Shaming the mullahs

As I was writing the preceding post about Iran, it occurred to me that, as far as I know, Iran’s Mullahs actually live the personally austere life their extreme religion demands.  (We don’t hear about Uday-like pleasure palaces, for example.)  I wonder, though, if that’s really true.  It’s such a sealed society that we don’t know what’s going on, and I’m sure the Iranian people don’t.

Wouldn’t it be useful, though, if the West could expose the leader in some sort of scandal? The ordinary Western scandals, of course, won’t work, considering the fact that those acts we consider to be vices (torturing people, engaging in polygamy, having sex with children, practicing bestiality with animals other than dogs, etc.) are concepts the Iranian leaders embrace and even boast about.  What we need are images (real?  photoshopped?  I don’t care) of the Mullahs swilling Jack Daniels while petting dogs.  That should knock ’em out of office.

Be Sociable, Share!
  • Ymarsakar

    NOt having a Propaganda Ministry (Ole Donald canceled the department in the DoD) has some very bad consequences for our side, in this war.

    Now I’m not saying that bureacrats can get the propaganda war to favor us, but when the leaders totally and absolutely shun propaganda, not even those who are eager and competent in the field (like Pat Dollard or Steven Vincent) can get help from the government. Sometimes with deadly results. While the Mullahs and Palestinians and Al Qaedas get and use their money from drugs, sex trade, slave trade, arms trades, oil trade, oil kickback trade, sex kickback trade for Europeans, and various other immoral criminal activities to pay for their propaganda operations (Pallywood, Amanie at UN, Saddam owning the UN, UN kickbacked sexkeepers), we here on this side of the Atlanta must rely upon private donations, reader contributions, and get out the vote grassroots initiatives to fund any sort of pro-American advertisement campaign to get out the message favorable to America and those who value liberty.

    People wonder why the semi-omnipotent and godlike American superpower can’t get rid of some few score thousand insurgents, when the Amis are armed with M1A2 Abrams tanks, cruise missiles, Apache attack helicopters, and nuclear bombs. Well, there is your answer. Even the strongest man will be slowed and weakened by 100 pounds in chains, that shackles him.

    With the exception of nuclear missile/bomb technology, you cannot use conventional military power to offset propaganda/psychological power. Technically you can, but it usually means WWII fire bombing and Dresden, as well as punitive expeditions, the Roman favored form of decimation where 1 out of every 10 people in a village/unit is beaten to death by his/her compatriots, else the entire 10 out of 10 would be summarily executed. So given the limitations, the only thing you can use to offset psychological warfare favoring the other side, is to use nuclear weapons with the stipulation that it has to be near the enemy and it has to accrue zero to few casualties of any sort. By continuous use of irradiation weapons, that have zero to few casualties, you are able to counter-act most, if not all, of the enemy propaganda. To use bombs with the current limitations on civilian casualties, you would still have to do a Dresden or fire bombing, but we can add a modification. Evacuate the city first, then destroy it. Thus, reducing casualties to zero or just a few, but achieving the psychological impact that a good propaganda operation should.

    So ya, conventional weapons can offset and nullify psychological warfare operations based upon propaganda techniques. But you have to realize, that to all things there is a limit. The limit on America’s use of conventional weapons, is very very high. While the same limitations on the mullah’s propaganda weapons (Pali weaps too) are infinitely lower. As such, they get to use more of their capacity, while we get to use less of ours. So even if our capacity is higher than theirs, it doesn’t matter in the overall range of things.

    I like how you think, Bookworm. But I have sadly come to the conclusion that President Bush, his advisers, Donald Rumsfield, and the Joint Chiefs do not think in the same way as we do. I have factored in the possibility that Bush has been secretly funding and engaging in psychological warfare with our enemies. But if that is so, where is the evidence? Where are the results, even if we are unable to see the methods? Where are the countries and Muslims in this world that because of some “unexplained event”, has totally sided with America? Mushareff in Afghanistan, could be a good example, but he is an example of right after 9/11. I think we all realize that Bush was far more ruthless and offensive minded right after 9/11. There is no recent evidence that I see, that even hints taht Bush is conducting a shadow war outside of media perceptions.

    Remember when somebody accused the SpecOps in Afghanistan of burning Taliban corpses? People like me were going, “hey, I wish they were burning them alive, that would really get more of them to attack our Spec Ops, which is what they and we want”. But Bush and Condi were like “Oh, no, we sorry, we very sorry, we respect and admire, and blah blah blah”.

    This is the shadow war? Heck, far better for Bush to not be waging any covert operations, if that is the result of one of his ops.

    The SpecOps guys said in the end, that it was for “hygiene purposes”. Now I have to wonder whether that was just an excuse, you know, so that they can burn the corpses out in the open and “accidentally attract Taliban attacks”.

    Bush should be covering for these guys, he should be listening to the SpecOps guys specializing in psychological warfare and paying them to advise him. Instead, he sends Condi on a diplomatic mission of apologies. I mean, what is the use of sending in troops to demonstrate strength to the Taliban, if you appear like a wuss to the rest of the world when you open your mouth? Makes no sense, I say.

    Compare this to North Korea and Amanie. Their positions are fundamentally weaker than Bush’s. No nuclear weapons, and Norko can’t even get one nuke to work, let alone send it to America. Yet their propaganda lines are consistent, strong, and robust. They go to the UN and they say their lines with precise effect and impact. Thus accruing great benefits and rewards.

    If weaklings like Amanie who doesn’t even HAVE a missile defense system against American jets and American nuclear submarines, can have this kind of effect with the right techniques, just imagine what someone with the power of the US President could do if he really really focused.

  • Oldflyer

    I doubt your wish will ever come to fruition, since these Mullahs never seem to come out from behind the curtain. They manipulate their puppets from behind the cloak of secrecy.

    I have had the opportunity to observe the hypocrisy of Arab elites, including Royalty, who brutally enforce rigid norms on their populations, while indulging a profilgate life-style when they were away from home.

    During my early Navy days Athens and Beiruit were notorious playgrounds for some of these people; and in the vernacular of the day they loved to “party hearty”.

  • Scott in SF

    Persian society is so utterly different from our own, such a project would require Persian operatives. I remember seeing this film about how couples in Iran meet with a mullah in order to get married just for the day so that they can have casual sex, before going their separate ways. The film showed a long line of couples standing waiting for this young mullah to endorse their casual sex acts.
    The problem with this war is we really don’t understand our enemies. Everyone I’ve talked to who has been to Afganistan says the men are like %80 homosexual. Of course there is the death penalty for that, as bad as saying you are dumping Islam.

  • Ymarsakar

    There’s a specific term for it Scott. They call it a temporary marriage, and I found it when I was linking to subjects like Iranian support for “thighing”.

    Bisexual, they can’t reliably get any stats, via visits, about strict homosexuals. And they can only probably get the 80% based upon a convenience sample of the area they were in, not of the nation as a whole.