic was initially held back, and prevented (in 1933, 1935, 1936, and 1938) by the British and the American governments to do anything about Hitler.

Finally, after the fall of the Spanish Republic to the Nazis and their allies, Britain joined France in giving guarantees to Poland (in the addendum to the Polish-French defense treaty). Meanwhile the US was clamoring for peace, although hundreds of thousands of undesirable Germans had already been incarcerated or eliminated by the Nazis. US pseudo-intellectuals, and the US Congress were still viewing France and Britain as the problem, while the Nazis had started to systematically kill Polish civilians (by bombing mills, and hospitals, inter alia). A US law condemned US citizens who did as little as stepping on a French or british boat (Fall 1939).

The holocaust of World War Two (more than 4% of humanity killed) was rendered possible by the division of the democracies, and the party of pro-Nazis disguised as advocates of “peace”. We have a similar situation now. Actually, Hitler was strongly influenced by Islam, because Islam was a war religion and it hated the Jews.
Hitler said so, and was right: some sacred Muslim writings say Judgment day will not happen before all Jews are killed. Here is an example.

Hadith 41;6985: ”Allah’s Messenger: The last hour would NOT COME UNLESS the Muslims will FIGHT AGAINST THE JEWS and the MUSLIMS WOULD KILL THEM until the Jews would hide themselves behind a stone or a tree, and a stone or a tree would say: Muslim, or the servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me; come and KILL HIM…”

By executing Suleimani, the US government put its foot down. It is similar to the execution of Reinhard Heydrich by the British. Except Suleimani was a mix of Heydrich and Himmler. (Right, the Nazis exacted great vengeance after Heydrich’s execution. The answer to this is to make a more detailed list of criminals against humanity, and punish them in the future.)
A slight difference between Nazi Germany, also a religious cult, and Shiite Iran, is that the dictatorship in Iran was never elected… Whereas the Nazis initially were, and went through referendums and a simulacrum of democracy thanks to the “Enabling Act”…
Having nuclear armed superstitious dictatorship left free to expand their influence and means is the recipe for the end of not just democracy on this planet, but the biosphere itself. The demons of the Middle Ages belong to history, not the future. And if to make them pass away requires lethal force, so be it. Last thing we need is a nuclear Pearl Harbor, or the nuclear equivalent of the battle of France of 1940.

In 1940, the French army, which had more and better tanks, a bigger Navy, and an air force just as big (although half of it was outside France, and the latest fighters had not been deployed yet in sufficient numbers) was defeated mostly because it was taken by surprise. Surprise, first of all, in the nature of the attack (which was so desperate that it was completely crazy, out of war manuals), surprise, because they didn’t see it coming (unbelievably the French and British didn’t know where the German army was), and surprise in crucial technical details (such as equipping the superior French tanks with radio; without radio, those tanks were vulnerable, all the more as their crews were too small). Surprise also because everybody knew the French army was superior to the Nazi one, so the basic precaution of keeping a reserve had not been taken, while, hubristically, the French rushed to save the perfidious Netherlands…

The best way to win wars is not to avoid them at all cost, as ignorant peaceniks affect to believe, but to engage in them in a timely manner. Winning the potential war was helped by eliminating a fanatical rogue Iranian murderer with immense powers of destruction. And the best way to engage in holocausts is not to fight wars in the name of humanity.

It is reassuring to see that the present US government learned something from the 1930s fiasco of peace at any cost…

Patrice Ayme

***

P/S:

There were UN sanctions against Soleimani from 2007, for terrorism. By 2011, sanctions were extended by the US, the EU, for repressing and killing civilians in Syria rebelling against the dictatorship there (which Soleimani supported enormously)… especially after an alleged plan to kill the Saudi Ambassador to the US…

On the face of it, Quds general Soleimani was the biggest terrorist, ever, much bigger than Bin Laden and Al Baghdadi, by orders of magnitude.

I was against the attacks on Iraq… from 1990 to 2003. Especially the 2003 invasion. We would have been better off with Saddam Hussein still in power. However the Islamist State in Iran is a major problem… for civilization. Iraq, while an authoritarian dictatorship, was secular, and had lots of nice modern laws copied on the West, as Saddam himself, somewhat baffled, noticed.
The question of why was iraq attacked than has to do with… fracking, US fossil fuel control… And general political control of the world, especially the EU, Russia…

***

P/S 2: Agnès Callamard is a French Human Rights expert and Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions at the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR). She is also the Director of Columbia University’s Global Freedom of Expression project.

Callamard told CNN that such actions (such as eliminating one of the world’s biggest terrorists) are rewriting the rules — and she believes a bigger issue needs to be addressed.
What kind of institutions and rules will best protect people around the world, and do we think that kind of strike is conducive to an international rule of law?
The answer is simple: secularism and direct democracy. Striking the enemies of both is a question of life and death.
Little ignorant cowards who never had a Fatwa against them can’t get it, and are enemies of civilizational progress, in the same fashion as Nazi collabos in World War Two…
Which law, anyway? We are all held hostages to Launch On Warning” (LOW)… Does the PC drenched Agnès Callamard even heard of LOW? Probably not, not her expertise, i’m sure. Still, LOW is what the LAW is submitted to.

Tags:

16 Responses to “Executing Soleimani, Executing Heydrich: Justified In Both Cases”

  1. SDM Says:

    Would not action to end the Saudi regime be more practical as they are the primary sponsors of despotic fundamentalist Islam?

    Like

    • Gmax Says:

      Good question
      Why not MBS?

      Like

      • Patrice Ayme Says:

        5 were condemned to death in the Khashoggi assassination plot.
        I am divided about what I think of Mohammed Bin Salman, heir and de facto ruler. His position isn’t easy.

        Like

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      You want to take out allies of Israel?
      When was the last time Saudi Arabia expressed its plan to eradicate Israel?
      Answer: never.
      Actually Ibn Saud used the Brits to eliminate his equivalent of QUDS in the 1920s… Not far from Jerusalem… He encouraged them to attack, told the Brits where and when they were coming. At least 20,000 died.

      The Saudis supported Islam Fundamentalism with the support of Western Plutocracy, and explicit agreement from politicians and pseudo-intellectuals. That’s why there were 2 knives attacks by Islamists in France in the last 24 hours alone (another the day before)… And the guys are called “deranged”… When actually this is Islamism, Fundamentally Correct.

      Liked by 1 person

  2. Gmax Says:

    Soleimani was not smart to turn against the US in the last 3 months. Anyway, he got what he deserves

    What do you make of Trump’s threats against IranIan culture sites?

    Like

  3. SDM Says:

    So Saudi funding of fundamentalist terrorism is “OK” as it does not threaten Israel? Support of Israel is a free pass then for the Saudis regardless? Israel acts with impunity as Palestinians are held up in ever smaller parts of the land with their “settlements”.

    Like

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      First I am describing what THEY do, the Plutos in command of the West, or more exactly their “THINK” tanks.
      Second, Islam Fundamental terrorism has happened because of COMPLICITY of the leaders of the West. As far back as the 1940s:
      https://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2015/01/29/great-bitter-lake/

      The US pushed and weaponized the Islam fanatics in Egypt, Iran, Algeria… They got leverage from (paid) intellectuals who came to persuade everybody that being an Islamist was to be anti-racist… when in truth it was the return to Middle Age Mecca, 7th century… The opposite of progress, secularism, and justice, as Islam is all about deifying dictatorship… Hence Islamism was a (secret) ally of plutocratism.

      So the Saudis actually did faithfully all what was asked from them… Bin Laden as fundamentally a CIA creation.

      The Palestine-Israel thingie, I wrote one essay on, and I tend to stay away from, because it’s poisoned by history in several ways… My enemies the dictating plutocrats of Rome, destroyed Israel, created Syria Palestina. My own position is that the whole thing should become secular, and make a confederation. As long as the religious war goes on, the weakest will lose.

      Like

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      My position on Israel/Palestine is that both sides are in the right, and in the wrong. The solution is to go SECULAR and DEMOCRATIC (and make one state!) However, never to forget, that Israel has had a right to exist there, for more than 3,000 years. And that the creation of “Syria Palaestina” by fascist Pluto Rome was ILLEGAL (as Julian said).

      Like

  4. SDM Says:

    Food for thought –

    https://www.truthdig.com/articles/the-u-s-alone-is-to-blame-for-a-war-with-iran/

    https://www.truthdig.com/articles/it-doesnt-get-more-illegal-than-a-war-with-iran/

    Like

  5. ianmillerblog Says:

    This requires a definition of terrorist. There is no doubt Iran supplied weapons to Iraqi shiites, but most of the Americans killed were when Americans were an occupying power (and since they say they refuse to go when asked, they still are.) Is resisting an occu[ying power terrorism? If so, the French resistance were terrorists. If Iran is guilty for supplying weapons and people, then so was Britain for supporting the French resistance. If supplying the weapons that kill is terrorism, why isn’t the US terrorists for supplying the bombs that have killed hundreds of thousands of Yemenis? And, for that matter, supplying weapons to the Wahabbis trying to oust Assad? What about US sanctions? Against Iraq, the restrictions on pharmaceuticals have been assigned to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children, something Madeleine Albright apparently said was a price she could live with.

    The whole issue is somewhat turgid. My opinion is that part of the problem is the US has always acted in the region without a clear goal of what the end-result should be. They conquered Iraq, had a good chance to succeed in making it whatever they wanted, but all they could do was send in someone in cowboy boots and generally incompetent, or someone with no further objective (can’t be incompetent if he is not trying to do something).

    Like

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Dear Ian:
      That some of the French Resistance was terroristic, no doubt. My grandparents and my mom belonged to the pacific branch of the Resistance: they saved the lives of more than 100 Jews, by sheltering and feeding them (also some non-Jews wanted by the Nazis, as Daladier’s son).
      However the terroristic branch of the Resistance, the FFI (Forces Françaises Intérieures) mobilized 17 Nazi divisions at least, without counting the Vercors Operation. That probably made the difference between success and failure for D Day (that’s why Operation Dragon, the second landing, in which my dad participated, was scheduled: had the Resistance not shown up that would have to be the case).

      So we have to define what we fight for: there is good terrorism, the one according to secular, democratic law, and bad terrorism, the one against it. Soleimani helped, and incited, dictator Assad to crack down (= kill) unarmed civilians. He may have advised him to release Wahhabist terrorists, as Assad did. Soleimani did exactly this in Iraq, inciting Wahhabists he had freed, to attack Shiites (!), so he could help (hence control) Iraqi Shiites…

      Fundamentally, one can read in the early Islamist Writings, that Islam is a terroristic, raiding war machine against Romans, Greeks and Zoroastrian Iranian and their giant civilizations. The war has been going on for nearly 13 centuries… Ismaized areas have not come ahead, just the opposite…

      Like

      • ianmillerblog Says:

        Dear Patrice,

        The problem with good and bad terrorism is that “good” is in the eye of the beholder. Heydrich was obviously evil – a sociopath given free rein – but Soleimani is less clear. yes, he supplied the means to kill US invaders, but the US invaders had killed so many more Iraqis. Unfortunately, we do not know the motivation behind a number of actions. Thus the release of Wahhabist terrorists may have been in the hope they would attack the US. Just because that failed does not mean it was not intended. I am not trying to say he was a good guy, because he wasn’t at home, but I dislike the thought that someone like Trump can say that for some reason he doesn’t like him so he will kill him. To me, this arbitrary use of power is really a bad idea.

        Like

        • Patrice Ayme Says:

          dear Ian:
          Well, for me it’s very simple. Fundamental Islamism of the literalist type, following Uthman (“Suni”), or Ali (“Shiite”) is absolute terror and horror. It’s as inhuman as it gets. So Suleimani was the ultimate terrorists. I do not disagree with the arguments you present, but they are fig leaves.

          For me, Islam (“Sufi” type) is something I grew up with. Half of my family was born in Algeria. My first memories were from a city where we were the first non Ibadi living in the M’zab valley. Ibadi islam does not subscribe to the doctrine of Sunnism and Shi’ism. When I move to West Africa, even more distant of Wahhabism I was. There is a Fa… against me, and frankly, I reply in kind. Civilization is not compatible with Suleimani and his ilk. This is not a case of Native Americans or even Aztecs. It’s a case of Nazism…

          Like

        • Patrice Ayme Says:

          Suleimani instrumentalized the Suni like Al Zawahiri, and incited them to attack Shi’ite… so the latter turned towards him for help. In Syria, he engineered the killing of pacific civilian secular protesters, and the release of Wahhabist terrorists to kill secular Syrians…

          Like

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      I am very clear: Albright was a criminal against humanity, so was Clinton and Al. Pelosi and Biden are even worse. Arguably the latter two, especially the self-celebrating Catholic Pelosi are MORE culprit than Von Ribbentrop (correctly hanged at Nuremberg, that is real slow…)
      https://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2020/01/01/is-nancy-pelosi-a-self-indicting-war-criminal/

      Like

What do you think? Please join the debate! The simplest questions are often the deepest!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: