By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Amidst the funeral processions for the assassinated former Iranian supreme leader Ali Khamenei, calls for the killing of Donald Trump echoed through the packed prayer halls. The week-long ceremonies, delayed due to the US and Israeli war, have become a potent blend of grief and militant calls for revenge. Mourners, some bearing flags symbolizing vengeance, expressed their anger and vowed retribution for the leader’s death.
Read the original article here
The prospect of hearing calls for the assassination of Donald Trump at the funeral of Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, while seemingly shocking, is a sentiment that, upon closer examination, appears to be less surprising and more of an expected reaction given the geopolitical climate. It’s a dynamic that evokes a sense of “sky blue, water wet,” a confirmation of predictable animosities that have been brewing. The idea that people who are perceived as causing terror or acting as instigators of conflict would face such hostile sentiments at a memorial event is, frankly, not a revelation. It mirrors sentiments that likely arose at funerals or memorials for victims of attacks, where the perpetrators were understandably the focus of animosity and calls for retribution.
This particular sentiment, the calls for Trump’s demise, can be understood as a reflection of deep-seated grievances and a perceived history of aggression. It’s important to recognize that in certain political environments, displaying overt loyalty, even through aggressive pronouncements, can be a survival strategy, especially in nations where expressing dissent carries significant risks. It’s also noted that these calls are emanating from elements within Iran that are described as “Islamic Republic terrorist goons,” suggesting a specific faction rather than a universal Iranian sentiment.
Conversely, there’s a perspective that actual Iranians, despite acknowledging Trump as a “deplorable person,” might be thankful for actions taken by the Trump administration that targeted Iranian leadership, particularly those associated with what is described as a “terrorist organization that occupies Iran.” This viewpoint suggests a complex internal dynamic within Iran, where some citizens might be celebrating the death of Khamenei and yearning for liberation from what they perceive as an oppressive regime. The irony here is that the very figure being targeted by these funeral calls might, from a certain Iranian perspective, have inadvertently aligned with their desires for change.
The question of mortality and the likelihood of health issues for individuals like Trump at his age is raised, implying that the calls for his death might be fueled by a sense of inevitability. It’s a thought that, while morbid, touches upon the vulnerability of all individuals, regardless of their political standing. However, the underlying sentiment is framed as “same old, same old” in a region known for its fervent political rhetoric. The notion that such an approach can lead to positive outcomes is met with a degree of skepticism, implying a cyclical nature to conflict and retaliation.
The idea of forgiveness, as preached in religious texts like the Quran and the Bible, is brought into question, with the observation that it is “almost universally ignored.” This suggests that in matters of international relations and perceived injustices, appeals to higher moral principles often take a backseat to more immediate emotional responses and desires for retribution. The sentiment that “Don’t you dare deprive us of the pleasure of getting justice on his ass” further illustrates this, revealing a strong desire for a reckoning.
The significant point of contention seems to revolve around the killing of their leader, with the question posed: “Can anyone blame them for feeling that way?” This highlights a perceived imbalance in actions, suggesting that if one side initiates conflict through significant lethal action, the other side’s retaliatory sentiments, even if expressed in extreme ways, are understandable. The mention of the US drone strike that killed General Soleimani and the collateral damage involving “a hundred plus school kids” serves as a stark reminder of the human cost of such actions and the deep resentment they can foster.
The notion that such calls for assassination are “news” is also challenged, with the argument that when “one warmonger dictator extremist group calls for the death of another warmonger dictator extremist group’s leader it shouldn’t be treated as news but just another Tuesday.” This frames the situation as a continuation of existing hostilities, a power struggle where extreme rhetoric is a commonplace tool. The IRGC’s past assassination videos targeting President Trump further underscore the long-standing animosity and the consistent desire for his removal from power, particularly after the killing of Soleimani.
The idea that Trump is taking these calls “so personal” is also explored, suggesting that this particular country’s open hostility might be more pointed and direct than that from other adversaries. The observation that Trump is older and perhaps less healthy, and that his eventual demise could be attributed to divine intervention by those who wish him ill, presents a cynical yet strategic perspective on how such events are framed and interpreted. It’s a notion that acknowledges the human frailty of leaders while also highlighting the propaganda value of such pronouncements.
The comparison drawn between the Iranian sentiment and America’s reaction after the twin towers bombing, where there was a similar outpouring of anger and a desire for retribution, suggests a shared human experience of grief and outrage that can manifest in calls for vengeance. The article also touches upon the idea that such calls are not isolated to this specific instance, with a note about “Calls for killing of Trump nonstop all over Reddit,” hinting at a broader pattern of anti-Trump sentiment. The concluding remarks suggest that the world is “healing,” perhaps ironically, through the shared animosity towards figures perceived as detrimental to global stability.