Iranian newspaper: muslims must attack civilians to stop countries supporting Israel

Kayhan Editor Close To Iran's Supreme Leader Khamenei: 'America and Its European Supporters Must Know... That the Price of Supporting [Israel] Will Cost Them the Property and Lives of Their Citizens... If the Heads of Some Islamic States Prevent the Muslim Peoples from Attacking the Zionists... They Can Be Toppled'

In a January 26 op-ed in the Iranian daily Kayhan, the paper's editor, Hossein Shariatmadari, who is close to Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, called on Muslims to unite in a retaliatory attack on American, European, and Israeli "sensitive centers" because of "the war crimes that these countries are committing in the Gaza Strip" and because of their support for Israel.

In his op-ed, Shar'iatmadari stressed that American and European civilians must be harmed in these attacks, so as to make the U.S. and the European countries change their policy towards Israel. He further called for harming Israelis worldwide, and explained that Islamic regimes that prevent an Islamic attack on Israel must be toppled, because they are defending the enemy. Following are excerpts from Sharatmadari's op-ed, which was titled "The Defenders of the Enemy":(1)

"The slaughter being carried out by the Zionists in Gaza – which includes the mass murder of Palestinian men, women, and children, cutting off the electricity, water, and fuel, stopping the supply of medicines and food products – along with various other savage crimes, is disgraceful for the Zionists, and for America and its European allies.

"However, it is even more embarrassing and disgraceful for, first and foremost, the heads of several Islamic countries, [including] Egypt, that is insisting on adhering to the abject Camp David Accords and closing the Rafah border crossing [to the Palestinians]; for the cowardly and characterless rulers of Bahrain and the U.A.E., who awarded a prize to the murderer [i.e. President Bush] of the oppressed Palestinian people during his recent trip to the region; and for the Saudi [royal] family, that bears the appellation 'Custodian of the Two Holy Places' but is indifferent to the crimes and violations of the infidel Zionists in the Muslim holy places, and so on.

"But aren't most of the sensitive centers of the Zionists, of the Americans, and of some European states that support Israel already situated within the arms' reach of the Muslims? And aren't the Zionists [vulnerable] and located within arms' reach of the Muslims at the four corners of the earth? What human and legal basis can prevent an attack on these centers and people? Why must the savage, blood-letting Zionists and Americans be permitted to choose the field of battle as they wish? [Why are they permitted] to besiege the oppressed Palestinian brothers and sisters and their children, on the land that belongs to that helpless people, and to shoot at them night and day and to massacre them?

"America and its European and Zionist supporters must know that their support for Israel's crimes will cost them very dearly. Once they discern that this support will cost them the property and lives of their citizens, they will doubtless reconsider their support for the savage Zionists... And didn't the Imam [Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini] teach that if every Muslim pours out one bucket of water, there will be a flood that will sweep away Israel, and destroy it?

"Every time a movement rises up against the Zionist occupier and acts to liberate its homeland, America and its allies accuse it of terrorism, and every state that supports these movements is punished. Why wouldn't the Muslims act the same way, and attack all the supporters of the Zionists everywhere in the world?

"The prevalent legal doctrine in both the Shi'ite school and the Sunni school is that it is permissible to attack anyone whom the enemy uses as a shield in the war against the enemies of Islam. Therefore, if some heads of Islamic states prevent the Muslim peoples from attacking the Zionists – thus constituting a shield that prevents support to the persecuted people of that region – it permissible to topple these defenders of the enemy."

The scary thing is that the Soviets while bent on our destruction were predictable and rational. These guys aren’t.

Even today Russia is no friend of the West but we really don’t need to worry too much about them shooting something our way. Iran on the other hand is a nation that was more or less seized by a bunch of nut cases. These guys are ruthless, guided by some Islamic based ideology, and life itself is meaningless in value. There is no democratic process, no rule of law, no adherence to international laws or convention. You’re dealing with a nation that operates like a big “gang.” This regime has entrenched itself into Iran at this point, and terrorism is seen as a viable way to advance national policy. Those who deny this reality usually avoid bringing up terms like “The Islamic Revolution,” and they usually don’t want to discuss what that means. The people in denial usually won’t mention Hezbollah and who founded them and is backing this group even today. Do you think it is a coincidence that the Europeans don’t officially recognize Hezbollah as a terrorist group? Did you know that? The EU does not even see this group as a terrorist organization, why? What are the consequences if they do?

“The capitalist will sell you the rope with which you’ll hang him.” (Stalin) Not only are we unwilling to take action against Iran, you have many in the West who pride themselves (not so much anymore) with their trade with these guys (i.e. Austria, Germany, etc.) and these are Western nations threatened by this regime and state. So while moderate Lebanese leaders are assassinated, one after the other with Syria and Iran’s finger prints all over it, you have the Europeans saying they’re shocked and appalled” but unwilling to do anything about it. Several in Europe in the meantime are running around theorizing about some grand conspiracy of the US to steal their national secrets in a NSA facility based in Bad Ailbling which gave the host nation access while their government turns a blind eye to sales of all sorts of hardware which is dual use to Iran. Ever wonder what brand trucks the Iranians prefer for their rocket and missile launchers?

A carrot and stick approach makes sense, especially when dealing with someone who operates on the lower rungs of Maslow’s hierarchy. You have a ruthless group of thugs; a West that does not really want to take action and does not stand united, even profiteering from trading and business with someone that wants to essentially slit their throat; and then you condition them that their behavior may it be with WMD, missile programs, playing with terrorism, hostages, mining the water ways etc. can indeed give them the results they desire. Iran is a monster, and waiting isn’t going to help.

That’s a BS argument that was popular some time ago in an attempt to discredit the current administration by showing some contradiction or wrong policy.

There are many in SA who dislike us and the Wahabist movement is largely based from there. There are many individuals and some groups that are definitely no friend and they funnel money and at times even have people who take direct personal action against us. However, the “state” of Saudi Arabia is in our court. May it be AQ, Saddam, or Iran, they are on our side. SA wants to sell their oil. They might dislike us from a cultural perspective, but they are nothing unless they sell their oil and Western firms develop those fields. They want the Gulf to be open and regional stability. Even with Israel you might have two sides that distrust each other and there is serious hate, but SA will not attack Israel. Certain arms deals can only be made when specific security guarantees are made in addition to meeting Federal Acquisition (FAR) and International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR). For us to sell SA F15s, Patriot, and some other systems specific criteria had to be met.

A good analogy. In the Cold War there were thousands of Germans who protested the US forces. We faced a terrorist threat that often had a German name attached to it. You herd cry’s like “Ami go home,” and some Americans back then were asking themselves why the hell we were there spending our money protecting their rear while their people detonate bombs on our bases. SA is in a similar situation. What some of the idiots in that country want and what’s best for national security as well as economic interests collide, and SA has chosen the West and us every time, may it be them going after AQ, allowing US basses be built there (Which was a difficult position to hold) in 1990 etc etc etc.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.