Posted on 05/11/2006 8:44:27 AM PDT by blasater1960
New York Sun Editorial May 11, 2006
President Ahmadinejad's letter to President Bush, widely interpreted as a peaceful overture, is in fact a declaration of war. The key sentence in the letter is the closing salutation. In an eight-page text of the letter being circulated by the Council on Foreign Relations, it is left untranslated and rendered as "Vasalam Ala Man Ataba'al hoda." What this means is "Peace only unto those who follow the true path."
It is a phrase with historical significance in Islam, for, according to Islamic tradition, in year six of the Hejira - the late 620s - the prophet Mohammad sent letters to the Byzantine emperor and the Sassanid emperor telling them to convert to the true faith of Islam or be conquered. The letters included the same phrase that President Ahmadinejad used to conclude his letter to Mr. Bush. For Mohammad, the letters were a prelude to a Muslim offensive, a war launched for the purpose of imposing Islamic rule over infidels.
(Excerpt) Read more at nysun.com ...
Yeah, I heard that guy too, from the Citizen magazine. Didnt he say to watch out next for what they rant about during Friday Prayers?
I would beg to differ. There seems to be no shortage of knee-jerk claims to war right now.
This letter appears to be a declaration of a new phase of jihad,
So says an American blog. I'm not convinced LGF has a deep enough knowledge of Iranian culture to understand this letter. They're trying to read between the lines, but from a Western mindset that assumes the worst about Islam - which may or may not be true.
We cannot afford to take it lightly for any reason, not even to save you brave men and women from making more sacrifices.
No, we can't afford to take it lightly. We have to keep ourselves prepped for the worst case scenario. We should not, however, lurch into war based of half-cocked psychoanalysis of a letter written by an entirely foreign culture. Especially not when our forces are exhausted by two wars already.
If that's what President ImaWackJob meant, all I can do is quote President Bush "Bring Em On", sooner rather than later.
Of course if they were smart, which they aren't especially, they'd wait until at least after the 2006 elections, and preferably after the 2008. The American people are not the Spanish.
I saw that too. On Sept 11, there were peace signs drawn in front of the Barnes & Noble here... I screamed I was so angry. (Oh - I voted for Gore. Regretted that within hours...another topic)
Bring it on!
Supposedly, Clinton received such a letter (though it MAY have been a public one) by OBL, which would have allowed OBL to do all of the mentioned...
LGF is not the only one. Robert Spencer of JihadWatch believes this to be the case also.
Bin Bacon
Anti-Jihadist Gun Lubricant
$9.95 per 2oz. bottle A Mil-spec (MIL-L-46000, LSA )
gun lubricant, with a trace of PIG* to act as an UNCLEANSING agent, sending TERRORISTS a wad of DOOM with every bullet fired.
at www.binbacon.com
There's not enough evidence to only assume the worst. Simply, the Eastern mindset is entirely different than the Western. It would be hubris to pretend we understood it.
Oh, there's an objective source.
Howd' you know .45 is my favorite!
Ker....SLAM!
BTW what is wrong with Jihad Watch? I dont recall seeing anything there that is way off the mark?
If the CIA were on our side, I might agree.
Iran's letter to President Bush wasn't a warning; it's a bluff.
And this is not a game of tiddly winks. I gave examples such as 9/11/01, the USS Cole bombing, the Khobar Towers attack, Somalia Blackhawk Down, Beirut barracks bombings, African embassy bombings, et al to hit home the key point that the **real** attacks aren't preluded by warnings.
Nor was the attack on Spain's trains (or on London's 7/7 subways).
No warnings. No warning on any of the above.
Iran's letter to President Bush re-used an ancient Jihad threat in order to give credibility to a modern bluff. Without that thin veneer, it would be obvious to all invovled that Iran was bluffing. And for those paying attention, it still is obvious.
Pause
Here is what is going on: Iran is playing the insane rodeo clown. If you are familiar with cowboy rodeos, the rodeo clowns distract the bull away from the downed bull-rider.
Well, that's what Iran is doing.
Iran is distracting the U.S. military focus away from their downed rider: Hezbollah.
The government of Beirut has precious little control over Southern Lebanon right now, but had even less control when Syrian troops occupied that country. This is where Hezbollah operates.
But Hezbollah's safe haven was blown by a botched German prisoner exchange with a known PFLP terrorist for a German national held hostage in Iraq. Once the exchange was completed, the PFLP terrorist was seen fleeing to Hezbollah in Southern Lebanon...cementing the suspicions in the Coalition that Hezbollah was directing a large part of the insurgency inside Iraq.
Moreover, Hezbollah's protection has vanished. Faced with an ultimatum from President Bush, Syria's Assad withdrew his army from Lebanon. Thus, in two brief actions, Hezbollah was exposed as well as made vulnerable...military action from Israel, the Christian Beirut government, or from the U.S. (or a combination) against Hezbollah in Southern Lebanon no longer faced a wider war with Syria.
Hezbollah is on its own.
Now, you have to remember that Hezbollah is an Iranian umbrella group. Iran provides Hezbollah's funds, some training, and most of their weapons. In return, Hezbollah does Iran's bidding against the U.S. and Israel.
But with Hezbollah now exposed as a major player in the Iraq insurgency, and further made vulnerable by the withdrawal of Syria from Lebanon, Iran is facing losing one of its most powerful proxies...a loss that it can ill-afford as it has few friends in the region (Iranians are Persian, a race that has a traditional, pre-Islamic animosity toward Arabs).
And Iran has very few ways to project very little power. Defending Hezbollah physically inside Lebanon itself against an Israeli or U.S. attack would expose Iran to a crushing defeat both there as well as inside Iran itself due to simple military over-stretch.
So Iran is doing something desperate; they are "threatening" nuclear war against Israel and the U.S...two nuclear powers each capable of individually ending all life inside Iran itself.
Their theory is that the U.S. can't possibly (due to domestic and internation political considerations) wage a new war against Lebanon while Iraq is "in chaos" as Iran threatens nuclear war.
So by playing this bluff, Ahmadinejad believes that he can protect Hezbollah from being smashed by the U.S. military in Southern Lebanon.
And so far, he's right (though I'd place emphasis upon "so far").
Pause
But, it plays into Iran's gameplan to claim that radical jihadists "always warn their victims to convert before they attack."
They don't. They didn't warn before 9/11/2001, nor before the USS Cole bombing, nor before the Khobar Towers bombings, etc.
In short, making the sorts of claims that a few uninformed posters are making on this thread AIDS THE ENEMY.
Don't do that.
Thanks for pinging me.
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.