Rush on Syria

[George Rice]

Today on his show, Rush Limbaugh said something to the effect that we should be thinking about going into Iran and then Syria after Iraq.

I realize he doesn't speak for the administration, but if he keeps saying things like this, others will starting thinking this way too.

[adios]

Certain people already are to be honest. Don't think it will happen though.

[MMMMMM]

Well we probably should, and I thought it long before Rush said it. Iranians need our help to dethrone the mad-thug-mullahs who use helicopter gunships and bands of professional thugs to keep down the population and supress any kind of movement towards a meaningful democracy. Both Iran and Syria support terrorist groups but Iran is worse. Iran needs basic change but Syria might just need to have those terrorist camps obliterated.



"February 10, 2004, 8:35 a.m.
The Jihadis’ Primal Scream
Zarkawi's "Yaarrrhhh!"

Unless you depend on CNN for information — CNN totally and stunningly transformed the story, as Instapundit informed us yesterday — by now you have heard of the New York Times story about the discovery of a 17-page letter from Abu Musab al Zarkawi, written from Iraq in the middle of last month to the leaders of al Qaeda. It's an extremely explosive story.

According to the Times — whose correspondent, Dexter Filkins, saw both the Arabic original and a military translation, and "wrote down large parts of the translation" — the letter is a sort of jihadist primal scream. It says that the jihad against the Americans in Iraq is going badly. The Iraqis are not signing up for martyrdom or jihad, they do not even permit the jihadis to organize their terrorist attacks from local houses, and, worst of all, the Americans are not afraid of the terrorists. With that charming neglect of logic that seems to define much of the radical terrorist "mind," Zarkawi says both that the Americans "are the biggest cowards that God has created," and that "America...has no intention of leaving, no matter how many wounded nor how bloody it becomes."

And he adds, "we can pack up and leave and look for another land, just like what has happened in so many lands of jihad. Our enemy is growing stronger day after day, and its intelligence information increases."

If we had a government capable of advancing its case to the world at large, those phrases would be broadcast around the world, because they constitute an admission of defeat by a man in the forefront of the campaign against us in Iraq.

If that were all it said, it would be sensational for most Americans, although certainly not for NRO readers. I pointed out a couple of months ago that the terror masters in Damascus, Tehran, and Riyadh were undoubtedly gnashing their teeth, because their grand design for mass slaughter of Americans and bigtime insurrections all over Iraq, had failed. They had expected a bloodbath of epic proportions, and the same sort of "revolutionary" demonstrations that they had used so effectively against us in Lebanon in the 1980s and against the Israelis a decade later. But instead, they have discovered that the Iraqis don't like them (can we all finally put a nail in the coffin of that idiotic "they're all Shiites so they will all work together" myth?), and that the country is, indeed, headed toward democracy. Zarkawi even uses the word, as he gasps, "by God, this is suffocation!"

But there is more. He says the only chance for victory in Iraq is to provoke a Sunni/Shiite civil war, and the best way to do that is to unleash jihad against the Iraqi Shiites — referred to as "the perverse sects" — expecting that they will blame the Sunnis for it. The civil war would then "awaken the sleepy Sunnis..."

I have said for some time that the strategy of terror masters — above all, the mullahs in Tehran — was to foster civil strife in Iraq. They have been trying very hard to foment Kurdish/Turkamen, Sunni/Shiite and intertribal conflict for at least the past few months. But they greatly underestimated both the savvy of the Iraqis — who have seen the hundreds of Iranian Revolutionary Guards officers and their al Qaeda allies swarming all over the country, guiding the suicide bombers, organizing the radio and television broadcasts, and intimidating the locals whenever possible — and the slow but deliberate progress of the American armed forces. We aren't nearly as stupid as we look, and, as Zarkawi has discovered to his dismay, we don't run from a fight. At least not so long as this president is confidently in charge.

At the same time they underestimated us and the Iraqis, they overestimated their own capabilities. Iranian leaders have been told for months by their operatives in Iraq that large-scale destruction and major political action was just around the corner. But with every passing week, they realize they've been the victims of their own fantasies.

Although Zarkawi has often operated from Iran — as proven by court documents in Italy and Germany, and by information gathered by both our military and our intelligence folks in Europe and the Middle East — he is not Iranian. He's a Jordanian Palestinian, whose basic mission is the overthrow of the Hashemites in his native land. To judge by this letter, he is not particularly sophisticated about the requirements of the mullahcracy back in Tehran. They cannot "pack up and leave and look for another land," for, as President Bush rightly said in his Sunday session with Tim Russert, they are mortally threatened by the spread of democracy in the Middle East. They will have to play every card they have to drive us out, and, as Zarkawi's letter shows, they realize they are on a tight schedule: Once an Iraqi government is in place in June, "the sons of this land will be the authority...This is the democracy. We will have no pretexts."

So we can expect to see a desperate campaign against us and against the Shiites in the next several weeks.

Meanwhile, back in Iran, the natives are reading the various auguries, wondering what the primal forces of world history have in store for them. On the one hand, the parade of appeasers added a distinguished figure from the country that coined the word itself. Britain's very own Prince Charles sneaked off to Tehran to meet with the impotent President Khatami in yet another effort to make a deal that would save the tyrants from their doom. On the other hand, a handful of parliamentarians, mostly those rejected by the regime and thus denied high status and a guaranteed monthly wage, went to the universities to join in the boycott of the February 20 general elections. Their support is hardly necessary — a government poll in Tehran a week ago produced a truly amazing statistic: More than 90 percent do not intend to vote — but they deserve high marks for personal and political courage. Most Iranians expect that the regime will install a new Stalinism once the elections have been held, leading judicial figures have publicly scolded the parliamentarians to expect punishment, and the regime's thugs have launched a preemptive war on student leaders all over the country.

Nonetheless, demonstrations continue all over the country. Demonstrations in Kerman a couple of weeks ago were so large that the regime was forced to bring in helicopter gunships to mow down the protesters, and the usual thugs were unleashed on student demonstrators in Tehran and Shiraz in the last few days. Despite the calls for appeasement from the State Department and a handful of our elected representatives, the Iranian people can see what is going on in Iraq, and they must take a measure of comfort from it. And the regime was so upset by President Bush's passing reference to Middle Eastern tyrants who feel threatened by the liberation of Iraq (this weekend), that on Monday the official news service reported that Bush had threatened Iran with the same treatment he had delivered to Iraq. I can hear the Iranians sighing, "oh, if only it is true."

We do not need to fight a war to liberate Iran, but we must liberate Iran in order to win the terror war in Iraq. Zarkawi is part of a terror network that is based in Iran, and receives enormous support from the mullahs. If Iran were a free country, Iraq would be immeasurably more peaceful. It is time for Secretary Powell to call an end to the shameful efforts at appeasement, and throw his enormous personal prestige behind the just cause of the Iranian people. He disappointed them last summer, when he proclaimed that we did not wish to get engaged in the Iranian "family squabble." But it is not that; it is part of the life-and-death struggle in which we are now engaged. The longer we wait to support freedom in Iran, the more Americans, Italians, Poles, Japanese, Dutch, Romanians, Spaniards, and others, will be killed in Iraq.

Faster, please.

by Michael Ledeen, NRO contributing editor"

The Jihadi's Primal Scream

[ThaSaltCracka]

I don't think we need to do anything in either country. Mark my words, Iran will be in a revolution in 5-10 years maybe even earlier. Their citizens want fredom, especially their young who are becoming increasingly intelligent.
as for Syria, I really don't think anything will happen there. I can't possibly see how the Admin would get any support from the U.S. citizens or the world, because of this whole Iraq debacle.

[jokerswild]

[ThaSaltCracka]

this has no relevance what so ever, shut up

[jokerswild]

Your kind seek to impose it's will on the world by force.

Why don't you ask a real question? Why weren't the 9-11 planes tailed by the military immediately once they were hijacked, which is standard military protocol BEFORE 9-11?

Why did Bush sit in a classroom listening to children read after being told that America was under attack?

It has evrything to do with the neocon fundamentalist Christian view of world politics today.

I would die to defend your right to speak. You would kill to prevent mine.

Sorry,I won't shut up unless someone like you kills me.

[MMMMMM]

"Why weren't the 9-11 planes tailed by the military immediately once they were hijacked, which is standard military protocol BEFORE 9-11?"

Do you have any articles which support these assertions (please not some rambling far-fetched conspiracy theory articles, just good plain verifiable facts would be welcome).

[ThaSaltCracka]

Why weren't the 9-11 planes tailed by the military immediately once they were hijacked, which is standard military protocol BEFORE 9-11
nobody knew they were hijacked until the crashed into the buildings

Why did Bush sit in a classroom listening to children read after being told that America was under attack?
did you want him to run away from the school screaming or running for cover. When Bush was first told that a plane had hit the WTC, he and everyone else thought it was an accident, no one knew it was terrorism until the second struck.
Sorry,I won't shut up unless someone like you kills me. too bad I can't, the world would be better without stupid people like yourself.

[MMMMMM]

That is irrelevant, jokerswild, but since you bring it up I will add a few observations.

It is too bad, IMO, that during the Crusades the Christians did not reclaim more of the land which Mohammad's armies had taken by force, as Mohammed's armies had enslaved, pillaged and forced conversions at swordpoint as they went. You do know that Islam was spread by the sword, don't you, and that Muhammad personally led over a dozen military campaigns? Of course, it helped him gain warriors and followers when he told them that they, as Muslims, had the God-given right to enslave the women and children of the vanquished peoples, and to turn the captured women into sex slaves.

jokerswild, once again you somehow seem to have landed on the wrong side of history.

You once argued that Communism did not kill as many as America and Christianity had killed, which was an absurd statement. Now, you seem not to realize that the Crusades were primarily wars to recapture, not capture, lands which Mohammed's armies had previously taken by sheer force.

Muhammad was a warlike expansionist-minded leader who encouraged similar traits in his followers, both by guarantees of booty and by promises of sensual delights in the afterlife. He followed through on his plans to spread Islam by war and by force, leaving bloody swathes in his wake and populations either converted by the sword, enslaved by the sword, or killed by the sword. At the very least, the conquered populations were accorded dhimmi status which is to say they had few legal or political rights compared to Muslims, anbd they had to defer to Muslims in many ways.

Mohammed's ultimate goal was to subjugate the entire world to Islam--to the will of Allah--and by force wherever necessary. So, why be surprised when so many of his followers today also believe that the world should be forced to live under Islam. It is precisely this tenet of the Islamic faith and teachings which is so incompatible with nearly every Western value and freedom that we cherish.

All in all, it would probably have been a very good thing had the Crusades recaptured more of those lands which Mohammed's fanatical armies had captured previously. At the very least, a larger portion of the world would today would be under a more rational and more forgiving influence, had the Crusades better succeeded.