The mullahs unleashed
Bookworm on Jun 24 2009 at 1:37 pm | Filed under: Iran
I got this email from Steve Schippert:
It’s graphic. There is no nuance. And it’s why I am done debating otherwise intelligent friends on the aptness, nay brilliance, of our president’s near silence in condemnation of the Iranian regime which today executed its own Tienanmen Square in central Tehran.
http://threatswatch.org/rapidrecon/2009/06/unimaginable-horror-in-tehran/ [Be warned: graphic photo at link.]
Bludgeoning women to death, who represent the greatest true threat to the regime. Herding bus loads of Iranians into the square and then unleashing hundreds of Basij upon them from their concealed staging area – a street-side mosque. With axes, rifles, hand guns, clubs and gas, they commenced the killing spree; throwing people off of pedestrian bridges, gang beating defenseless women, shooting into the crowd and wading into them with axes.
[snip]
Today, I am done entertaining excuses for moral cowardice. Done.
My tears earlier today have given way to rage. Rage at a regime so brutally murdering the unarmed and peaceful. Rage at those who make eloquent excuses for a man who hesitates “because we don’t know how this is going to turn out.”
Yes we do. Count them. Quietly. To yourself.
Email This Post To A Friend
7 Responses to “The mullahs unleashed”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Oldflyer said something in the recent past about guns not really mattering given the overwhelming numbers and potential firepower on the side of the government.
As we can see here, even without guns or bombs or firepower of any kind (not even knives or clubs), the Iranian people still went out on the streets. They did not lack will. They just lacked a physical advantage, which made them more susceptible to something called Death.
I made the point before, at the time, that there is a synthesis between the physical munitions part and the spiritual drive of humans. And what this synthesis means is that you don’t usually see a lot of will to face death when people are unarmed. What you see is a lot of cowardice. But Iran has given us the continual image of people who will face death, armed with nothing but words; their voice.
How much more could they do armed with what ordinary Americans are armed with? Or even what our Special Forces and AF logistics airdrops into Afghanistan and other foreign nations?
But if you combine the will you see in Iran with guns, what you get is more will and more efficiency. Not just potential firepower, as the Iranian mullahs have, but actual firepower, multiplied over and over. For as long as the bodies last.
In the end, of course, ruthlessness triumphs and a mob never outnumbers an organized army with their limits removed.
Rounding up people and executing them in job lots work. But like all tactics, it is not invincible. It is not a guaranteed. It just works, on the basic fundamental principle that dead people are no longer a problem. Only the living can contribute to the problem. And this matters even more, for if you execute the leaders, then the entirety of the Iranian revolution will end. For how will they coordinate? How will they know when to move out, where to move out, and who are trustworthy sources or not? You shatter the movement, like you shatter an army, by destroying their command and control capabilities.
Today, I am done entertaining excuses for moral cowardice. Done.
I think I got done treating Leftists and Democrats as decent human beings worthy of equal respect a long time ago. Around 2006, actually.
They had to earn my respect if they wanted to be considered good people or decent human beings. Otherwise I assume them to be what their beliefs promote, mass murder accessories.
And of course, we come back to TFT. Which Martell, at least, likes to hear about.
http://www.targetfocustraining.com/blog/
Check out the video.
No one wants violence done to them. Once a person has heard, seen, or unfortunately experienced enough of it, they start looking for answers. How do I keep that from happening to me? What can I do in that situation? These questions would be fine if they were looking at the right side of the equation. The problem is one of empathy — we naturally look at the guy on the ground, the one getting kicked, or stabbed, or shot. We empathize with the victim, feel his pain, and the questions become about preventing what’s happening, rather than owning the situation.
No one looks at that situation and asks the real question: How do I maim, cripple and/or kill the other man? Most sane people will not reflexively see themselves as the victimizer, look at the situation and say, “That guy’s obviously got it handled. I want to operate like he does.”
I am one of those that seem to have naturally slotted into “I want to operate like he does”. Even before I knew anything about directed violence, I was always searching for more efficiency so that knock downs and hits would do permanent damage. Nothing like the movies, nothing like Hercules the Legendary Adventures. When a guy gets thrown into even hard soil, his neck should produce a nice snap sound. Broken bones. Disfigured joints. You know, the good stuff.
Now, it wasn’t because I knew anything about fighting at the time. All I knew was that the fight was taking too long. The people that went down, they would get back up again. That’s rather inefficient, and certainly we can all recognize inefficiency regardless of our skill sets or backgrounds.
And this Iranian situation proves my point even more. What is the natural response of bloggers and commenters? Do they empathize with the suffering of the people or do they talk about it from the perspective of the mullahs in how to best crush the insurgency? Most people do the former, but I do the latter.
Because it is only by doing the latter, that you defeat, utterly annihilate, the latter. You can empathize with the victim all you want. Put yourself in his place. Eventually you will be in his place. I prefer being taken down, if it should happen, in a different fashion.
The Iranians don’t even have the minimum hand to hand training required to fight other bare handed folks, let alone axes, bombs, gunships, snipers, and what not.
Pity them all you wish. Just don’t start emulating the victims because you feel compassion. Instead, feel hatred, that’s at least a useful emotion in a fight.
[...] The mullahs unleashed [...]
Neptunus Lex made an insightful remark last year:
“The innate character flaw of the political right, with its thrumming appeals to the logic of blood and soil, is its lamentable tendency to go in search of enemies abroad. The left, on the other hand, with its own appeals to the politics of envy and class warfare, is content to find mortal enemies closer to hand.”
Obama wants to focus on his “mortal enemies” in America, and is, I think, irritated by the distraction represented by the events in Iran.
Related: see my post Obama, Liberty, and Iran.
Enemies abroad are actual enemies. Envy and class warfare only creates chimeras and victims. It’s like the difference between the Crusades and the Inquisition. Obama is so alienated from his own country, except for its elite institutions such as Harvard and its insular liberal academic communities such as Hyde Park and its parochial politics as exemplified in Chicago, that he is in effect a “stranger in a strange land” in his own country, not so much a “Community Organizer/President” as an “Anthropologist/President” in his mother’s image, trying to coax the natives out of their cargo cult of liberty and individualism.
Link
This comment from Shrink’s post was of particular interest to me and I believe the same will apply to others here.