The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Eric Margolis ArchiveBlogview
U.S. vs. U.S. in Syria
pentagon-cia
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments

What a mess! In the crazy Syrian war, US-backed and armed groups are fighting other US-backed rebel groups. How can this be?

It is so because the Obama White House had stirred up the war in Syria but then lost control of the process. When the US has a strong president, he can usually keep the military and intelligence agencies on a tight leash.

But the Obama administration has had a weak secretary of defense and a bunch of lady strategists who are the worst military commanders since Louis XV, who put his mistress, Madame de Pompadour, in charge of French military forces during the Seven Year’s War. The French were routed by the Prussians. France’s foe, Frederick the Great of Prussia, named one of his dogs, “la Pompadour.”

As a result, the two arms of offensive US strategic power, the Pentagon, and CIA, went separate ways in Syria. Growing competition between the US military and militarized CIA broke into the open in Syria.

Fed up with the astounding incompetence of the White House, the US military launched and supported its own rebel groups in Syria, while CIA did the same.

Fighting soon after erupted in Syria and Iraq between the US-backed groups. US Special Forces joined the fighting in Syria, Iraq and most lately, Libya.

The well-publicized atrocities, like mass murders and decapitations, greatly embarrassed Washington, making it harder to portray their jihadi wildmen as liberators. The only thing exceptional about US policy in Syria was its astounding incompetence.

Few can keep track of the 1,000 groups of jihadis that keep changing their names and shifting alliances. Throw in Turkomans, Yazidis, Armenians, Nestorians, Druze, Circassians, Alawis, Assyrians and Palestinians. Oh yes, and the Alevis.

Meanwhile, ISIS was inflicting mayhem in Syria and Iraq. But who really is ISIS? A few thousand twenty-something hooligans with little knowledge of Islam but a burning desire to dynamite the existing order and a sharp media sense. The leadership of these turbaned anarchists appears to have formed in US prison camps in Afghanistan.

The US, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey armed and financed ISIS as a weapon to unleash on Syria, which was an ally of Iran that refused to take orders from the Western powers. The west bears a heavy responsibility for the deaths of 450,000 Syrians, at least half the nation of 23 million becoming refugees, and destruction of this once lovely country.

At some point, ISIS shook off its western tutors and literally ran amok. But the US has not yet made a concerted attempt to crush ISIS because of its continuing usefulness in Syria and in the US, where ISIS has become the favorite whipping boy of politicians.

Next, come the Kurds, an ancient Indo-European stateless people spread across Turkey, Iraq, Iran and Syria. They have been denied a national state by the western powers since WWI. Kurdish rebels in Iraq have been armed and financed by Israel since the 1970’s.

When America’s Arab jihadists proved militarily feeble, the US turned to the Kurds, who are renowned fighters, arming and financing the Kurdish Syrian YPG which is part of the well-known PKK rebel group that fights Turkey.

I covered the Turkish-Kurdish conflict in eastern Anatolia in the 1980’s in which some 40,000 died.

Turkey is now again battling a rising wave of Kurdish attacks that caused the Turks to probe into northern Syria to prevent a link-up of advancing Kurdish rebel forces.

So, Turkey, a key American ally, is now battling CIA-backed Kurdish groups in Syria. Eighty percent of Turks believe the recent failed coup in Turkey was mounted by the US – not the White House, but by the Pentagon which has always been joined at the hip to Turkey’s military.

This major Turkish-Kurdish crisis was perfectly predictable, but the obtuse junior warriors of the Obama administration failed to grasp this point.

Now the Russians have entered the fray in an effort to prevent their ally, Bashar Assad, from being overthrow by western powers. Also perfectly predictable. Russia claimed to be bombing ISIS but in fact, is targeting US-backed groups. Washington is outraged that the wicked Russians are doing in the Mideast what the US has done for decades.

The US and Russia now both claim to have killed a senior ISIS commander in an air strike. Their warplanes are dodging one another, creating a perfect scenario for a head-on clash at a time when neocons in the US are agitating for war with Russia.

Does anyone think poor, demolished Syria is worth the price? Hatred for the US is now seething in Turkey and across the Mideast. Hundreds of millions of US tax dollars have been wasted in this cruel, pointless war.

Time for the US to stop stirring this witch’s brew.

(Republished from EricMargolis.com by permission of author or representative)
 
• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: American Military, Syria 
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
121 Comments to "U.S. vs. U.S. in Syria"
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
    []
  1. anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    “..the Kurds… a stateless people spread across Turkey, Iran, Iraq and Syria….denied a home by western powers..”

    That is rather strange, since none of those four countries are either western or Christian. Is Margolis suggesting that these four wholesome Muslim democracies and cradles of human rights are eager to surrender their land and territory to create a Kurdish state and are only being stopped from doing so by “evil” western powers. What “magic dirt” the west must have.

    Read More
    • Replies: @akbar
    What HE means is that western powers which draw the boundaries of middle east after WW1
    , @Rex
    Maybe he was contrasting the creation of the jewish state which was helped by the west. I think western powers could have easily drawn out a state for the kurds. I'm not suggesting that's a good or bad idea.
    , @Diogenes
    Most modern nation-states were created when the western powers carved up the world at the end of WWI and again at the end of WWII
    , @Oscar Peterson
    Actually, the western powers did try to create a home for the Kurds in the Treaty of Sevres, the original peace treaty with Turkey after WW I. But they ultimately found it too hard to impose their will on the Turks. Greek control of the Ionian coast, Italian presence in the SW of Turkey, French domination around the Gulf of Alexandretta, and homelands for the Kurds and Armenians were all projects that foundered.

    After WW II, Turkey and Iran's roles as major US allies in the region and Iraq's place as a British client state until 1958 ensured that a Kurdish homeland was off the docket.

    With the failure of the Bush project to create a string of servile states in Iraq, Syria and Iran, and the utility that Israel sees in a manipulable Kurdish state, the project is at least discussed, but alienating Turkey is still too high a price for the US to pay.
    , @Gordon
    The unnatural boarders of Iran, Iraq and Syria and the absence of a Kurdistan were the results of Western powers carving up the Ottoman Empire after its defeat in WWI. The chosen boarders were based on what was best for the Western countries with no regard for local history. Western countries have abuse the situation to their advantage ever since.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    http://www.unz.com/emargolis/us-vs-us-in-syria/#comment-1553392
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. Calling US Defense Secretary Ash Carter “weak” borders to anti-Semitism. After all he was declared KOSHER GENTILE by the Jewish Lobby.

    Dr. Ashton Carter’s ‘kosher credentials’ can be checked by the company he keeps. To name a few, Carter and Philip D. Zelikow, the ‘man behind 9/11’ penned an article in 1998, entitled Catastrophic Terrorism, for the Jewish-controlled CFR magazine. The article detailed America’s reaction to an event like 9/11, and its beneficiaries in the long run. Carter is a great admirer of Bush’s deputy defense secretary Paul Wolfowitz, a US-Israel citizen and supporter of Netanyahu’s racist Likud party. Carters’ close allies also includes John Bolton at the Jewish lobby group American Enterprise Institute (AEI), Dr. Anthony Cordesman, founder Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), a pro-Israel national security consulting group, and Sen. John McCain.

    Carter is known ‘hawkish’ when in comes to US foreign policy towards Iran, Syria, Somalia, Pakistan, N. Korea, China – and even Russia.

    https://rehmat1.com/2014/12/05/ashton-carter-the-kosher-gentile-to-head-pentagon/

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon
    Still waiting for you to provide documentation and evidence to support your claim that Holocaust deniers are killed like critics of Islam are.
  3. This is one of Margolis’s better articles. I am impressed with Assad’s staying power through all this. I am also impressed with his hot and cultured wife. Frankly, Assad is a better man than the current and former scum in power in the US executive branch.

    Read More
  4. anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Rehmat
    Calling US Defense Secretary Ash Carter "weak" borders to anti-Semitism. After all he was declared KOSHER GENTILE by the Jewish Lobby.

    Dr. Ashton Carter’s ‘kosher credentials’ can be checked by the company he keeps. To name a few, Carter and Philip D. Zelikow, the ‘man behind 9/11’ penned an article in 1998, entitled Catastrophic Terrorism, for the Jewish-controlled CFR magazine. The article detailed America’s reaction to an event like 9/11, and its beneficiaries in the long run. Carter is a great admirer of Bush’s deputy defense secretary Paul Wolfowitz, a US-Israel citizen and supporter of Netanyahu’s racist Likud party. Carters’ close allies also includes John Bolton at the Jewish lobby group American Enterprise Institute (AEI), Dr. Anthony Cordesman, founder Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), a pro-Israel national security consulting group, and Sen. John McCain.

    Carter is known ‘hawkish’ when in comes to US foreign policy towards Iran, Syria, Somalia, Pakistan, N. Korea, China – and even Russia.

    https://rehmat1.com/2014/12/05/ashton-carter-the-kosher-gentile-to-head-pentagon/

    Still waiting for you to provide documentation and evidence to support your claim that Holocaust deniers are killed like critics of Islam are.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rehmat
    I never claimed to have some fruitful discussion with the 9ft thick Wailing Wall.

    The Zionist interpretation of Holocaust is a MYTH. It has been documented and proven beyond any doubt.

    Critics of Islam have more chances to survive in the West that the critics of Zionist Holocaust myth.

    After listening to Steven Spielberg’s Shoah rants, Dr. Roger Dommergue Polacco de Menasce, a French Jewish historian wrote him an open letter.

    “I feel it my duty as a Jew and after 20 years study of the historical problem of the holocaust, to call your attention to the facts. Facts are very stubborn and as no one can gainsay them, our congeners have been compelled to make disgusting politicians enact stalino-orwellian laws which forbid to mention anything concerning the dogma of the ‘six-million-gas-chambers,’ definitively reduced to perpetual worship of this alchemy.

    https://rehmat1.com/2011/09/24/french-jew-see-my-shoah-sherlockholmised%E2%80%99/
    , @Talha

    killed like critics of Islam are
     
    Criticism of Islam has a long history. The Jews of Madinah and Christian tribes of Najran questioned Islamic doctrine and objected to its tenets directly in front of the Prophet (pbuh). John of Damascus wrote the first polemical arguments (Heresy of the Ishmaelites) against Islamic beliefs openly under the rule of the Umayyads. I myself was quite amazed when I read it because it is quite barbed in its criticisms (even if it is inaccurate in its claims of Islamic doctrine - i.e. lot of straw man stuff going on)
    http://orthodoxinfo.com/general/stjohn_islam.aspx

    If you want to read direct translations of debates and academic criticisms of Islamic doctrines from the earliest times, here are two sources (Abbasid times):
    https://www.amazon.com/Defending-People-Truth-Islamic-Period/dp/9004148019
    (Ummayyad and Abbasid era):
    https://www.amazon.com/Seeing-Islam-Others-Saw-Zoroastrian/dp/0878501258

    From a juristic standpoint, the late Grand Mufti of Pakistan, Mufti Muhammad Shafi'i wrote in his work of exegesis (Ma'arif ul-Qur'an):
    "A person who speaks evil of Islam and the Shariah of Islam cannot continue to be a party to the treaty [dhimmi contract] with Muslims. But, according to a consensus of Muslim jurists, it means vilification that is done to insult and belittle Islam and Muslims, openly and publicly. Honest intellectual criticism while conducting research into problems and rulings remains exempt from its purview – then, it is not supposed to be vilification in its lexical sense.
    Therefore, for non-Muslim citizens of Dar al-Islam, any honest intellectual criticism can be allowed
    , but what cannot be allowed is vilification, contempt, insult or outrage against Islam."

    The fact that post-modern critics can't be bothered to learn history or refuse to understand there is a demarcation between criticism and insult/denigration is their problem. The fact that Muslim extremists espouse the same foolish views is ours.

    This is in concern with Muslim lands, as far as non-Muslim lands, we have no jurisdiction so it's a free-for-all, legally Muslims can't do anything about the insults.

    Peace.

  5. @anon
    "..the Kurds... a stateless people spread across Turkey, Iran, Iraq and Syria....denied a home by western powers.."

    That is rather strange, since none of those four countries are either western or Christian. Is Margolis suggesting that these four wholesome Muslim democracies and cradles of human rights are eager to surrender their land and territory to create a Kurdish state and are only being stopped from doing so by "evil" western powers. What "magic dirt" the west must have.

    What HE means is that western powers which draw the boundaries of middle east after WW1

    Read More
    • Replies: @survey-of-disinfo
    Iran's borders were not drawn by Western powers.

    The anachronism of the anglo-imperialist term "middle east" is no longer acceptable. Try West Asia. South West Asia if you want to be precise.

    , @anon
    Or in other words the four Muslim countries in question have had a 100 years to create a state for the Kurds but have not bothered to do so.
  6. @anon
    "..the Kurds... a stateless people spread across Turkey, Iran, Iraq and Syria....denied a home by western powers.."

    That is rather strange, since none of those four countries are either western or Christian. Is Margolis suggesting that these four wholesome Muslim democracies and cradles of human rights are eager to surrender their land and territory to create a Kurdish state and are only being stopped from doing so by "evil" western powers. What "magic dirt" the west must have.

    Maybe he was contrasting the creation of the jewish state which was helped by the west. I think western powers could have easily drawn out a state for the kurds. I’m not suggesting that’s a good or bad idea.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jacques Sheete
    Rex, you are no doubt correct.

    And I'd like to see "anon" provide evidence that democracy is anything special. I'd also like to see documentation that Israel and the US pay more than lip service to human rights and then only when it serves some other, usually nefarious, purpose.
    , @Historian


    Maybe he was contrasting the creation of the jewish state which was helped by the west. I think western powers could have easily drawn out a state for the kurds. I’m not suggesting that’s a good or bad idea.
     
    The western powers did, in fact, draw out a state for the Kurds in what is now southeastern Turkey.

    However, the Turks refused to ratify the treaty of Sevres. Ataturk then defeated the Greeks who were enforcing the treaty. In fact, the Turkish victory was so complete that the Greeks even got kicked out of the majority-Greek cities on the Turkish coast.

    At that point, the western powers were more concerned about saving Greece than Kurdistan.
  7. Russia claimed to be bombing ISIS

    Russia never claimed to be “bombing ISIS”, at least not exclusively. In fact, they’ve been pretty clear that any rebel group threatening Syrian government forces is a target. This is one of those myths that has been perpetuated to the point that everyone, including those who should know better, believes it.

    Read More
  8. @anon
    Still waiting for you to provide documentation and evidence to support your claim that Holocaust deniers are killed like critics of Islam are.

    I never claimed to have some fruitful discussion with the 9ft thick Wailing Wall.

    The Zionist interpretation of Holocaust is a MYTH. It has been documented and proven beyond any doubt.

    Critics of Islam have more chances to survive in the West that the critics of Zionist Holocaust myth.

    After listening to Steven Spielberg’s Shoah rants, Dr. Roger Dommergue Polacco de Menasce, a French Jewish historian wrote him an open letter.

    “I feel it my duty as a Jew and after 20 years study of the historical problem of the holocaust, to call your attention to the facts. Facts are very stubborn and as no one can gainsay them, our congeners have been compelled to make disgusting politicians enact stalino-orwellian laws which forbid to mention anything concerning the dogma of the ‘six-million-gas-chambers,’ definitively reduced to perpetual worship of this alchemy.

    https://rehmat1.com/2011/09/24/french-jew-see-my-shoah-sherlockholmised%E2%80%99/

    Read More
    • Replies: @survey-of-disinfo
    "Critics of Islam have more chances to survive in the West that the critics of Zionist Holocaust myth."

    But interesting to note that critics of the West also are generally unmollested in the West.

    Try criticizing the "Muslim" leaders of a "Muslim" nation in their land. Won't be pretty, right Rehmat? And remember it is written in the Al-Qur'an to "bear witness truthfully, even if against your own self".

    , @anon
    YOU KNOW what you said sport. And readers of this blog do too. You have been caught red handed in a big lie.
  9. A lot of people who should have known better fondly imagined that the Kurds were Syria’s allies. The Kurds have no allies except themselves. When ISIS took Mosul the Kurds jumped at the chance to grab Kirkuk. If and when Mosul is captured from ISIS, if it’s the Kurds who do the capturing, a second war between Arab militias and the Peshmerga for the city will begin before the ink is dry on the celebratory proclamations. The Kurds think this is their chance to hack out an ethnically cleansed Kurdish state from Turkey through Iraq, and they don’t care whom they have to betray to do it. And that’s precisely why they’ll never have their state – nobody, Turk, Arab, or Persian, trusts the Kurds any longer, and for excellent reasons.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    Hey Bro, funnny blog! On the Kurds, they just want to carve out their own ethno-linguistic nation-state like everyone else in the region did - by any means necessary. This rabid nationalism will keep destroying the people of that region through divide and conquer.

    Peace.
    , @RobinG
    B.P., your Raghead graphics are totally awesome!

    If you have any more to say about Uncle Sam pressing Saudis against Yemen, etc., please do so. The current assault on the Saudis smells of diversion from US and Israel. Today the Congress is voting to allow Americans to sue Saudis in US Courts for 911.
  10. Hundreds of millions of US tax dollars have been wasted in this cruel, pointless war???

    What? Try several trillions, since the Syrian invasion is the same war that we’ve been waging since the 9/11 False Flag. Wars waged against nations that were NO threat to the USA, but which Israel needs to be destroyed so it can be the only Big Dog in the region and expand its borders from the Rivers Nile to the Tigris-Euphrates.

    Paid for with the blood of our children and the wealth of our nation.

    The next time you lose a hubcap that falls off when you hit a pothole the size of a small pond, don’t get mad, be happy that you could do your part to please Israel!
    And if you go to the local military cemetery this weekend to visit your dead son or daughter killed fighting wars for Israel, give thanks to God for taking your precious child in such a noble cause!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Profnasty
    When you reach the other side
    You may encounter my son Clyde.
    If he asks you why he died
    Tell him- because his father lied.
  11. @Rex
    Maybe he was contrasting the creation of the jewish state which was helped by the west. I think western powers could have easily drawn out a state for the kurds. I'm not suggesting that's a good or bad idea.

    Rex, you are no doubt correct.

    And I’d like to see “anon” provide evidence that democracy is anything special. I’d also like to see documentation that Israel and the US pay more than lip service to human rights and then only when it serves some other, usually nefarious, purpose.

    Read More
  12. @anon
    Still waiting for you to provide documentation and evidence to support your claim that Holocaust deniers are killed like critics of Islam are.

    killed like critics of Islam are

    Criticism of Islam has a long history. The Jews of Madinah and Christian tribes of Najran questioned Islamic doctrine and objected to its tenets directly in front of the Prophet (pbuh). John of Damascus wrote the first polemical arguments (Heresy of the Ishmaelites) against Islamic beliefs openly under the rule of the Umayyads. I myself was quite amazed when I read it because it is quite barbed in its criticisms (even if it is inaccurate in its claims of Islamic doctrine – i.e. lot of straw man stuff going on)

    http://orthodoxinfo.com/general/stjohn_islam.aspx

    If you want to read direct translations of debates and academic criticisms of Islamic doctrines from the earliest times, here are two sources (Abbasid times):

    https://www.amazon.com/Defending-People-Truth-Islamic-Period/dp/9004148019

    (Ummayyad and Abbasid era):

    https://www.amazon.com/Seeing-Islam-Others-Saw-Zoroastrian/dp/0878501258

    From a juristic standpoint, the late Grand Mufti of Pakistan, Mufti Muhammad Shafi’i wrote in his work of exegesis (Ma’arif ul-Qur’an):
    “A person who speaks evil of Islam and the Shariah of Islam cannot continue to be a party to the treaty [dhimmi contract] with Muslims. But, according to a consensus of Muslim jurists, it means vilification that is done to insult and belittle Islam and Muslims, openly and publicly. Honest intellectual criticism while conducting research into problems and rulings remains exempt from its purview – then, it is not supposed to be vilification in its lexical sense.
    Therefore, for non-Muslim citizens of Dar al-Islam, any honest intellectual criticism can be allowed
    , but what cannot be allowed is vilification, contempt, insult or outrage against Islam.”

    The fact that post-modern critics can’t be bothered to learn history or refuse to understand there is a demarcation between criticism and insult/denigration is their problem. The fact that Muslim extremists espouse the same foolish views is ours.

    This is in concern with Muslim lands, as far as non-Muslim lands, we have no jurisdiction so it’s a free-for-all, legally Muslims can’t do anything about the insults.

    Peace.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Greg Bacon
    Then please explain why in the WEST, aka Europe, it is VERBOTEN to ask questions about the historical aspects of WW II?
    , @anon
    If I were too walk around Mecca with a sign saying "the prophet was a liar and a paedophile" I would probably be killed. You could walk around a western country saying something bad about Jesus and nothing would happen to you.
    , @Ace
    The assassination of a brave man in Pakistan calling for reform of blasphemy laws and a Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia affirming the earth is flat pretty much make a mockery of your idea that Muslims are capable of distinguishing between fair criticism of Islam and mockery of it.

    Egyptians burn down Christian churches and pull out the toe nails of converts to Christianity. Pardon me if I laugh at the notion of Muslim societies having an interest in honest criticism.
  13. What is to prevent the push to digital currency people from eventually turning on these same supporters of IS and deny access to SWIFT- I think loyalty(misplaced) in this BERNAYSIAN sideshow will lead to the Kingdoms beheading. As for new SYKES/PICOT just look at the Col Ralph Peters MiddleE mashup.

    Read More
  14. @Fiendly Neighbourhood Terrorist
    A lot of people who should have known better fondly imagined that the Kurds were Syria's allies. The Kurds have no allies except themselves. When ISIS took Mosul the Kurds jumped at the chance to grab Kirkuk. If and when Mosul is captured from ISIS, if it's the Kurds who do the capturing, a second war between Arab militias and the Peshmerga for the city will begin before the ink is dry on the celebratory proclamations. The Kurds think this is their chance to hack out an ethnically cleansed Kurdish state from Turkey through Iraq, and they don't care whom they have to betray to do it. And that's precisely why they'll never have their state - nobody, Turk, Arab, or Persian, trusts the Kurds any longer, and for excellent reasons.

    Hey Bro, funnny blog! On the Kurds, they just want to carve out their own ethno-linguistic nation-state like everyone else in the region did – by any means necessary. This rabid nationalism will keep destroying the people of that region through divide and conquer.

    Peace.

    Read More
    • Replies: @ANONYMOUS

    This rabid nationalism will keep destroying the people of that region through divide and conquer.

     

    Where there's dividing to be done, there are Israelis wielding the knife ---

    Israel and the Kurds
    http://www.the-american-interest.com/2016/03/18/israel-and-the-kurds-love-by-proxy/

    Jews and Iraqi Kurds in Early 20th Century Iraq
    http://israeli-kurdish-friendship-league.blogspot.com


    Surprising Ties between Israel and the Kurds
    http://www.meforum.org/3838/israel-kurds
    , @iffen
    I think the Kurds should volunteer to take in all Palestinians living in Greater Israel. They would have their own country yesterday. No? :)
    , @Rurik
    Dear Talha,

    Kurds, they just want to carve out their own ethno-linguistic nation-state like everyone else in the region did – by any means necessary. This rabid nationalism will keep destroying the people of that region through divide and conquer.
     
    "rabid nationalism"?

    or simply a human imperative for self-determination? The will to live under self-rule, that respects your traditions and heritage and implements policies to augment the dignity and prosperity of your people.

    That's how I see it. I don't think there's anything particularly rabid about wanting to determine your own future and the future of your progeny.

    Not that this particular conflict isn't cynically used by the zio-ptb to foist strife for its own murderous and heinous agenda. It is. And the Kurds are the tragic stooges of the Fiend. Alas.

    But if I were emperor of the world, I'd carve out the historic lands of these put-upon people and give them a state. Just as I would all tribes and peoples, from the Palestinians to the Jews to the Zulus. Self-determination is a human imperative. IMHO

    But I have another question for you sir.

    Why, please if you can articulate it for us, should Assad go? You're the only one I know of who's actually tried to make the case (with any cogency) that he is veritably a bad guy, and presumably should either relinquish power or be removed (perhaps eventually). But other than his brutal crack downs on (presumably) these stone age head slicers and rapists and cannibals - who I suspect, most of us here are appalled at, due to their brutality and murderous religious zealotry (among other things), and have little to zero sympathy for.

    So the question is, if not Assad, then who? Certainly not the cretins running around crucifying Christians and head-slicing assorted infidels. Certainly not anything like the atrocious Saudis or the corrupt regimes like the King of Jordan in bed with Bibi.

    What about Lebanon? Who's been ruling her ever since Hezbollah humiliated the zio-cowards a while back? (I suspect I'm not the only one who's a political neophyte here)

    But then I sort of suspect that you wouldn't want Hezbollah or anyone tied to the Shia Crescent to end up ruling Syria. So basically I'm just wondering what your thoughts are on the matter and how would you like to see the Syrian conflagration solved?

    >><<

    Being as you're our very own eloquent and articulate and educated Islamic (outlier ; ) with a prodigious and impressive (and humane and tolerant) understanding of these things and especially Islam..

    Peace
  15. @Talha

    killed like critics of Islam are
     
    Criticism of Islam has a long history. The Jews of Madinah and Christian tribes of Najran questioned Islamic doctrine and objected to its tenets directly in front of the Prophet (pbuh). John of Damascus wrote the first polemical arguments (Heresy of the Ishmaelites) against Islamic beliefs openly under the rule of the Umayyads. I myself was quite amazed when I read it because it is quite barbed in its criticisms (even if it is inaccurate in its claims of Islamic doctrine - i.e. lot of straw man stuff going on)
    http://orthodoxinfo.com/general/stjohn_islam.aspx

    If you want to read direct translations of debates and academic criticisms of Islamic doctrines from the earliest times, here are two sources (Abbasid times):
    https://www.amazon.com/Defending-People-Truth-Islamic-Period/dp/9004148019
    (Ummayyad and Abbasid era):
    https://www.amazon.com/Seeing-Islam-Others-Saw-Zoroastrian/dp/0878501258

    From a juristic standpoint, the late Grand Mufti of Pakistan, Mufti Muhammad Shafi'i wrote in his work of exegesis (Ma'arif ul-Qur'an):
    "A person who speaks evil of Islam and the Shariah of Islam cannot continue to be a party to the treaty [dhimmi contract] with Muslims. But, according to a consensus of Muslim jurists, it means vilification that is done to insult and belittle Islam and Muslims, openly and publicly. Honest intellectual criticism while conducting research into problems and rulings remains exempt from its purview – then, it is not supposed to be vilification in its lexical sense.
    Therefore, for non-Muslim citizens of Dar al-Islam, any honest intellectual criticism can be allowed
    , but what cannot be allowed is vilification, contempt, insult or outrage against Islam."

    The fact that post-modern critics can't be bothered to learn history or refuse to understand there is a demarcation between criticism and insult/denigration is their problem. The fact that Muslim extremists espouse the same foolish views is ours.

    This is in concern with Muslim lands, as far as non-Muslim lands, we have no jurisdiction so it's a free-for-all, legally Muslims can't do anything about the insults.

    Peace.

    Then please explain why in the WEST, aka Europe, it is VERBOTEN to ask questions about the historical aspects of WW II?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    Hey GB,

    Can't explain that - I didn't help draft those laws, nor do I support them. My response was only regarding the false accusation that any and all criticisms of Islam have been historically verboten.

    Peace.
  16. ANONYMOUS says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Talha
    Hey Bro, funnny blog! On the Kurds, they just want to carve out their own ethno-linguistic nation-state like everyone else in the region did - by any means necessary. This rabid nationalism will keep destroying the people of that region through divide and conquer.

    Peace.

    This rabid nationalism will keep destroying the people of that region through divide and conquer.

    Where there’s dividing to be done, there are Israelis wielding the knife —

    Israel and the Kurds

    http://www.the-american-interest.com/2016/03/18/israel-and-the-kurds-love-by-proxy/

    Jews and Iraqi Kurds in Early 20th Century Iraq

    http://israeli-kurdish-friendship-league.blogspot.com

    Surprising Ties between Israel and the Kurds

    http://www.meforum.org/3838/israel-kurds

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    I know and before that there were the British who helped start up the Arab revolt with false promises - how's that working out for them? Yeah - let's overthrow the Ottomans because we can't possibly get worse leadership! What a joke!

    Look, if people don't learn their lesson the first time, they can keep repeating mistakes until they do.

    Peace.
  17. @Talha
    Hey Bro, funnny blog! On the Kurds, they just want to carve out their own ethno-linguistic nation-state like everyone else in the region did - by any means necessary. This rabid nationalism will keep destroying the people of that region through divide and conquer.

    Peace.

    I think the Kurds should volunteer to take in all Palestinians living in Greater Israel. They would have their own country yesterday. No? :)

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    Hey iffen,

    No - they would probably have more trouble in their current state especially if they want an ethnically pure/homogeneous or super-majority Kurdistan - adding more Arabs into the mix - not advised!

    But in terms of logistics, I wouldn't mind that at all - there are many Palestinians already living outside of that territory, but it's not my choice to make. They ultimately have to decide whether they want to be willing participants in their own ethnic cleansing of their ancestral homeland. Thus far, most of them are willing to stand their ground.

    Peace.
    , @Rehmat
    Gandhi told Dr. Weisman, president of World Zionist Congress: "France is for the French, England for the Englishmen, and Palestine for the Arabs" in 1938.

    In 1947, Krishna Menon, Indian ambassador to United Nations said that since German did the mass killing of European Jews - Bavaria should be awarded to European Jews to establish their homeland.

    American sociologists Stephen Cohen and Ari Kelman in a survey had confirmed that more than half of American Jews under 35 would not view the destruction of Israel as a personal tragedy.....

    https://rehmat1.com/2011/06/23/allison-in-zionist-wonderland/
  18. @Greg Bacon
    Then please explain why in the WEST, aka Europe, it is VERBOTEN to ask questions about the historical aspects of WW II?

    Hey GB,

    Can’t explain that – I didn’t help draft those laws, nor do I support them. My response was only regarding the false accusation that any and all criticisms of Islam have been historically verboten.

    Peace.

    Read More
  19. @iffen
    I think the Kurds should volunteer to take in all Palestinians living in Greater Israel. They would have their own country yesterday. No? :)

    Hey iffen,

    No – they would probably have more trouble in their current state especially if they want an ethnically pure/homogeneous or super-majority Kurdistan – adding more Arabs into the mix – not advised!

    But in terms of logistics, I wouldn’t mind that at all – there are many Palestinians already living outside of that territory, but it’s not my choice to make. They ultimately have to decide whether they want to be willing participants in their own ethnic cleansing of their ancestral homeland. Thus far, most of them are willing to stand their ground.

    Peace.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    I realized that it was a failed joke as soon as I posted it.
    , @iffen
    From #33

    The kurds are Iranians and never had a state in thousands of years. Now the criminal west and their agents want to divide the regional countries to erect Second Israel as a colony of Zionist jews and criminal West in the region to put one against the other to weaken Islam

    That's me, Talha, out in front of the curve.
  20. @ANONYMOUS

    This rabid nationalism will keep destroying the people of that region through divide and conquer.

     

    Where there's dividing to be done, there are Israelis wielding the knife ---

    Israel and the Kurds
    http://www.the-american-interest.com/2016/03/18/israel-and-the-kurds-love-by-proxy/

    Jews and Iraqi Kurds in Early 20th Century Iraq
    http://israeli-kurdish-friendship-league.blogspot.com


    Surprising Ties between Israel and the Kurds
    http://www.meforum.org/3838/israel-kurds

    I know and before that there were the British who helped start up the Arab revolt with false promises – how’s that working out for them? Yeah – let’s overthrow the Ottomans because we can’t possibly get worse leadership! What a joke!

    Look, if people don’t learn their lesson the first time, they can keep repeating mistakes until they do.

    Peace.

    Read More
  21. @Rex
    Maybe he was contrasting the creation of the jewish state which was helped by the west. I think western powers could have easily drawn out a state for the kurds. I'm not suggesting that's a good or bad idea.

    Maybe he was contrasting the creation of the jewish state which was helped by the west. I think western powers could have easily drawn out a state for the kurds. I’m not suggesting that’s a good or bad idea.

    The western powers did, in fact, draw out a state for the Kurds in what is now southeastern Turkey.

    However, the Turks refused to ratify the treaty of Sevres. Ataturk then defeated the Greeks who were enforcing the treaty. In fact, the Turkish victory was so complete that the Greeks even got kicked out of the majority-Greek cities on the Turkish coast.

    At that point, the western powers were more concerned about saving Greece than Kurdistan.

    Read More
  22. @Talha
    Hey iffen,

    No - they would probably have more trouble in their current state especially if they want an ethnically pure/homogeneous or super-majority Kurdistan - adding more Arabs into the mix - not advised!

    But in terms of logistics, I wouldn't mind that at all - there are many Palestinians already living outside of that territory, but it's not my choice to make. They ultimately have to decide whether they want to be willing participants in their own ethnic cleansing of their ancestral homeland. Thus far, most of them are willing to stand their ground.

    Peace.

    I realized that it was a failed joke as soon as I posted it.

    Read More
  23. @Talha
    Hey Bro, funnny blog! On the Kurds, they just want to carve out their own ethno-linguistic nation-state like everyone else in the region did - by any means necessary. This rabid nationalism will keep destroying the people of that region through divide and conquer.

    Peace.

    Dear Talha,

    Kurds, they just want to carve out their own ethno-linguistic nation-state like everyone else in the region did – by any means necessary. This rabid nationalism will keep destroying the people of that region through divide and conquer.

    “rabid nationalism”?

    or simply a human imperative for self-determination? The will to live under self-rule, that respects your traditions and heritage and implements policies to augment the dignity and prosperity of your people.

    That’s how I see it. I don’t think there’s anything particularly rabid about wanting to determine your own future and the future of your progeny.

    Not that this particular conflict isn’t cynically used by the zio-ptb to foist strife for its own murderous and heinous agenda. It is. And the Kurds are the tragic stooges of the Fiend. Alas.

    But if I were emperor of the world, I’d carve out the historic lands of these put-upon people and give them a state. Just as I would all tribes and peoples, from the Palestinians to the Jews to the Zulus. Self-determination is a human imperative. IMHO

    But I have another question for you sir.

    Why, please if you can articulate it for us, should Assad go? You’re the only one I know of who’s actually tried to make the case (with any cogency) that he is veritably a bad guy, and presumably should either relinquish power or be removed (perhaps eventually). But other than his brutal crack downs on (presumably) these stone age head slicers and rapists and cannibals – who I suspect, most of us here are appalled at, due to their brutality and murderous religious zealotry (among other things), and have little to zero sympathy for.

    So the question is, if not Assad, then who? Certainly not the cretins running around crucifying Christians and head-slicing assorted infidels. Certainly not anything like the atrocious Saudis or the corrupt regimes like the King of Jordan in bed with Bibi.

    What about Lebanon? Who’s been ruling her ever since Hezbollah humiliated the zio-cowards a while back? (I suspect I’m not the only one who’s a political neophyte here)

    But then I sort of suspect that you wouldn’t want Hezbollah or anyone tied to the Shia Crescent to end up ruling Syria. So basically I’m just wondering what your thoughts are on the matter and how would you like to see the Syrian conflagration solved?

    >><<

    Being as you're our very own eloquent and articulate and educated Islamic (outlier ; ) with a prodigious and impressive (and humane and tolerant) understanding of these things and especially Islam..

    Peace

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    Dear Rurik,

    By 'rabid nationalism' I mean the one where one defines ones borders and then forces others out to gain a super-majority or forces mass population movements to inundate other minority populations as people like Saddam and others did. Kurdistan actually had a very healthy relationship with the Ottomans (before rabid Turkish nationalism infected them):
    "Confronted with the choice of being annexed at some point by Persia or formally accepting the supremacy of the Ottoman sultan in exchange for a very wide autonomy, the Kurdish leaders opted for this second solution and thus Kurdistan, or more exactly its countless fiefs and principalities entered the Ottoman bosom by the path of diplomacy...This particular status was to assure Kurdistan about three centuries of peace. The Ottomans controlled some strategic garrisons on the Kurdish territory, but the rest of the country was governed by the Kurdish lords and princes....Despite interferences from time to time from the central power, this particular status, to the satisfaction of the Kurds and the Ottomans, functioned without any major hitch until the beginning of the XIXth century."
    http://www.institutkurde.org/en/institute/who_are_the_kurds.php

    But where does it end? We keep fracturing people again and again - so I hear about the Balochis wanting their own land carved out of Pakistan and Iran. OK - then what? What about the major Balochi tribes when they can't get along, should it keep getting more and more granular? Is all this bloodshed worth it so you can hoist your own flag and print your own currency and be under the thumb of corrupt elites that speak your language? Look, I'm a Muslim, so these divisions really pain me since we are supposed to be one Ummah (that is an ideal of course) so I can only talk to them on terms that they and I agree with - in a few days people from all these places will be joining in Makkah for the Hajj, wearing the same two white sheets irrespective of status, heritage or language - our annual reminder of our ideal. One can have a nation and have it composed of districts and regions that mutually respect each other (like in the Kurdish-Ottoman example) - I mean we ourselves are comprised of 50 states, right? To me, Kurdistan simply means another place with a corrupt government buying millions of military hardware from the US and Israel and getting into border tiffs with its neighbors.

    Onto Syria...


    So the question is, if not Assad, then who?
     
    I don't know and nor do I claim to know. I do know his regime has butchered, disappeared an tortured its own people - this is fact. I also know his enemies have done the same. It is a mess and the people of Syria are caught in a meat grinder. They have to decide whether it is worth it living under Assad for the stability or not - it would be very arrogant of me to speak on their behalf. I used to have a better idea who I hoped would be in charge early on, but then those people were overwhelmed by the extremists so I cannot say.

    I actually wouldn't mind Shiah like Hezbollah ruling Syria if they respected Sunnis and others like they proved they could in Southern Lebanon. I think they have lost some of their credibility in parts of the population for siding with the regime - in other parts it has been bolstered.

    If we could get an immediate cease-fire going, I think that would be best. All sides, stop - immediately! I don't know if Daesh would be willing to abide by it. At this point a diplomatic solution needs to be brokered even if it means Daesh gets amnesty if they are willing to lay down arms. Nobody is going to get their exact solution, it will have to be a compromise.

    So, in short; I don't truly know of a final solution and am praying for what is best.

    My views are very much the views of Shaykh Muhammad Yacoubi (db) a high ranking Sunni scholar (and Sufi guide). Very early on he warned that the Islamists (aka Salafi/Wahhabi extremists) were going to be a major problem:
    "No one would deny that they [Jabhat al-Nusra] had some sympathy from the oppressed—not from all Syrian people; wise Syrians were always aware of the fact that these people are alien in their ideology. Probably the majority of them are foreigners—their ideology is alien to the Syrian religious culture… but one could say they had some sympathy, because they made some achievements, though we never sympathized with them; we made it very clear that car bombs are forbidden and such. But now, they lost—morally—their reputation… because no one wants a new Afghanistan in Syria, no one wants such… Now that people see the need to get rid of them, they see them as a burden, as a cause of harm...."
    "These people, especially foreign fighters, and including some of the extremist Syrians (I’m sure they will find some to brainwash and recruit) they won’t care about finishing off the regime or not; all they are interested in is their military activities, training, building secret cells, in order to move to other countries and to work against U.S. interests and some other countries. Someone drew my attention to this after having been inside and talking to some of them. He came back out with this impression. He said they don’t care whether the regime collapses or not; they are just building their own organization, cells, and strategic planning for future work."

    His view on what a Syria should look like post-regime is also mine:
    "Syria is an Islamic state. People are talking about an “Islamic state”; if you mean a state “ruled by shari’a,” let me tell you that 80% of the rulings of the laws in Syria now are based on shari’a. These people who are calling for [Islamic] reform are ignorant. Even the civil law, taken from the Napoleonic corpus of law, intact in 1949 and taken from the Egyptian civil law with some modifications—85% or more of it is compatible with the shari’a...."
    "We do not recommend, generally speaking, after the collapse of the regime, any radical change [to Syria’s laws], because that would create more chaos in the country. Considering personal status law, I do not recommend changing it. The liberals are calling for a change toward more freedom, from, let’s say, the so-called shari’a. I think in Syria we have quite a relaxed system where various sects have their own personal status, and are not forced to follow the shari’a. So on that issue, I do not demand, or recommend, any change in the personal status law. As you described, it’s quite moderate, and it is fully compatible with the shari’a...."
    "My position and the position of the ‘ulema: We do not hold responsible any community or group, religious or ethnic, for the atrocities committed during the tenure of the Ba’ath regime or Assad rule. Every individual is responsible for his own actions. I think it is very important to emphasize the rights of all minorities, especially in the midst of this extremist violence, these winds of extremism blowing through the uprising. The ‘ulema in general have no problem with the minorities, and are probably the safeguard for the unity of the country, for the solidarity of the nation, for the coexistence between all groups—to give a guarantee for these."

    A longer read can be found here:
    http://www.joshualandis.com/blog/sheikh-muhammad-al-yaqoubi-interviewed-by-syria-comment/

    Keep in mind this was an interview of a few years ago so some of it is outdated.

    May God bless the people of Syria and grant that land healing.

    , @alexander
    Good Rurik,

    I am shocked,at this late date, that you confer any legitimacy to the ouster of Assad as the authentic motive for the cruel dismemberment of Syria, which we are all bearing witness to.

    Are you a fool ?

    Who cares about Assad ? The answer is nobody.

    The 'removal of Assad' is the grand (and fraudulent)pretext to exterminate the territorial integrity of Syria.

    Which was always the first and supreme goal of Israel (and its Neocon acolytes) ,so it can extract the Golan Heights from the ruination of the state that its proxy terrorist mercenaries have been paid to demolish.

    This is the story, the whole story, and everything else is just plain malarkey.

    The dismemberment of Syria will proceed apace and will not relent until Israel has achieved it objective.

    The US,Turkey, the Saudi's and everyone else are just pathetic tools used in the carving up of what was once a country known as Syria.

    Don't waste your time on any other rationale, because its all bull crap.

  24. Here’s the answer: “The west bears a heavy responsibility for the deaths of 450,000 Syrians, at least half the nation of 23 million becoming refugees, and destruction of this once lovely country.”

    That’s not a bug, that’s the prize at the bottom of the ruling elite’s Happy Meal. Yeah, DC is fomenting widespread human misery in the Middle East, but it gets millions of new and improved citizens-to-be to replace those ornery and hard-to-control old ones.

    Read More
  25. @iffen
    I think the Kurds should volunteer to take in all Palestinians living in Greater Israel. They would have their own country yesterday. No? :)

    Gandhi told Dr. Weisman, president of World Zionist Congress: “France is for the French, England for the Englishmen, and Palestine for the Arabs” in 1938.

    In 1947, Krishna Menon, Indian ambassador to United Nations said that since German did the mass killing of European Jews – Bavaria should be awarded to European Jews to establish their homeland.

    American sociologists Stephen Cohen and Ari Kelman in a survey had confirmed that more than half of American Jews under 35 would not view the destruction of Israel as a personal tragedy…..

    https://rehmat1.com/2011/06/23/allison-in-zionist-wonderland/

    Read More
  26. ‘My friends died,’ heckler shouts. ‘So did my son,’ Joe Biden shoots back

    “My friends died, my American friends,” the heckler was shouting, remonstrating with the vice-president over US policy in Syria.

    “Will you listen? So did my son, OK?” shot back the vice-president, instantly silencing both the heckler and those in the crowd who had been trying to drown out the disruption by shouting: “Hillary, Hillary.”

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/sep/02/my-friends-died-heckler-shouts-so-did-my-son-joe-biden-shoots-back

    Wow! Never heard this before. Has Biden ever thought of the difference between natural and unnatural ,did he ever attend a science classin middle school demonstrating a cause effect situation ? Does he know the difference between personal pain and collective undefined sorrow of losses death destruction forced by human forces on the weak poor and and powerless?

    I hope he knew and he was blaming the cancer of his son on the depleted uranium dropped on Iraq and thus was blaming a war that preced this illegal war framing and forming the same type of lies and same type of moral emotional and legal wording .

    Read More
    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov
    Very few will have guts to accuse Joe Biden of being a low life that he is. I did, though. In general, US political "class" is a collection of low lives. The country is a runaway train at this stage.
  27. @anon
    "..the Kurds... a stateless people spread across Turkey, Iran, Iraq and Syria....denied a home by western powers.."

    That is rather strange, since none of those four countries are either western or Christian. Is Margolis suggesting that these four wholesome Muslim democracies and cradles of human rights are eager to surrender their land and territory to create a Kurdish state and are only being stopped from doing so by "evil" western powers. What "magic dirt" the west must have.

    Most modern nation-states were created when the western powers carved up the world at the end of WWI and again at the end of WWII

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon
    That was a 100 years ago sport. A state could be created for the Kurds tomorrow if the four Muslim countries in question were willing to allow it. The west is not preventing a Kurdish state.
  28. you think so huh? You think USA is confused and is failing in Syria? Ha, how little you really know! It’s ALL about the Military-Industrial complex and they are making money over fist selling arms to everyone so they can fight in Syria, therefore the Military-Industrial complex is totally winning!

    Read More
  29. @Rurik
    Dear Talha,

    Kurds, they just want to carve out their own ethno-linguistic nation-state like everyone else in the region did – by any means necessary. This rabid nationalism will keep destroying the people of that region through divide and conquer.
     
    "rabid nationalism"?

    or simply a human imperative for self-determination? The will to live under self-rule, that respects your traditions and heritage and implements policies to augment the dignity and prosperity of your people.

    That's how I see it. I don't think there's anything particularly rabid about wanting to determine your own future and the future of your progeny.

    Not that this particular conflict isn't cynically used by the zio-ptb to foist strife for its own murderous and heinous agenda. It is. And the Kurds are the tragic stooges of the Fiend. Alas.

    But if I were emperor of the world, I'd carve out the historic lands of these put-upon people and give them a state. Just as I would all tribes and peoples, from the Palestinians to the Jews to the Zulus. Self-determination is a human imperative. IMHO

    But I have another question for you sir.

    Why, please if you can articulate it for us, should Assad go? You're the only one I know of who's actually tried to make the case (with any cogency) that he is veritably a bad guy, and presumably should either relinquish power or be removed (perhaps eventually). But other than his brutal crack downs on (presumably) these stone age head slicers and rapists and cannibals - who I suspect, most of us here are appalled at, due to their brutality and murderous religious zealotry (among other things), and have little to zero sympathy for.

    So the question is, if not Assad, then who? Certainly not the cretins running around crucifying Christians and head-slicing assorted infidels. Certainly not anything like the atrocious Saudis or the corrupt regimes like the King of Jordan in bed with Bibi.

    What about Lebanon? Who's been ruling her ever since Hezbollah humiliated the zio-cowards a while back? (I suspect I'm not the only one who's a political neophyte here)

    But then I sort of suspect that you wouldn't want Hezbollah or anyone tied to the Shia Crescent to end up ruling Syria. So basically I'm just wondering what your thoughts are on the matter and how would you like to see the Syrian conflagration solved?

    >><<

    Being as you're our very own eloquent and articulate and educated Islamic (outlier ; ) with a prodigious and impressive (and humane and tolerant) understanding of these things and especially Islam..

    Peace

    Dear Rurik,

    By ‘rabid nationalism’ I mean the one where one defines ones borders and then forces others out to gain a super-majority or forces mass population movements to inundate other minority populations as people like Saddam and others did. Kurdistan actually had a very healthy relationship with the Ottomans (before rabid Turkish nationalism infected them):
    “Confronted with the choice of being annexed at some point by Persia or formally accepting the supremacy of the Ottoman sultan in exchange for a very wide autonomy, the Kurdish leaders opted for this second solution and thus Kurdistan, or more exactly its countless fiefs and principalities entered the Ottoman bosom by the path of diplomacy…This particular status was to assure Kurdistan about three centuries of peace. The Ottomans controlled some strategic garrisons on the Kurdish territory, but the rest of the country was governed by the Kurdish lords and princes….Despite interferences from time to time from the central power, this particular status, to the satisfaction of the Kurds and the Ottomans, functioned without any major hitch until the beginning of the XIXth century.”

    http://www.institutkurde.org/en/institute/who_are_the_kurds.php

    But where does it end? We keep fracturing people again and again – so I hear about the Balochis wanting their own land carved out of Pakistan and Iran. OK – then what? What about the major Balochi tribes when they can’t get along, should it keep getting more and more granular? Is all this bloodshed worth it so you can hoist your own flag and print your own currency and be under the thumb of corrupt elites that speak your language? Look, I’m a Muslim, so these divisions really pain me since we are supposed to be one Ummah (that is an ideal of course) so I can only talk to them on terms that they and I agree with – in a few days people from all these places will be joining in Makkah for the Hajj, wearing the same two white sheets irrespective of status, heritage or language – our annual reminder of our ideal. One can have a nation and have it composed of districts and regions that mutually respect each other (like in the Kurdish-Ottoman example) – I mean we ourselves are comprised of 50 states, right? To me, Kurdistan simply means another place with a corrupt government buying millions of military hardware from the US and Israel and getting into border tiffs with its neighbors.

    Onto Syria…

    So the question is, if not Assad, then who?

    I don’t know and nor do I claim to know. I do know his regime has butchered, disappeared an tortured its own people – this is fact. I also know his enemies have done the same. It is a mess and the people of Syria are caught in a meat grinder. They have to decide whether it is worth it living under Assad for the stability or not – it would be very arrogant of me to speak on their behalf. I used to have a better idea who I hoped would be in charge early on, but then those people were overwhelmed by the extremists so I cannot say.

    I actually wouldn’t mind Shiah like Hezbollah ruling Syria if they respected Sunnis and others like they proved they could in Southern Lebanon. I think they have lost some of their credibility in parts of the population for siding with the regime – in other parts it has been bolstered.

    If we could get an immediate cease-fire going, I think that would be best. All sides, stop – immediately! I don’t know if Daesh would be willing to abide by it. At this point a diplomatic solution needs to be brokered even if it means Daesh gets amnesty if they are willing to lay down arms. Nobody is going to get their exact solution, it will have to be a compromise.

    So, in short; I don’t truly know of a final solution and am praying for what is best.

    My views are very much the views of Shaykh Muhammad Yacoubi (db) a high ranking Sunni scholar (and Sufi guide). Very early on he warned that the Islamists (aka Salafi/Wahhabi extremists) were going to be a major problem:
    “No one would deny that they [Jabhat al-Nusra] had some sympathy from the oppressed—not from all Syrian people; wise Syrians were always aware of the fact that these people are alien in their ideology. Probably the majority of them are foreigners—their ideology is alien to the Syrian religious culture… but one could say they had some sympathy, because they made some achievements, though we never sympathized with them; we made it very clear that car bombs are forbidden and such. But now, they lost—morally—their reputation… because no one wants a new Afghanistan in Syria, no one wants such… Now that people see the need to get rid of them, they see them as a burden, as a cause of harm….”
    “These people, especially foreign fighters, and including some of the extremist Syrians (I’m sure they will find some to brainwash and recruit) they won’t care about finishing off the regime or not; all they are interested in is their military activities, training, building secret cells, in order to move to other countries and to work against U.S. interests and some other countries. Someone drew my attention to this after having been inside and talking to some of them. He came back out with this impression. He said they don’t care whether the regime collapses or not; they are just building their own organization, cells, and strategic planning for future work.”

    His view on what a Syria should look like post-regime is also mine:
    “Syria is an Islamic state. People are talking about an “Islamic state”; if you mean a state “ruled by shari’a,” let me tell you that 80% of the rulings of the laws in Syria now are based on shari’a. These people who are calling for [Islamic] reform are ignorant. Even the civil law, taken from the Napoleonic corpus of law, intact in 1949 and taken from the Egyptian civil law with some modifications—85% or more of it is compatible with the shari’a….”
    “We do not recommend, generally speaking, after the collapse of the regime, any radical change [to Syria’s laws], because that would create more chaos in the country. Considering personal status law, I do not recommend changing it. The liberals are calling for a change toward more freedom, from, let’s say, the so-called shari’a. I think in Syria we have quite a relaxed system where various sects have their own personal status, and are not forced to follow the shari’a. So on that issue, I do not demand, or recommend, any change in the personal status law. As you described, it’s quite moderate, and it is fully compatible with the shari’a….”
    “My position and the position of the ‘ulema: We do not hold responsible any community or group, religious or ethnic, for the atrocities committed during the tenure of the Ba’ath regime or Assad rule. Every individual is responsible for his own actions. I think it is very important to emphasize the rights of all minorities, especially in the midst of this extremist violence, these winds of extremism blowing through the uprising. The ‘ulema in general have no problem with the minorities, and are probably the safeguard for the unity of the country, for the solidarity of the nation, for the coexistence between all groups—to give a guarantee for these.”

    A longer read can be found here:

    http://www.joshualandis.com/blog/sheikh-muhammad-al-yaqoubi-interviewed-by-syria-comment/

    Keep in mind this was an interview of a few years ago so some of it is outdated.

    May God bless the people of Syria and grant that land healing.

    Read More
  30. […] “The US, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey armed and financed ISIS as a weapon to unleash on Syria, which was an ally of Iran that refused to take orders from the Western powers. The west bears a heavy responsibility for the deaths of 450,000 Syrians, at least half the nation of 23 million becoming refugees, and destruction of this once lovely country.” http://www.unz.com/emargolis/us-vs-us-in-syria/ […]

    Read More
  31. Dear Talha,

    This particular status was to assure Kurdistan about three centuries of peace. The Ottomans controlled some strategic garrisons on the Kurdish territory, but the rest of the country was governed by the Kurdish lords and princes….Despite interferences from time to time from the central power, this particular status, to the satisfaction of the Kurds and the Ottomans, functioned without any major hitch until the beginning of the XIXth century.”

    The Ottomans controlled some strategic garrisons

    I confess this is what I thought of reading those words

    http://i.ytimg.com/vi/PH0NduJNaVI/hqdefault.jpg

    Kurdish lords and princes

    http://www.thepropgallery.com/media/catalog/product/cache/1/image/f9b1b3b86a055a9d42aacc5a91a21a11/b/3/b3_1.jpeg

    Despite interferences from time to time from the central power, this particular status, to the satisfaction of the Kurds and the Ottomans, functioned without any major hitch ….”

    to the satisfaction of the Kurdish nobles and lords no doubt

    http://img2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20120605012511/braveheart/images/c/c4/Lord_Bottoms.jpg

    sorry for all the pics, sometimes they say it better than I can

    Is all this bloodshed worth it so you can hoist your own flag and print your own currency and be under the thumb of corrupt elites that speak your language?

    yes! better to live under the yoke of people who at least speak your own language, than under the yoke of distant and corrupt leaders who don’t even speak your language!

    the more fractured things are, the better. The more local the control, the better. The idea of These United States was supposed to mean local control. Local and state sovereignty. With a few, limited powers delegated to the federal government that couldn’t be dealt with at the state. Like border controls for instance.

    Now l0ok at us. We’re totally dominated from Washington, DC. Every facet of our lives, down to who we rent the spare room in our house to and what we eat or smoke or drink, is determined and regulated by a distant authoritative regime of imperial tyrants.

    It would be one thing if human nature were such that the powerful really cared about and wanted to make the lives of those they ruled better, but that almost never happens. Rather it’s always the psychopaths that gravitate to power, and always, they want more of it.

    So by all means, I’m for local control, whenever possible. Just look at the EU, and how unaccountable it is, and imperious and increasingly hated. These people don’t even speak the language of the millions of people who they order around like so many dogs.

    Anyways, I’m speaking for the West, and that’s how I think we should do things. I’m hoping one of Trumps main agendas, if he gets in, would be to return state’s rights, rather then go in the other direction of more authoritarian and central control.

    As for the nations of Islam, I differ to you, and others. I know so little. But it does sort of sound to me like you almost pine for the days of the Ottoman empire. No?

    Perhaps something like that would be better, if it could rein in the corruption and slaughter. But then what are the chances that such a regime would make things even worse? Like a regime controlled by a zio-stooge, like the Shah, or the House of Saud? Certainly it’d be better to have local rule than that, no?

    Also it seems to me that you prefer an overtly Islamic state to a more secular one, like Assad tolerates. No? Yes?

    Should Syria be an overtly Islamic state? Or more non-theocratic one, where Christians and even agnostics and their ways and beliefs were all recognized as valid?

    Can a man who is a believer in Islam, advocate for a secular government, so that it provides for a wide variety of beliefs? Including a respect for Muslim beliefs as well as Christian or secular?

    May God bless the people of Syria and grant that land healing.

    hear, hear!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    Dear Rurik,

    better to live under the yoke of people who at least speak your own language, than under the yoke of distant and corrupt leaders who don’t even speak your language!
     
    I will agree if that is the only two options, but I will willingly live under (as I do now) the hegemony of someone not from my background if they treat me with justice and fairness - that is the most important factor.

    The idea of These United States was supposed to mean local control. Local and state sovereignty. With a few, limited powers delegated to the federal government that couldn’t be dealt with at the state.
     
    Believe it or not, that is exactly what I am talking about when I speak about what I wouldn't mind seeing for the Muslim world. Does it help to have all these armies running around brutalizing each other under all these autocrats? Keep the administration as local as possible except for those things that shouldn't be; military, etc. And yes, I hope for more state's rights in the US - the pendulum has swung too far to the federal side.

    Rather it’s always the psychopaths that gravitate to power, and always, they want more of it.
     
    "All governments suffer a redurring problem: Power attracts pathological personalities. It is not that power corrupts but that it is magnetic to the corruptible." -- Chapterhouse: Dune

    I will agree with that general rule, but there have been notable exceptions.

    But it does sort of sound to me like you almost pine for the days of the Ottoman empire. No?
     
    Certainly as far as the best aspects of it (they weren't the longest surviving continuous dynasty in human history for naught) - as far as the more brutal parts of its history - no thanks! Again, as a Muslim, I have no problem being of a certain heritage and being led by someone else (whether in prayer or political leadership) if they are more capable. Turks certainly ruled way better than the various Arab dynasties that are now in charge, in my opinion.

    Should Syria be an overtly Islamic state? Or more non-theocratic one, where Christians and even agnostics and their ways and beliefs were all recognized as valid?
     
    I have never advocated theocracy (where the theologians are in charge - this is a recent Shiah concept) - theologians/jurists have their place, and running government is not it. Many of them were tortured and jailed by the rulers of their times.

    I will continue to advocate what my teachers do for Muslim lands; lands that respect the personal law of the Muslim minorities (stuff like them being able to drink alcohol, charge/pay interest, etc.) and their rights and do not oppress them. This gives a good exposition of the fantasy of a historical theocracy among Muslim lands (that the vast amount of governing has nothing to do religion):
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B7YcCuwlG_4

    If you look at the quotes from Shaykh Yacoubi (db) that I posted, it is clear that he is fine with the pluralistic recognition of the personal laws of all the religious minorities, even under a Sunni-dominated government as he would like to see, and that the current laws of Syria in this regard mesh quite well with what the Shariah asks for. As far as he is concerned, Syria is already 'Islamic' even under the Assad regime - it is the policies of the regime that he is opposed to.

    Peace.
  32. This writer seems to be a CIA asset.
    The kurds are Iranians and never had a state in thousands of years. Now the criminal west and their agents want to divide the regional countries to erect Second Israel as a colony of Zionist jews and criminal West in the region to put one against the other to weaken Islam and the regional countries for the interest of the criminal WEST.

    All of Kurdistan was part of Iran (Persia) where in early 16th century the criminal Ottoman invaders attacked Iran and captured part of Iranian territory in a war of choice which is called ‘battle of Chaldiran’, where the invaders were able to get the control of Iranian territory where you call ‘kurdistan’. But Ottoman Sultan was not able to steal Tabriz where still is part of Iranian territory. Ottoman Turks were not part of the Middle East at all. They are INVADERS like the Zionists.

    This stolen piece of Iranian territory in WWI further was divided by the criminal West, British empire where is part of Iraq, Turkey, Syria.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman%E2%80%93Safavid_War_(1623%E2%80%9339)

    Iranian government MUST brings its claim to all of Kurdistan and has NO difficulty to prove that this region is the Iranians and NO one else.

    When a phony ‘race’ like the Zionist jews coming from Khazar tribe around the black sea, and make a claim, with the help of the criminal British empire, and steal the Palestinian land based on a lie, God has given land to jews, and get away with this crime against humanity, then Iran should go after her territory.

    Down with Kurdish traitors who are spying for Israel for a long time and are trained terrorists of CIA/Mossad against the people of the region to help the criminal West to establish their full control over the entire region. The traitor Kurds are pawns. Israel/US not only they cannot erect second Israel in the region, but the First one will be destroyed at the end and the traitor Kurds will be punished severely.

    Down with traitor Kurds and their criminal supporters, the Zionists and imperialists and their CIA agents pose as phony ‘journalists.’

    The people of the region are fed up and will not let the criminal West with the help of the informants and CIA trained terrorists partition their countries and put one against the other.

    The posed ‘journalist’ should go and help The Catalonians, the Palestinians, The Iraqis, The Syrians, the Afghanis, the Libyans whom you have destroyed and then f*ck off from the region.

    {Starting in 1514, for over a century the Ottoman Empire and Savafid Persia were engaged in almost constant warfare over control of the South Caucasus and Mesopotamia. The two states were the greatest powers of West Asia, and the rivalry was further fueled by dogmatic differences: the Ottomans were Sunnis, while the Safavids were staunchly Shia Muslims of the Qizilbash sect, and seen as heretics by the Ottomans.[1]

    After the Battle of Chaldiran eliminated Safavid influence in Anatolia, during the war of 1532–55 the Ottomans conquered Arab Iraq, taking Baghdad in 1534 and securing recognition of their gains by the Treaty of Amasya in 1555.[2] Peace lasted for two decades before another war began in 1578. The Persians were hard pressed, as the Ottoman advances were combined with an attack by the Shaybanids into Persian Khorasan. The war ended with the Treaty of Constantinople in 1590, with a clear Ottoman victory: the Ottomans occupied Georgia, Revan, and even the former Safavid capital, Tabriz.[3]

    Read More
    • Replies: @survey-of-disinfo
    Entirely correct. In fact, the Kurdish people are one of the more genetically pure strains of Iranians.

    The Ottomans, the Soviet Russians , the AngloZionists, and of course the ever insecure Arabs seem intent to erase Iran but we have been here for thousands of years; we alone presented an insurmountable obstacle to Rome; we civilized the Arabs (and taught them their own grammar, if you can believe it); we bore the heaviest blows of the inhuman Mongols (and again, managed to civilize them); and now we're dealing with the West.

    We are an immortal civilization and a major contributor to human civilization. We're not going anywhere and we're not taking any more shit. From anyone.
  33. @Rurik
    Dear Talha,

    This particular status was to assure Kurdistan about three centuries of peace. The Ottomans controlled some strategic garrisons on the Kurdish territory, but the rest of the country was governed by the Kurdish lords and princes….Despite interferences from time to time from the central power, this particular status, to the satisfaction of the Kurds and the Ottomans, functioned without any major hitch until the beginning of the XIXth century.”
     
    The Ottomans controlled some strategic garrisons

    I confess this is what I thought of reading those words

    http://i.ytimg.com/vi/PH0NduJNaVI/hqdefault.jpg

    Kurdish lords and princes
     
    http://www.thepropgallery.com/media/catalog/product/cache/1/image/f9b1b3b86a055a9d42aacc5a91a21a11/b/3/b3_1.jpeg


    Despite interferences from time to time from the central power, this particular status, to the satisfaction of the Kurds and the Ottomans, functioned without any major hitch ....”
     
    to the satisfaction of the Kurdish nobles and lords no doubt

    http://img2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20120605012511/braveheart/images/c/c4/Lord_Bottoms.jpg

    sorry for all the pics, sometimes they say it better than I can

    Is all this bloodshed worth it so you can hoist your own flag and print your own currency and be under the thumb of corrupt elites that speak your language?
     
    yes! better to live under the yoke of people who at least speak your own language, than under the yoke of distant and corrupt leaders who don't even speak your language!

    the more fractured things are, the better. The more local the control, the better. The idea of These United States was supposed to mean local control. Local and state sovereignty. With a few, limited powers delegated to the federal government that couldn't be dealt with at the state. Like border controls for instance.

    Now l0ok at us. We're totally dominated from Washington, DC. Every facet of our lives, down to who we rent the spare room in our house to and what we eat or smoke or drink, is determined and regulated by a distant authoritative regime of imperial tyrants.

    It would be one thing if human nature were such that the powerful really cared about and wanted to make the lives of those they ruled better, but that almost never happens. Rather it's always the psychopaths that gravitate to power, and always, they want more of it.

    So by all means, I'm for local control, whenever possible. Just look at the EU, and how unaccountable it is, and imperious and increasingly hated. These people don't even speak the language of the millions of people who they order around like so many dogs.

    Anyways, I'm speaking for the West, and that's how I think we should do things. I'm hoping one of Trumps main agendas, if he gets in, would be to return state's rights, rather then go in the other direction of more authoritarian and central control.

    As for the nations of Islam, I differ to you, and others. I know so little. But it does sort of sound to me like you almost pine for the days of the Ottoman empire. No?

    Perhaps something like that would be better, if it could rein in the corruption and slaughter. But then what are the chances that such a regime would make things even worse? Like a regime controlled by a zio-stooge, like the Shah, or the House of Saud? Certainly it'd be better to have local rule than that, no?

    Also it seems to me that you prefer an overtly Islamic state to a more secular one, like Assad tolerates. No? Yes?

    Should Syria be an overtly Islamic state? Or more non-theocratic one, where Christians and even agnostics and their ways and beliefs were all recognized as valid?

    Can a man who is a believer in Islam, advocate for a secular government, so that it provides for a wide variety of beliefs? Including a respect for Muslim beliefs as well as Christian or secular?


    May God bless the people of Syria and grant that land healing.
     
    hear, hear!

    Dear Rurik,

    better to live under the yoke of people who at least speak your own language, than under the yoke of distant and corrupt leaders who don’t even speak your language!

    I will agree if that is the only two options, but I will willingly live under (as I do now) the hegemony of someone not from my background if they treat me with justice and fairness – that is the most important factor.

    The idea of These United States was supposed to mean local control. Local and state sovereignty. With a few, limited powers delegated to the federal government that couldn’t be dealt with at the state.

    Believe it or not, that is exactly what I am talking about when I speak about what I wouldn’t mind seeing for the Muslim world. Does it help to have all these armies running around brutalizing each other under all these autocrats? Keep the administration as local as possible except for those things that shouldn’t be; military, etc. And yes, I hope for more state’s rights in the US – the pendulum has swung too far to the federal side.

    Rather it’s always the psychopaths that gravitate to power, and always, they want more of it.

    “All governments suffer a redurring problem: Power attracts pathological personalities. It is not that power corrupts but that it is magnetic to the corruptible.” — Chapterhouse: Dune

    I will agree with that general rule, but there have been notable exceptions.

    But it does sort of sound to me like you almost pine for the days of the Ottoman empire. No?

    Certainly as far as the best aspects of it (they weren’t the longest surviving continuous dynasty in human history for naught) – as far as the more brutal parts of its history – no thanks! Again, as a Muslim, I have no problem being of a certain heritage and being led by someone else (whether in prayer or political leadership) if they are more capable. Turks certainly ruled way better than the various Arab dynasties that are now in charge, in my opinion.

    Should Syria be an overtly Islamic state? Or more non-theocratic one, where Christians and even agnostics and their ways and beliefs were all recognized as valid?

    I have never advocated theocracy (where the theologians are in charge – this is a recent Shiah concept) – theologians/jurists have their place, and running government is not it. Many of them were tortured and jailed by the rulers of their times.

    I will continue to advocate what my teachers do for Muslim lands; lands that respect the personal law of the Muslim minorities (stuff like them being able to drink alcohol, charge/pay interest, etc.) and their rights and do not oppress them. This gives a good exposition of the fantasy of a historical theocracy among Muslim lands (that the vast amount of governing has nothing to do religion):

    If you look at the quotes from Shaykh Yacoubi (db) that I posted, it is clear that he is fine with the pluralistic recognition of the personal laws of all the religious minorities, even under a Sunni-dominated government as he would like to see, and that the current laws of Syria in this regard mesh quite well with what the Shariah asks for. As far as he is concerned, Syria is already ‘Islamic’ even under the Assad regime – it is the policies of the regime that he is opposed to.

    Peace.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik
    Dear Talha,

    I will willingly live under (as I do now) the hegemony of someone not from my background if they treat me with justice and fairness – that is the most important factor.
     
    I agree, but how often does that happen?

    We both live in the US, and look how the US gov treated the Amerindians, and then the African slaves, and then the defeated southerners, most of whom were impoverished by the institution of slavery and put out of a job by the rich man's slaves, but who resisted northern tyranny with their lives, nonetheless. But they too were oppressed by the US government for decades, and are still having their symbols of resistance to tyranny suppressed by the same fecal government who knows not bounds upon its power (run amok). I too have lived under the nefarious institution of Affirmative Action my entire life, by these people 'not from my background' who would treat all people like me as second class citizens, because of the race we happen to have been born into. Is that "justice and fairness"?

    No, it is not. And I categorically reject their bigotry and hegemony over me as illegitimate, in the extreme. I play along as long as I must, but I certainly don't pretend that these hegemons are anything but rank and vile tyrants and bigots and posers to legitimate rule. I have more respect for a pile of dog puke in the dirt than I do for the presidents of these United States, or our congress for that matter, who I consider treasonous and not worthy to even be called dog puke in the dirt, because dog puke in the dirt never had a chance to be anything better.

    Keep the administration as local as possible except for those things that shouldn’t be; military
     
    that's fine so long as the ones in charge of this military are honorable men or women who possess character and humility. Who do you know of on this planet who you would trust to rule over a modern day sultanate?

    If there's a man alive who I would trust with such power, it'd probably be Ron Paul, who alone seems to possess a shred of actual character, vs. the legions and throngs of liars and scoundrels who would kill for such power. So since a man of this kind of character is so rare, I think we're all better off with as local as control as can be managed and wielded. Look at how lucky Russia was to get a Putin. And imagine what life in Russia would be with one of Rothschild's oligarchs still looting the place dry. I guess it's the best of all worlds if you can find a man or woman of character to lead and to rule, but this almost never happens, and as we look at the events of the world as they unfold, we all have to just sigh at the shame that the most powerful man in the world today (Rothschild), is also a psychopathic monster hell bent on an Orwellian hell on earth and war ravaged hate fest for most of us.

    I didn't get though the whole video Talha, I got as far as the guy saying that Islamic states are basically the same as secular states, and that there's nothing of consequence in an Islamic state that differs from a secular state, and I just had to stop there. I feel the guy has an agenda to insinuate that Muslim immigration will have no noticeable effect on secular states even when they become a majority, and I just don't buy that.

    But reading what you write about theocracy and states and religious governments, I couldn't help think of Latin American governments that are riddled with Christianity. In fact I don't think you can actually separate the state from the Catholic religion in most of them. The Cuban's certainly did, but this was an incredible hardship on the Catholics living in Cuba, and they're finally being able to embrace some of their religious life again, after having it suppressed for so long.

    But unlike Islamic states, I do know something about what Latin American states are like, and yes, even tho their putatively religious in their undertones, and full of symbolism, they still respect all people's ways of life and are perfectly livable for non-Catholics and even the secular.

    I suppose I imagine places like Iran or Lebanon or Syria or Morocco as being like this. Not so places like Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan or some of the other, more fundamentalist Islamic countries, where the religion is more rigidly imposed.

    what I feel like is happening Talha, and it's only a feeling, is that the men trying to unseat Assad tend to be Sunni extremists, or have tribal issues with Assad. Like when Morsi was elected to rule Egypt, and then set about aligning with the Zionists who had held Egypt under a cruel and corrupt regime for so long, and then this is what Morsi does when a democratically elected government comes to power in Egypt, he aligns with the Zionists to destroy the Assad regime?!

    I was appalled, and I just don't get it. It seems to me that the Arabs are always more interested in infighting than in coalescing and fighting off their collective enemies, like the British or the Zionists. They're always willing to toss the other Arabs under the bus to gain some advantage over their Arab or Muslim brothers, who they seem to hate more than they hate the Zionists who're craping on them all. This is how I see the House of Saud, as being willing to take order from the Zionists and the Great Satan so they can have hegemony over Iran or Syria. No?

    (I know this is rambling and disjointed, but that alas is how I sometimes write)
  34. Kurdistan is part of Iran. No one can erect a second Israel in the region.

    {The Battle of Chaldiran (Persian: جنگ چالدران‎‎; Turkish: Çaldıran Muharebesi) took place on 23 August 1514 and ended with a decisive victory for the Ottoman Empire over the Safavid Empire. As a result, the Ottomans annexed eastern Anatolia and northern Iraq from Safavid Iran for the first time.[11] It marked the first Ottoman expansion into eastern Anatolia, and the halt of the Safavid expansion to the west.[12] Despite the Iranians briefly reconquering the area over the course of the centuries, the battle marked the first event that would eventually, through many wars and treaties later, lead to its permanent conquest, until the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire centuries later. By the Chaldiran war the Ottomans also gained temporary control of northwestern Iran. The battle, however, was just the beginning of 41 years of destructive war, which only ended in 1555 with the Treaty of Amasya. Though Mesopotamia and Eastern Anatolia (Western Armenia) were eventually taken back by the Safavids under the reign of king Abbas I (r. 1588–1629), they would be permanently lost to the Ottomans by the 1639 Treaty of Zuhab.}

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Chaldiran

    {The US has indeed sought out “proxy ground forces” in Syria, but long before ISIS was turned into a geopolitical brand, and to topple the Syrian government, not clear Syria of terrorists the US itself helped move onto the battlefield in the first place.

    It is within this context that it can be seen that the Kurds are being used to first destroy Syria and then they themselves will be pitted against one another and whomever their neighbors end up being as a perpetually dependent, needy “semi-state” used as a wedge and employed by Washington, London, and Brussels well into the foreseeable future.

    Kurdish forces that allowed themselves to be used by Western interests were used as one of several components – the others involving sectarian extremists including Al Qaeda – to divide and destroy Iraq, and now they are being used against Syria, and soon against Iran.}

    http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2016/08/what-syrias-kurds-think-they-are.html

    Read More
    • Replies: @survey-of-disinfo
    "Kurdistan is part of Iran. "

    That is because the Kurds are an Iranian people. (Haalat khaas basheh, roolakam ;)
  35. Iranian government MUST brings its claim to all of Kurdistan and has NO difficulty to prove that this region is the Iranians and NO one else.

    should the Kurds have a say?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rehmat
    Yes - Kurd do have a say in Iran. After the end of 8-year Western-Iraq War on Iran - Tehran declared the Iranian Kurd region as an autonomous region within Iran with Kurdish as second official language.
  36. @Talha
    Hey iffen,

    No - they would probably have more trouble in their current state especially if they want an ethnically pure/homogeneous or super-majority Kurdistan - adding more Arabs into the mix - not advised!

    But in terms of logistics, I wouldn't mind that at all - there are many Palestinians already living outside of that territory, but it's not my choice to make. They ultimately have to decide whether they want to be willing participants in their own ethnic cleansing of their ancestral homeland. Thus far, most of them are willing to stand their ground.

    Peace.

    From #33

    The kurds are Iranians and never had a state in thousands of years. Now the criminal west and their agents want to divide the regional countries to erect Second Israel as a colony of Zionist jews and criminal West in the region to put one against the other to weaken Islam

    That’s me, Talha, out in front of the curve.

    Read More
  37. Andrei Martyanov [AKA "SmoothieX12"] says: • Website     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @KA
    'My friends died,' heckler shouts. 'So did my son,' Joe Biden shoots back


    “My friends died, my American friends,” the heckler was shouting, remonstrating with the vice-president over US policy in Syria.

    “Will you listen? So did my son, OK?” shot back the vice-president, instantly silencing both the heckler and those in the crowd who had been trying to drown out the disruption by shouting: “Hillary, Hillary.”

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/sep/02/my-friends-died-heckler-shouts-so-did-my-son-joe-biden-shoots-back

    Wow! Never heard this before. Has Biden ever thought of the difference between natural and unnatural ,did he ever attend a science classin middle school demonstrating a cause effect situation ? Does he know the difference between personal pain and collective undefined sorrow of losses death destruction forced by human forces on the weak poor and and powerless?

    I hope he knew and he was blaming the cancer of his son on the depleted uranium dropped on Iraq and thus was blaming a war that preced this illegal war framing and forming the same type of lies and same type of moral emotional and legal wording .

    Very few will have guts to accuse Joe Biden of being a low life that he is. I did, though. In general, US political “class” is a collection of low lives. The country is a runaway train at this stage.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RobinG
    Biden is - straight up - a liar, and he's really good at it.
  38. @Rurik

    Iranian government MUST brings its claim to all of Kurdistan and has NO difficulty to prove that this region is the Iranians and NO one else.
     
    should the Kurds have a say?

    Yes – Kurd do have a say in Iran. After the end of 8-year Western-Iraq War on Iran – Tehran declared the Iranian Kurd region as an autonomous region within Iran with Kurdish as second official language.

    Read More
  39. America participated in Israel’s proxy wars on Afghanistan, Iraq, Sudan, Libya, Lebanon, and currently in Syria, as an Israeli hit-man.

    In November 2011, French Jewish scholar and political activist, Bernard-Henri Levy told a meeting of country’s powerful Jewish Lobby (CRIF) that he convinced French president Nicolas Sarkozy to invade Libya as Qaddafi had to be removed because he became a threat to Israel.

    What I have done all these months, I did as a Jew. And like all the Jews of the world, I was worried. Despite legitimate anxiety is an uprising to be welcomed with favor, we were dealing with one of the worst enemy of Israel,” said Levy….

    https://rehmat1.com/2016/03/01/us-analyst-iraq-libya-and-syria-destroyed-for-israel/

    Read More
  40. @Rurik
    Dear Talha,

    Kurds, they just want to carve out their own ethno-linguistic nation-state like everyone else in the region did – by any means necessary. This rabid nationalism will keep destroying the people of that region through divide and conquer.
     
    "rabid nationalism"?

    or simply a human imperative for self-determination? The will to live under self-rule, that respects your traditions and heritage and implements policies to augment the dignity and prosperity of your people.

    That's how I see it. I don't think there's anything particularly rabid about wanting to determine your own future and the future of your progeny.

    Not that this particular conflict isn't cynically used by the zio-ptb to foist strife for its own murderous and heinous agenda. It is. And the Kurds are the tragic stooges of the Fiend. Alas.

    But if I were emperor of the world, I'd carve out the historic lands of these put-upon people and give them a state. Just as I would all tribes and peoples, from the Palestinians to the Jews to the Zulus. Self-determination is a human imperative. IMHO

    But I have another question for you sir.

    Why, please if you can articulate it for us, should Assad go? You're the only one I know of who's actually tried to make the case (with any cogency) that he is veritably a bad guy, and presumably should either relinquish power or be removed (perhaps eventually). But other than his brutal crack downs on (presumably) these stone age head slicers and rapists and cannibals - who I suspect, most of us here are appalled at, due to their brutality and murderous religious zealotry (among other things), and have little to zero sympathy for.

    So the question is, if not Assad, then who? Certainly not the cretins running around crucifying Christians and head-slicing assorted infidels. Certainly not anything like the atrocious Saudis or the corrupt regimes like the King of Jordan in bed with Bibi.

    What about Lebanon? Who's been ruling her ever since Hezbollah humiliated the zio-cowards a while back? (I suspect I'm not the only one who's a political neophyte here)

    But then I sort of suspect that you wouldn't want Hezbollah or anyone tied to the Shia Crescent to end up ruling Syria. So basically I'm just wondering what your thoughts are on the matter and how would you like to see the Syrian conflagration solved?

    >><<

    Being as you're our very own eloquent and articulate and educated Islamic (outlier ; ) with a prodigious and impressive (and humane and tolerant) understanding of these things and especially Islam..

    Peace

    Good Rurik,

    I am shocked,at this late date, that you confer any legitimacy to the ouster of Assad as the authentic motive for the cruel dismemberment of Syria, which we are all bearing witness to.

    Are you a fool ?

    Who cares about Assad ? The answer is nobody.

    The ‘removal of Assad’ is the grand (and fraudulent)pretext to exterminate the territorial integrity of Syria.

    Which was always the first and supreme goal of Israel (and its Neocon acolytes) ,so it can extract the Golan Heights from the ruination of the state that its proxy terrorist mercenaries have been paid to demolish.

    This is the story, the whole story, and everything else is just plain malarkey.

    The dismemberment of Syria will proceed apace and will not relent until Israel has achieved it objective.

    The US,Turkey, the Saudi’s and everyone else are just pathetic tools used in the carving up of what was once a country known as Syria.

    Don’t waste your time on any other rationale, because its all bull crap.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik

    The ‘removal of Assad’ is the grand (and fraudulent)pretext to exterminate the territorial integrity of Syria.
     
    I agree, Alexander that that is the motivation of the Fiend, but not so some others- like Talha for instance, who seems to consider the Assad regime too brutal and authoritarian for any legitimacy. But in Talha's case, (if I have it right), he's willing to see Assad remain so long as there's nothing better to replace him at the moment.

    But more to the point, what I'm trying to do is get a glimpse of the motivation of so many- like I just mentioned the democratically elected government of Egypt under Morsi, who seemed obsessed with Assad's removal, knowing he was playing directly into the Zionist's agenda.

    Why for God's sake, would such a man, in such a juxtaposition in history- after Egypt had suffered Mubarak for so terribly long under Mubarak's corrupt and Zio-infested rule, would Morsi want to help the Zionists by opposing Assad with such monomaniacal ferocity?

    It was like 'meet the new boss, same as the old boss' for the Egyptians

    what I'm trying to get a handle on, is why all these people hate Assad so much, that they're willing to align with the very Fiend that has so oppressed their people and their nations for so terribly long. There must be a reason other than Assad's and his father's brutal crack downs. Or if not, what was it about these people that Assad's father and Assad are brutally oppressing that makes them so anathema to the Assad regime? Is it that they're Sunni extremists who want a more Islamic regime in Syria?

    In the case of Turkey, it seems Erdogan simply wants more of Syrian land for himself. But why would your typical Muslim want to see Assad go when most Syrians (including Sunnis) like him and support him? That's what I want to know...

    The dismemberment of Syria will proceed apace and will not relent until Israel has achieved it objective.
     
    only because so many Muslims are willing to go along with their Zionist project. By why are they willing to be Israel's dupes?! Why are they willing to destroy a relatively (former) stable Muslim country and hand it all over to Zionists or NATO stooges like Turkey? It doesn't' make sense, unless they've all been thoroughly duped, and don't realize that Israel and (NATO/Zio-stooge) Turkey and (NATO/Zio-stooge Saudi Arabia) are poised to steal Syria away from ISIS as soon as Assad falls.

    To me it seems like Iran and Russia and Assad and Hezbollah are the adults in the room, trying to keep Syria intact, and that Turkey and Saudi and the Zio-west are all trying to do another horrific 'Libya' to the people of Syria, and send Syria reeling into the abyss just like what was done to Libya and Iraq, and I'm trying to get a handle on why these Sunnis are so willing to do that. That's why I'm asking Talha to give us some insights into all of that.
  41. @akbar
    What HE means is that western powers which draw the boundaries of middle east after WW1

    Iran’s borders were not drawn by Western powers.

    The anachronism of the anglo-imperialist term “middle east” is no longer acceptable. Try West Asia. South West Asia if you want to be precise.

    Read More
  42. @Rehmat
    I never claimed to have some fruitful discussion with the 9ft thick Wailing Wall.

    The Zionist interpretation of Holocaust is a MYTH. It has been documented and proven beyond any doubt.

    Critics of Islam have more chances to survive in the West that the critics of Zionist Holocaust myth.

    After listening to Steven Spielberg’s Shoah rants, Dr. Roger Dommergue Polacco de Menasce, a French Jewish historian wrote him an open letter.

    “I feel it my duty as a Jew and after 20 years study of the historical problem of the holocaust, to call your attention to the facts. Facts are very stubborn and as no one can gainsay them, our congeners have been compelled to make disgusting politicians enact stalino-orwellian laws which forbid to mention anything concerning the dogma of the ‘six-million-gas-chambers,’ definitively reduced to perpetual worship of this alchemy.

    https://rehmat1.com/2011/09/24/french-jew-see-my-shoah-sherlockholmised%E2%80%99/

    “Critics of Islam have more chances to survive in the West that the critics of Zionist Holocaust myth.”

    But interesting to note that critics of the West also are generally unmollested in the West.

    Try criticizing the “Muslim” leaders of a “Muslim” nation in their land. Won’t be pretty, right Rehmat? And remember it is written in the Al-Qur’an to “bear witness truthfully, even if against your own self”.

    Read More
  43. @No Second Israel
    Kurdistan is part of Iran. No one can erect a second Israel in the region.

    {The Battle of Chaldiran (Persian: جنگ چالدران‎‎; Turkish: Çaldıran Muharebesi) took place on 23 August 1514 and ended with a decisive victory for the Ottoman Empire over the Safavid Empire. As a result, the Ottomans annexed eastern Anatolia and northern Iraq from Safavid Iran for the first time.[11] It marked the first Ottoman expansion into eastern Anatolia, and the halt of the Safavid expansion to the west.[12] Despite the Iranians briefly reconquering the area over the course of the centuries, the battle marked the first event that would eventually, through many wars and treaties later, lead to its permanent conquest, until the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire centuries later. By the Chaldiran war the Ottomans also gained temporary control of northwestern Iran. The battle, however, was just the beginning of 41 years of destructive war, which only ended in 1555 with the Treaty of Amasya. Though Mesopotamia and Eastern Anatolia (Western Armenia) were eventually taken back by the Safavids under the reign of king Abbas I (r. 1588–1629), they would be permanently lost to the Ottomans by the 1639 Treaty of Zuhab.}

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Chaldiran


    {The US has indeed sought out "proxy ground forces" in Syria, but long before ISIS was turned into a geopolitical brand, and to topple the Syrian government, not clear Syria of terrorists the US itself helped move onto the battlefield in the first place.

    It is within this context that it can be seen that the Kurds are being used to first destroy Syria and then they themselves will be pitted against one another and whomever their neighbors end up being as a perpetually dependent, needy "semi-state" used as a wedge and employed by Washington, London, and Brussels well into the foreseeable future.

    Kurdish forces that allowed themselves to be used by Western interests were used as one of several components - the others involving sectarian extremists including Al Qaeda - to divide and destroy Iraq, and now they are being used against Syria, and soon against Iran.}

    http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2016/08/what-syrias-kurds-think-they-are.html

    “Kurdistan is part of Iran. ”

    That is because the Kurds are an Iranian people. (Haalat khaas basheh, roolakam ;)

    Read More
  44. @No Second Israel
    This writer seems to be a CIA asset.
    The kurds are Iranians and never had a state in thousands of years. Now the criminal west and their agents want to divide the regional countries to erect Second Israel as a colony of Zionist jews and criminal West in the region to put one against the other to weaken Islam and the regional countries for the interest of the criminal WEST.

    All of Kurdistan was part of Iran (Persia) where in early 16th century the criminal Ottoman invaders attacked Iran and captured part of Iranian territory in a war of choice which is called 'battle of Chaldiran', where the invaders were able to get the control of Iranian territory where you call 'kurdistan'. But Ottoman Sultan was not able to steal Tabriz where still is part of Iranian territory. Ottoman Turks were not part of the Middle East at all. They are INVADERS like the Zionists.

    This stolen piece of Iranian territory in WWI further was divided by the criminal West, British empire where is part of Iraq, Turkey, Syria.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman%E2%80%93Safavid_War_(1623%E2%80%9339)


    Iranian government MUST brings its claim to all of Kurdistan and has NO difficulty to prove that this region is the Iranians and NO one else.

    When a phony 'race' like the Zionist jews coming from Khazar tribe around the black sea, and make a claim, with the help of the criminal British empire, and steal the Palestinian land based on a lie, God has given land to jews, and get away with this crime against humanity, then Iran should go after her territory.

    Down with Kurdish traitors who are spying for Israel for a long time and are trained terrorists of CIA/Mossad against the people of the region to help the criminal West to establish their full control over the entire region. The traitor Kurds are pawns. Israel/US not only they cannot erect second Israel in the region, but the First one will be destroyed at the end and the traitor Kurds will be punished severely.

    Down with traitor Kurds and their criminal supporters, the Zionists and imperialists and their CIA agents pose as phony 'journalists.'

    The people of the region are fed up and will not let the criminal West with the help of the informants and CIA trained terrorists partition their countries and put one against the other.

    The posed 'journalist' should go and help The Catalonians, the Palestinians, The Iraqis, The Syrians, the Afghanis, the Libyans whom you have destroyed and then f*ck off from the region.


    {Starting in 1514, for over a century the Ottoman Empire and Savafid Persia were engaged in almost constant warfare over control of the South Caucasus and Mesopotamia. The two states were the greatest powers of West Asia, and the rivalry was further fueled by dogmatic differences: the Ottomans were Sunnis, while the Safavids were staunchly Shia Muslims of the Qizilbash sect, and seen as heretics by the Ottomans.[1]

    After the Battle of Chaldiran eliminated Safavid influence in Anatolia, during the war of 1532–55 the Ottomans conquered Arab Iraq, taking Baghdad in 1534 and securing recognition of their gains by the Treaty of Amasya in 1555.[2] Peace lasted for two decades before another war began in 1578. The Persians were hard pressed, as the Ottoman advances were combined with an attack by the Shaybanids into Persian Khorasan. The war ended with the Treaty of Constantinople in 1590, with a clear Ottoman victory: the Ottomans occupied Georgia, Revan, and even the former Safavid capital, Tabriz.[3]

    Entirely correct. In fact, the Kurdish people are one of the more genetically pure strains of Iranians.

    The Ottomans, the Soviet Russians , the AngloZionists, and of course the ever insecure Arabs seem intent to erase Iran but we have been here for thousands of years; we alone presented an insurmountable obstacle to Rome; we civilized the Arabs (and taught them their own grammar, if you can believe it); we bore the heaviest blows of the inhuman Mongols (and again, managed to civilize them); and now we’re dealing with the West.

    We are an immortal civilization and a major contributor to human civilization. We’re not going anywhere and we’re not taking any more shit. From anyone.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    Hey Bro,

    Anyone who has read my comments knows that I am a big fan of the contributions of the Persians and consider myself their nephew if not a son. The Persians have accomplished what you stated and even more that you left out....however, a little humiliation is due because saying stuff like:

    We are an immortal civilization
     
    is seriously asking for God to humiliate you to teach you a lesson..again. Greeks, Arabs, Mongols all overran you completely and utterly and yes you did recover, but do you want that to happen again just to prove you can do it another time?

    Bear in mind the Arabs could not have ruled without you and you indeed helped them become more than desert nomads, but remember the state they found you in - worshiping fire and they gave you God and muhabbat and ishq (give me a Rumi and Jaami and Saadi and Nizami and Shirazi without these) - what is that worth in the score?

    I say this with all due respect as sincere advice because I don't want your people to made an example out of.

    Peace.
  45. anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Rehmat
    I never claimed to have some fruitful discussion with the 9ft thick Wailing Wall.

    The Zionist interpretation of Holocaust is a MYTH. It has been documented and proven beyond any doubt.

    Critics of Islam have more chances to survive in the West that the critics of Zionist Holocaust myth.

    After listening to Steven Spielberg’s Shoah rants, Dr. Roger Dommergue Polacco de Menasce, a French Jewish historian wrote him an open letter.

    “I feel it my duty as a Jew and after 20 years study of the historical problem of the holocaust, to call your attention to the facts. Facts are very stubborn and as no one can gainsay them, our congeners have been compelled to make disgusting politicians enact stalino-orwellian laws which forbid to mention anything concerning the dogma of the ‘six-million-gas-chambers,’ definitively reduced to perpetual worship of this alchemy.

    https://rehmat1.com/2011/09/24/french-jew-see-my-shoah-sherlockholmised%E2%80%99/

    YOU KNOW what you said sport. And readers of this blog do too. You have been caught red handed in a big lie.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rehmat
    Which "big lie" darling? I didn't say: "Sorry Mom, I was wrong about Holocaust!"

    It's my fellow Canadian Monika Schaefer, the music teacher who said that.

    https://rehmat1.com/2016/07/19/sorry-mom-i-was-wrong-about-holocaust/
  46. anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Talha

    killed like critics of Islam are
     
    Criticism of Islam has a long history. The Jews of Madinah and Christian tribes of Najran questioned Islamic doctrine and objected to its tenets directly in front of the Prophet (pbuh). John of Damascus wrote the first polemical arguments (Heresy of the Ishmaelites) against Islamic beliefs openly under the rule of the Umayyads. I myself was quite amazed when I read it because it is quite barbed in its criticisms (even if it is inaccurate in its claims of Islamic doctrine - i.e. lot of straw man stuff going on)
    http://orthodoxinfo.com/general/stjohn_islam.aspx

    If you want to read direct translations of debates and academic criticisms of Islamic doctrines from the earliest times, here are two sources (Abbasid times):
    https://www.amazon.com/Defending-People-Truth-Islamic-Period/dp/9004148019
    (Ummayyad and Abbasid era):
    https://www.amazon.com/Seeing-Islam-Others-Saw-Zoroastrian/dp/0878501258

    From a juristic standpoint, the late Grand Mufti of Pakistan, Mufti Muhammad Shafi'i wrote in his work of exegesis (Ma'arif ul-Qur'an):
    "A person who speaks evil of Islam and the Shariah of Islam cannot continue to be a party to the treaty [dhimmi contract] with Muslims. But, according to a consensus of Muslim jurists, it means vilification that is done to insult and belittle Islam and Muslims, openly and publicly. Honest intellectual criticism while conducting research into problems and rulings remains exempt from its purview – then, it is not supposed to be vilification in its lexical sense.
    Therefore, for non-Muslim citizens of Dar al-Islam, any honest intellectual criticism can be allowed
    , but what cannot be allowed is vilification, contempt, insult or outrage against Islam."

    The fact that post-modern critics can't be bothered to learn history or refuse to understand there is a demarcation between criticism and insult/denigration is their problem. The fact that Muslim extremists espouse the same foolish views is ours.

    This is in concern with Muslim lands, as far as non-Muslim lands, we have no jurisdiction so it's a free-for-all, legally Muslims can't do anything about the insults.

    Peace.

    If I were too walk around Mecca with a sign saying “the prophet was a liar and a paedophile” I would probably be killed. You could walk around a western country saying something bad about Jesus and nothing would happen to you.

    Read More
    • Replies: @survey-of-disinfo
    "You could walk around a western country saying something bad about Jesus and nothing would happen to you."

    That is mostly because you have zero respect and clearly no love for Jesus (AS) or His message. A perverse people who put a crucifix in urine and call it art. (Seriously fucked up.) See this is the whole point here: you insult ALL the prophets and your ancestors used to do far worse to the prophets and saints of God. Is this not written in multiple books? :)

    , @Talha
    Hmmm...let's take this bit by bit...what part of "...what cannot be allowed is vilification, contempt, insult or outrage against Islam" was not clear? You want the right to be able to publicly insult God or His prophets (any of them - just try the same with the Son of Mary [pbuh] in Makkah) in Muslim lands? Over our dead bodies...

    As I pointed out, you should have the right to criticize in polemic and academic form in Muslim countries - that's as far as it goes.

    Furthermore, you assume that Saudi is representative of the Islamic response - it is not. Looking at it from a juristic aspect, a number of consequences are possible (depending on the terms of the binding agreement one had when residing or staying as a non-Muslim); anything from absolutely nothing happening (one of the Hanafi opinions - again depending on what is stipulated), to exile (Shafi'i opinion), to death (another Hanafi opinion).

    The fact is that capital punishment for blasphemy was canon law for much of the West through much of its Christian history (all the way up into the 18th century in certain areas):
    https://www.britannica.com/topic/blasphemy

    That law was not changed to accommodate Muslims, it was done in the aftermath of the killing fields of Europe (16th & 17th century) - look up the Peace of Westphalia.

    You are welcome to petition for its revival (it would be quite hypocritical of me to stand in its way); it will not affect me since I do not insult/denigrate other religions nor their important figures. My hunch is that the only likely result of a reinstatement of such a policy will simply be the acceleration of the depopulation of ethnic whites in the West as they seem the most prone to this behavior.

    Peace.
  47. anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Diogenes
    Most modern nation-states were created when the western powers carved up the world at the end of WWI and again at the end of WWII

    That was a 100 years ago sport. A state could be created for the Kurds tomorrow if the four Muslim countries in question were willing to allow it. The west is not preventing a Kurdish state.

    Read More
  48. anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @akbar
    What HE means is that western powers which draw the boundaries of middle east after WW1

    Or in other words the four Muslim countries in question have had a 100 years to create a state for the Kurds but have not bothered to do so.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus

    A state could be created for the Kurds tomorrow if the four Muslim countries in question were willing to allow it.
     
    The US South could have had its own confederation as well, but Lincoln was not "willing to allow it."

    funny how bodies politic are not unlike bodies physical: they resist the amputation of their parts.
  49. Schizoid US foreign policy can only be understood with the realization that US wars are for Israel’s Oded Yinon Plan that is using the US as Israel’s bludgeon. Until Jewish neocons are purged from policymaking roles, there will be chaos and wars.

    https://leaksource.info/2015/01/17/the-yinon-plan-greater-israel-syria-iraq-and-isis-the-connection/

    Meet the masters of chaos:

    http://hugequestions.com/Eric/TFC/FromOthers/list-of-neocons-for-Iraq-war.htm

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/how-the-israeli-lobby-works-in-the-united-states/5313557

    Read More
  50. @anon
    If I were too walk around Mecca with a sign saying "the prophet was a liar and a paedophile" I would probably be killed. You could walk around a western country saying something bad about Jesus and nothing would happen to you.

    “You could walk around a western country saying something bad about Jesus and nothing would happen to you.”

    That is mostly because you have zero respect and clearly no love for Jesus (AS) or His message. A perverse people who put a crucifix in urine and call it art. (Seriously fucked up.) See this is the whole point here: you insult ALL the prophets and your ancestors used to do far worse to the prophets and saints of God. Is this not written in multiple books? :)

    Read More
  51. @survey-of-disinfo
    Entirely correct. In fact, the Kurdish people are one of the more genetically pure strains of Iranians.

    The Ottomans, the Soviet Russians , the AngloZionists, and of course the ever insecure Arabs seem intent to erase Iran but we have been here for thousands of years; we alone presented an insurmountable obstacle to Rome; we civilized the Arabs (and taught them their own grammar, if you can believe it); we bore the heaviest blows of the inhuman Mongols (and again, managed to civilize them); and now we're dealing with the West.

    We are an immortal civilization and a major contributor to human civilization. We're not going anywhere and we're not taking any more shit. From anyone.

    Hey Bro,

    Anyone who has read my comments knows that I am a big fan of the contributions of the Persians and consider myself their nephew if not a son. The Persians have accomplished what you stated and even more that you left out….however, a little humiliation is due because saying stuff like:

    We are an immortal civilization

    is seriously asking for God to humiliate you to teach you a lesson..again. Greeks, Arabs, Mongols all overran you completely and utterly and yes you did recover, but do you want that to happen again just to prove you can do it another time?

    Bear in mind the Arabs could not have ruled without you and you indeed helped them become more than desert nomads, but remember the state they found you in – worshiping fire and they gave you God and muhabbat and ishq (give me a Rumi and Jaami and Saadi and Nizami and Shirazi without these) – what is that worth in the score?

    I say this with all due respect as sincere advice because I don’t want your people to made an example out of.

    Peace.

    Read More
    • Replies: @5371
    [remember the state they found you in – worshiping fire]

    I don't like participating in religious dispute, but historically I would suggest the Iranians and their prophet were actually the inventors of monotheistic/dualistic religion, to which category Christianity and Islam both belong.
    , @SolontoCroesus


    We are an immortal civilization
     

    is seriously asking for God to humiliate you to teach you a lesson.
     

     
    Persia WAS several millennia before your homicidal and "humiliating" Abrahamic god, first recorded by Ezra -- under Cyrus, about 600 BC -- and his reinterpretation by Mohammad, Talha.



    Cyrus, King of Persia, was a Zoroastrian; Zoroaster introduced monotheism and the concept of the supremacy of ethical behavior somewhere between 8000 BC and 6500 BC (see Mary Settegast

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AIxNlFQCLTk

    Thus, Persians were practicing the ethical concepts of Zoroaster for over 5,000 years before the god of the 'chosen people' introduced the practices of killing off en masse any who failed to pay obeisance to self-appointed supremacists.
  52. @anon
    If I were too walk around Mecca with a sign saying "the prophet was a liar and a paedophile" I would probably be killed. You could walk around a western country saying something bad about Jesus and nothing would happen to you.

    Hmmm…let’s take this bit by bit…what part of “…what cannot be allowed is vilification, contempt, insult or outrage against Islam” was not clear? You want the right to be able to publicly insult God or His prophets (any of them – just try the same with the Son of Mary [pbuh] in Makkah) in Muslim lands? Over our dead bodies…

    As I pointed out, you should have the right to criticize in polemic and academic form in Muslim countries – that’s as far as it goes.

    Furthermore, you assume that Saudi is representative of the Islamic response – it is not. Looking at it from a juristic aspect, a number of consequences are possible (depending on the terms of the binding agreement one had when residing or staying as a non-Muslim); anything from absolutely nothing happening (one of the Hanafi opinions – again depending on what is stipulated), to exile (Shafi’i opinion), to death (another Hanafi opinion).

    The fact is that capital punishment for blasphemy was canon law for much of the West through much of its Christian history (all the way up into the 18th century in certain areas):

    https://www.britannica.com/topic/blasphemy

    That law was not changed to accommodate Muslims, it was done in the aftermath of the killing fields of Europe (16th & 17th century) – look up the Peace of Westphalia.

    You are welcome to petition for its revival (it would be quite hypocritical of me to stand in its way); it will not affect me since I do not insult/denigrate other religions nor their important figures. My hunch is that the only likely result of a reinstatement of such a policy will simply be the acceleration of the depopulation of ethnic whites in the West as they seem the most prone to this behavior.

    Peace.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    Ahem...I forgot...

    My hunch is that the only likely result of a reinstatement of such a policy will simply be the acceleration of the depopulation of ethnic whites in the West as they seem the most prone to this behavior.
     
    Ethnic secular Jews would be culled even faster as they are even more prone to acting this way. Oy vey - the stuff they have the gall to say! I'm...verklempt...talk among yourselves...
    , @anon
    I am amazed at the mental gymnastics you can jump thorough with your rationalizations and self-deceptions.
  53. @Talha
    Hmmm...let's take this bit by bit...what part of "...what cannot be allowed is vilification, contempt, insult or outrage against Islam" was not clear? You want the right to be able to publicly insult God or His prophets (any of them - just try the same with the Son of Mary [pbuh] in Makkah) in Muslim lands? Over our dead bodies...

    As I pointed out, you should have the right to criticize in polemic and academic form in Muslim countries - that's as far as it goes.

    Furthermore, you assume that Saudi is representative of the Islamic response - it is not. Looking at it from a juristic aspect, a number of consequences are possible (depending on the terms of the binding agreement one had when residing or staying as a non-Muslim); anything from absolutely nothing happening (one of the Hanafi opinions - again depending on what is stipulated), to exile (Shafi'i opinion), to death (another Hanafi opinion).

    The fact is that capital punishment for blasphemy was canon law for much of the West through much of its Christian history (all the way up into the 18th century in certain areas):
    https://www.britannica.com/topic/blasphemy

    That law was not changed to accommodate Muslims, it was done in the aftermath of the killing fields of Europe (16th & 17th century) - look up the Peace of Westphalia.

    You are welcome to petition for its revival (it would be quite hypocritical of me to stand in its way); it will not affect me since I do not insult/denigrate other religions nor their important figures. My hunch is that the only likely result of a reinstatement of such a policy will simply be the acceleration of the depopulation of ethnic whites in the West as they seem the most prone to this behavior.

    Peace.

    Ahem…I forgot…

    My hunch is that the only likely result of a reinstatement of such a policy will simply be the acceleration of the depopulation of ethnic whites in the West as they seem the most prone to this behavior.

    Ethnic secular Jews would be culled even faster as they are even more prone to acting this way. Oy vey – the stuff they have the gall to say! I’m…verklempt…talk among yourselves…

    Read More
  54. @Talha

    killed like critics of Islam are
     
    Criticism of Islam has a long history. The Jews of Madinah and Christian tribes of Najran questioned Islamic doctrine and objected to its tenets directly in front of the Prophet (pbuh). John of Damascus wrote the first polemical arguments (Heresy of the Ishmaelites) against Islamic beliefs openly under the rule of the Umayyads. I myself was quite amazed when I read it because it is quite barbed in its criticisms (even if it is inaccurate in its claims of Islamic doctrine - i.e. lot of straw man stuff going on)
    http://orthodoxinfo.com/general/stjohn_islam.aspx

    If you want to read direct translations of debates and academic criticisms of Islamic doctrines from the earliest times, here are two sources (Abbasid times):
    https://www.amazon.com/Defending-People-Truth-Islamic-Period/dp/9004148019
    (Ummayyad and Abbasid era):
    https://www.amazon.com/Seeing-Islam-Others-Saw-Zoroastrian/dp/0878501258

    From a juristic standpoint, the late Grand Mufti of Pakistan, Mufti Muhammad Shafi'i wrote in his work of exegesis (Ma'arif ul-Qur'an):
    "A person who speaks evil of Islam and the Shariah of Islam cannot continue to be a party to the treaty [dhimmi contract] with Muslims. But, according to a consensus of Muslim jurists, it means vilification that is done to insult and belittle Islam and Muslims, openly and publicly. Honest intellectual criticism while conducting research into problems and rulings remains exempt from its purview – then, it is not supposed to be vilification in its lexical sense.
    Therefore, for non-Muslim citizens of Dar al-Islam, any honest intellectual criticism can be allowed
    , but what cannot be allowed is vilification, contempt, insult or outrage against Islam."

    The fact that post-modern critics can't be bothered to learn history or refuse to understand there is a demarcation between criticism and insult/denigration is their problem. The fact that Muslim extremists espouse the same foolish views is ours.

    This is in concern with Muslim lands, as far as non-Muslim lands, we have no jurisdiction so it's a free-for-all, legally Muslims can't do anything about the insults.

    Peace.

    The assassination of a brave man in Pakistan calling for reform of blasphemy laws and a Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia affirming the earth is flat pretty much make a mockery of your idea that Muslims are capable of distinguishing between fair criticism of Islam and mockery of it.

    Egyptians burn down Christian churches and pull out the toe nails of converts to Christianity. Pardon me if I laugh at the notion of Muslim societies having an interest in honest criticism.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    Aaaand...your argument is knee-capped by the fact that the assassin was himself executed (a sentence that was acknowledged by the Shariah - I have the audio from Mufti Taqi Usmani [db] if you can understand Urdu) and that you are pointing to some rumors to make a point - here is clarification on the position of the late Grand Mufti of Saudi (ra):
    http://en.islamtoday.net/node/927

    And even if he insisted that it was flat, the fact that one would refer to the Saudi Wahhabi scholars as being representative of the whole of Islam is a position of desperation, not intellectual honesty.


    Egyptians burn down Christian churches
     
    Hmmm, and even worse incidences of communal violence happened in the past, you mind citing a single fatwa from a qualified scholar out of Egypt that validates this behavior? Otherwise, it's Muslims acting stupid - surprise, surprise!

    Feel free to read how the top scholars of Pakistan reacted when Christian churches were bombed a few years back:
    http://www.madhyamam.com/en/node/16371


    pull out the toe nails of converts to Christianity
     
    See similar note above and feel free citing fatwas from qualified scholars sanctioning this.

    Muslim societies having an interest in honest criticism
     
    A good number of Muslims are acting very stupid and ignorant right now and are not meeting up to the standards that their religion demands of them. We're not going anywhere until this changes. If you've been paying attention, then you know during Abbasid times non-Muslims publicly and openly debated theology with Muslims.
    "One author gives a vivid description which may date from as early as 850 AD, though is probably slightly later, of a Christian metropolitan openly processing through the Karkh market in Baghdad on his way to debate with a Muslim followed by a great entourage of bishops and priests all wearing their black habits with their hoods pulled up over their heads, a striking and
    impressive spectacle."
    http://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/anvil/06-1_023.pdf

    Peace.

    , @KA
    Each nation creates it rationale . It chooses what ot describes as a threat and
    minoroty religions or cultures are seen as threat by certain segment in many countries .

    America sees threat from terrorism that are occurring in Mali ,Bali,Swahali,and in Panjar Valley .
    No other country sees it . America creates enormous architecture of spying ,prison cell,rendition program,surveilling ,and enacts laws,forces UN and creates languages and new words to keep it safe . Secession is a problem but not a threat so no one goes to jail for advocating it America.

    In India,secession is a threat and government has to jail those who ask for it .
    Even saying " Pakistan is not hell. They are like us. They treated us well" can get Indian legislator ridiculed and hauled before court . Killing cow is not a threat but in the killing of cow they see the persistence of a religious faith that broke the country 60 yrs ago . So they kill those who eats beef or skin the corpse of the dead animal even if the person doing it were Hindus.

    http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/karnataka-actress-politician-ramya-accused-of-sedition-over-pro-pak-row/story-5r8VvBOOPTyqCRztT6MKNM.html. It is same India that ridicules Muslim countries for not having freedom of expression or religious liberties. But it doesn't worry of making laws for terrprism taking place in Mali or Bali.

    Egypt is same It sees the powerfull Coptic standing outside the main political development but still influencing it adversely ,as was the case in recent coup and revolutions . Lets not mention the involve,nt of Coptic Christian in making movies in America that attacked the most cherished figure in Islam- its prophets . Egypt is also not administered effectively by central forces . That leaves the door open for local interlopers to abuse the weak and the vulnerable groups. ( this is why an effective government is in the interest of the entire world and creating vacuum like was done in Libya,Somalia,Yemen or Syria are no good .) America has a tendency to use local Christian in Lebanon and Syria against the government . France did same .

    Pakistan might have military government but it is ineffective internally in maintaining law and order . It is ripe for chaos friction and abuse . Most of the bonded labor in Pakistan are Muslim . The local powerful see it as a threat when those Muslim get converted to escape from poverty and from exploitation.
    It is naive to claim that non muslims are exclusively targeted for being non Muslim . It did happen in Libya until Libyan leader was overthrown . It didnot happen in Iraq until Saddam was . It may happen tomorrow in Malayasia,Indonesia,Uzbekistan,Morocco,Azerbaizan,or Iran if the central powers were overthrown without new set of effective leaders replacing it .

    It can happen in European countries . Look at France's assault on Muslim dress .It can happen in America because it had lready happened against different groups in the past .They always happen when economy goes south or war fever grips the nations. In western countries those situatios are few and far between . In third world countries ,they are constant .
    Pakistan and Somlaia or Syria or Yemen have been going though one of the worst phases for over 16 yrs ,everyday ,every weak,every month,every year . America was convulsed from an attack for a few hours and a few terrorists attacks on its soils confined locally and geographically with no ripple effects. How did it handle its attitude to Muslim ? There was one official attitude but then were many unofficial attitudes expressed in the mega churches of Texas,Arkansas,and in media like FOX and WSJ,NY Post and in legions of local print media . Those unofficial attitudes have influenced quite a few .American strong system does not have the power to control those hateful voices despite having the law against hate mongering ,because a new reality after 911 has transcended that value
    In poor Muslim countries weak secular government can't control the peripheral voices and practices of hatred because the countries have been transformed by chronic violence and injustice ,reducing everything to a fight for survival. Religion like language and color have become just another tool.

    So it is multilayered . Government can look at an act and declare it a threat if practiced by certain people in certain sitiations. Common folks may decide to do away with the subtleties and legalities and decide to attack the person for being the person he is in order to secure his interest or pacify his rage or add fuel to the burning hatred .
  55. Too bad Kurds have become a Zio tool under the promise theyll be given their own land…. They fell for those Zio lies and the rest is history so to say….

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    Well, the Zios have their own land, enlarging it from time to time, so, tick-tock.
  56. @Greg Bacon
    Hundreds of millions of US tax dollars have been wasted in this cruel, pointless war???

    What? Try several trillions, since the Syrian invasion is the same war that we've been waging since the 9/11 False Flag. Wars waged against nations that were NO threat to the USA, but which Israel needs to be destroyed so it can be the only Big Dog in the region and expand its borders from the Rivers Nile to the Tigris-Euphrates.

    Paid for with the blood of our children and the wealth of our nation.

    The next time you lose a hubcap that falls off when you hit a pothole the size of a small pond, don't get mad, be happy that you could do your part to please Israel!
    And if you go to the local military cemetery this weekend to visit your dead son or daughter killed fighting wars for Israel, give thanks to God for taking your precious child in such a noble cause!

    When you reach the other side
    You may encounter my son Clyde.
    If he asks you why he died
    Tell him- because his father lied.

    Read More
  57. @Talha
    Hey Bro,

    Anyone who has read my comments knows that I am a big fan of the contributions of the Persians and consider myself their nephew if not a son. The Persians have accomplished what you stated and even more that you left out....however, a little humiliation is due because saying stuff like:

    We are an immortal civilization
     
    is seriously asking for God to humiliate you to teach you a lesson..again. Greeks, Arabs, Mongols all overran you completely and utterly and yes you did recover, but do you want that to happen again just to prove you can do it another time?

    Bear in mind the Arabs could not have ruled without you and you indeed helped them become more than desert nomads, but remember the state they found you in - worshiping fire and they gave you God and muhabbat and ishq (give me a Rumi and Jaami and Saadi and Nizami and Shirazi without these) - what is that worth in the score?

    I say this with all due respect as sincere advice because I don't want your people to made an example out of.

    Peace.

    [remember the state they found you in – worshiping fire]

    I don’t like participating in religious dispute, but historically I would suggest the Iranians and their prophet were actually the inventors of monotheistic/dualistic religion, to which category Christianity and Islam both belong.

    Read More
    • Agree: SolontoCroesus
    • Replies: @Talha
    Hey 5371,

    Acknowledged, most religious traditions are (in their core) monotheistic - even the pagan Arabs of the Hijaz. It's the accretions that were always the problem; I could have better stated, that they had khuda and the Arabs gave them Allah.

    No religious dispute here - I don't debate theology - just a brother reminding a brother, because that's what we do. Hopefully it was accepted in the spirit that it was given.

    Peace.
  58. @xyz
    Too bad Kurds have become a Zio tool under the promise theyll be given their own land.... They fell for those Zio lies and the rest is history so to say....

    Well, the Zios have their own land, enlarging it from time to time, so, tick-tock.

    Read More
  59. @5371
    [remember the state they found you in – worshiping fire]

    I don't like participating in religious dispute, but historically I would suggest the Iranians and their prophet were actually the inventors of monotheistic/dualistic religion, to which category Christianity and Islam both belong.

    Hey 5371,

    Acknowledged, most religious traditions are (in their core) monotheistic – even the pagan Arabs of the Hijaz. It’s the accretions that were always the problem; I could have better stated, that they had khuda and the Arabs gave them Allah.

    No religious dispute here – I don’t debate theology – just a brother reminding a brother, because that’s what we do. Hopefully it was accepted in the spirit that it was given.

    Peace.

    Read More
  60. @Ace
    The assassination of a brave man in Pakistan calling for reform of blasphemy laws and a Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia affirming the earth is flat pretty much make a mockery of your idea that Muslims are capable of distinguishing between fair criticism of Islam and mockery of it.

    Egyptians burn down Christian churches and pull out the toe nails of converts to Christianity. Pardon me if I laugh at the notion of Muslim societies having an interest in honest criticism.

    Aaaand…your argument is knee-capped by the fact that the assassin was himself executed (a sentence that was acknowledged by the Shariah – I have the audio from Mufti Taqi Usmani [db] if you can understand Urdu) and that you are pointing to some rumors to make a point – here is clarification on the position of the late Grand Mufti of Saudi (ra):

    http://en.islamtoday.net/node/927

    And even if he insisted that it was flat, the fact that one would refer to the Saudi Wahhabi scholars as being representative of the whole of Islam is a position of desperation, not intellectual honesty.

    Egyptians burn down Christian churches

    Hmmm, and even worse incidences of communal violence happened in the past, you mind citing a single fatwa from a qualified scholar out of Egypt that validates this behavior? Otherwise, it’s Muslims acting stupid – surprise, surprise!

    Feel free to read how the top scholars of Pakistan reacted when Christian churches were bombed a few years back:

    http://www.madhyamam.com/en/node/16371

    pull out the toe nails of converts to Christianity

    See similar note above and feel free citing fatwas from qualified scholars sanctioning this.

    Muslim societies having an interest in honest criticism

    A good number of Muslims are acting very stupid and ignorant right now and are not meeting up to the standards that their religion demands of them. We’re not going anywhere until this changes. If you’ve been paying attention, then you know during Abbasid times non-Muslims publicly and openly debated theology with Muslims.
    “One author gives a vivid description which may date from as early as 850 AD, though is probably slightly later, of a Christian metropolitan openly processing through the Karkh market in Baghdad on his way to debate with a Muslim followed by a great entourage of bishops and priests all wearing their black habits with their hoods pulled up over their heads, a striking and
    impressive spectacle.”

    http://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/anvil/06-1_023.pdf

    Peace.

    Read More
  61. @Ace
    The assassination of a brave man in Pakistan calling for reform of blasphemy laws and a Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia affirming the earth is flat pretty much make a mockery of your idea that Muslims are capable of distinguishing between fair criticism of Islam and mockery of it.

    Egyptians burn down Christian churches and pull out the toe nails of converts to Christianity. Pardon me if I laugh at the notion of Muslim societies having an interest in honest criticism.

    Each nation creates it rationale . It chooses what ot describes as a threat and
    minoroty religions or cultures are seen as threat by certain segment in many countries .

    America sees threat from terrorism that are occurring in Mali ,Bali,Swahali,and in Panjar Valley .
    No other country sees it . America creates enormous architecture of spying ,prison cell,rendition program,surveilling ,and enacts laws,forces UN and creates languages and new words to keep it safe . Secession is a problem but not a threat so no one goes to jail for advocating it America.

    In India,secession is a threat and government has to jail those who ask for it .
    Even saying ” Pakistan is not hell. They are like us. They treated us well” can get Indian legislator ridiculed and hauled before court . Killing cow is not a threat but in the killing of cow they see the persistence of a religious faith that broke the country 60 yrs ago . So they kill those who eats beef or skin the corpse of the dead animal even if the person doing it were Hindus.

    http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/karnataka-actress-politician-ramya-accused-of-sedition-over-pro-pak-row/story-5r8VvBOOPTyqCRztT6MKNM.html. It is same India that ridicules Muslim countries for not having freedom of expression or religious liberties. But it doesn’t worry of making laws for terrprism taking place in Mali or Bali.

    Egypt is same It sees the powerfull Coptic standing outside the main political development but still influencing it adversely ,as was the case in recent coup and revolutions . Lets not mention the involve,nt of Coptic Christian in making movies in America that attacked the most cherished figure in Islam- its prophets . Egypt is also not administered effectively by central forces . That leaves the door open for local interlopers to abuse the weak and the vulnerable groups. ( this is why an effective government is in the interest of the entire world and creating vacuum like was done in Libya,Somalia,Yemen or Syria are no good .) America has a tendency to use local Christian in Lebanon and Syria against the government . France did same .

    Pakistan might have military government but it is ineffective internally in maintaining law and order . It is ripe for chaos friction and abuse . Most of the bonded labor in Pakistan are Muslim . The local powerful see it as a threat when those Muslim get converted to escape from poverty and from exploitation.
    It is naive to claim that non muslims are exclusively targeted for being non Muslim . It did happen in Libya until Libyan leader was overthrown . It didnot happen in Iraq until Saddam was . It may happen tomorrow in Malayasia,Indonesia,Uzbekistan,Morocco,Azerbaizan,or Iran if the central powers were overthrown without new set of effective leaders replacing it .

    It can happen in European countries . Look at France’s assault on Muslim dress .It can happen in America because it had lready happened against different groups in the past .They always happen when economy goes south or war fever grips the nations. In western countries those situatios are few and far between . In third world countries ,they are constant .
    Pakistan and Somlaia or Syria or Yemen have been going though one of the worst phases for over 16 yrs ,everyday ,every weak,every month,every year . America was convulsed from an attack for a few hours and a few terrorists attacks on its soils confined locally and geographically with no ripple effects. How did it handle its attitude to Muslim ? There was one official attitude but then were many unofficial attitudes expressed in the mega churches of Texas,Arkansas,and in media like FOX and WSJ,NY Post and in legions of local print media . Those unofficial attitudes have influenced quite a few .American strong system does not have the power to control those hateful voices despite having the law against hate mongering ,because a new reality after 911 has transcended that value
    In poor Muslim countries weak secular government can’t control the peripheral voices and practices of hatred because the countries have been transformed by chronic violence and injustice ,reducing everything to a fight for survival. Religion like language and color have become just another tool.

    So it is multilayered . Government can look at an act and declare it a threat if practiced by certain people in certain sitiations. Common folks may decide to do away with the subtleties and legalities and decide to attack the person for being the person he is in order to secure his interest or pacify his rage or add fuel to the burning hatred .

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    Hey KA,

    Honestly, that was a great analysis of the facts on the ground leading to these realities.

    Peace.
  62. @Talha
    Dear Rurik,

    better to live under the yoke of people who at least speak your own language, than under the yoke of distant and corrupt leaders who don’t even speak your language!
     
    I will agree if that is the only two options, but I will willingly live under (as I do now) the hegemony of someone not from my background if they treat me with justice and fairness - that is the most important factor.

    The idea of These United States was supposed to mean local control. Local and state sovereignty. With a few, limited powers delegated to the federal government that couldn’t be dealt with at the state.
     
    Believe it or not, that is exactly what I am talking about when I speak about what I wouldn't mind seeing for the Muslim world. Does it help to have all these armies running around brutalizing each other under all these autocrats? Keep the administration as local as possible except for those things that shouldn't be; military, etc. And yes, I hope for more state's rights in the US - the pendulum has swung too far to the federal side.

    Rather it’s always the psychopaths that gravitate to power, and always, they want more of it.
     
    "All governments suffer a redurring problem: Power attracts pathological personalities. It is not that power corrupts but that it is magnetic to the corruptible." -- Chapterhouse: Dune

    I will agree with that general rule, but there have been notable exceptions.

    But it does sort of sound to me like you almost pine for the days of the Ottoman empire. No?
     
    Certainly as far as the best aspects of it (they weren't the longest surviving continuous dynasty in human history for naught) - as far as the more brutal parts of its history - no thanks! Again, as a Muslim, I have no problem being of a certain heritage and being led by someone else (whether in prayer or political leadership) if they are more capable. Turks certainly ruled way better than the various Arab dynasties that are now in charge, in my opinion.

    Should Syria be an overtly Islamic state? Or more non-theocratic one, where Christians and even agnostics and their ways and beliefs were all recognized as valid?
     
    I have never advocated theocracy (where the theologians are in charge - this is a recent Shiah concept) - theologians/jurists have their place, and running government is not it. Many of them were tortured and jailed by the rulers of their times.

    I will continue to advocate what my teachers do for Muslim lands; lands that respect the personal law of the Muslim minorities (stuff like them being able to drink alcohol, charge/pay interest, etc.) and their rights and do not oppress them. This gives a good exposition of the fantasy of a historical theocracy among Muslim lands (that the vast amount of governing has nothing to do religion):
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B7YcCuwlG_4

    If you look at the quotes from Shaykh Yacoubi (db) that I posted, it is clear that he is fine with the pluralistic recognition of the personal laws of all the religious minorities, even under a Sunni-dominated government as he would like to see, and that the current laws of Syria in this regard mesh quite well with what the Shariah asks for. As far as he is concerned, Syria is already 'Islamic' even under the Assad regime - it is the policies of the regime that he is opposed to.

    Peace.

    Dear Talha,

    I will willingly live under (as I do now) the hegemony of someone not from my background if they treat me with justice and fairness – that is the most important factor.

    I agree, but how often does that happen?

    We both live in the US, and look how the US gov treated the Amerindians, and then the African slaves, and then the defeated southerners, most of whom were impoverished by the institution of slavery and put out of a job by the rich man’s slaves, but who resisted northern tyranny with their lives, nonetheless. But they too were oppressed by the US government for decades, and are still having their symbols of resistance to tyranny suppressed by the same fecal government who knows not bounds upon its power (run amok). I too have lived under the nefarious institution of Affirmative Action my entire life, by these people ‘not from my background’ who would treat all people like me as second class citizens, because of the race we happen to have been born into. Is that “justice and fairness”?

    No, it is not. And I categorically reject their bigotry and hegemony over me as illegitimate, in the extreme. I play along as long as I must, but I certainly don’t pretend that these hegemons are anything but rank and vile tyrants and bigots and posers to legitimate rule. I have more respect for a pile of dog puke in the dirt than I do for the presidents of these United States, or our congress for that matter, who I consider treasonous and not worthy to even be called dog puke in the dirt, because dog puke in the dirt never had a chance to be anything better.

    Keep the administration as local as possible except for those things that shouldn’t be; military

    that’s fine so long as the ones in charge of this military are honorable men or women who possess character and humility. Who do you know of on this planet who you would trust to rule over a modern day sultanate?

    If there’s a man alive who I would trust with such power, it’d probably be Ron Paul, who alone seems to possess a shred of actual character, vs. the legions and throngs of liars and scoundrels who would kill for such power. So since a man of this kind of character is so rare, I think we’re all better off with as local as control as can be managed and wielded. Look at how lucky Russia was to get a Putin. And imagine what life in Russia would be with one of Rothschild’s oligarchs still looting the place dry. I guess it’s the best of all worlds if you can find a man or woman of character to lead and to rule, but this almost never happens, and as we look at the events of the world as they unfold, we all have to just sigh at the shame that the most powerful man in the world today (Rothschild), is also a psychopathic monster hell bent on an Orwellian hell on earth and war ravaged hate fest for most of us.

    I didn’t get though the whole video Talha, I got as far as the guy saying that Islamic states are basically the same as secular states, and that there’s nothing of consequence in an Islamic state that differs from a secular state, and I just had to stop there. I feel the guy has an agenda to insinuate that Muslim immigration will have no noticeable effect on secular states even when they become a majority, and I just don’t buy that.

    But reading what you write about theocracy and states and religious governments, I couldn’t help think of Latin American governments that are riddled with Christianity. In fact I don’t think you can actually separate the state from the Catholic religion in most of them. The Cuban’s certainly did, but this was an incredible hardship on the Catholics living in Cuba, and they’re finally being able to embrace some of their religious life again, after having it suppressed for so long.

    But unlike Islamic states, I do know something about what Latin American states are like, and yes, even tho their putatively religious in their undertones, and full of symbolism, they still respect all people’s ways of life and are perfectly livable for non-Catholics and even the secular.

    I suppose I imagine places like Iran or Lebanon or Syria or Morocco as being like this. Not so places like Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan or some of the other, more fundamentalist Islamic countries, where the religion is more rigidly imposed.

    what I feel like is happening Talha, and it’s only a feeling, is that the men trying to unseat Assad tend to be Sunni extremists, or have tribal issues with Assad. Like when Morsi was elected to rule Egypt, and then set about aligning with the Zionists who had held Egypt under a cruel and corrupt regime for so long, and then this is what Morsi does when a democratically elected government comes to power in Egypt, he aligns with the Zionists to destroy the Assad regime?!

    I was appalled, and I just don’t get it. It seems to me that the Arabs are always more interested in infighting than in coalescing and fighting off their collective enemies, like the British or the Zionists. They’re always willing to toss the other Arabs under the bus to gain some advantage over their Arab or Muslim brothers, who they seem to hate more than they hate the Zionists who’re craping on them all. This is how I see the House of Saud, as being willing to take order from the Zionists and the Great Satan so they can have hegemony over Iran or Syria. No?

    (I know this is rambling and disjointed, but that alas is how I sometimes write)

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    Dear Rurik,

    I acknowledge your points about the historical deficiencies about the US government, but I can guarantee you you'd rather have a run in with the law here rather than Pakistan and other countries. When you deal with governments, it's rarely about ideals, it's more about what is tolerable as compared to another - government is a necessary evil (libertarians would likely say it is an absolute evil), if everyone was an angel we would not need it to protect each other's rights. For instance, there have been many 'Islamic' governments in the past but rise up against them (Muslims or not) and some of them implemented this (not fun!):
    http://www.medievality.com/saw.html

    Regarding the video, Shaykh Hamza (db) was talking to a Muslim audience and making fun of the idea that it matters how religious you are when dealing with building roads and purifying water and the majority of tasks that governments deal with like delivering mail. That government has more to do with transparency, regulations, civil order define the success of a government more than cutting off hands for theft. I don't think anybody has any delusions that a Muslim-majority Britain would not look any different than it does now.

    I suppose I imagine places like Iran or Lebanon or Syria or Morocco as being like this. Not so places like Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan or some of the other, more fundamentalist Islamic countries, where the religion is more rigidly imposed.
     

    Much of government has to reflect the culture of the people and there is just no doubt that the desert bedouin culture of Saudi (where there has historically [by design] been little coexistence with non-Muslims) or tribal Afghanistan are nowhere as developed in a cosmopolitan sense as historical Persia or the Levant. That is just reality - anybody who expects otherwise is fooling themselves. I mean, in the US, you know what happens at Daytona Beach at spring break or at Mardi Gras and no one does anything about it. Try pulling that stuff in Utah or Kentucky. Culture reflects local laws. Why is Utah the most stringent when it comes to alcohol:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol_laws_of_Utah

    the men trying to unseat Assad tend to be Sunni extremists, or have tribal issues with Assad
     
    Was not like this at the beginning, but the extremists overwhelmed any of the other groups so that does seem to be the reality on the ground now. I think likely there will be a cease fire and possibly; a demand that the current borders stay as they are and there are semi-autonomous regions declared as part of greater Syria (with a possible UN force inside) and with eventual track for re-unification (think North and South Yemen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yemeni_unification) after things simmer down.

    It seems to me that the Arabs are always more interested in infighting than in coalescing and fighting off their collective enemies
     
    Yup, which is why we aren't getting much anywhere:
    "...and do not dispute with one another lest you lose courage and your strength depart, and be patient. Surely, God is with the patient." 8:46

    Peace.

  63. @anon
    "..the Kurds... a stateless people spread across Turkey, Iran, Iraq and Syria....denied a home by western powers.."

    That is rather strange, since none of those four countries are either western or Christian. Is Margolis suggesting that these four wholesome Muslim democracies and cradles of human rights are eager to surrender their land and territory to create a Kurdish state and are only being stopped from doing so by "evil" western powers. What "magic dirt" the west must have.

    Actually, the western powers did try to create a home for the Kurds in the Treaty of Sevres, the original peace treaty with Turkey after WW I. But they ultimately found it too hard to impose their will on the Turks. Greek control of the Ionian coast, Italian presence in the SW of Turkey, French domination around the Gulf of Alexandretta, and homelands for the Kurds and Armenians were all projects that foundered.

    After WW II, Turkey and Iran’s roles as major US allies in the region and Iraq’s place as a British client state until 1958 ensured that a Kurdish homeland was off the docket.

    With the failure of the Bush project to create a string of servile states in Iraq, Syria and Iran, and the utility that Israel sees in a manipulable Kurdish state, the project is at least discussed, but alienating Turkey is still too high a price for the US to pay.

    Read More
  64. @Talha
    Hey Bro,

    Anyone who has read my comments knows that I am a big fan of the contributions of the Persians and consider myself their nephew if not a son. The Persians have accomplished what you stated and even more that you left out....however, a little humiliation is due because saying stuff like:

    We are an immortal civilization
     
    is seriously asking for God to humiliate you to teach you a lesson..again. Greeks, Arabs, Mongols all overran you completely and utterly and yes you did recover, but do you want that to happen again just to prove you can do it another time?

    Bear in mind the Arabs could not have ruled without you and you indeed helped them become more than desert nomads, but remember the state they found you in - worshiping fire and they gave you God and muhabbat and ishq (give me a Rumi and Jaami and Saadi and Nizami and Shirazi without these) - what is that worth in the score?

    I say this with all due respect as sincere advice because I don't want your people to made an example out of.

    Peace.

    We are an immortal civilization

    is seriously asking for God to humiliate you to teach you a lesson.

    Persia WAS several millennia before your homicidal and “humiliating” Abrahamic god, first recorded by Ezra — under Cyrus, about 600 BC — and his reinterpretation by Mohammad, Talha.

    Cyrus, King of Persia, was a Zoroastrian; Zoroaster introduced monotheism and the concept of the supremacy of ethical behavior somewhere between 8000 BC and 6500 BC (see Mary Settegast

    Thus, Persians were practicing the ethical concepts of Zoroaster for over 5,000 years before the god of the ‘chosen people’ introduced the practices of killing off en masse any who failed to pay obeisance to self-appointed supremacists.

    Read More
    • Replies: @5371
    Well, I certainly don't endorse that super-early dating for Zoroaster. It seems to me completely incompatible with the language of the Gathas. But concerning his significance I agree with you.
    , @Talha
    Hey S2C,

    This is getting a bit theological, so I will be guarded in my words. I do not debate theology, I will simply clarify myself. You have before expressed to me that the Abrahamic faiths are simply a rehash of Zoroastrian teachings. I do not believe this just as I don't believe the Prophet (pbuh) was simply revising Jewish teachings. Your's is one valid and rational explanation, if a stretch. Another valid and rational explanation is that the similarities are simply due to the teachings being from the same Divine source. Muslims do not believe that the Semites have a monopoly on prophethood (the Prophet [pbuh] alluded to humanity having been sent around 124,000 [the reports are weak, but it is the best info we have on the subject] or so prophets/messengers), thus anybody like Zoroaster, Buddha, Confucius, Aristotle or others could well have been Divinely guided figures and their lessons were simply corrupted over time - we do not know enough and the Qur'an makes no final statement on them so we are agnostic on the matter.

    Persians were practicing the ethical concepts of Zoroaster
     
    I never said they were wholly unethical people - they definitely were better hosts to Nestorians than the Byzantines. And they had a fairly good record (with ups and downs) of coexistence with multiple religions well into the Sassanid era.

    the practices of killing off en masse any who failed to pay obeisance to self-appointed supremacists
     
    I hope you're not saying Muslims simply massacred Zoroastrians at will - I'd love to see the evidence for such. Zoroastrianism did provide a backbone for Persian resistance against Muslim conquest, so naturally its followers were suppressed when rebellion was fomented. Otherwise, those dhimmis were treated more or less like others (though there were admittedly instances of forced conversion):
    "Islām, in principle, tolerated the ancient religion, but conversions by persuasion or force were massive in many provinces. Zoroastrianism fomented rebellion and brought persecutions upon itself. There were pockets of survival, notably in Persis, the ancient centre of the Achaemenian and Sāsānian empires. Books were produced to save the essentials of the religion from a threatened disaster. The disaster did occur but exactly why and how is not known."
    https://www.britannica.com/topic/Zoroastrianism

    I have many Irani acquaintances and they are not ignorant of their history as a people. You can survey them or the Irani community at large (and I don't just mean the secular types in 'Irangeles') and see how many would opt to leave the beliefs of Islam for the beliefs of Zoroastrianism or Manichaeism after having compared them side by side. The Persians themselves were essential to the codification of Islamic theological doctrine (Imams Razi, Maturidi, Taftazani, Ghazali, [ra] etc.), praxis (out of the seven most noteworthy hadith collections, only one was compiled by a non-Persian) and even mysticism/metaphysics (Imams Hasan al-Basri, Junayd Baghdadi, Abdul Qadir Jilani, Beyazid Bustami, [ra] etc.). This religion is as much Persian as much as it is Arab.

    Now, regarding what I stated to survey-of-disinfo, I was merely making a point to a person with whom I share the same set of metaphysical beliefs and thus assumptions of consequences. This is how brothers/sisters keep each other in check when we see a trait that should be rectified and I would urge him/her to do the same for me if he/she sees something in me that will cause me trouble in this life or the next.

    Peace.
  65. @alexander
    Good Rurik,

    I am shocked,at this late date, that you confer any legitimacy to the ouster of Assad as the authentic motive for the cruel dismemberment of Syria, which we are all bearing witness to.

    Are you a fool ?

    Who cares about Assad ? The answer is nobody.

    The 'removal of Assad' is the grand (and fraudulent)pretext to exterminate the territorial integrity of Syria.

    Which was always the first and supreme goal of Israel (and its Neocon acolytes) ,so it can extract the Golan Heights from the ruination of the state that its proxy terrorist mercenaries have been paid to demolish.

    This is the story, the whole story, and everything else is just plain malarkey.

    The dismemberment of Syria will proceed apace and will not relent until Israel has achieved it objective.

    The US,Turkey, the Saudi's and everyone else are just pathetic tools used in the carving up of what was once a country known as Syria.

    Don't waste your time on any other rationale, because its all bull crap.

    The ‘removal of Assad’ is the grand (and fraudulent)pretext to exterminate the territorial integrity of Syria.

    I agree, Alexander that that is the motivation of the Fiend, but not so some others- like Talha for instance, who seems to consider the Assad regime too brutal and authoritarian for any legitimacy. But in Talha’s case, (if I have it right), he’s willing to see Assad remain so long as there’s nothing better to replace him at the moment.

    But more to the point, what I’m trying to do is get a glimpse of the motivation of so many- like I just mentioned the democratically elected government of Egypt under Morsi, who seemed obsessed with Assad’s removal, knowing he was playing directly into the Zionist’s agenda.

    Why for God’s sake, would such a man, in such a juxtaposition in history- after Egypt had suffered Mubarak for so terribly long under Mubarak’s corrupt and Zio-infested rule, would Morsi want to help the Zionists by opposing Assad with such monomaniacal ferocity?

    It was like ‘meet the new boss, same as the old boss’ for the Egyptians

    what I’m trying to get a handle on, is why all these people hate Assad so much, that they’re willing to align with the very Fiend that has so oppressed their people and their nations for so terribly long. There must be a reason other than Assad’s and his father’s brutal crack downs. Or if not, what was it about these people that Assad’s father and Assad are brutally oppressing that makes them so anathema to the Assad regime? Is it that they’re Sunni extremists who want a more Islamic regime in Syria?

    In the case of Turkey, it seems Erdogan simply wants more of Syrian land for himself. But why would your typical Muslim want to see Assad go when most Syrians (including Sunnis) like him and support him? That’s what I want to know…

    The dismemberment of Syria will proceed apace and will not relent until Israel has achieved it objective.

    only because so many Muslims are willing to go along with their Zionist project. By why are they willing to be Israel’s dupes?! Why are they willing to destroy a relatively (former) stable Muslim country and hand it all over to Zionists or NATO stooges like Turkey? It doesn’t’ make sense, unless they’ve all been thoroughly duped, and don’t realize that Israel and (NATO/Zio-stooge) Turkey and (NATO/Zio-stooge Saudi Arabia) are poised to steal Syria away from ISIS as soon as Assad falls.

    To me it seems like Iran and Russia and Assad and Hezbollah are the adults in the room, trying to keep Syria intact, and that Turkey and Saudi and the Zio-west are all trying to do another horrific ‘Libya’ to the people of Syria, and send Syria reeling into the abyss just like what was done to Libya and Iraq, and I’m trying to get a handle on why these Sunnis are so willing to do that. That’s why I’m asking Talha to give us some insights into all of that.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    Dear Rurik,

    But in Talha’s case, (if I have it right), he’s willing to see Assad remain so long as there’s nothing better to replace him at the moment.
     
    This is not my call, as I am not a Syrian, but this is on point; I'll take getting kicked in the backside to getting kicked in the groin any day.

    I just met with a childhood Syrian friend today who has two uncles that left as refugees to Istanbul. The small suburb (of Damascus) where his wife's family hails from, does not exist any longer. All the people fled it, it is in ruins due to both the callousness of the regime and Daesh. These people have zero love for either of them. He also has an uncle living within Damascus proper where it is safe; they are happy for the stability, but have no love for the regime.

    He was telling me about a defector within the government that could not suppress his conscience any longer and leaked thousands of photos of torture:
    https://www.hrw.org/news/2015/12/16/syria-stories-behind-photos-killed-detainees

    Many educated Syrians know about this and will abide with Assad simply due to the security situation.

    Is this all propaganda? Is my childhood friend and his wife (definitely not Wahhabi/Salafi extremists) blatant cynical liars? HRW - all in the pockets of Zionists? You decide.

    Peace.

    , @alexander
    Rurik,

    There is nothing about the Syrian conflict that was "designed" by the Neocons, from the get go, to END quickly.

    The calculus of the Neocons was for the conflict to simmer on ,indefinitely, until Syria is a burnt and smoldering husk .

    Do you really believe there is any integrity to the argument for the "ouster of Assad" on the grounds he is a brutal dictator who has slaughtered his own people ?

    When the very same people who make the claim, (so vehemently) have wholly endorsed the illegal coup in Egypt, and are quite content when Egypt's brutal dictator, Sisi, slaughters his own people ?

    When the very same people pushed Bush jr. into the White House, so he would brutally slaughter millions of Iraqi's who never attacked us ?

    Do you really have any faith, at all, in the integrity of their arguments ?

    Please, Rurik.

    How laughable to imagine the ouster of Assad was conceived around the idea of making the world a BETTER place.

    It is a total joke.
    , @L.K
    Hey Rurik,

    The propaganda war against the Syrian government and institutions, like the Syrian military, has been nothing short of mind boggling.

    Read the following text, a chapter from the book ‘The Dirty War on Syria’, by Australian researcher, Prof.Tim Anderson, who went to Syria to better understand what was happening.
    It is possibly the best single source to understand how it started & it shows clearly that the puported cruelty and wickedness of the Assad ‘regime’ is largely fabricated or taken out of its proper context.
    Read it , it will be worth your while in terms of understanding this war.
    http://www.globalresearch.ca/history-of-us-natos-covert-war-on-syria-daraa-march-2011/5492182

    Take a moment to watch the following short videos;

    Hezbollah Leader explains why Syria & Assad are crucial to Middle East war - English Subs
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7w20p8r6bE&feature=youtu.be

    Plus the following 2 vids by Syrian Girl, a secular, young Sunni Syrian woman;

    Why Kurds must not be allowed to control north #Syria _ this one will give a bertter understanding of the Kurdish affair
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lKZqu61IbFI

    About the propaganda war on Syria, a great case study;
    The Truth About the #Syrianboy Viral Photo. Its really a story of two boys.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jifS0fi9WB8

    Gotta go now, more later, hope it helps.

    Take care
  66. @KA
    Each nation creates it rationale . It chooses what ot describes as a threat and
    minoroty religions or cultures are seen as threat by certain segment in many countries .

    America sees threat from terrorism that are occurring in Mali ,Bali,Swahali,and in Panjar Valley .
    No other country sees it . America creates enormous architecture of spying ,prison cell,rendition program,surveilling ,and enacts laws,forces UN and creates languages and new words to keep it safe . Secession is a problem but not a threat so no one goes to jail for advocating it America.

    In India,secession is a threat and government has to jail those who ask for it .
    Even saying " Pakistan is not hell. They are like us. They treated us well" can get Indian legislator ridiculed and hauled before court . Killing cow is not a threat but in the killing of cow they see the persistence of a religious faith that broke the country 60 yrs ago . So they kill those who eats beef or skin the corpse of the dead animal even if the person doing it were Hindus.

    http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/karnataka-actress-politician-ramya-accused-of-sedition-over-pro-pak-row/story-5r8VvBOOPTyqCRztT6MKNM.html. It is same India that ridicules Muslim countries for not having freedom of expression or religious liberties. But it doesn't worry of making laws for terrprism taking place in Mali or Bali.

    Egypt is same It sees the powerfull Coptic standing outside the main political development but still influencing it adversely ,as was the case in recent coup and revolutions . Lets not mention the involve,nt of Coptic Christian in making movies in America that attacked the most cherished figure in Islam- its prophets . Egypt is also not administered effectively by central forces . That leaves the door open for local interlopers to abuse the weak and the vulnerable groups. ( this is why an effective government is in the interest of the entire world and creating vacuum like was done in Libya,Somalia,Yemen or Syria are no good .) America has a tendency to use local Christian in Lebanon and Syria against the government . France did same .

    Pakistan might have military government but it is ineffective internally in maintaining law and order . It is ripe for chaos friction and abuse . Most of the bonded labor in Pakistan are Muslim . The local powerful see it as a threat when those Muslim get converted to escape from poverty and from exploitation.
    It is naive to claim that non muslims are exclusively targeted for being non Muslim . It did happen in Libya until Libyan leader was overthrown . It didnot happen in Iraq until Saddam was . It may happen tomorrow in Malayasia,Indonesia,Uzbekistan,Morocco,Azerbaizan,or Iran if the central powers were overthrown without new set of effective leaders replacing it .

    It can happen in European countries . Look at France's assault on Muslim dress .It can happen in America because it had lready happened against different groups in the past .They always happen when economy goes south or war fever grips the nations. In western countries those situatios are few and far between . In third world countries ,they are constant .
    Pakistan and Somlaia or Syria or Yemen have been going though one of the worst phases for over 16 yrs ,everyday ,every weak,every month,every year . America was convulsed from an attack for a few hours and a few terrorists attacks on its soils confined locally and geographically with no ripple effects. How did it handle its attitude to Muslim ? There was one official attitude but then were many unofficial attitudes expressed in the mega churches of Texas,Arkansas,and in media like FOX and WSJ,NY Post and in legions of local print media . Those unofficial attitudes have influenced quite a few .American strong system does not have the power to control those hateful voices despite having the law against hate mongering ,because a new reality after 911 has transcended that value
    In poor Muslim countries weak secular government can't control the peripheral voices and practices of hatred because the countries have been transformed by chronic violence and injustice ,reducing everything to a fight for survival. Religion like language and color have become just another tool.

    So it is multilayered . Government can look at an act and declare it a threat if practiced by certain people in certain sitiations. Common folks may decide to do away with the subtleties and legalities and decide to attack the person for being the person he is in order to secure his interest or pacify his rage or add fuel to the burning hatred .

    Hey KA,

    Honestly, that was a great analysis of the facts on the ground leading to these realities.

    Peace.

    Read More
  67. @anon
    Or in other words the four Muslim countries in question have had a 100 years to create a state for the Kurds but have not bothered to do so.

    A state could be created for the Kurds tomorrow if the four Muslim countries in question were willing to allow it.

    The US South could have had its own confederation as well, but Lincoln was not “willing to allow it.”

    funny how bodies politic are not unlike bodies physical: they resist the amputation of their parts.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon
    What's your point sir? The US - meaning the federal government - did not allow the creation of the confederacy. But how does that prevent any of the four Muslim countries from allowing the creation of Kurdistan? More to the point, how is the west preventing the Kurds from having a state as Margolis claims?
  68. @SolontoCroesus


    We are an immortal civilization
     

    is seriously asking for God to humiliate you to teach you a lesson.
     

     
    Persia WAS several millennia before your homicidal and "humiliating" Abrahamic god, first recorded by Ezra -- under Cyrus, about 600 BC -- and his reinterpretation by Mohammad, Talha.



    Cyrus, King of Persia, was a Zoroastrian; Zoroaster introduced monotheism and the concept of the supremacy of ethical behavior somewhere between 8000 BC and 6500 BC (see Mary Settegast

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AIxNlFQCLTk

    Thus, Persians were practicing the ethical concepts of Zoroaster for over 5,000 years before the god of the 'chosen people' introduced the practices of killing off en masse any who failed to pay obeisance to self-appointed supremacists.

    Well, I certainly don’t endorse that super-early dating for Zoroaster. It seems to me completely incompatible with the language of the Gathas. But concerning his significance I agree with you.

    Read More
  69. anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Talha
    Hmmm...let's take this bit by bit...what part of "...what cannot be allowed is vilification, contempt, insult or outrage against Islam" was not clear? You want the right to be able to publicly insult God or His prophets (any of them - just try the same with the Son of Mary [pbuh] in Makkah) in Muslim lands? Over our dead bodies...

    As I pointed out, you should have the right to criticize in polemic and academic form in Muslim countries - that's as far as it goes.

    Furthermore, you assume that Saudi is representative of the Islamic response - it is not. Looking at it from a juristic aspect, a number of consequences are possible (depending on the terms of the binding agreement one had when residing or staying as a non-Muslim); anything from absolutely nothing happening (one of the Hanafi opinions - again depending on what is stipulated), to exile (Shafi'i opinion), to death (another Hanafi opinion).

    The fact is that capital punishment for blasphemy was canon law for much of the West through much of its Christian history (all the way up into the 18th century in certain areas):
    https://www.britannica.com/topic/blasphemy

    That law was not changed to accommodate Muslims, it was done in the aftermath of the killing fields of Europe (16th & 17th century) - look up the Peace of Westphalia.

    You are welcome to petition for its revival (it would be quite hypocritical of me to stand in its way); it will not affect me since I do not insult/denigrate other religions nor their important figures. My hunch is that the only likely result of a reinstatement of such a policy will simply be the acceleration of the depopulation of ethnic whites in the West as they seem the most prone to this behavior.

    Peace.

    I am amazed at the mental gymnastics you can jump thorough with your rationalizations and self-deceptions.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    LOL! And I am amazed at how many of our exchanges end in this same manner with you expressing the same bewilderment. What are we at now, number 3? Next time, please cut to the chase and cut-and-paste these same words as a reply to my first comment and save me the time of dusting off books to look up an issue or searching the web to find a citation.

    Peace.
  70. anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @SolontoCroesus

    A state could be created for the Kurds tomorrow if the four Muslim countries in question were willing to allow it.
     
    The US South could have had its own confederation as well, but Lincoln was not "willing to allow it."

    funny how bodies politic are not unlike bodies physical: they resist the amputation of their parts.

    What’s your point sir? The US – meaning the federal government – did not allow the creation of the confederacy. But how does that prevent any of the four Muslim countries from allowing the creation of Kurdistan? More to the point, how is the west preventing the Kurds from having a state as Margolis claims?

    Read More
    • Replies: @KA
    Creation of state or states or division of existing ones by the west have not gone unnoticed by the powerful neighbors as a means by the west to establish a foot print . E Timor,Kosovo and S Sudan are examples of massive failures and now they are under the not so benign sway of one or another western country .

    West doesn't relinquish it's own myriad control on bunch of countries territories and lands that it occupy and have been for centuries .
    We can start from Chagos Island and go around Cayman and land on Guanatnamo or Peurto Rico. These territories serve all kind of purposes from tax evasion, sweat shop labor based factory ,military outposts to frank evasion of responsibilities to international norms or to federal duties to local disenfranchised voiceless( election less ) citizen ( mainly of those occupied by Britain and also a few by US and used as tax haven with no representative governments to carry the choice of the local) . Before passing resolution on self determination in Tibet or Syria or Xinxiang or in Kurdistan , these western countries should first try to clean the mess that it created that hurt billions of world citizen and will continue.
  71. @anon
    What's your point sir? The US - meaning the federal government - did not allow the creation of the confederacy. But how does that prevent any of the four Muslim countries from allowing the creation of Kurdistan? More to the point, how is the west preventing the Kurds from having a state as Margolis claims?

    Creation of state or states or division of existing ones by the west have not gone unnoticed by the powerful neighbors as a means by the west to establish a foot print . E Timor,Kosovo and S Sudan are examples of massive failures and now they are under the not so benign sway of one or another western country .

    West doesn’t relinquish it’s own myriad control on bunch of countries territories and lands that it occupy and have been for centuries .
    We can start from Chagos Island and go around Cayman and land on Guanatnamo or Peurto Rico. These territories serve all kind of purposes from tax evasion, sweat shop labor based factory ,military outposts to frank evasion of responsibilities to international norms or to federal duties to local disenfranchised voiceless( election less ) citizen ( mainly of those occupied by Britain and also a few by US and used as tax haven with no representative governments to carry the choice of the local) . Before passing resolution on self determination in Tibet or Syria or Xinxiang or in Kurdistan , these western countries should first try to clean the mess that it created that hurt billions of world citizen and will continue.

    Read More
  72. @Talha
    Hey KA,

    Honestly, that was a great analysis of the facts on the ground leading to these realities.

    Peace.

    Thanks

    Read More
  73. @Rurik

    The ‘removal of Assad’ is the grand (and fraudulent)pretext to exterminate the territorial integrity of Syria.
     
    I agree, Alexander that that is the motivation of the Fiend, but not so some others- like Talha for instance, who seems to consider the Assad regime too brutal and authoritarian for any legitimacy. But in Talha's case, (if I have it right), he's willing to see Assad remain so long as there's nothing better to replace him at the moment.

    But more to the point, what I'm trying to do is get a glimpse of the motivation of so many- like I just mentioned the democratically elected government of Egypt under Morsi, who seemed obsessed with Assad's removal, knowing he was playing directly into the Zionist's agenda.

    Why for God's sake, would such a man, in such a juxtaposition in history- after Egypt had suffered Mubarak for so terribly long under Mubarak's corrupt and Zio-infested rule, would Morsi want to help the Zionists by opposing Assad with such monomaniacal ferocity?

    It was like 'meet the new boss, same as the old boss' for the Egyptians

    what I'm trying to get a handle on, is why all these people hate Assad so much, that they're willing to align with the very Fiend that has so oppressed their people and their nations for so terribly long. There must be a reason other than Assad's and his father's brutal crack downs. Or if not, what was it about these people that Assad's father and Assad are brutally oppressing that makes them so anathema to the Assad regime? Is it that they're Sunni extremists who want a more Islamic regime in Syria?

    In the case of Turkey, it seems Erdogan simply wants more of Syrian land for himself. But why would your typical Muslim want to see Assad go when most Syrians (including Sunnis) like him and support him? That's what I want to know...

    The dismemberment of Syria will proceed apace and will not relent until Israel has achieved it objective.
     
    only because so many Muslims are willing to go along with their Zionist project. By why are they willing to be Israel's dupes?! Why are they willing to destroy a relatively (former) stable Muslim country and hand it all over to Zionists or NATO stooges like Turkey? It doesn't' make sense, unless they've all been thoroughly duped, and don't realize that Israel and (NATO/Zio-stooge) Turkey and (NATO/Zio-stooge Saudi Arabia) are poised to steal Syria away from ISIS as soon as Assad falls.

    To me it seems like Iran and Russia and Assad and Hezbollah are the adults in the room, trying to keep Syria intact, and that Turkey and Saudi and the Zio-west are all trying to do another horrific 'Libya' to the people of Syria, and send Syria reeling into the abyss just like what was done to Libya and Iraq, and I'm trying to get a handle on why these Sunnis are so willing to do that. That's why I'm asking Talha to give us some insights into all of that.

    Dear Rurik,

    But in Talha’s case, (if I have it right), he’s willing to see Assad remain so long as there’s nothing better to replace him at the moment.

    This is not my call, as I am not a Syrian, but this is on point; I’ll take getting kicked in the backside to getting kicked in the groin any day.

    I just met with a childhood Syrian friend today who has two uncles that left as refugees to Istanbul. The small suburb (of Damascus) where his wife’s family hails from, does not exist any longer. All the people fled it, it is in ruins due to both the callousness of the regime and Daesh. These people have zero love for either of them. He also has an uncle living within Damascus proper where it is safe; they are happy for the stability, but have no love for the regime.

    He was telling me about a defector within the government that could not suppress his conscience any longer and leaked thousands of photos of torture:

    https://www.hrw.org/news/2015/12/16/syria-stories-behind-photos-killed-detainees

    Many educated Syrians know about this and will abide with Assad simply due to the security situation.

    Is this all propaganda? Is my childhood friend and his wife (definitely not Wahhabi/Salafi extremists) blatant cynical liars? HRW – all in the pockets of Zionists? You decide.

    Peace.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anonymous
    imho when placing blame for a boulder having killed innocent people, it must be asked, Who kicked away the pebble that held the boulder in place?

    Those who provoke wars know very well what the outcomes will be -- that regimes will fight to defend their positions and that innocents will die. The hateful ones are those who provoke wars then cry Victim! or Murderer! when the adversary does exactly what the adversary was expected to do upon provocation.
    , @L.K
    Uncle Talha,

    There are 2 possibilities about u;

    1. you are a brainwashed idiot, brainwashed by all the presstitute's propaganda against Syria and its government. It is the Syrian government btw , asshole, while you like it or not, not a 'regime'. Already this type of terminology is used to delegitimize the Syrian government.

    As the saying goes 'You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.'

    I led you to sources showing that the puported cruelty and wickedness of the Assad 'regime' is largely fabricated or taken out of context.

    This text, a chapter from the book 'The Dirty War on Syria', by Australian researcher, Prof.Tim Anderson, is the best source to understand how it started;
    http://www.globalresearch.ca/history-of-us-natos-covert-war-on-syria-daraa-march-2011/5492182

    You ignored the info that did not conform to your prejudices & u continue to point to propagandistic sources, such as J.Landis.

    Which leads to possibility 2; you r up to no GOOD.

    Perhaps you, deep inside, though u will probably deny it, r a sectarian Sunni prick.
    It would not surprise me, given the situation in your homeland Pakistan.

    For example, every time I see u try to give examples of modern Muslims who can fight well at war, you mention the Chechens; The Chechens are SUNNI Muslims. Ok.

    There is another group, which has been fighting for decades, very successfully, under incredible odds;

    Hezbollah. But it occurs that they are NOT Sunnis, and have been fighting against the Zio entity 'israel' and assorted sunni takfiri trash, like al-ciada & isis.
    Their ideology is not sectarian but one of unity... they are the best shield Christians in Lebanon have against sectarian takfiri lunnies.

    Curiously, i don't remember you ever mentioning them.

    Enjoy the following footage of these superb and honorable Shia Lebanese warriors! :-)

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EXK9lHMu2_Y
  74. @anon
    I am amazed at the mental gymnastics you can jump thorough with your rationalizations and self-deceptions.

    LOL! And I am amazed at how many of our exchanges end in this same manner with you expressing the same bewilderment. What are we at now, number 3? Next time, please cut to the chase and cut-and-paste these same words as a reply to my first comment and save me the time of dusting off books to look up an issue or searching the web to find a citation.

    Peace.

    Read More
  75. anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Talha
    Dear Rurik,

    But in Talha’s case, (if I have it right), he’s willing to see Assad remain so long as there’s nothing better to replace him at the moment.
     
    This is not my call, as I am not a Syrian, but this is on point; I'll take getting kicked in the backside to getting kicked in the groin any day.

    I just met with a childhood Syrian friend today who has two uncles that left as refugees to Istanbul. The small suburb (of Damascus) where his wife's family hails from, does not exist any longer. All the people fled it, it is in ruins due to both the callousness of the regime and Daesh. These people have zero love for either of them. He also has an uncle living within Damascus proper where it is safe; they are happy for the stability, but have no love for the regime.

    He was telling me about a defector within the government that could not suppress his conscience any longer and leaked thousands of photos of torture:
    https://www.hrw.org/news/2015/12/16/syria-stories-behind-photos-killed-detainees

    Many educated Syrians know about this and will abide with Assad simply due to the security situation.

    Is this all propaganda? Is my childhood friend and his wife (definitely not Wahhabi/Salafi extremists) blatant cynical liars? HRW - all in the pockets of Zionists? You decide.

    Peace.

    imho when placing blame for a boulder having killed innocent people, it must be asked, Who kicked away the pebble that held the boulder in place?

    Those who provoke wars know very well what the outcomes will be — that regimes will fight to defend their positions and that innocents will die. The hateful ones are those who provoke wars then cry Victim! or Murderer! when the adversary does exactly what the adversary was expected to do upon provocation.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    I can see your point, but you are missing the fact that the tortures and suppression took place before things went ballistic (look, NGOs have been reporting that the Syrian government commits human rights violations routinely - yes, so do a lot of governments in that region, but we are talking about Syria here, none of these governments treat their citizens with kid gloves):
    http://www.unz.com/ishamir/the-people-will-decide-in-turkey/#comment-1505209

    Some highlights if you do not want to read the whole thing:
    “The protest movement in Syria was overwhelmingly peaceful until September 2011” – Human Rights Watch, March 2012, Washington
    http://www.globalresearch.ca/daraa-2011-syrias-islamist-insurrection-in-disguise/5460547

    Note that the detention, torture and killing of the teenager Hamza Khatib and his friends happened months before September, 2011 – which helped push protests into overdrive:
    https://en.zamanalwsl.net/news/9479.html

    But I agree with your wider point; that the regime would react in its typical brutal manner was entirely predictable - as they did in Hama in 1982. Which is why I never thought people were ever going to be foolish enough to provoke the regime - I was wrong unfortunately.

    Peace.
  76. @SolontoCroesus


    We are an immortal civilization
     

    is seriously asking for God to humiliate you to teach you a lesson.
     

     
    Persia WAS several millennia before your homicidal and "humiliating" Abrahamic god, first recorded by Ezra -- under Cyrus, about 600 BC -- and his reinterpretation by Mohammad, Talha.



    Cyrus, King of Persia, was a Zoroastrian; Zoroaster introduced monotheism and the concept of the supremacy of ethical behavior somewhere between 8000 BC and 6500 BC (see Mary Settegast

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AIxNlFQCLTk

    Thus, Persians were practicing the ethical concepts of Zoroaster for over 5,000 years before the god of the 'chosen people' introduced the practices of killing off en masse any who failed to pay obeisance to self-appointed supremacists.

    Hey S2C,

    This is getting a bit theological, so I will be guarded in my words. I do not debate theology, I will simply clarify myself. You have before expressed to me that the Abrahamic faiths are simply a rehash of Zoroastrian teachings. I do not believe this just as I don’t believe the Prophet (pbuh) was simply revising Jewish teachings. Your’s is one valid and rational explanation, if a stretch. Another valid and rational explanation is that the similarities are simply due to the teachings being from the same Divine source. Muslims do not believe that the Semites have a monopoly on prophethood (the Prophet [pbuh] alluded to humanity having been sent around 124,000 [the reports are weak, but it is the best info we have on the subject] or so prophets/messengers), thus anybody like Zoroaster, Buddha, Confucius, Aristotle or others could well have been Divinely guided figures and their lessons were simply corrupted over time – we do not know enough and the Qur’an makes no final statement on them so we are agnostic on the matter.

    Persians were practicing the ethical concepts of Zoroaster

    I never said they were wholly unethical people – they definitely were better hosts to Nestorians than the Byzantines. And they had a fairly good record (with ups and downs) of coexistence with multiple religions well into the Sassanid era.

    the practices of killing off en masse any who failed to pay obeisance to self-appointed supremacists

    I hope you’re not saying Muslims simply massacred Zoroastrians at will – I’d love to see the evidence for such. Zoroastrianism did provide a backbone for Persian resistance against Muslim conquest, so naturally its followers were suppressed when rebellion was fomented. Otherwise, those dhimmis were treated more or less like others (though there were admittedly instances of forced conversion):
    “Islām, in principle, tolerated the ancient religion, but conversions by persuasion or force were massive in many provinces. Zoroastrianism fomented rebellion and brought persecutions upon itself. There were pockets of survival, notably in Persis, the ancient centre of the Achaemenian and Sāsānian empires. Books were produced to save the essentials of the religion from a threatened disaster. The disaster did occur but exactly why and how is not known.”

    https://www.britannica.com/topic/Zoroastrianism

    I have many Irani acquaintances and they are not ignorant of their history as a people. You can survey them or the Irani community at large (and I don’t just mean the secular types in ‘Irangeles’) and see how many would opt to leave the beliefs of Islam for the beliefs of Zoroastrianism or Manichaeism after having compared them side by side. The Persians themselves were essential to the codification of Islamic theological doctrine (Imams Razi, Maturidi, Taftazani, Ghazali, [ra] etc.), praxis (out of the seven most noteworthy hadith collections, only one was compiled by a non-Persian) and even mysticism/metaphysics (Imams Hasan al-Basri, Junayd Baghdadi, Abdul Qadir Jilani, Beyazid Bustami, [ra] etc.). This religion is as much Persian as much as it is Arab.

    Now, regarding what I stated to survey-of-disinfo, I was merely making a point to a person with whom I share the same set of metaphysical beliefs and thus assumptions of consequences. This is how brothers/sisters keep each other in check when we see a trait that should be rectified and I would urge him/her to do the same for me if he/she sees something in me that will cause me trouble in this life or the next.

    Peace.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik
    Dear Talha,

    not to jump in here..

    Zoroastrianism did provide a backbone for Persian resistance against Muslim conquest, so naturally its followers were suppressed when rebellion was fomented.
     
    but that sounded rather glib

    Otherwise, those dhimmis were treated more or less like others (though there were admittedly instances of forced conversion):
    “Islām, in principle, tolerated the ancient religion, but conversions by persuasion or force were massive in many provinces. Zoroastrianism fomented rebellion and brought persecutions upon itself.
     
    and here it almost sounds like your blaming the victim

    (as always, trying to keep you on your toes ; )

    Peace
  77. @anonymous
    imho when placing blame for a boulder having killed innocent people, it must be asked, Who kicked away the pebble that held the boulder in place?

    Those who provoke wars know very well what the outcomes will be -- that regimes will fight to defend their positions and that innocents will die. The hateful ones are those who provoke wars then cry Victim! or Murderer! when the adversary does exactly what the adversary was expected to do upon provocation.

    I can see your point, but you are missing the fact that the tortures and suppression took place before things went ballistic (look, NGOs have been reporting that the Syrian government commits human rights violations routinely – yes, so do a lot of governments in that region, but we are talking about Syria here, none of these governments treat their citizens with kid gloves):

    http://www.unz.com/ishamir/the-people-will-decide-in-turkey/#comment-1505209

    Some highlights if you do not want to read the whole thing:
    “The protest movement in Syria was overwhelmingly peaceful until September 2011” – Human Rights Watch, March 2012, Washington

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/daraa-2011-syrias-islamist-insurrection-in-disguise/5460547

    Note that the detention, torture and killing of the teenager Hamza Khatib and his friends happened months before September, 2011 – which helped push protests into overdrive:

    https://en.zamanalwsl.net/news/9479.html

    But I agree with your wider point; that the regime would react in its typical brutal manner was entirely predictable – as they did in Hama in 1982. Which is why I never thought people were ever going to be foolish enough to provoke the regime – I was wrong unfortunately.

    Peace.

    Read More
  78. @Rurik

    The ‘removal of Assad’ is the grand (and fraudulent)pretext to exterminate the territorial integrity of Syria.
     
    I agree, Alexander that that is the motivation of the Fiend, but not so some others- like Talha for instance, who seems to consider the Assad regime too brutal and authoritarian for any legitimacy. But in Talha's case, (if I have it right), he's willing to see Assad remain so long as there's nothing better to replace him at the moment.

    But more to the point, what I'm trying to do is get a glimpse of the motivation of so many- like I just mentioned the democratically elected government of Egypt under Morsi, who seemed obsessed with Assad's removal, knowing he was playing directly into the Zionist's agenda.

    Why for God's sake, would such a man, in such a juxtaposition in history- after Egypt had suffered Mubarak for so terribly long under Mubarak's corrupt and Zio-infested rule, would Morsi want to help the Zionists by opposing Assad with such monomaniacal ferocity?

    It was like 'meet the new boss, same as the old boss' for the Egyptians

    what I'm trying to get a handle on, is why all these people hate Assad so much, that they're willing to align with the very Fiend that has so oppressed their people and their nations for so terribly long. There must be a reason other than Assad's and his father's brutal crack downs. Or if not, what was it about these people that Assad's father and Assad are brutally oppressing that makes them so anathema to the Assad regime? Is it that they're Sunni extremists who want a more Islamic regime in Syria?

    In the case of Turkey, it seems Erdogan simply wants more of Syrian land for himself. But why would your typical Muslim want to see Assad go when most Syrians (including Sunnis) like him and support him? That's what I want to know...

    The dismemberment of Syria will proceed apace and will not relent until Israel has achieved it objective.
     
    only because so many Muslims are willing to go along with their Zionist project. By why are they willing to be Israel's dupes?! Why are they willing to destroy a relatively (former) stable Muslim country and hand it all over to Zionists or NATO stooges like Turkey? It doesn't' make sense, unless they've all been thoroughly duped, and don't realize that Israel and (NATO/Zio-stooge) Turkey and (NATO/Zio-stooge Saudi Arabia) are poised to steal Syria away from ISIS as soon as Assad falls.

    To me it seems like Iran and Russia and Assad and Hezbollah are the adults in the room, trying to keep Syria intact, and that Turkey and Saudi and the Zio-west are all trying to do another horrific 'Libya' to the people of Syria, and send Syria reeling into the abyss just like what was done to Libya and Iraq, and I'm trying to get a handle on why these Sunnis are so willing to do that. That's why I'm asking Talha to give us some insights into all of that.

    Rurik,

    There is nothing about the Syrian conflict that was “designed” by the Neocons, from the get go, to END quickly.

    The calculus of the Neocons was for the conflict to simmer on ,indefinitely, until Syria is a burnt and smoldering husk .

    Do you really believe there is any integrity to the argument for the “ouster of Assad” on the grounds he is a brutal dictator who has slaughtered his own people ?

    When the very same people who make the claim, (so vehemently) have wholly endorsed the illegal coup in Egypt, and are quite content when Egypt’s brutal dictator, Sisi, slaughters his own people ?

    When the very same people pushed Bush jr. into the White House, so he would brutally slaughter millions of Iraqi’s who never attacked us ?

    Do you really have any faith, at all, in the integrity of their arguments ?

    Please, Rurik.

    How laughable to imagine the ouster of Assad was conceived around the idea of making the world a BETTER place.

    It is a total joke.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik

    Do you really believe there is any integrity to the argument for the “ouster of Assad” on the grounds he is a brutal dictator who has slaughtered his own people ?
     
    no Alexander, I do not. At least certainly not coming from the lying media and politicans who're trying to make that case. But then if you're talking about the people like Tahla here, who are and were appalled at the (necessary?) brutality of his regime, then perhaps there is something there. I'm sure there are very many who're sincere and who have legitimate grievances against Assad. It's that perspective that I'm trying to flesh out.

    But as you know, of all people, this destruction of all these Muslim countries in the Middle East are all part of the Zio plan to destroy these people's nascent prosperity and stability and send them all reeling into the stone age so Israel can dominate them totally and steal their land and resources. (I won't do a "duh" here at this point, out of respect for you)

    You know I know all of that. And more - (I mercifully won't elaborate ; )

    But what I'm trying to do is get a handle on how and why anyone could or would, in good faith be against the Assad regime at this point- when he clearly is the Syrian people's only hope.

    It seems that there are many, many people over there (presumably who aren't stone-age head slicers) who don't like Assad, and it's because of this enmity that the Fiend has been able to foist all this strife in Syria, just as they did in Libya and elsewhere. If we can come to understand these moderates, and what motivates them, and what Assad must do to ameliorate their legitimate grievances, then perhaps there might be some worthwhile glimpses of a solution to the misery that can bubble up from the grass roots, in spite of all the efforts of the Fiend to destroy all the planet's people's happiness and hope.

    No? Yes?
  79. @Rurik
    Dear Talha,

    I will willingly live under (as I do now) the hegemony of someone not from my background if they treat me with justice and fairness – that is the most important factor.
     
    I agree, but how often does that happen?

    We both live in the US, and look how the US gov treated the Amerindians, and then the African slaves, and then the defeated southerners, most of whom were impoverished by the institution of slavery and put out of a job by the rich man's slaves, but who resisted northern tyranny with their lives, nonetheless. But they too were oppressed by the US government for decades, and are still having their symbols of resistance to tyranny suppressed by the same fecal government who knows not bounds upon its power (run amok). I too have lived under the nefarious institution of Affirmative Action my entire life, by these people 'not from my background' who would treat all people like me as second class citizens, because of the race we happen to have been born into. Is that "justice and fairness"?

    No, it is not. And I categorically reject their bigotry and hegemony over me as illegitimate, in the extreme. I play along as long as I must, but I certainly don't pretend that these hegemons are anything but rank and vile tyrants and bigots and posers to legitimate rule. I have more respect for a pile of dog puke in the dirt than I do for the presidents of these United States, or our congress for that matter, who I consider treasonous and not worthy to even be called dog puke in the dirt, because dog puke in the dirt never had a chance to be anything better.

    Keep the administration as local as possible except for those things that shouldn’t be; military
     
    that's fine so long as the ones in charge of this military are honorable men or women who possess character and humility. Who do you know of on this planet who you would trust to rule over a modern day sultanate?

    If there's a man alive who I would trust with such power, it'd probably be Ron Paul, who alone seems to possess a shred of actual character, vs. the legions and throngs of liars and scoundrels who would kill for such power. So since a man of this kind of character is so rare, I think we're all better off with as local as control as can be managed and wielded. Look at how lucky Russia was to get a Putin. And imagine what life in Russia would be with one of Rothschild's oligarchs still looting the place dry. I guess it's the best of all worlds if you can find a man or woman of character to lead and to rule, but this almost never happens, and as we look at the events of the world as they unfold, we all have to just sigh at the shame that the most powerful man in the world today (Rothschild), is also a psychopathic monster hell bent on an Orwellian hell on earth and war ravaged hate fest for most of us.

    I didn't get though the whole video Talha, I got as far as the guy saying that Islamic states are basically the same as secular states, and that there's nothing of consequence in an Islamic state that differs from a secular state, and I just had to stop there. I feel the guy has an agenda to insinuate that Muslim immigration will have no noticeable effect on secular states even when they become a majority, and I just don't buy that.

    But reading what you write about theocracy and states and religious governments, I couldn't help think of Latin American governments that are riddled with Christianity. In fact I don't think you can actually separate the state from the Catholic religion in most of them. The Cuban's certainly did, but this was an incredible hardship on the Catholics living in Cuba, and they're finally being able to embrace some of their religious life again, after having it suppressed for so long.

    But unlike Islamic states, I do know something about what Latin American states are like, and yes, even tho their putatively religious in their undertones, and full of symbolism, they still respect all people's ways of life and are perfectly livable for non-Catholics and even the secular.

    I suppose I imagine places like Iran or Lebanon or Syria or Morocco as being like this. Not so places like Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan or some of the other, more fundamentalist Islamic countries, where the religion is more rigidly imposed.

    what I feel like is happening Talha, and it's only a feeling, is that the men trying to unseat Assad tend to be Sunni extremists, or have tribal issues with Assad. Like when Morsi was elected to rule Egypt, and then set about aligning with the Zionists who had held Egypt under a cruel and corrupt regime for so long, and then this is what Morsi does when a democratically elected government comes to power in Egypt, he aligns with the Zionists to destroy the Assad regime?!

    I was appalled, and I just don't get it. It seems to me that the Arabs are always more interested in infighting than in coalescing and fighting off their collective enemies, like the British or the Zionists. They're always willing to toss the other Arabs under the bus to gain some advantage over their Arab or Muslim brothers, who they seem to hate more than they hate the Zionists who're craping on them all. This is how I see the House of Saud, as being willing to take order from the Zionists and the Great Satan so they can have hegemony over Iran or Syria. No?

    (I know this is rambling and disjointed, but that alas is how I sometimes write)

    Dear Rurik,

    I acknowledge your points about the historical deficiencies about the US government, but I can guarantee you you’d rather have a run in with the law here rather than Pakistan and other countries. When you deal with governments, it’s rarely about ideals, it’s more about what is tolerable as compared to another – government is a necessary evil (libertarians would likely say it is an absolute evil), if everyone was an angel we would not need it to protect each other’s rights. For instance, there have been many ‘Islamic’ governments in the past but rise up against them (Muslims or not) and some of them implemented this (not fun!):

    http://www.medievality.com/saw.html

    Regarding the video, Shaykh Hamza (db) was talking to a Muslim audience and making fun of the idea that it matters how religious you are when dealing with building roads and purifying water and the majority of tasks that governments deal with like delivering mail. That government has more to do with transparency, regulations, civil order define the success of a government more than cutting off hands for theft. I don’t think anybody has any delusions that a Muslim-majority Britain would not look any different than it does now.

    I suppose I imagine places like Iran or Lebanon or Syria or Morocco as being like this. Not so places like Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan or some of the other, more fundamentalist Islamic countries, where the religion is more rigidly imposed.

    Much of government has to reflect the culture of the people and there is just no doubt that the desert bedouin culture of Saudi (where there has historically [by design] been little coexistence with non-Muslims) or tribal Afghanistan are nowhere as developed in a cosmopolitan sense as historical Persia or the Levant. That is just reality – anybody who expects otherwise is fooling themselves. I mean, in the US, you know what happens at Daytona Beach at spring break or at Mardi Gras and no one does anything about it. Try pulling that stuff in Utah or Kentucky. Culture reflects local laws. Why is Utah the most stringent when it comes to alcohol:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol_laws_of_Utah

    the men trying to unseat Assad tend to be Sunni extremists, or have tribal issues with Assad

    Was not like this at the beginning, but the extremists overwhelmed any of the other groups so that does seem to be the reality on the ground now. I think likely there will be a cease fire and possibly; a demand that the current borders stay as they are and there are semi-autonomous regions declared as part of greater Syria (with a possible UN force inside) and with eventual track for re-unification (think North and South Yemen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yemeni_unification) after things simmer down.

    It seems to me that the Arabs are always more interested in infighting than in coalescing and fighting off their collective enemies

    Yup, which is why we aren’t getting much anywhere:
    “…and do not dispute with one another lest you lose courage and your strength depart, and be patient. Surely, God is with the patient.” 8:46

    Peace.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik

    government is a necessary evil (libertarians would likely say it is an absolute evil), if everyone was an angel we would not need it to protect each other’s rights.
     
    it isn't government per se that I call illegitimate, rather it's when governments become corrupt and racist and do not protect people's rights that I call them illegitimate


    "When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."

    "...mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, ..."


    to me, a Westerner by blood and disposition, the ONLY kind of government that can claim ANY kind of legitimacy, is by consent of the governed. Without that, a government is prima facia illegitimate, and therefor tyrannical.

    I don't declare a government of (of men) legitimate simply because there are or have been worse ones. In the case of the people running the US government, is only legitimate insofar as they conduct themselves according to the Constitution they all swore a sacred oath to uphold.

    The second they fail to do so, is the second I owe them zero allegiance. Indeed, I'm obliged to oppose them with all my heart and spirit, as an American, endowed with the same vitality of character and imperative to be free as the founders of this once great nation demanded that they be.

    I don’t think anybody has any delusions that a Muslim-majority Britain would not look any different than it does now.
     
    that sounded a little circuitous

    put more directly- a Muslim-majority Britain would not resemble Britain at all, then of course, that's obvious, and yes, obviously I agree.


    the men trying to unseat Assad tend to be Sunni extremists, or have tribal issues with Assad
     
    Was not like this at the beginning, but the extremists overwhelmed any of the other groups so that does seem to be the reality on the ground now.
     
    I would only edit that to say 'the CIA backed extremists overwhelmed..'

    they (the Fiend) used the simmering rifts between the ancient tribal hatreds and religious discord to escalate the violence and cause a 'Libya' to commence. Even as they funded them and provided the rebels with arms and UN cover.

    Yup, which is why we aren’t getting much anywhere:
     
    you know what the funny thing is? The enemies of Syria and the same exact enemies of America, and Europe, and Russia, and Ukraine, and Libya, and Iraq, and Iran, and Scandinavia, and basically all of us, except the Zios and their venal Anglo whores in the MIC and Western governments/media. We are all slated to be Palestinians, unless Le Pen and Putin and Trump and Farage and the others can somehow wrest power from the Fiend.

    IMHO

    End the Fed!

    Peace be to you and yours
  80. @anon
    "..the Kurds... a stateless people spread across Turkey, Iran, Iraq and Syria....denied a home by western powers.."

    That is rather strange, since none of those four countries are either western or Christian. Is Margolis suggesting that these four wholesome Muslim democracies and cradles of human rights are eager to surrender their land and territory to create a Kurdish state and are only being stopped from doing so by "evil" western powers. What "magic dirt" the west must have.

    The unnatural boarders of Iran, Iraq and Syria and the absence of a Kurdistan were the results of Western powers carving up the Ottoman Empire after its defeat in WWI. The chosen boarders were based on what was best for the Western countries with no regard for local history. Western countries have abuse the situation to their advantage ever since.

    Read More
  81. @Talha
    Hey S2C,

    This is getting a bit theological, so I will be guarded in my words. I do not debate theology, I will simply clarify myself. You have before expressed to me that the Abrahamic faiths are simply a rehash of Zoroastrian teachings. I do not believe this just as I don't believe the Prophet (pbuh) was simply revising Jewish teachings. Your's is one valid and rational explanation, if a stretch. Another valid and rational explanation is that the similarities are simply due to the teachings being from the same Divine source. Muslims do not believe that the Semites have a monopoly on prophethood (the Prophet [pbuh] alluded to humanity having been sent around 124,000 [the reports are weak, but it is the best info we have on the subject] or so prophets/messengers), thus anybody like Zoroaster, Buddha, Confucius, Aristotle or others could well have been Divinely guided figures and their lessons were simply corrupted over time - we do not know enough and the Qur'an makes no final statement on them so we are agnostic on the matter.

    Persians were practicing the ethical concepts of Zoroaster
     
    I never said they were wholly unethical people - they definitely were better hosts to Nestorians than the Byzantines. And they had a fairly good record (with ups and downs) of coexistence with multiple religions well into the Sassanid era.

    the practices of killing off en masse any who failed to pay obeisance to self-appointed supremacists
     
    I hope you're not saying Muslims simply massacred Zoroastrians at will - I'd love to see the evidence for such. Zoroastrianism did provide a backbone for Persian resistance against Muslim conquest, so naturally its followers were suppressed when rebellion was fomented. Otherwise, those dhimmis were treated more or less like others (though there were admittedly instances of forced conversion):
    "Islām, in principle, tolerated the ancient religion, but conversions by persuasion or force were massive in many provinces. Zoroastrianism fomented rebellion and brought persecutions upon itself. There were pockets of survival, notably in Persis, the ancient centre of the Achaemenian and Sāsānian empires. Books were produced to save the essentials of the religion from a threatened disaster. The disaster did occur but exactly why and how is not known."
    https://www.britannica.com/topic/Zoroastrianism

    I have many Irani acquaintances and they are not ignorant of their history as a people. You can survey them or the Irani community at large (and I don't just mean the secular types in 'Irangeles') and see how many would opt to leave the beliefs of Islam for the beliefs of Zoroastrianism or Manichaeism after having compared them side by side. The Persians themselves were essential to the codification of Islamic theological doctrine (Imams Razi, Maturidi, Taftazani, Ghazali, [ra] etc.), praxis (out of the seven most noteworthy hadith collections, only one was compiled by a non-Persian) and even mysticism/metaphysics (Imams Hasan al-Basri, Junayd Baghdadi, Abdul Qadir Jilani, Beyazid Bustami, [ra] etc.). This religion is as much Persian as much as it is Arab.

    Now, regarding what I stated to survey-of-disinfo, I was merely making a point to a person with whom I share the same set of metaphysical beliefs and thus assumptions of consequences. This is how brothers/sisters keep each other in check when we see a trait that should be rectified and I would urge him/her to do the same for me if he/she sees something in me that will cause me trouble in this life or the next.

    Peace.

    Dear Talha,

    not to jump in here..

    Zoroastrianism did provide a backbone for Persian resistance against Muslim conquest, so naturally its followers were suppressed when rebellion was fomented.

    but that sounded rather glib

    Otherwise, those dhimmis were treated more or less like others (though there were admittedly instances of forced conversion):
    “Islām, in principle, tolerated the ancient religion, but conversions by persuasion or force were massive in many provinces. Zoroastrianism fomented rebellion and brought persecutions upon itself.

    and here it almost sounds like your blaming the victim

    (as always, trying to keep you on your toes ; )

    Peace

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    Dear Rurik,

    I didn't mean to sound glib or callous, but these were the realities of pre-modernity (expand or be expanded upon). Sovereignty was determined by fire and steel; you could have your freedom if you could win it, otherwise you lived with the terms (the Sassanids operated the same way, watch them expand before getting walloped by the Rashidun - see below around 8:30):
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymI5Uv5cGU4

    "Zoroastrianism fomented rebellion and brought persecutions upon itself."
    That quote is not mine, but from Britannica. That is how governments work (all of them); pay your taxes and recognize their sovereignty else - fire and steel. For some the motivation to rebel is religious identity, some it is ethnic, etc. Again, I am not interested so much as far as the power plays between the Persian elites making a pitch for power so they could reclaim their palaces - i am more interested in what happened to your every day regular Zoroastrian citizen and from what I've read, the early Muslims were pretty cool with them - enough that defection was fairly common:
    "The Muslims now held these resources and were assisted by former members of the Sasanian army and administration who had defected. By 20/641 the organization of the military dīvān at Baṣra and Kūfa provided regular support for Muslim soldiers; by the 640s, Muslim armies based in Iraq were as well organized, provisioned, and equipped as the Sasanians themselves..."
    "The Muslim conquest of Iran meant the eclipse of Iranian monarchic traditions except to the extent that these were adopted by Muslim Arab rulers and the loss of political support for Zoroastrians. However, Sasanian soldiers and local notables who defected to the Muslims, possibly as a consequence of local conflicts, secured a position in the new regime."
    http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/arab-ii

    After certain battles, entire divisions of Persian infantry and heavy cavalry defected (and even converted) - Persian royalty did not command the same kind of loyalty:
    "Impecunious and arrogant, with a large retinue to support, Yazdegerd alienated the marzbān of Kermān and left for Sīstān just ahead of another Basran force, which defeated and killed the marzbān in heavy fighting. Having lost the support of the governor of Sīstān by demanding tax arrears, Yazdegerd headed for Marv." - same as above source

    Unfortunately, the later Muslim administrations became increasingly oppressive (which is not cool):
    "Yet here too legal inequity impacted. Mahmud b. ʿOmar al-Zamaḵšāri (1075-1144), an important Muslim theologian, suggested that Zoroastrians be publicly humiliated each time the jezya was collected."

    And culminates under really, really repressive rule under the Safavids:
    "During the Safavid period (1501-1736), institutionalization of Shi‘ism, often carried out violently, resulted in Zoroastrians increasingly experiencing the specter of forced conversion to Islam under the religious zealousness of Shi‘ite clerics or mollās."
    http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/zoroastrianism-02-arab-conquest-to-modern - both of the quotes

    And even now, you know how Hawaii was 'brought into' the union, and you know how Hawaii would fare if they try to secede.

    Peace.
  82. @alexander
    Rurik,

    There is nothing about the Syrian conflict that was "designed" by the Neocons, from the get go, to END quickly.

    The calculus of the Neocons was for the conflict to simmer on ,indefinitely, until Syria is a burnt and smoldering husk .

    Do you really believe there is any integrity to the argument for the "ouster of Assad" on the grounds he is a brutal dictator who has slaughtered his own people ?

    When the very same people who make the claim, (so vehemently) have wholly endorsed the illegal coup in Egypt, and are quite content when Egypt's brutal dictator, Sisi, slaughters his own people ?

    When the very same people pushed Bush jr. into the White House, so he would brutally slaughter millions of Iraqi's who never attacked us ?

    Do you really have any faith, at all, in the integrity of their arguments ?

    Please, Rurik.

    How laughable to imagine the ouster of Assad was conceived around the idea of making the world a BETTER place.

    It is a total joke.

    Do you really believe there is any integrity to the argument for the “ouster of Assad” on the grounds he is a brutal dictator who has slaughtered his own people ?

    no Alexander, I do not. At least certainly not coming from the lying media and politicans who’re trying to make that case. But then if you’re talking about the people like Tahla here, who are and were appalled at the (necessary?) brutality of his regime, then perhaps there is something there. I’m sure there are very many who’re sincere and who have legitimate grievances against Assad. It’s that perspective that I’m trying to flesh out.

    But as you know, of all people, this destruction of all these Muslim countries in the Middle East are all part of the Zio plan to destroy these people’s nascent prosperity and stability and send them all reeling into the stone age so Israel can dominate them totally and steal their land and resources. (I won’t do a “duh” here at this point, out of respect for you)

    You know I know all of that. And more – (I mercifully won’t elaborate ; )

    But what I’m trying to do is get a handle on how and why anyone could or would, in good faith be against the Assad regime at this point- when he clearly is the Syrian people’s only hope.

    It seems that there are many, many people over there (presumably who aren’t stone-age head slicers) who don’t like Assad, and it’s because of this enmity that the Fiend has been able to foist all this strife in Syria, just as they did in Libya and elsewhere. If we can come to understand these moderates, and what motivates them, and what Assad must do to ameliorate their legitimate grievances, then perhaps there might be some worthwhile glimpses of a solution to the misery that can bubble up from the grass roots, in spite of all the efforts of the Fiend to destroy all the planet’s people’s happiness and hope.

    No? Yes?

    Read More
  83. @Talha
    Dear Rurik,

    But in Talha’s case, (if I have it right), he’s willing to see Assad remain so long as there’s nothing better to replace him at the moment.
     
    This is not my call, as I am not a Syrian, but this is on point; I'll take getting kicked in the backside to getting kicked in the groin any day.

    I just met with a childhood Syrian friend today who has two uncles that left as refugees to Istanbul. The small suburb (of Damascus) where his wife's family hails from, does not exist any longer. All the people fled it, it is in ruins due to both the callousness of the regime and Daesh. These people have zero love for either of them. He also has an uncle living within Damascus proper where it is safe; they are happy for the stability, but have no love for the regime.

    He was telling me about a defector within the government that could not suppress his conscience any longer and leaked thousands of photos of torture:
    https://www.hrw.org/news/2015/12/16/syria-stories-behind-photos-killed-detainees

    Many educated Syrians know about this and will abide with Assad simply due to the security situation.

    Is this all propaganda? Is my childhood friend and his wife (definitely not Wahhabi/Salafi extremists) blatant cynical liars? HRW - all in the pockets of Zionists? You decide.

    Peace.

    Uncle Talha,

    There are 2 possibilities about u;

    1. you are a brainwashed idiot, brainwashed by all the presstitute’s propaganda against Syria and its government. It is the Syrian government btw , asshole, while you like it or not, not a ‘regime’. Already this type of terminology is used to delegitimize the Syrian government.

    As the saying goes ‘You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make it drink.’

    I led you to sources showing that the puported cruelty and wickedness of the Assad ‘regime’ is largely fabricated or taken out of context.

    This text, a chapter from the book ‘The Dirty War on Syria’, by Australian researcher, Prof.Tim Anderson, is the best source to understand how it started;

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/history-of-us-natos-covert-war-on-syria-daraa-march-2011/5492182

    You ignored the info that did not conform to your prejudices & u continue to point to propagandistic sources, such as J.Landis.

    Which leads to possibility 2; you r up to no GOOD.

    Perhaps you, deep inside, though u will probably deny it, r a sectarian Sunni prick.
    It would not surprise me, given the situation in your homeland Pakistan.

    For example, every time I see u try to give examples of modern Muslims who can fight well at war, you mention the Chechens; The Chechens are SUNNI Muslims. Ok.

    There is another group, which has been fighting for decades, very successfully, under incredible odds;

    Hezbollah. But it occurs that they are NOT Sunnis, and have been fighting against the Zio entity ‘israel’ and assorted sunni takfiri trash, like al-ciada & isis.
    Their ideology is not sectarian but one of unity… they are the best shield Christians in Lebanon have against sectarian takfiri lunnies.

    Curiously, i don’t remember you ever mentioning them.

    Enjoy the following footage of these superb and honorable Shia Lebanese warriors! :-)

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EXK9lHMu2_Y

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    Hey Cousin? LK,

    I guess one can't avoid ad hominem around here eh? Sigh...

    And I've pointed out to you sources that show that Assad's regime/government are involved in human rights violations and have been since before the stuff hit the fan - feel free to ignore it all you want. Or the fact that I know Syrians from Hama, the town that was leveled by the first Assad. You seem to be of the impression that you have the whole truth and nothing but on this subject - that is fine. I claim only that I know one portion of this very confusing and ever shifting narrative (now the Turks are in talks with the Syrian government) - one that cannot be dismissed without this flaring up again in the future.

    I know there is an international conspiracy (highly involved with Zionists) that wants to bring the Syrian government down and break it apart - that should be obvious to anyone*. In spite of that, I am simply stating that there are a great number of Syrians that are very upset with the regime and only going along with it because of even worse possibilities.

    As far as Hezbollah; this is what I stated to Rurik, right on this page:
    "I actually wouldn’t mind Shiah like Hezbollah ruling Syria if they respected Sunnis and others like they proved they could in Southern Lebanon."

    I guess I'm still a sectarian prick, eh? What does your idea of sectarianism even entail?

    As far as their martial skills, I have nothing but respect for Hezbollah's fighting capability and vigor. They have shamed almost every Arab state army out there who have massive budgets and little to show for them. I mentioned Chechens, simply because they are one of the most fierce fighters in the world. I mean, because I leave out mention of Nepalese Gurkhas, does that mean I don't know that they know how to fight? I like Chechens, when they aren't extremist, most of them are Naqshbandi Mujaddidi (spiritual path) as am I so I like bringing them up.

    Peace.

    *This by the way has totally backfired on them, the Syrian army that has been able to survive thus far represents probably the most battle-hardened and capable Arab forces - right at Israel's back door.
  84. @anon
    YOU KNOW what you said sport. And readers of this blog do too. You have been caught red handed in a big lie.

    Which “big lie” darling? I didn’t say: “Sorry Mom, I was wrong about Holocaust!”

    It’s my fellow Canadian Monika Schaefer, the music teacher who said that.

    https://rehmat1.com/2016/07/19/sorry-mom-i-was-wrong-about-holocaust/

    Read More
  85. @Rurik

    The ‘removal of Assad’ is the grand (and fraudulent)pretext to exterminate the territorial integrity of Syria.
     
    I agree, Alexander that that is the motivation of the Fiend, but not so some others- like Talha for instance, who seems to consider the Assad regime too brutal and authoritarian for any legitimacy. But in Talha's case, (if I have it right), he's willing to see Assad remain so long as there's nothing better to replace him at the moment.

    But more to the point, what I'm trying to do is get a glimpse of the motivation of so many- like I just mentioned the democratically elected government of Egypt under Morsi, who seemed obsessed with Assad's removal, knowing he was playing directly into the Zionist's agenda.

    Why for God's sake, would such a man, in such a juxtaposition in history- after Egypt had suffered Mubarak for so terribly long under Mubarak's corrupt and Zio-infested rule, would Morsi want to help the Zionists by opposing Assad with such monomaniacal ferocity?

    It was like 'meet the new boss, same as the old boss' for the Egyptians

    what I'm trying to get a handle on, is why all these people hate Assad so much, that they're willing to align with the very Fiend that has so oppressed their people and their nations for so terribly long. There must be a reason other than Assad's and his father's brutal crack downs. Or if not, what was it about these people that Assad's father and Assad are brutally oppressing that makes them so anathema to the Assad regime? Is it that they're Sunni extremists who want a more Islamic regime in Syria?

    In the case of Turkey, it seems Erdogan simply wants more of Syrian land for himself. But why would your typical Muslim want to see Assad go when most Syrians (including Sunnis) like him and support him? That's what I want to know...

    The dismemberment of Syria will proceed apace and will not relent until Israel has achieved it objective.
     
    only because so many Muslims are willing to go along with their Zionist project. By why are they willing to be Israel's dupes?! Why are they willing to destroy a relatively (former) stable Muslim country and hand it all over to Zionists or NATO stooges like Turkey? It doesn't' make sense, unless they've all been thoroughly duped, and don't realize that Israel and (NATO/Zio-stooge) Turkey and (NATO/Zio-stooge Saudi Arabia) are poised to steal Syria away from ISIS as soon as Assad falls.

    To me it seems like Iran and Russia and Assad and Hezbollah are the adults in the room, trying to keep Syria intact, and that Turkey and Saudi and the Zio-west are all trying to do another horrific 'Libya' to the people of Syria, and send Syria reeling into the abyss just like what was done to Libya and Iraq, and I'm trying to get a handle on why these Sunnis are so willing to do that. That's why I'm asking Talha to give us some insights into all of that.

    Hey Rurik,

    The propaganda war against the Syrian government and institutions, like the Syrian military, has been nothing short of mind boggling.

    Read the following text, a chapter from the book ‘The Dirty War on Syria’, by Australian researcher, Prof.Tim Anderson, who went to Syria to better understand what was happening.
    It is possibly the best single source to understand how it started & it shows clearly that the puported cruelty and wickedness of the Assad ‘regime’ is largely fabricated or taken out of its proper context.
    Read it , it will be worth your while in terms of understanding this war.

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/history-of-us-natos-covert-war-on-syria-daraa-march-2011/5492182

    Take a moment to watch the following short videos;

    Hezbollah Leader explains why Syria & Assad are crucial to Middle East war – English Subs

    Plus the following 2 vids by Syrian Girl, a secular, young Sunni Syrian woman;

    Why Kurds must not be allowed to control north #Syria _ this one will give a bertter understanding of the Kurdish affair

    About the propaganda war on Syria, a great case study;
    The Truth About the #Syrianboy Viral Photo. Its really a story of two boys.

    Gotta go now, more later, hope it helps.

    Take care

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik
    Hey LK,

    thanks for the links

    looking at the first one from Global Research, I see that the rebels who Assad the father crushed were from the Muslim Brotherhood, which is where Morsi was from.

    So I suppose that's why Morsi was so keen to get vengeance upon Assad the younger as soon as he came to power in Egypt.

    Even to the point of wanting to destroy a fellow Muslim, Arab country and hand it over to the Zionists who've been raping the Muslim world in the wider Levant ever since they arrived.

    pettiness and rivalries and fratricidal hate

    Talha quotes a source on Assad's rule that people had a ....

    high degree of personal freedom not found in other countries of the Middle East. This personal freedom was exercised in all areas of life except for politics — a strange paradox. The government seemed to leave people alone in areas of religion, social behavior, family life, and work pursuits; but political dissent was not tolerated

    But how is this any different than the rule of the Ottoman sultans, who Talha seems to be nostalgic for, (no Talha?)

    As I've mentioned, only because of things I;ve heard about torture and cooperation with the CIA in the past, I don't think Assad is a great guy. But I do think it's obvious that the people of Syria want him to remain in power, and that's good enough for me, and I think that's good enough for Talha too, (if I read him right)

    So there was a certain amount of brutality when it came to political dissent, and perhaps that's the way it is over there. The West certainly suffered such growing pains in its centuries-long struggle for a modern, civilized state.

    Such a shame that both the West and the Muslim world are being dragged back into the mire of brutality and torture and murderous, stone age religious ignorance and tribal hatreds.

    I think we can all agree on that...
  86. @Rurik
    Dear Talha,

    not to jump in here..

    Zoroastrianism did provide a backbone for Persian resistance against Muslim conquest, so naturally its followers were suppressed when rebellion was fomented.
     
    but that sounded rather glib

    Otherwise, those dhimmis were treated more or less like others (though there were admittedly instances of forced conversion):
    “Islām, in principle, tolerated the ancient religion, but conversions by persuasion or force were massive in many provinces. Zoroastrianism fomented rebellion and brought persecutions upon itself.
     
    and here it almost sounds like your blaming the victim

    (as always, trying to keep you on your toes ; )

    Peace

    Dear Rurik,

    I didn’t mean to sound glib or callous, but these were the realities of pre-modernity (expand or be expanded upon). Sovereignty was determined by fire and steel; you could have your freedom if you could win it, otherwise you lived with the terms (the Sassanids operated the same way, watch them expand before getting walloped by the Rashidun – see below around 8:30):
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymI5Uv5cGU4

    “Zoroastrianism fomented rebellion and brought persecutions upon itself.”
    That quote is not mine, but from Britannica. That is how governments work (all of them); pay your taxes and recognize their sovereignty else – fire and steel. For some the motivation to rebel is religious identity, some it is ethnic, etc. Again, I am not interested so much as far as the power plays between the Persian elites making a pitch for power so they could reclaim their palaces – i am more interested in what happened to your every day regular Zoroastrian citizen and from what I’ve read, the early Muslims were pretty cool with them – enough that defection was fairly common:
    “The Muslims now held these resources and were assisted by former members of the Sasanian army and administration who had defected. By 20/641 the organization of the military dīvān at Baṣra and Kūfa provided regular support for Muslim soldiers; by the 640s, Muslim armies based in Iraq were as well organized, provisioned, and equipped as the Sasanians themselves…”
    “The Muslim conquest of Iran meant the eclipse of Iranian monarchic traditions except to the extent that these were adopted by Muslim Arab rulers and the loss of political support for Zoroastrians. However, Sasanian soldiers and local notables who defected to the Muslims, possibly as a consequence of local conflicts, secured a position in the new regime.”
    http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/arab-ii

    After certain battles, entire divisions of Persian infantry and heavy cavalry defected (and even converted) – Persian royalty did not command the same kind of loyalty:
    “Impecunious and arrogant, with a large retinue to support, Yazdegerd alienated the marzbān of Kermān and left for Sīstān just ahead of another Basran force, which defeated and killed the marzbān in heavy fighting. Having lost the support of the governor of Sīstān by demanding tax arrears, Yazdegerd headed for Marv.” – same as above source

    Unfortunately, the later Muslim administrations became increasingly oppressive (which is not cool):
    “Yet here too legal inequity impacted. Mahmud b. ʿOmar al-Zamaḵšāri (1075-1144), an important Muslim theologian, suggested that Zoroastrians be publicly humiliated each time the jezya was collected.”

    And culminates under really, really repressive rule under the Safavids:
    “During the Safavid period (1501-1736), institutionalization of Shi‘ism, often carried out violently, resulted in Zoroastrians increasingly experiencing the specter of forced conversion to Islam under the religious zealousness of Shi‘ite clerics or mollās.”
    http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/zoroastrianism-02-arab-conquest-to-modern – both of the quotes

    And even now, you know how Hawaii was ‘brought into’ the union, and you know how Hawaii would fare if they try to secede.

    Peace.

    Read More
  87. @Talha
    Dear Rurik,

    I acknowledge your points about the historical deficiencies about the US government, but I can guarantee you you'd rather have a run in with the law here rather than Pakistan and other countries. When you deal with governments, it's rarely about ideals, it's more about what is tolerable as compared to another - government is a necessary evil (libertarians would likely say it is an absolute evil), if everyone was an angel we would not need it to protect each other's rights. For instance, there have been many 'Islamic' governments in the past but rise up against them (Muslims or not) and some of them implemented this (not fun!):
    http://www.medievality.com/saw.html

    Regarding the video, Shaykh Hamza (db) was talking to a Muslim audience and making fun of the idea that it matters how religious you are when dealing with building roads and purifying water and the majority of tasks that governments deal with like delivering mail. That government has more to do with transparency, regulations, civil order define the success of a government more than cutting off hands for theft. I don't think anybody has any delusions that a Muslim-majority Britain would not look any different than it does now.

    I suppose I imagine places like Iran or Lebanon or Syria or Morocco as being like this. Not so places like Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan or some of the other, more fundamentalist Islamic countries, where the religion is more rigidly imposed.
     

    Much of government has to reflect the culture of the people and there is just no doubt that the desert bedouin culture of Saudi (where there has historically [by design] been little coexistence with non-Muslims) or tribal Afghanistan are nowhere as developed in a cosmopolitan sense as historical Persia or the Levant. That is just reality - anybody who expects otherwise is fooling themselves. I mean, in the US, you know what happens at Daytona Beach at spring break or at Mardi Gras and no one does anything about it. Try pulling that stuff in Utah or Kentucky. Culture reflects local laws. Why is Utah the most stringent when it comes to alcohol:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol_laws_of_Utah

    the men trying to unseat Assad tend to be Sunni extremists, or have tribal issues with Assad
     
    Was not like this at the beginning, but the extremists overwhelmed any of the other groups so that does seem to be the reality on the ground now. I think likely there will be a cease fire and possibly; a demand that the current borders stay as they are and there are semi-autonomous regions declared as part of greater Syria (with a possible UN force inside) and with eventual track for re-unification (think North and South Yemen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yemeni_unification) after things simmer down.

    It seems to me that the Arabs are always more interested in infighting than in coalescing and fighting off their collective enemies
     
    Yup, which is why we aren't getting much anywhere:
    "...and do not dispute with one another lest you lose courage and your strength depart, and be patient. Surely, God is with the patient." 8:46

    Peace.

    government is a necessary evil (libertarians would likely say it is an absolute evil), if everyone was an angel we would not need it to protect each other’s rights.

    it isn’t government per se that I call illegitimate, rather it’s when governments become corrupt and racist and do not protect people’s rights that I call them illegitimate

    When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.”

    “…mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, …”

    to me, a Westerner by blood and disposition, the ONLY kind of government that can claim ANY kind of legitimacy, is by consent of the governed. Without that, a government is prima facia illegitimate, and therefor tyrannical.

    I don’t declare a government of (of men) legitimate simply because there are or have been worse ones. In the case of the people running the US government, is only legitimate insofar as they conduct themselves according to the Constitution they all swore a sacred oath to uphold.

    The second they fail to do so, is the second I owe them zero allegiance. Indeed, I’m obliged to oppose them with all my heart and spirit, as an American, endowed with the same vitality of character and imperative to be free as the founders of this once great nation demanded that they be.

    I don’t think anybody has any delusions that a Muslim-majority Britain would not look any different than it does now.

    that sounded a little circuitous

    put more directly- a Muslim-majority Britain would not resemble Britain at all, then of course, that’s obvious, and yes, obviously I agree.

    the men trying to unseat Assad tend to be Sunni extremists, or have tribal issues with Assad

    Was not like this at the beginning, but the extremists overwhelmed any of the other groups so that does seem to be the reality on the ground now.

    I would only edit that to say ‘the CIA backed extremists overwhelmed..’

    they (the Fiend) used the simmering rifts between the ancient tribal hatreds and religious discord to escalate the violence and cause a ‘Libya’ to commence. Even as they funded them and provided the rebels with arms and UN cover.

    Yup, which is why we aren’t getting much anywhere:

    you know what the funny thing is? The enemies of Syria and the same exact enemies of America, and Europe, and Russia, and Ukraine, and Libya, and Iraq, and Iran, and Scandinavia, and basically all of us, except the Zios and their venal Anglo whores in the MIC and Western governments/media. We are all slated to be Palestinians, unless Le Pen and Putin and Trump and Farage and the others can somehow wrest power from the Fiend.

    IMHO

    End the Fed!

    Peace be to you and yours

    Read More
  88. @L.K
    Uncle Talha,

    There are 2 possibilities about u;

    1. you are a brainwashed idiot, brainwashed by all the presstitute's propaganda against Syria and its government. It is the Syrian government btw , asshole, while you like it or not, not a 'regime'. Already this type of terminology is used to delegitimize the Syrian government.

    As the saying goes 'You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.'

    I led you to sources showing that the puported cruelty and wickedness of the Assad 'regime' is largely fabricated or taken out of context.

    This text, a chapter from the book 'The Dirty War on Syria', by Australian researcher, Prof.Tim Anderson, is the best source to understand how it started;
    http://www.globalresearch.ca/history-of-us-natos-covert-war-on-syria-daraa-march-2011/5492182

    You ignored the info that did not conform to your prejudices & u continue to point to propagandistic sources, such as J.Landis.

    Which leads to possibility 2; you r up to no GOOD.

    Perhaps you, deep inside, though u will probably deny it, r a sectarian Sunni prick.
    It would not surprise me, given the situation in your homeland Pakistan.

    For example, every time I see u try to give examples of modern Muslims who can fight well at war, you mention the Chechens; The Chechens are SUNNI Muslims. Ok.

    There is another group, which has been fighting for decades, very successfully, under incredible odds;

    Hezbollah. But it occurs that they are NOT Sunnis, and have been fighting against the Zio entity 'israel' and assorted sunni takfiri trash, like al-ciada & isis.
    Their ideology is not sectarian but one of unity... they are the best shield Christians in Lebanon have against sectarian takfiri lunnies.

    Curiously, i don't remember you ever mentioning them.

    Enjoy the following footage of these superb and honorable Shia Lebanese warriors! :-)

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EXK9lHMu2_Y

    Hey Cousin? LK,

    I guess one can’t avoid ad hominem around here eh? Sigh…

    And I’ve pointed out to you sources that show that Assad’s regime/government are involved in human rights violations and have been since before the stuff hit the fan – feel free to ignore it all you want. Or the fact that I know Syrians from Hama, the town that was leveled by the first Assad. You seem to be of the impression that you have the whole truth and nothing but on this subject – that is fine. I claim only that I know one portion of this very confusing and ever shifting narrative (now the Turks are in talks with the Syrian government) – one that cannot be dismissed without this flaring up again in the future.

    I know there is an international conspiracy (highly involved with Zionists) that wants to bring the Syrian government down and break it apart – that should be obvious to anyone*. In spite of that, I am simply stating that there are a great number of Syrians that are very upset with the regime and only going along with it because of even worse possibilities.

    As far as Hezbollah; this is what I stated to Rurik, right on this page:
    “I actually wouldn’t mind Shiah like Hezbollah ruling Syria if they respected Sunnis and others like they proved they could in Southern Lebanon.”

    I guess I’m still a sectarian prick, eh? What does your idea of sectarianism even entail?

    As far as their martial skills, I have nothing but respect for Hezbollah’s fighting capability and vigor. They have shamed almost every Arab state army out there who have massive budgets and little to show for them. I mentioned Chechens, simply because they are one of the most fierce fighters in the world. I mean, because I leave out mention of Nepalese Gurkhas, does that mean I don’t know that they know how to fight? I like Chechens, when they aren’t extremist, most of them are Naqshbandi Mujaddidi (spiritual path) as am I so I like bringing them up.

    Peace.

    *This by the way has totally backfired on them, the Syrian army that has been able to survive thus far represents probably the most battle-hardened and capable Arab forces – right at Israel’s back door.

    Read More
    • Replies: @L.K
    Talha writes : "Or the fact that I know Syrians from Hama, the town that was leveled by the first Assad."

    Yawnnn.... see, that is why I don't take you seriously anymore. Since you brought up Hama in a clearly propagandistic way, let's take a look at the facts surrounding that set of events in order to get the context right, facts which you clearly choose to ignore. From Prof.Anderson's book:

    It is also useful to review the earlier Muslim Brotherhood insurrection at Hama in 1982, because of the parallel myths that have grown up around both insurrections.

    US intelligence (DIA 1982) and the late British author Patrick Seale (1988) give independent accounts of what happened at Hama. After years of violent, sectarian attacks by Syria’s Muslim Brotherhood, by mid-1980 President Hafez al Assad had ‘broken the back’ of their sectarian rebellion, which aimed to impose a Salafi-Islamic state.
    One final coup plot was exposed and the Brotherhood ‘felt pressured into initiating’ an uprising in their stronghold of Hama. Seale describes the start of that violence in this way:

    At 2am on the night of 2-3 February 1982 an army unit combing the old city fell into an ambush. Roof top snipers killed perhaps a score of soldiers … [Brotherhood leader] Abu Bakr [Umar Jawwad] gave the order for a general uprising … hundreds of Islamist fighters rose … by the morning some seventy leading Ba’athists had been slaughtered and the triumphant guerrillas declared the city ‘liberated’ (Seale 1988: 332).

    However the Army responded with a huge force of about 12,000 and the battle raged for three weeks. It was a foreign-backed civil war, with some defections from the army. Seale continues:

    As the tide turned slowly in the government’s favour, the guerrillas fell back into the old quarters … after heavy shelling, commandos and party irregulars supported by tanks moved in … many civilians were slaughtered in the prolonged mopping up, whole districts razed (Seale 1988: 333).

    Two months later a US intelligence report said: ‘The total casualties for the Hama incident probably number about 2,000. This includes an estimated 300 to 400 members of the Muslim Brotherhood’s elite ‘Secret Apparatus’ (DIA 1982: 7).

    Seale recognises that the Army also suffered heavy losses.[...]He adds:

    ‘The guerrillas were formidable opponents. They had a fortune in foreign money … [and] no fewer than 15,000 machine guns’ (Seale 1988: 335). Subsequent Muslim Brotherhood accounts have inflated the casualties, reaching up to ‘40,000 civilians’, thus attempting to hide their insurrection and sectarian massacres by claiming that Hafez al Assad had carried out a ‘civilian massacre’ (e.g. Nassar 2014). The then Syrian President blamed a large scale foreign conspiracy for the Hama insurrection. Seale observes that Hafez was ‘not paranoical’, as many US weapons were captured and foreign backing had come from several US collaborators: King Hussayn of Jordan, Lebanese Christian militias (the Israeli-aligned ‘Guardians of the Cedar’) and Saddam Hussein in Iraq (Seale 1988: 336-337).
     
  89. @Talha
    Hey Cousin? LK,

    I guess one can't avoid ad hominem around here eh? Sigh...

    And I've pointed out to you sources that show that Assad's regime/government are involved in human rights violations and have been since before the stuff hit the fan - feel free to ignore it all you want. Or the fact that I know Syrians from Hama, the town that was leveled by the first Assad. You seem to be of the impression that you have the whole truth and nothing but on this subject - that is fine. I claim only that I know one portion of this very confusing and ever shifting narrative (now the Turks are in talks with the Syrian government) - one that cannot be dismissed without this flaring up again in the future.

    I know there is an international conspiracy (highly involved with Zionists) that wants to bring the Syrian government down and break it apart - that should be obvious to anyone*. In spite of that, I am simply stating that there are a great number of Syrians that are very upset with the regime and only going along with it because of even worse possibilities.

    As far as Hezbollah; this is what I stated to Rurik, right on this page:
    "I actually wouldn’t mind Shiah like Hezbollah ruling Syria if they respected Sunnis and others like they proved they could in Southern Lebanon."

    I guess I'm still a sectarian prick, eh? What does your idea of sectarianism even entail?

    As far as their martial skills, I have nothing but respect for Hezbollah's fighting capability and vigor. They have shamed almost every Arab state army out there who have massive budgets and little to show for them. I mentioned Chechens, simply because they are one of the most fierce fighters in the world. I mean, because I leave out mention of Nepalese Gurkhas, does that mean I don't know that they know how to fight? I like Chechens, when they aren't extremist, most of them are Naqshbandi Mujaddidi (spiritual path) as am I so I like bringing them up.

    Peace.

    *This by the way has totally backfired on them, the Syrian army that has been able to survive thus far represents probably the most battle-hardened and capable Arab forces - right at Israel's back door.

    Talha writes : “Or the fact that I know Syrians from Hama, the town that was leveled by the first Assad.”

    Yawnnn…. see, that is why I don’t take you seriously anymore. Since you brought up Hama in a clearly propagandistic way, let’s take a look at the facts surrounding that set of events in order to get the context right, facts which you clearly choose to ignore. From Prof.Anderson’s book:

    It is also useful to review the earlier Muslim Brotherhood insurrection at Hama in 1982, because of the parallel myths that have grown up around both insurrections.

    US intelligence (DIA 1982) and the late British author Patrick Seale (1988) give independent accounts of what happened at Hama. After years of violent, sectarian attacks by Syria’s Muslim Brotherhood, by mid-1980 President Hafez al Assad had ‘broken the back’ of their sectarian rebellion, which aimed to impose a Salafi-Islamic state. One final coup plot was exposed and the Brotherhood ‘felt pressured into initiating’ an uprising in their stronghold of Hama. Seale describes the start of that violence in this way:

    At 2am on the night of 2-3 February 1982 an army unit combing the old city fell into an ambush. Roof top snipers killed perhaps a score of soldiers … [Brotherhood leader] Abu Bakr [Umar Jawwad] gave the order for a general uprising … hundreds of Islamist fighters rose … by the morning some seventy leading Ba’athists had been slaughtered and the triumphant guerrillas declared the city ‘liberated’ (Seale 1988: 332).

    However the Army responded with a huge force of about 12,000 and the battle raged for three weeks. It was a foreign-backed civil war, with some defections from the army. Seale continues:

    As the tide turned slowly in the government’s favour, the guerrillas fell back into the old quarters … after heavy shelling, commandos and party irregulars supported by tanks moved in … many civilians were slaughtered in the prolonged mopping up, whole districts razed (Seale 1988: 333).

    Two months later a US intelligence report said: ‘The total casualties for the Hama incident probably number about 2,000. This includes an estimated 300 to 400 members of the Muslim Brotherhood’s elite ‘Secret Apparatus’ (DIA 1982: 7).

    Seale recognises that the Army also suffered heavy losses.[...]He adds:

    ‘The guerrillas were formidable opponents. They had a fortune in foreign money … [and] no fewer than 15,000 machine guns’ (Seale 1988: 335). Subsequent Muslim Brotherhood accounts have inflated the casualties, reaching up to ‘40,000 civilians’, thus attempting to hide their insurrection and sectarian massacres by claiming that Hafez al Assad had carried out a ‘civilian massacre’ (e.g. Nassar 2014). The then Syrian President blamed a large scale foreign conspiracy for the Hama insurrection. Seale observes that Hafez was ‘not paranoical’, as many US weapons were captured and foreign backing had come from several US collaborators: King Hussayn of Jordan, Lebanese Christian militias (the Israeli-aligned ‘Guardians of the Cedar’) and Saddam Hussein in Iraq (Seale 1988: 336-337).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    Hey LK,

    I love it! The author you quotes cites Seale at length, but when it comes to the numbers, switches sources. Let's see what Seale had to say:
    "Fear, loathing and a river of spilt blood ruled out any thought of truce … that explain[s] the terrible savagery of the punishment inflicted on the city. Behind the immediate contest lay the old multi-layered hostility between Islam and the Ba’th, between Sunni and ‘Alawi, between town and country…. Many civilians were slaughtered in the prolonged mopping up, whose districts razed, and numerous acts of savagery reported…. Government forces too suffered heavy losses to snipers and many armoured vehicles were hit by grenades in the rubble-strewn streets … between 5,000 and 10,000 [people died]."
    http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/12/understanding-syria-from-pre-civil-war-to-post-assad/281989/

    "But the price of the rebellion was paid by Hama as a whole: large numbers died..."
    Asad of Syria: The Struggle for the Middle East

    I agree 100%, the Salafis kicked the whole thing off and were vicious in their treatment of the local government and the soldiers. I guess it it would be too much to have you acknowledge that thousands of civilians were needlessly killed in a brutal counter attack...gotta crack a few thousand eggs to make a Baathist omelette, right? I mean who can possibly doubt your objectivity on this subject when you post interviews with Hezbollah leadership to bolster your position. I was thinking of buttressing my points with interviews of Kurdish militia leaders, but I'm sure 'the handlers' have sent out memos to be more subtle - the 2000+ year project of Eretz Israel is at stake!

    I'm calling it quits on this conversation since it's about as fruitful as our last exchange and I'm about to get pilloried by more insults. But before I do, I'll leave others with this note. You sent me a link in support of your position last time from an ex-Marine, Brad Hoff. It was indeed a great read. In fact, I agree with 90-95% of everything he said - so thanks! Funny thing is, this is the conclusion he comes to:
    "All in all, what I unexpectedly observed in Syria was a high degree of personal freedom not found in other countries of the Middle East. This personal freedom was exercised in all areas of life except for politics — a strange paradox. The government seemed to leave people alone in areas of religion, social behavior, family life, and work pursuits; but political dissent was not tolerated, and Syrians seemed to accept this as a difficult fact of life. The average working class Syrian was resigned to accept the government promise of security and stability in exchange for limitations upon personal political freedoms. With multiple religions and ethnic groups living side by side in a volatile region full of historic and hidden animosities, as well as ceaseless external geopolitical pressures, it seemed a sensibly practical, even if unjust, solution. There was a palpable feeling of an “enforced secularism” binding Syrian society together."
    "The kind of religious and cultural pluralism represented in the liberal democracies of the West was present in Syria, ironically, through a government mandated “go along, get along” type policy backed by an authoritarian police state."
    https://medium.com/news-politics/a-marine-in-syria-d06ff67c203c#.fp1dmnat0

    Who could possibly chafe under an "authoritarian police state" except the most ardent of Salafi, pro-Zionist extremists?

    Peace.

  90. The article by E. Margolis is pretty good, but not without a few problems. I’ll address 2 of them;

    …When America’s Arab jihadists proved militarily feeble, the US turned to the Kurds, who are renowned fighters, arming and financing the Kurdish Syrian YPG..

    Not really. Although the US has been using the YPG as a means to try to break Syria up, the YPG has, for the most part, avoided fighting against Syrian government forces, and has even cooperated with them on certain occasions. Lately, they screwed up, attacking the NDF in Hasakah. This will cost them dearly.
    America’s Arab jihadists, which include Al-Ciada, aka, Nusra front, have done all the fighting against the Syrian Army and there is nothing militarily ‘feeble’ about them at all. Particularly Nusra and its various allied gangs. They are fierce fighters… scum, but good fighters.
    It’s just that there are hard men fighting on the other side too, thank God.

    Margolis:

    Russia claimed to be bombing ISIS but in fact, is targeting US-backed groups. Washington is outraged that the wicked Russians are doing in the Mideast what the US has done for decades.

    Nonsense. Russia never said it would only bomb ISIS, it stated it would also bomb AL-CIAda & friends, which are US backed, though the US tries to deny and obfuscate with this ‘moderate rebel’ nonsense.
    Russia is in Syria legally, at the behest of the Syrian government, while the US is conducting an illegal war of agression through sectarian islamists/mercenary proxies on Syria.
    A vast difference.

    Read More
  91. @L.K
    Talha writes : "Or the fact that I know Syrians from Hama, the town that was leveled by the first Assad."

    Yawnnn.... see, that is why I don't take you seriously anymore. Since you brought up Hama in a clearly propagandistic way, let's take a look at the facts surrounding that set of events in order to get the context right, facts which you clearly choose to ignore. From Prof.Anderson's book:

    It is also useful to review the earlier Muslim Brotherhood insurrection at Hama in 1982, because of the parallel myths that have grown up around both insurrections.

    US intelligence (DIA 1982) and the late British author Patrick Seale (1988) give independent accounts of what happened at Hama. After years of violent, sectarian attacks by Syria’s Muslim Brotherhood, by mid-1980 President Hafez al Assad had ‘broken the back’ of their sectarian rebellion, which aimed to impose a Salafi-Islamic state.
    One final coup plot was exposed and the Brotherhood ‘felt pressured into initiating’ an uprising in their stronghold of Hama. Seale describes the start of that violence in this way:

    At 2am on the night of 2-3 February 1982 an army unit combing the old city fell into an ambush. Roof top snipers killed perhaps a score of soldiers … [Brotherhood leader] Abu Bakr [Umar Jawwad] gave the order for a general uprising … hundreds of Islamist fighters rose … by the morning some seventy leading Ba’athists had been slaughtered and the triumphant guerrillas declared the city ‘liberated’ (Seale 1988: 332).

    However the Army responded with a huge force of about 12,000 and the battle raged for three weeks. It was a foreign-backed civil war, with some defections from the army. Seale continues:

    As the tide turned slowly in the government’s favour, the guerrillas fell back into the old quarters … after heavy shelling, commandos and party irregulars supported by tanks moved in … many civilians were slaughtered in the prolonged mopping up, whole districts razed (Seale 1988: 333).

    Two months later a US intelligence report said: ‘The total casualties for the Hama incident probably number about 2,000. This includes an estimated 300 to 400 members of the Muslim Brotherhood’s elite ‘Secret Apparatus’ (DIA 1982: 7).

    Seale recognises that the Army also suffered heavy losses.[...]He adds:

    ‘The guerrillas were formidable opponents. They had a fortune in foreign money … [and] no fewer than 15,000 machine guns’ (Seale 1988: 335). Subsequent Muslim Brotherhood accounts have inflated the casualties, reaching up to ‘40,000 civilians’, thus attempting to hide their insurrection and sectarian massacres by claiming that Hafez al Assad had carried out a ‘civilian massacre’ (e.g. Nassar 2014). The then Syrian President blamed a large scale foreign conspiracy for the Hama insurrection. Seale observes that Hafez was ‘not paranoical’, as many US weapons were captured and foreign backing had come from several US collaborators: King Hussayn of Jordan, Lebanese Christian militias (the Israeli-aligned ‘Guardians of the Cedar’) and Saddam Hussein in Iraq (Seale 1988: 336-337).
     

    Hey LK,

    I love it! The author you quotes cites Seale at length, but when it comes to the numbers, switches sources. Let’s see what Seale had to say:
    “Fear, loathing and a river of spilt blood ruled out any thought of truce … that explain[s] the terrible savagery of the punishment inflicted on the city. Behind the immediate contest lay the old multi-layered hostility between Islam and the Ba’th, between Sunni and ‘Alawi, between town and country…. Many civilians were slaughtered in the prolonged mopping up, whose districts razed, and numerous acts of savagery reported…. Government forces too suffered heavy losses to snipers and many armoured vehicles were hit by grenades in the rubble-strewn streets … between 5,000 and 10,000 [people died].”
    http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/12/understanding-syria-from-pre-civil-war-to-post-assad/281989/

    “But the price of the rebellion was paid by Hama as a whole: large numbers died…”
    Asad of Syria: The Struggle for the Middle East

    I agree 100%, the Salafis kicked the whole thing off and were vicious in their treatment of the local government and the soldiers. I guess it it would be too much to have you acknowledge that thousands of civilians were needlessly killed in a brutal counter attack…gotta crack a few thousand eggs to make a Baathist omelette, right? I mean who can possibly doubt your objectivity on this subject when you post interviews with Hezbollah leadership to bolster your position. I was thinking of buttressing my points with interviews of Kurdish militia leaders, but I’m sure ‘the handlers’ have sent out memos to be more subtle – the 2000+ year project of Eretz Israel is at stake!

    I’m calling it quits on this conversation since it’s about as fruitful as our last exchange and I’m about to get pilloried by more insults. But before I do, I’ll leave others with this note. You sent me a link in support of your position last time from an ex-Marine, Brad Hoff. It was indeed a great read. In fact, I agree with 90-95% of everything he said – so thanks! Funny thing is, this is the conclusion he comes to:
    “All in all, what I unexpectedly observed in Syria was a high degree of personal freedom not found in other countries of the Middle East. This personal freedom was exercised in all areas of life except for politics — a strange paradox. The government seemed to leave people alone in areas of religion, social behavior, family life, and work pursuits; but political dissent was not tolerated, and Syrians seemed to accept this as a difficult fact of life. The average working class Syrian was resigned to accept the government promise of security and stability in exchange for limitations upon personal political freedoms. With multiple religions and ethnic groups living side by side in a volatile region full of historic and hidden animosities, as well as ceaseless external geopolitical pressures, it seemed a sensibly practical, even if unjust, solution. There was a palpable feeling of an “enforced secularism” binding Syrian society together.”
    “The kind of religious and cultural pluralism represented in the liberal democracies of the West was present in Syria, ironically, through a government mandated “go along, get along” type policy backed by an authoritarian police state.”
    https://medium.com/news-politics/a-marine-in-syria-d06ff67c203c#.fp1dmnat0

    Who could possibly chafe under an “authoritarian police state” except the most ardent of Salafi, pro-Zionist extremists?

    Peace.

    Read More
    • Replies: @L.K
    Talha,

    You have NOTHING.

    That leaves you obfuscating idiotically.

    The radical & sectarian islamic uprising in Syria late 1970s/early 80s is so well documented that even the biased wikipedia has something on it.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamist_uprising_in_Syria

    The Islamist uprising in Syria were a series of revolts and armed insurgency by Sunni Islamists, mainly members of the Muslim Brotherhood from 1976 until 1982. The uprising was aimed against the authority of the secular Ba'ath Party-controlled government of Syria, in what has been called a "long campaign of terror".[4] During the violent events Islamists attacked both civilians and off-duty military personnel, and civilians were also killed in retaliatory strike by security forces. The uprising had reached its climax in the 1982 Hama Islamic uprising.[5]
     
    The way you wrote about it makes it seem like the 'evil' Assad(the father) just simply went after some peaceful civilians or demonstrators or some such shit.

    BTw, if anything even remotely as vicious as this took place in the US, it would end in bloodbath too, with US military/security cracking down on insurgents. Such a scenario would be , say, militias trying to violently overthrow the US government.
    In fact, things like the Waco siege show us that much less is enough to trigger the use of deadly force, domestically, by the US government.
  92. And just so people don’t think I’m singling the Assads out, this is how Jordan dealt with it when the Palestinians rose up – they called it ‘Black September’:
    “Up to 15,000 Palestinian militants and civilians were killed, swaths of Palestinian towns and refugee camps, where the PLO had massed weapons, leveled, the PLO leadership decimated, and between 50,000 and 100,000 people were left homeless. Arab regimes criticized Hussein for what they called “overkill.””
    http://middleeast.about.com/od/jordan/a/jordan-black-september.htm

    Pakistan’s very own General Zia was heavily involved, a fact that many of his fellow countrymen (to their credit) did not let him forget:
    “Thanks to his role in this action, Ziaul Haq, a brigadier at that time, came to be remembered as the Palestinian killer in his own country.”
    http://www.dawn.com/news/1027023/a-leaf-from-history-enter-ziaul-haq

    That’s just how they roll over there…unfortunately…

    Peace.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    Doh! It looks more like closer to 3000-3500 were killed in Black September according to more accurate figures, the higher threshold was what the PLO was claiming. The rest of the info should stand.
  93. @Talha
    And just so people don't think I'm singling the Assads out, this is how Jordan dealt with it when the Palestinians rose up - they called it 'Black September':
    "Up to 15,000 Palestinian militants and civilians were killed, swaths of Palestinian towns and refugee camps, where the PLO had massed weapons, leveled, the PLO leadership decimated, and between 50,000 and 100,000 people were left homeless. Arab regimes criticized Hussein for what they called "overkill.""
    http://middleeast.about.com/od/jordan/a/jordan-black-september.htm

    Pakistan's very own General Zia was heavily involved, a fact that many of his fellow countrymen (to their credit) did not let him forget:
    "Thanks to his role in this action, Ziaul Haq, a brigadier at that time, came to be remembered as the Palestinian killer in his own country."
    http://www.dawn.com/news/1027023/a-leaf-from-history-enter-ziaul-haq

    That's just how they roll over there...unfortunately...

    Peace.

    Doh! It looks more like closer to 3000-3500 were killed in Black September according to more accurate figures, the higher threshold was what the PLO was claiming. The rest of the info should stand.

    Read More
  94. @L.K
    Hey Rurik,

    The propaganda war against the Syrian government and institutions, like the Syrian military, has been nothing short of mind boggling.

    Read the following text, a chapter from the book ‘The Dirty War on Syria’, by Australian researcher, Prof.Tim Anderson, who went to Syria to better understand what was happening.
    It is possibly the best single source to understand how it started & it shows clearly that the puported cruelty and wickedness of the Assad ‘regime’ is largely fabricated or taken out of its proper context.
    Read it , it will be worth your while in terms of understanding this war.
    http://www.globalresearch.ca/history-of-us-natos-covert-war-on-syria-daraa-march-2011/5492182

    Take a moment to watch the following short videos;

    Hezbollah Leader explains why Syria & Assad are crucial to Middle East war - English Subs
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7w20p8r6bE&feature=youtu.be

    Plus the following 2 vids by Syrian Girl, a secular, young Sunni Syrian woman;

    Why Kurds must not be allowed to control north #Syria _ this one will give a bertter understanding of the Kurdish affair
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lKZqu61IbFI

    About the propaganda war on Syria, a great case study;
    The Truth About the #Syrianboy Viral Photo. Its really a story of two boys.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jifS0fi9WB8

    Gotta go now, more later, hope it helps.

    Take care

    Hey LK,

    thanks for the links

    looking at the first one from Global Research, I see that the rebels who Assad the father crushed were from the Muslim Brotherhood, which is where Morsi was from.

    So I suppose that’s why Morsi was so keen to get vengeance upon Assad the younger as soon as he came to power in Egypt.

    Even to the point of wanting to destroy a fellow Muslim, Arab country and hand it over to the Zionists who’ve been raping the Muslim world in the wider Levant ever since they arrived.

    pettiness and rivalries and fratricidal hate

    Talha quotes a source on Assad’s rule that people had a ….

    high degree of personal freedom not found in other countries of the Middle East. This personal freedom was exercised in all areas of life except for politics — a strange paradox. The government seemed to leave people alone in areas of religion, social behavior, family life, and work pursuits; but political dissent was not tolerated

    But how is this any different than the rule of the Ottoman sultans, who Talha seems to be nostalgic for, (no Talha?)

    As I’ve mentioned, only because of things I;ve heard about torture and cooperation with the CIA in the past, I don’t think Assad is a great guy. But I do think it’s obvious that the people of Syria want him to remain in power, and that’s good enough for me, and I think that’s good enough for Talha too, (if I read him right)

    So there was a certain amount of brutality when it came to political dissent, and perhaps that’s the way it is over there. The West certainly suffered such growing pains in its centuries-long struggle for a modern, civilized state.

    Such a shame that both the West and the Muslim world are being dragged back into the mire of brutality and torture and murderous, stone age religious ignorance and tribal hatreds.

    I think we can all agree on that…

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    Dear Rurik,

    It is actually similar, we are talking about degrees of violence and suppression* - the Ottoman leadership did start to become very paranoid in its latter times when it faced huge losses of territory and even assassination attempts on its leadership - which eventually results in pogroms and genocides once the Turkish nationalists start taking the helm. You are basically on track with how I feel about keeping the best of the Ottoman tradition (incidentally, a good amount of it was paralleled in the Hapsburgs) and discarding the worst parts. By the way, this is one of the better academic reads on the subject of the Ottomans and their relationship to their subjects and how it ebbed and flowed over the ages (some highlights, but read the rest - well worth it):
    "Second, we have to focus on the particular conditions of the emergence of the Ottoman state to understand the peculiar construction of an early model of toleration and incorporation. Here, the diversity of religions on the ground, the openness of the Ottoman leaders to the "other," and the relatively weaker Islamic identification of the rulers allowed for a unique experience of permissiveness and forbearance. Third, the Ottoman Empire was characterized by an important set of divisions and dualities in religious institutions and practice that made it possible for the state to dominate the accommodation of religion into the life of the empire. The separation and parallel deployment of religious and secular law, the diversity of beliefs and organizations along the orthodox-heterodox range provided the state with the tools for domination..."
    "The Ottomans' achievement at empire was based on their successful negotiating between contradictory, yet also complementary political structures, organizational forms and their cultural meanings. In their attempt to construct such rule and establish legitimacy, they had to balance ruling Christians and Jews, Slavs, Vlachs and Armenians, Muslims of Sunni, Shi'a and many Sufi beliefs, incorporate each and every one of their communities and their local traditions, but also collect taxes and administer the collectivities. This had to be done by allowing space for local autonomy, a requirement of negotiated rule. For exactly this reason, whatever religion would mean locally, it had to be about legitimacy and rule for the state."
    http://online.sfsu.edu/mroozbeh/CLASS/H-604-pdfs/18-Barkey-IslamToleration.pdf

    And one of the things you often see is that Salafi/Wahhabi extremists completely hate the Ottomans - bunch of Hanafi-Sufi-heretics that gave too much leeway to non-Muslims.


    I think that’s good enough for Talha too
     
    Correct - many, many top level Muslim scholars that I respect from Syria (we were just visited by one from Damascus - the sagacious Shaykh Samer Nass [db] - I know it sounds weird, but shaking these people's hands to me is like what it might be like for others to meet Mick Jagger) have stayed silent on the issue of ousting Assad which has historically implied a message of 'bear this with patience, it will pass'. The cost in bloodshed and carnage is far more than the benefits of the expected results. Which is the same reason I marched against the Iraq War with my wife and baby daughter - not because I thought Saddam was a great guy, but because I knew the kind of chaos and misery that was in store. Maybe there will be a possibility for a political change afterwards to slowly, calmly remove (or at least reform) the yoke of the corrupt police state.

    For a historical perspective, note how many scholars (like Hasan al-Basri [ra], the great scholar/sufi) dealt with the rule of Hajjaj ibn Yusuf and advised people not to revolt (as reported in the Tabaqat of Ibn Saad [ra]):
    "A group of Muslims came to al-Hasan al-Basri seeking a verdict to rebel against al-Hajjaj . So they said, “O Abu Sa’eed! What do you say about fighting this oppressor who has unlawfully spilt blood and unlawfully taken wealth and did this and that?” So al-Hasan said, “I hold that he should not be fought. If this is a punishment from Allah, then you will not be able to remove it with your swords. If this is a trial from Allah, then be patient until Allah’s judgement comes, and He is the best of judges.” So they left al-Hasan, disagreed with him and rebelled against al-Hajjaj - so al-Hajjaj killed them all. Al-Hasan used to say, “If the people had patience when they are being tested by their unjust ruler, it will not be long before Allah will give them a way out. However, they always rush for their swords, so they are left with their swords. By Allah! Not even for a single day did they bring about any good."


    So there was a certain amount of brutality when it came to political dissent
     
    As you pointed, in the West too, many in the South (who have read about it) are still irked by what Generals Sherman and Grant did in order to subdue the secession...fire and steel. I suspect the areas that have been the centers of the fighting between the government and rebels will likely hold grudges due to the callous indifference to the innocents by both sides.

    Totally agree that this madness needs to stop immediately! And End the Fed!

    Peace.

    *Also, this potential exists in places like the Kingdom of Morocco of Sultanate of Oman - both are willing to suppress threats to their power, but they are relatively benign enough and smart enough to keep up the system of patronage and realpolitik that has kept them at the top - and it helps that they also belong to the same class as the majority of their people (for instance, King Mohammed is a Sunni):
    Keeping the Balance with a Stick in the Hand
    Yet, even then, the Islamists (especially the exremists) are chafing under him too.

    , @L.K
    Hey Rurik,

    looking at the first one from Global Research, I see that the rebels who Assad the father crushed were from the Muslim Brotherhood, which is where Morsi was from.
    So I suppose that’s why Morsi was so keen to get vengeance upon Assad the younger as soon as he came to power in Egypt.

     

    It’s more complex than that but for now I’ll have to just comment that the Muslim Brotherhood was initially seen by certain US factions as the vehicle to bring about ‘changes’ in the area. It did not work, for various reasons, including that certain key US allies do not like the MB.
    Also, take a look at this book, it focuses on the bloody English pests, but Zusa was and is the key player in this:
    https://www.amazon.com/Secret-Affairs-Britains-Collusion-Radical-ebook/dp/B0051YNTLW/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1473025456&sr=8-1&keywords=british+collusion+with+radical+islam#nav-subnav
    Secret Affairs: Britain's Collusion with Radical Islam
    by Mark Curtis

    'The updated edition of Secret Affairs covers the momentous events of the past year in the Middle East. It reveals the unreported attempts by Britain to cultivate relations with the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt after the fall of Mubarak, the military intervention on the side of Libyan rebel forces which include pro-al-Qaeda elements, and the ongoing reliance on the region's ultimate fundamentalist state, Saudi Arabia, to safeguard its interest in the Middle East.
    'In this ground-breaking book, Mark Curtis reveals the covert history of British collusion with radical Islamic and terrorist groups. Secret Affairs shows how governments since the 1940s have connived with militant forces to control oil resources and overthrow governments. The story of how Britain has helped nurture the rise of global terrorism has never been told.'

     

    I'll have more to say on your comment tomorrow, gotta run now.

    Take care
    , @L.K
    Hey Rurik,

    So there was a certain amount of brutality when it came to political dissent, and perhaps that’s the way it is over there. The West certainly suffered such growing pains in its centuries-long struggle for a modern, civilized state.

     

    Ok, I’ve always wanted to address these points of yours but never did.

    Beginning from your last paragraph, so, as you recognize the West had to endure “centuries-long struggle for a modern, civilized state”. Make it thousands of years and... it is clearly still not there. Democracy, for one, has been a fleeting experiment in the West, even today few countries in the West, if any, can be considered true Democracies.
    Certainly not ZUSA.
    However imperfect & fleeting, even this Democratic 'tradition' is absent in the Arab World... make it 'absent in most of the World.
    Syria, for one, as a modern State, is very recent, only becoming independent post WWII and having to contend with hostile neighbors and Zio/ZUSA attempts to destabilize it.
    Take a look at the following;
    CIA-MI6 planned to assassinate Syrian leaders in 1957
    https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2003/10/syri-o06.html

    Take a look at a listo f CIA activities against Syria;
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_activities_in_Syria

    However there have been steps foward in the sense of more political freedom, barred of course, the islamic radicals.

    More later.
    , @L.K
    Rurik:

    ”because of things I;ve heard about torture and cooperation with the CIA in the past, I don’t think Assad is a great guy”
     
    Ok, Rurik,
    Look, cooperation with the US was done against supposed radical islamists, Salafists/Wahhabis, the very same types who had given Syria lots of trouble in the 70s/80s and who are destroying the country now. A number of Syrian Salafists crossed the border into Iraq post 2003 to join Al-Qaeda. From Syria’s perspective such cooperation made sense. The assassinated Libyan leader Ghadafi also cooperated during the same time, and in some ways, so have the Russians.
    Ghadafi also had to fight a islamic insurgency in Libya in the 1990s, Lybian salafists funded by the Saudis & others went to fight in Afghanistan against the Soviets, then later returned and founded the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libyan_Islamic_Fighting_Group

    LIFG was founded in 1995 by Libyans who had fought against Soviet forces in Afghanistan. It aims to establish anIslamic state in Libya and views the Gaddafi regime as oppressive, and anti-Muslim, according to the Canadian Security Intelligence Service. LIFG claimed responsibility for a failed assassination attempt against Gaddafi in February 1996, which was in part funded by MI6 according to David Shayler, and engaged Libyan security forces in armed clashes during the mid-to-late 1990s.[9]

     

    It is also worth taking a look at the bio of Abdelhakim Belhadj, one of the key founders of the LIFG, which basically became Al-Qaeda in Libya in 2007.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdelhakim_Belhadj

    Interesting to note that the second largest number of foreign fighters in Iraq, after ZUSA’s aggression of 2003, only behind Saudis, were the Libyan Jihadis.
    Belhadj, a man who had tried to assassinate Ghadafi several times, was eventually captured by the US in SouthEast Asia, 2004, and delivered to the Libyan government where he was put in prison! Eventually he was released on a amnesty program but a little later became a key ‘rebel’ military commander in the Libyan “civil war”, a NATO war really, where NATO became Al-Qaedas air-force. He is reported to have become some sort of ISIS chief in Libya now.
    http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/foreign-policy/item/20337-u-s-backed-rebel-now-isil-s-man-in-libya

    Large numbers of Libyan jihadis have also travelled to fight in Syria, see;
    Libyan Terrorists Are Invading Syria
    http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com.br/2012/08/libyan-terrorists-are-invading-syria.html

    As for Russia, there is a lot there as well. Are you aware that many NATO logistics routes into Afghanistan pass through Russia?
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_logistics_in_the_Afghan_War

    As for torture, sure, a despicable practice which does not even generate good intel... but why single Syria out for it? Libya is also said to have participated.
    Do you think Russia never used torture during its wars in the Caucasus? It sure did.
    Does that make you think Putin is not a ‘great guy’ now? ;-)

    Look, I don’t know Assad, I ain’t Syrian & have never lived in Syria but from my research Assad seems to be a good leader. Most, I suspect, faced with such a formidable ZIO/US Empire backed radical islamist proxy war, would have run. That dude from Ukraine, former president Yanukovych, for much less, ran alway into exile in Russia.

    If you had to, which Syria would u choose to live?
    SECULAR SYRIA under Assad VS SYRIA UNDER 'REBELS'
    https://justpaste.it/y60v
  95. @Rurik
    Hey LK,

    thanks for the links

    looking at the first one from Global Research, I see that the rebels who Assad the father crushed were from the Muslim Brotherhood, which is where Morsi was from.

    So I suppose that's why Morsi was so keen to get vengeance upon Assad the younger as soon as he came to power in Egypt.

    Even to the point of wanting to destroy a fellow Muslim, Arab country and hand it over to the Zionists who've been raping the Muslim world in the wider Levant ever since they arrived.

    pettiness and rivalries and fratricidal hate

    Talha quotes a source on Assad's rule that people had a ....

    high degree of personal freedom not found in other countries of the Middle East. This personal freedom was exercised in all areas of life except for politics — a strange paradox. The government seemed to leave people alone in areas of religion, social behavior, family life, and work pursuits; but political dissent was not tolerated

    But how is this any different than the rule of the Ottoman sultans, who Talha seems to be nostalgic for, (no Talha?)

    As I've mentioned, only because of things I;ve heard about torture and cooperation with the CIA in the past, I don't think Assad is a great guy. But I do think it's obvious that the people of Syria want him to remain in power, and that's good enough for me, and I think that's good enough for Talha too, (if I read him right)

    So there was a certain amount of brutality when it came to political dissent, and perhaps that's the way it is over there. The West certainly suffered such growing pains in its centuries-long struggle for a modern, civilized state.

    Such a shame that both the West and the Muslim world are being dragged back into the mire of brutality and torture and murderous, stone age religious ignorance and tribal hatreds.

    I think we can all agree on that...

    Dear Rurik,

    It is actually similar, we are talking about degrees of violence and suppression* – the Ottoman leadership did start to become very paranoid in its latter times when it faced huge losses of territory and even assassination attempts on its leadership – which eventually results in pogroms and genocides once the Turkish nationalists start taking the helm. You are basically on track with how I feel about keeping the best of the Ottoman tradition (incidentally, a good amount of it was paralleled in the Hapsburgs) and discarding the worst parts. By the way, this is one of the better academic reads on the subject of the Ottomans and their relationship to their subjects and how it ebbed and flowed over the ages (some highlights, but read the rest – well worth it):
    “Second, we have to focus on the particular conditions of the emergence of the Ottoman state to understand the peculiar construction of an early model of toleration and incorporation. Here, the diversity of religions on the ground, the openness of the Ottoman leaders to the “other,” and the relatively weaker Islamic identification of the rulers allowed for a unique experience of permissiveness and forbearance. Third, the Ottoman Empire was characterized by an important set of divisions and dualities in religious institutions and practice that made it possible for the state to dominate the accommodation of religion into the life of the empire. The separation and parallel deployment of religious and secular law, the diversity of beliefs and organizations along the orthodox-heterodox range provided the state with the tools for domination…”
    “The Ottomans’ achievement at empire was based on their successful negotiating between contradictory, yet also complementary political structures, organizational forms and their cultural meanings. In their attempt to construct such rule and establish legitimacy, they had to balance ruling Christians and Jews, Slavs, Vlachs and Armenians, Muslims of Sunni, Shi’a and many Sufi beliefs, incorporate each and every one of their communities and their local traditions, but also collect taxes and administer the collectivities. This had to be done by allowing space for local autonomy, a requirement of negotiated rule. For exactly this reason, whatever religion would mean locally, it had to be about legitimacy and rule for the state.”
    http://online.sfsu.edu/mroozbeh/CLASS/H-604-pdfs/18-Barkey-IslamToleration.pdf

    And one of the things you often see is that Salafi/Wahhabi extremists completely hate the Ottomans – bunch of Hanafi-Sufi-heretics that gave too much leeway to non-Muslims.

    I think that’s good enough for Talha too

    Correct – many, many top level Muslim scholars that I respect from Syria (we were just visited by one from Damascus – the sagacious Shaykh Samer Nass [db] – I know it sounds weird, but shaking these people’s hands to me is like what it might be like for others to meet Mick Jagger) have stayed silent on the issue of ousting Assad which has historically implied a message of ‘bear this with patience, it will pass’. The cost in bloodshed and carnage is far more than the benefits of the expected results. Which is the same reason I marched against the Iraq War with my wife and baby daughter – not because I thought Saddam was a great guy, but because I knew the kind of chaos and misery that was in store. Maybe there will be a possibility for a political change afterwards to slowly, calmly remove (or at least reform) the yoke of the corrupt police state.

    For a historical perspective, note how many scholars (like Hasan al-Basri [ra], the great scholar/sufi) dealt with the rule of Hajjaj ibn Yusuf and advised people not to revolt (as reported in the Tabaqat of Ibn Saad [ra]):
    “A group of Muslims came to al-Hasan al-Basri seeking a verdict to rebel against al-Hajjaj . So they said, “O Abu Sa’eed! What do you say about fighting this oppressor who has unlawfully spilt blood and unlawfully taken wealth and did this and that?” So al-Hasan said, “I hold that he should not be fought. If this is a punishment from Allah, then you will not be able to remove it with your swords. If this is a trial from Allah, then be patient until Allah’s judgement comes, and He is the best of judges.” So they left al-Hasan, disagreed with him and rebelled against al-Hajjaj – so al-Hajjaj killed them all. Al-Hasan used to say, “If the people had patience when they are being tested by their unjust ruler, it will not be long before Allah will give them a way out. However, they always rush for their swords, so they are left with their swords. By Allah! Not even for a single day did they bring about any good.”

    So there was a certain amount of brutality when it came to political dissent

    As you pointed, in the West too, many in the South (who have read about it) are still irked by what Generals Sherman and Grant did in order to subdue the secession…fire and steel. I suspect the areas that have been the centers of the fighting between the government and rebels will likely hold grudges due to the callous indifference to the innocents by both sides.

    Totally agree that this madness needs to stop immediately! And End the Fed!

    Peace.

    *Also, this potential exists in places like the Kingdom of Morocco of Sultanate of Oman – both are willing to suppress threats to their power, but they are relatively benign enough and smart enough to keep up the system of patronage and realpolitik that has kept them at the top – and it helps that they also belong to the same class as the majority of their people (for instance, King Mohammed is a Sunni):
    Keeping the Balance with a Stick in the Hand
    Yet, even then, the Islamists (especially the exremists) are chafing under him too.

    Read More
    • Replies: @L.K
    Oh, talha,
    If you stepped alway, a little, from your religious stuff - u sound like a fanatic to me, trying to see everything from a religious/Sunni angle - and tried to understand the historical and geopolitical issues surrounding wars like the war of aggression on Syria, who knows, u might even get it....

    I ain't holding my breath though...
    , @Rurik
    Dear Talha,

    Thank you for you thoughtful (as always) reply.

    One of the reasons I like to badger you is to try to get a handle on things that you seem so knowledgeable about. Islam in particular. So in return I'll just do what I can to provide the perspective of a secular minded American, marinated in Americana and a strong believer in the Western traditions of the Greeks up through the Enlightenment and the Renaissance. As they've influence my outlook including so many writers from the purely American perspective. Mencken, Twain, Spooner and others who've I've been influenced by.

    The separation and parallel deployment of religious and secular law, the diversity of beliefs and organizations along the orthodox-heterodox range provided the state with the tools for domination…”
     
    I know this was a quote, and not your own words, but when ever I read something talking about the state's "tools for domination", I wince. Those are the very kinds of words that make an American like me reach for my sidearm. Like palming a phantom holster. Sort of how you check for your wallet when you're forced to navigate an unsavory crowd. That word in particular, is anathema to my soul. "Domination".

    Americans (like me) think the best (only legitimate) kind of government is the kind that governs least. That is fundamentally dominated in all forms be the people who willingly concede to the laws that the government forces all citizens to live by. Like not murdering or stealing your neighbors property. I don't feel like it's any kind of domination to consent to reasonable laws, but at no time do I grant the government the sovereign right to create these laws that they have the power to enforce. No. I only willingly grant any government any legitimacy only when it enforces laws I consider just. The second it tries to create or enforce laws I consider unjust, is the second I withdraw my consent from such a government. Once that happens, it has no legitimate authority over me. Any government that I consider legitimate, is a government that I willingly consent to. Period. And the idea of a government 'dominating' anyone, (other than criminals or foreign aggressors) is the reverse of how a (Western) government should function. Or something like that. Submission should always be from a government - to the people who that government represents. Never the other way around.

    That looks like a very informative link, and I know I'd do well to absorb what's in it.

    the same reason I marched against the Iraq War with my wife and baby daughter – not because I thought Saddam was a great guy, but because I knew the kind of chaos and misery that was in store.
     
    I was against it because I knew for whom and what is was being waged.

    Maybe there will be a possibility for a political change afterwards to slowly, calmly remove (or at least reform) the yoke of the corrupt police state.
     
    When I think of police state, I think of the Shah's SAVAK, which is what Syria is likely to get once it becomes a vassal state of the ZUSA.

    Generals Sherman and Grant did in order to subdue the secession…
     
    they didn't do that to subdue the south- the south was already subdued. They burned it down and imposed a brutal reconstruction in order to punish them. Hatred run amok. It was a Dresden. But you're right, Islam has no monopoly on tribal, bloodthirsty savagery.

    likely hold grudges due to the callous indifference to the innocents by both sides.

    Totally agree that this madness needs to stop immediately! And End the Fed!

    Peace.
     
    ditto, ditto, ditto
  96. @Talha
    Hey LK,

    I love it! The author you quotes cites Seale at length, but when it comes to the numbers, switches sources. Let's see what Seale had to say:
    "Fear, loathing and a river of spilt blood ruled out any thought of truce … that explain[s] the terrible savagery of the punishment inflicted on the city. Behind the immediate contest lay the old multi-layered hostility between Islam and the Ba’th, between Sunni and ‘Alawi, between town and country…. Many civilians were slaughtered in the prolonged mopping up, whose districts razed, and numerous acts of savagery reported…. Government forces too suffered heavy losses to snipers and many armoured vehicles were hit by grenades in the rubble-strewn streets … between 5,000 and 10,000 [people died]."
    http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/12/understanding-syria-from-pre-civil-war-to-post-assad/281989/

    "But the price of the rebellion was paid by Hama as a whole: large numbers died..."
    Asad of Syria: The Struggle for the Middle East

    I agree 100%, the Salafis kicked the whole thing off and were vicious in their treatment of the local government and the soldiers. I guess it it would be too much to have you acknowledge that thousands of civilians were needlessly killed in a brutal counter attack...gotta crack a few thousand eggs to make a Baathist omelette, right? I mean who can possibly doubt your objectivity on this subject when you post interviews with Hezbollah leadership to bolster your position. I was thinking of buttressing my points with interviews of Kurdish militia leaders, but I'm sure 'the handlers' have sent out memos to be more subtle - the 2000+ year project of Eretz Israel is at stake!

    I'm calling it quits on this conversation since it's about as fruitful as our last exchange and I'm about to get pilloried by more insults. But before I do, I'll leave others with this note. You sent me a link in support of your position last time from an ex-Marine, Brad Hoff. It was indeed a great read. In fact, I agree with 90-95% of everything he said - so thanks! Funny thing is, this is the conclusion he comes to:
    "All in all, what I unexpectedly observed in Syria was a high degree of personal freedom not found in other countries of the Middle East. This personal freedom was exercised in all areas of life except for politics — a strange paradox. The government seemed to leave people alone in areas of religion, social behavior, family life, and work pursuits; but political dissent was not tolerated, and Syrians seemed to accept this as a difficult fact of life. The average working class Syrian was resigned to accept the government promise of security and stability in exchange for limitations upon personal political freedoms. With multiple religions and ethnic groups living side by side in a volatile region full of historic and hidden animosities, as well as ceaseless external geopolitical pressures, it seemed a sensibly practical, even if unjust, solution. There was a palpable feeling of an “enforced secularism” binding Syrian society together."
    "The kind of religious and cultural pluralism represented in the liberal democracies of the West was present in Syria, ironically, through a government mandated “go along, get along” type policy backed by an authoritarian police state."
    https://medium.com/news-politics/a-marine-in-syria-d06ff67c203c#.fp1dmnat0

    Who could possibly chafe under an "authoritarian police state" except the most ardent of Salafi, pro-Zionist extremists?

    Peace.

    Talha,

    You have NOTHING.

    That leaves you obfuscating idiotically.

    The radical & sectarian islamic uprising in Syria late 1970s/early 80s is so well documented that even the biased wikipedia has something on it.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamist_uprising_in_Syria

    The Islamist uprising in Syria were a series of revolts and armed insurgency by Sunni Islamists, mainly members of the Muslim Brotherhood from 1976 until 1982. The uprising was aimed against the authority of the secular Ba’ath Party-controlled government of Syria, in what has been called a “long campaign of terror”.[4] During the violent events Islamists attacked both civilians and off-duty military personnel, and civilians were also killed in retaliatory strike by security forces. The uprising had reached its climax in the 1982 Hama Islamic uprising.[5]

    The way you wrote about it makes it seem like the ‘evil’ Assad(the father) just simply went after some peaceful civilians or demonstrators or some such shit.

    BTw, if anything even remotely as vicious as this took place in the US, it would end in bloodbath too, with US military/security cracking down on insurgents. Such a scenario would be , say, militias trying to violently overthrow the US government.
    In fact, things like the Waco siege show us that much less is enough to trigger the use of deadly force, domestically, by the US government.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    Hey LK,

    Correct - I have nothing to convince anyone with a dogmatic belief in the innate goodness of the Syrian Baathist regime.

    The way you wrote about it
     
    Was this...
    "I agree 100%, the Salafis kicked the whole thing off and were vicious in their treatment of the local government and the soldiers."

    That doesn't sound like I'm claiming the Assad regime did not have a legitimate reason to carry out a military operation in Hama. Why do you only read into my words what I obviously didn't intend?

    just simply went after some peaceful civilians or demonstrators
     
    I didn't say it, your homie, Patrick Seale, did - didn't you follow the link I sent?

    "But the common people living deeper in the maze of streets were the main victims as, without food, water or fuel in the cruel winter weather, they were all too often buried in the ruins of their homes...Entire families were taken from their homes and shot..."

    Asad of Syria: The Struggle for the Middle East


    Likely the US military response to an attempted break away would be fierce - when have the crimes of one government justified those of another?

    Peace.
  97. @Talha
    Dear Rurik,

    It is actually similar, we are talking about degrees of violence and suppression* - the Ottoman leadership did start to become very paranoid in its latter times when it faced huge losses of territory and even assassination attempts on its leadership - which eventually results in pogroms and genocides once the Turkish nationalists start taking the helm. You are basically on track with how I feel about keeping the best of the Ottoman tradition (incidentally, a good amount of it was paralleled in the Hapsburgs) and discarding the worst parts. By the way, this is one of the better academic reads on the subject of the Ottomans and their relationship to their subjects and how it ebbed and flowed over the ages (some highlights, but read the rest - well worth it):
    "Second, we have to focus on the particular conditions of the emergence of the Ottoman state to understand the peculiar construction of an early model of toleration and incorporation. Here, the diversity of religions on the ground, the openness of the Ottoman leaders to the "other," and the relatively weaker Islamic identification of the rulers allowed for a unique experience of permissiveness and forbearance. Third, the Ottoman Empire was characterized by an important set of divisions and dualities in religious institutions and practice that made it possible for the state to dominate the accommodation of religion into the life of the empire. The separation and parallel deployment of religious and secular law, the diversity of beliefs and organizations along the orthodox-heterodox range provided the state with the tools for domination..."
    "The Ottomans' achievement at empire was based on their successful negotiating between contradictory, yet also complementary political structures, organizational forms and their cultural meanings. In their attempt to construct such rule and establish legitimacy, they had to balance ruling Christians and Jews, Slavs, Vlachs and Armenians, Muslims of Sunni, Shi'a and many Sufi beliefs, incorporate each and every one of their communities and their local traditions, but also collect taxes and administer the collectivities. This had to be done by allowing space for local autonomy, a requirement of negotiated rule. For exactly this reason, whatever religion would mean locally, it had to be about legitimacy and rule for the state."
    http://online.sfsu.edu/mroozbeh/CLASS/H-604-pdfs/18-Barkey-IslamToleration.pdf

    And one of the things you often see is that Salafi/Wahhabi extremists completely hate the Ottomans - bunch of Hanafi-Sufi-heretics that gave too much leeway to non-Muslims.


    I think that’s good enough for Talha too
     
    Correct - many, many top level Muslim scholars that I respect from Syria (we were just visited by one from Damascus - the sagacious Shaykh Samer Nass [db] - I know it sounds weird, but shaking these people's hands to me is like what it might be like for others to meet Mick Jagger) have stayed silent on the issue of ousting Assad which has historically implied a message of 'bear this with patience, it will pass'. The cost in bloodshed and carnage is far more than the benefits of the expected results. Which is the same reason I marched against the Iraq War with my wife and baby daughter - not because I thought Saddam was a great guy, but because I knew the kind of chaos and misery that was in store. Maybe there will be a possibility for a political change afterwards to slowly, calmly remove (or at least reform) the yoke of the corrupt police state.

    For a historical perspective, note how many scholars (like Hasan al-Basri [ra], the great scholar/sufi) dealt with the rule of Hajjaj ibn Yusuf and advised people not to revolt (as reported in the Tabaqat of Ibn Saad [ra]):
    "A group of Muslims came to al-Hasan al-Basri seeking a verdict to rebel against al-Hajjaj . So they said, “O Abu Sa’eed! What do you say about fighting this oppressor who has unlawfully spilt blood and unlawfully taken wealth and did this and that?” So al-Hasan said, “I hold that he should not be fought. If this is a punishment from Allah, then you will not be able to remove it with your swords. If this is a trial from Allah, then be patient until Allah’s judgement comes, and He is the best of judges.” So they left al-Hasan, disagreed with him and rebelled against al-Hajjaj - so al-Hajjaj killed them all. Al-Hasan used to say, “If the people had patience when they are being tested by their unjust ruler, it will not be long before Allah will give them a way out. However, they always rush for their swords, so they are left with their swords. By Allah! Not even for a single day did they bring about any good."


    So there was a certain amount of brutality when it came to political dissent
     
    As you pointed, in the West too, many in the South (who have read about it) are still irked by what Generals Sherman and Grant did in order to subdue the secession...fire and steel. I suspect the areas that have been the centers of the fighting between the government and rebels will likely hold grudges due to the callous indifference to the innocents by both sides.

    Totally agree that this madness needs to stop immediately! And End the Fed!

    Peace.

    *Also, this potential exists in places like the Kingdom of Morocco of Sultanate of Oman - both are willing to suppress threats to their power, but they are relatively benign enough and smart enough to keep up the system of patronage and realpolitik that has kept them at the top - and it helps that they also belong to the same class as the majority of their people (for instance, King Mohammed is a Sunni):
    Keeping the Balance with a Stick in the Hand
    Yet, even then, the Islamists (especially the exremists) are chafing under him too.

    Oh, talha,
    If you stepped alway, a little, from your religious stuff – u sound like a fanatic to me, trying to see everything from a religious/Sunni angle – and tried to understand the historical and geopolitical issues surrounding wars like the war of aggression on Syria, who knows, u might even get it….

    I ain’t holding my breath though…

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    Hey LK,

    Thanks for the advice...

    Studying historical and geopolitical events is not mutual exclusive to understanding metaphysical realities and consequences. One only perceives depth when both eyes are open.

    Don't take things so personally, we're all here (at least I am) to learn from one another. Just because someone doesn't agree with you down the line on all details on an issue doesn't necessarily make him your foe.

    Peace.
  98. @Rurik
    Hey LK,

    thanks for the links

    looking at the first one from Global Research, I see that the rebels who Assad the father crushed were from the Muslim Brotherhood, which is where Morsi was from.

    So I suppose that's why Morsi was so keen to get vengeance upon Assad the younger as soon as he came to power in Egypt.

    Even to the point of wanting to destroy a fellow Muslim, Arab country and hand it over to the Zionists who've been raping the Muslim world in the wider Levant ever since they arrived.

    pettiness and rivalries and fratricidal hate

    Talha quotes a source on Assad's rule that people had a ....

    high degree of personal freedom not found in other countries of the Middle East. This personal freedom was exercised in all areas of life except for politics — a strange paradox. The government seemed to leave people alone in areas of religion, social behavior, family life, and work pursuits; but political dissent was not tolerated

    But how is this any different than the rule of the Ottoman sultans, who Talha seems to be nostalgic for, (no Talha?)

    As I've mentioned, only because of things I;ve heard about torture and cooperation with the CIA in the past, I don't think Assad is a great guy. But I do think it's obvious that the people of Syria want him to remain in power, and that's good enough for me, and I think that's good enough for Talha too, (if I read him right)

    So there was a certain amount of brutality when it came to political dissent, and perhaps that's the way it is over there. The West certainly suffered such growing pains in its centuries-long struggle for a modern, civilized state.

    Such a shame that both the West and the Muslim world are being dragged back into the mire of brutality and torture and murderous, stone age religious ignorance and tribal hatreds.

    I think we can all agree on that...

    Hey Rurik,

    looking at the first one from Global Research, I see that the rebels who Assad the father crushed were from the Muslim Brotherhood, which is where Morsi was from.
    So I suppose that’s why Morsi was so keen to get vengeance upon Assad the younger as soon as he came to power in Egypt.

    It’s more complex than that but for now I’ll have to just comment that the Muslim Brotherhood was initially seen by certain US factions as the vehicle to bring about ‘changes’ in the area. It did not work, for various reasons, including that certain key US allies do not like the MB.
    Also, take a look at this book, it focuses on the bloody English pests, but Zusa was and is the key player in this:
    https://www.amazon.com/Secret-Affairs-Britains-Collusion-Radical-ebook/dp/B0051YNTLW/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1473025456&sr=8-1&keywords=british+collusion+with+radical+islam#nav-subnav
    Secret Affairs: Britain’s Collusion with Radical Islam
    by Mark Curtis

    ‘The updated edition of Secret Affairs covers the momentous events of the past year in the Middle East. It reveals the unreported attempts by Britain to cultivate relations with the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt after the fall of Mubarak, the military intervention on the side of Libyan rebel forces which include pro-al-Qaeda elements, and the ongoing reliance on the region’s ultimate fundamentalist state, Saudi Arabia, to safeguard its interest in the Middle East.
    ‘In this ground-breaking book, Mark Curtis reveals the covert history of British collusion with radical Islamic and terrorist groups. Secret Affairs shows how governments since the 1940s have connived with militant forces to control oil resources and overthrow governments. The story of how Britain has helped nurture the rise of global terrorism has never been told.’

    I’ll have more to say on your comment tomorrow, gotta run now.

    Take care

    Read More
  99. @L.K
    Talha,

    You have NOTHING.

    That leaves you obfuscating idiotically.

    The radical & sectarian islamic uprising in Syria late 1970s/early 80s is so well documented that even the biased wikipedia has something on it.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamist_uprising_in_Syria

    The Islamist uprising in Syria were a series of revolts and armed insurgency by Sunni Islamists, mainly members of the Muslim Brotherhood from 1976 until 1982. The uprising was aimed against the authority of the secular Ba'ath Party-controlled government of Syria, in what has been called a "long campaign of terror".[4] During the violent events Islamists attacked both civilians and off-duty military personnel, and civilians were also killed in retaliatory strike by security forces. The uprising had reached its climax in the 1982 Hama Islamic uprising.[5]
     
    The way you wrote about it makes it seem like the 'evil' Assad(the father) just simply went after some peaceful civilians or demonstrators or some such shit.

    BTw, if anything even remotely as vicious as this took place in the US, it would end in bloodbath too, with US military/security cracking down on insurgents. Such a scenario would be , say, militias trying to violently overthrow the US government.
    In fact, things like the Waco siege show us that much less is enough to trigger the use of deadly force, domestically, by the US government.

    Hey LK,

    Correct – I have nothing to convince anyone with a dogmatic belief in the innate goodness of the Syrian Baathist regime.

    The way you wrote about it

    Was this…
    “I agree 100%, the Salafis kicked the whole thing off and were vicious in their treatment of the local government and the soldiers.”

    That doesn’t sound like I’m claiming the Assad regime did not have a legitimate reason to carry out a military operation in Hama. Why do you only read into my words what I obviously didn’t intend?

    just simply went after some peaceful civilians or demonstrators

    I didn’t say it, your homie, Patrick Seale, did – didn’t you follow the link I sent?

    “But the common people living deeper in the maze of streets were the main victims as, without food, water or fuel in the cruel winter weather, they were all too often buried in the ruins of their homes…Entire families were taken from their homes and shot…”

    Asad of Syria: The Struggle for the Middle East

    Likely the US military response to an attempted break away would be fierce – when have the crimes of one government justified those of another?

    Peace.

    Read More
  100. @L.K
    Oh, talha,
    If you stepped alway, a little, from your religious stuff - u sound like a fanatic to me, trying to see everything from a religious/Sunni angle - and tried to understand the historical and geopolitical issues surrounding wars like the war of aggression on Syria, who knows, u might even get it....

    I ain't holding my breath though...

    Hey LK,

    Thanks for the advice…

    Studying historical and geopolitical events is not mutual exclusive to understanding metaphysical realities and consequences. One only perceives depth when both eyes are open.

    Don’t take things so personally, we’re all here (at least I am) to learn from one another. Just because someone doesn’t agree with you down the line on all details on an issue doesn’t necessarily make him your foe.

    Peace.

    Read More
  101. There was never a kurdistan to begin with, all their so called ”’lands” are lands of assyrians and other ethnicities..

    Read More
  102. @Rurik
    Hey LK,

    thanks for the links

    looking at the first one from Global Research, I see that the rebels who Assad the father crushed were from the Muslim Brotherhood, which is where Morsi was from.

    So I suppose that's why Morsi was so keen to get vengeance upon Assad the younger as soon as he came to power in Egypt.

    Even to the point of wanting to destroy a fellow Muslim, Arab country and hand it over to the Zionists who've been raping the Muslim world in the wider Levant ever since they arrived.

    pettiness and rivalries and fratricidal hate

    Talha quotes a source on Assad's rule that people had a ....

    high degree of personal freedom not found in other countries of the Middle East. This personal freedom was exercised in all areas of life except for politics — a strange paradox. The government seemed to leave people alone in areas of religion, social behavior, family life, and work pursuits; but political dissent was not tolerated

    But how is this any different than the rule of the Ottoman sultans, who Talha seems to be nostalgic for, (no Talha?)

    As I've mentioned, only because of things I;ve heard about torture and cooperation with the CIA in the past, I don't think Assad is a great guy. But I do think it's obvious that the people of Syria want him to remain in power, and that's good enough for me, and I think that's good enough for Talha too, (if I read him right)

    So there was a certain amount of brutality when it came to political dissent, and perhaps that's the way it is over there. The West certainly suffered such growing pains in its centuries-long struggle for a modern, civilized state.

    Such a shame that both the West and the Muslim world are being dragged back into the mire of brutality and torture and murderous, stone age religious ignorance and tribal hatreds.

    I think we can all agree on that...

    Hey Rurik,

    So there was a certain amount of brutality when it came to political dissent, and perhaps that’s the way it is over there. The West certainly suffered such growing pains in its centuries-long struggle for a modern, civilized state.

    Ok, I’ve always wanted to address these points of yours but never did.

    Beginning from your last paragraph, so, as you recognize the West had to endure “centuries-long struggle for a modern, civilized state”. Make it thousands of years and… it is clearly still not there. Democracy, for one, has been a fleeting experiment in the West, even today few countries in the West, if any, can be considered true Democracies.
    Certainly not ZUSA.
    However imperfect & fleeting, even this Democratic ‘tradition’ is absent in the Arab World… make it ‘absent in most of the World.
    Syria, for one, as a modern State, is very recent, only becoming independent post WWII and having to contend with hostile neighbors and Zio/ZUSA attempts to destabilize it.
    Take a look at the following;
    CIA-MI6 planned to assassinate Syrian leaders in 1957
    https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2003/10/syri-o06.html

    Take a look at a listo f CIA activities against Syria;
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_activities_in_Syria

    However there have been steps foward in the sense of more political freedom, barred of course, the islamic radicals.

    More later.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik

    “centuries-long struggle for a modern, civilized state”. Make it thousands of years and… it is clearly still not there. Democracy, for one, has been a fleeting experiment in the West, even today few countries in the West, if any, can be considered true Democracies.
    Certainly not ZUSA.
     
    I agree L.K., on all accounts.

    but we've been through the fires and pits of purgatory to get this far, and we've come a lot farther than those who still struggle to get past ancient tribal and religious intractability , I believe. (Even as we're sinking back into the mire of ignorance and brutality, even as I write this).

    CIA-MI6 planned to assassinate Syrian leaders in 1957
     
    just like Iran in the fifties

    or the Middle East today. Perhaps Trump will bring sanity to our foreign policy. I watched what he said yesterday about wars and such, and how he was against the Iraq war crime from the beginning.

    However there have been steps foward in the sense of more political freedom, barred of course, the islamic radicals.
     
    the Islamic radicals would get nowhere without ZUSA support, just like the idiots in Kyiv.

    it's my (occupied) government that is foisting all these horrors, and bedeviling the world's people. And they (Goldman Sachs) wants the power to tax every breath on the planet, with their sinister carbon tax. Maybe they will push Putin to the brink. Maybe they will end it all. I wonder, if you put the question to them, 'if you don't get to dominate the world's people- as if they are all Palestinians, would you prefer the Sampson option, and the destruction of the entire planet and all its living things - to having to live side by side with the rest of the earth's denizens, without having total power over all of them? what would they pick?
  103. “Time for the US to stop stirring this witch’s brew.”

    But what’s gonna replace the increasingly important war economy in an otherwise declining America?

    Have always enjoyed the Margolis columns, from back in the pre-internet age in the Sun to his bits and bytes now.

    Read More
  104. @Rurik
    Hey LK,

    thanks for the links

    looking at the first one from Global Research, I see that the rebels who Assad the father crushed were from the Muslim Brotherhood, which is where Morsi was from.

    So I suppose that's why Morsi was so keen to get vengeance upon Assad the younger as soon as he came to power in Egypt.

    Even to the point of wanting to destroy a fellow Muslim, Arab country and hand it over to the Zionists who've been raping the Muslim world in the wider Levant ever since they arrived.

    pettiness and rivalries and fratricidal hate

    Talha quotes a source on Assad's rule that people had a ....

    high degree of personal freedom not found in other countries of the Middle East. This personal freedom was exercised in all areas of life except for politics — a strange paradox. The government seemed to leave people alone in areas of religion, social behavior, family life, and work pursuits; but political dissent was not tolerated

    But how is this any different than the rule of the Ottoman sultans, who Talha seems to be nostalgic for, (no Talha?)

    As I've mentioned, only because of things I;ve heard about torture and cooperation with the CIA in the past, I don't think Assad is a great guy. But I do think it's obvious that the people of Syria want him to remain in power, and that's good enough for me, and I think that's good enough for Talha too, (if I read him right)

    So there was a certain amount of brutality when it came to political dissent, and perhaps that's the way it is over there. The West certainly suffered such growing pains in its centuries-long struggle for a modern, civilized state.

    Such a shame that both the West and the Muslim world are being dragged back into the mire of brutality and torture and murderous, stone age religious ignorance and tribal hatreds.

    I think we can all agree on that...

    Rurik:

    ”because of things I;ve heard about torture and cooperation with the CIA in the past, I don’t think Assad is a great guy”

    Ok, Rurik,
    Look, cooperation with the US was done against supposed radical islamists, Salafists/Wahhabis, the very same types who had given Syria lots of trouble in the 70s/80s and who are destroying the country now. A number of Syrian Salafists crossed the border into Iraq post 2003 to join Al-Qaeda. From Syria’s perspective such cooperation made sense. The assassinated Libyan leader Ghadafi also cooperated during the same time, and in some ways, so have the Russians.
    Ghadafi also had to fight a islamic insurgency in Libya in the 1990s, Lybian salafists funded by the Saudis & others went to fight in Afghanistan against the Soviets, then later returned and founded the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libyan_Islamic_Fighting_Group

    LIFG was founded in 1995 by Libyans who had fought against Soviet forces in Afghanistan. It aims to establish anIslamic state in Libya and views the Gaddafi regime as oppressive, and anti-Muslim, according to the Canadian Security Intelligence Service. LIFG claimed responsibility for a failed assassination attempt against Gaddafi in February 1996, which was in part funded by MI6 according to David Shayler, and engaged Libyan security forces in armed clashes during the mid-to-late 1990s.[9]

    It is also worth taking a look at the bio of Abdelhakim Belhadj, one of the key founders of the LIFG, which basically became Al-Qaeda in Libya in 2007.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdelhakim_Belhadj

    Interesting to note that the second largest number of foreign fighters in Iraq, after ZUSA’s aggression of 2003, only behind Saudis, were the Libyan Jihadis.
    Belhadj, a man who had tried to assassinate Ghadafi several times, was eventually captured by the US in SouthEast Asia, 2004, and delivered to the Libyan government where he was put in prison! Eventually he was released on a amnesty program but a little later became a key ‘rebel’ military commander in the Libyan “civil war”, a NATO war really, where NATO became Al-Qaedas air-force. He is reported to have become some sort of ISIS chief in Libya now.
    http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/foreign-policy/item/20337-u-s-backed-rebel-now-isil-s-man-in-libya

    Large numbers of Libyan jihadis have also travelled to fight in Syria, see;
    Libyan Terrorists Are Invading Syria
    http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com.br/2012/08/libyan-terrorists-are-invading-syria.html

    As for Russia, there is a lot there as well. Are you aware that many NATO logistics routes into Afghanistan pass through Russia?
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_logistics_in_the_Afghan_War

    As for torture, sure, a despicable practice which does not even generate good intel… but why single Syria out for it? Libya is also said to have participated.
    Do you think Russia never used torture during its wars in the Caucasus? It sure did.
    Does that make you think Putin is not a ‘great guy’ now? ;-)

    Look, I don’t know Assad, I ain’t Syrian & have never lived in Syria but from my research Assad seems to be a good leader. Most, I suspect, faced with such a formidable ZIO/US Empire backed radical islamist proxy war, would have run. That dude from Ukraine, former president Yanukovych, for much less, ran alway into exile in Russia.

    If you had to, which Syria would u choose to live?
    SECULAR SYRIA under Assad VS SYRIA UNDER ‘REBELS’
    https://justpaste.it/y60v

    Read More
  105. @Talha
    Dear Rurik,

    It is actually similar, we are talking about degrees of violence and suppression* - the Ottoman leadership did start to become very paranoid in its latter times when it faced huge losses of territory and even assassination attempts on its leadership - which eventually results in pogroms and genocides once the Turkish nationalists start taking the helm. You are basically on track with how I feel about keeping the best of the Ottoman tradition (incidentally, a good amount of it was paralleled in the Hapsburgs) and discarding the worst parts. By the way, this is one of the better academic reads on the subject of the Ottomans and their relationship to their subjects and how it ebbed and flowed over the ages (some highlights, but read the rest - well worth it):
    "Second, we have to focus on the particular conditions of the emergence of the Ottoman state to understand the peculiar construction of an early model of toleration and incorporation. Here, the diversity of religions on the ground, the openness of the Ottoman leaders to the "other," and the relatively weaker Islamic identification of the rulers allowed for a unique experience of permissiveness and forbearance. Third, the Ottoman Empire was characterized by an important set of divisions and dualities in religious institutions and practice that made it possible for the state to dominate the accommodation of religion into the life of the empire. The separation and parallel deployment of religious and secular law, the diversity of beliefs and organizations along the orthodox-heterodox range provided the state with the tools for domination..."
    "The Ottomans' achievement at empire was based on their successful negotiating between contradictory, yet also complementary political structures, organizational forms and their cultural meanings. In their attempt to construct such rule and establish legitimacy, they had to balance ruling Christians and Jews, Slavs, Vlachs and Armenians, Muslims of Sunni, Shi'a and many Sufi beliefs, incorporate each and every one of their communities and their local traditions, but also collect taxes and administer the collectivities. This had to be done by allowing space for local autonomy, a requirement of negotiated rule. For exactly this reason, whatever religion would mean locally, it had to be about legitimacy and rule for the state."
    http://online.sfsu.edu/mroozbeh/CLASS/H-604-pdfs/18-Barkey-IslamToleration.pdf

    And one of the things you often see is that Salafi/Wahhabi extremists completely hate the Ottomans - bunch of Hanafi-Sufi-heretics that gave too much leeway to non-Muslims.


    I think that’s good enough for Talha too
     
    Correct - many, many top level Muslim scholars that I respect from Syria (we were just visited by one from Damascus - the sagacious Shaykh Samer Nass [db] - I know it sounds weird, but shaking these people's hands to me is like what it might be like for others to meet Mick Jagger) have stayed silent on the issue of ousting Assad which has historically implied a message of 'bear this with patience, it will pass'. The cost in bloodshed and carnage is far more than the benefits of the expected results. Which is the same reason I marched against the Iraq War with my wife and baby daughter - not because I thought Saddam was a great guy, but because I knew the kind of chaos and misery that was in store. Maybe there will be a possibility for a political change afterwards to slowly, calmly remove (or at least reform) the yoke of the corrupt police state.

    For a historical perspective, note how many scholars (like Hasan al-Basri [ra], the great scholar/sufi) dealt with the rule of Hajjaj ibn Yusuf and advised people not to revolt (as reported in the Tabaqat of Ibn Saad [ra]):
    "A group of Muslims came to al-Hasan al-Basri seeking a verdict to rebel against al-Hajjaj . So they said, “O Abu Sa’eed! What do you say about fighting this oppressor who has unlawfully spilt blood and unlawfully taken wealth and did this and that?” So al-Hasan said, “I hold that he should not be fought. If this is a punishment from Allah, then you will not be able to remove it with your swords. If this is a trial from Allah, then be patient until Allah’s judgement comes, and He is the best of judges.” So they left al-Hasan, disagreed with him and rebelled against al-Hajjaj - so al-Hajjaj killed them all. Al-Hasan used to say, “If the people had patience when they are being tested by their unjust ruler, it will not be long before Allah will give them a way out. However, they always rush for their swords, so they are left with their swords. By Allah! Not even for a single day did they bring about any good."


    So there was a certain amount of brutality when it came to political dissent
     
    As you pointed, in the West too, many in the South (who have read about it) are still irked by what Generals Sherman and Grant did in order to subdue the secession...fire and steel. I suspect the areas that have been the centers of the fighting between the government and rebels will likely hold grudges due to the callous indifference to the innocents by both sides.

    Totally agree that this madness needs to stop immediately! And End the Fed!

    Peace.

    *Also, this potential exists in places like the Kingdom of Morocco of Sultanate of Oman - both are willing to suppress threats to their power, but they are relatively benign enough and smart enough to keep up the system of patronage and realpolitik that has kept them at the top - and it helps that they also belong to the same class as the majority of their people (for instance, King Mohammed is a Sunni):
    Keeping the Balance with a Stick in the Hand
    Yet, even then, the Islamists (especially the exremists) are chafing under him too.

    Dear Talha,

    Thank you for you thoughtful (as always) reply.

    One of the reasons I like to badger you is to try to get a handle on things that you seem so knowledgeable about. Islam in particular. So in return I’ll just do what I can to provide the perspective of a secular minded American, marinated in Americana and a strong believer in the Western traditions of the Greeks up through the Enlightenment and the Renaissance. As they’ve influence my outlook including so many writers from the purely American perspective. Mencken, Twain, Spooner and others who’ve I’ve been influenced by.

    The separation and parallel deployment of religious and secular law, the diversity of beliefs and organizations along the orthodox-heterodox range provided the state with the tools for domination…”

    I know this was a quote, and not your own words, but when ever I read something talking about the state’s “tools for domination”, I wince. Those are the very kinds of words that make an American like me reach for my sidearm. Like palming a phantom holster. Sort of how you check for your wallet when you’re forced to navigate an unsavory crowd. That word in particular, is anathema to my soul. “Domination”.

    Americans (like me) think the best (only legitimate) kind of government is the kind that governs least. That is fundamentally dominated in all forms be the people who willingly concede to the laws that the government forces all citizens to live by. Like not murdering or stealing your neighbors property. I don’t feel like it’s any kind of domination to consent to reasonable laws, but at no time do I grant the government the sovereign right to create these laws that they have the power to enforce. No. I only willingly grant any government any legitimacy only when it enforces laws I consider just. The second it tries to create or enforce laws I consider unjust, is the second I withdraw my consent from such a government. Once that happens, it has no legitimate authority over me. Any government that I consider legitimate, is a government that I willingly consent to. Period. And the idea of a government ‘dominating’ anyone, (other than criminals or foreign aggressors) is the reverse of how a (Western) government should function. Or something like that. Submission should always be from a government – to the people who that government represents. Never the other way around.

    That looks like a very informative link, and I know I’d do well to absorb what’s in it.

    the same reason I marched against the Iraq War with my wife and baby daughter – not because I thought Saddam was a great guy, but because I knew the kind of chaos and misery that was in store.

    I was against it because I knew for whom and what is was being waged.

    Maybe there will be a possibility for a political change afterwards to slowly, calmly remove (or at least reform) the yoke of the corrupt police state.

    When I think of police state, I think of the Shah’s SAVAK, which is what Syria is likely to get once it becomes a vassal state of the ZUSA.

    Generals Sherman and Grant did in order to subdue the secession…

    they didn’t do that to subdue the south- the south was already subdued. They burned it down and imposed a brutal reconstruction in order to punish them. Hatred run amok. It was a Dresden. But you’re right, Islam has no monopoly on tribal, bloodthirsty savagery.

    likely hold grudges due to the callous indifference to the innocents by both sides.

    Totally agree that this madness needs to stop immediately! And End the Fed!

    Peace.

    ditto, ditto, ditto

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    Dear Rurik,

    I know what you mean, after having lived in America for almost 35 years, I've imbibed a lot of the good old Anglo-Saxon tradition of spurning political authority; Runnymede, Locke, all that good stuff.

    That word in particular, is anathema to my soul. “Domination”.
     
    Sure thing, keep in mind, I was talking about the 'best of Ottoman tradition' of which this is not one. They were a monarchy/dynasty, and - as all monarchies tend to be - a bit Machiavellian. I generally agree with you, but I am a pragmatist as well. When faced with a government that is willing to completely obliterate its opposition - and when one legitimately has no chance in hell of forcing its hand, the best and most prudent recourse is to either figure out a working compromise (pay your taxes and stay aloof as long as they leave you be) or else work with a long term goal in mind to affect change with wisdom. It's not an issue of considering it unjust or illegitimate, that is all fine - just an issue of how one deals with it considering facts on the ground.

    Peace.
  106. @L.K
    Hey Rurik,

    So there was a certain amount of brutality when it came to political dissent, and perhaps that’s the way it is over there. The West certainly suffered such growing pains in its centuries-long struggle for a modern, civilized state.

     

    Ok, I’ve always wanted to address these points of yours but never did.

    Beginning from your last paragraph, so, as you recognize the West had to endure “centuries-long struggle for a modern, civilized state”. Make it thousands of years and... it is clearly still not there. Democracy, for one, has been a fleeting experiment in the West, even today few countries in the West, if any, can be considered true Democracies.
    Certainly not ZUSA.
    However imperfect & fleeting, even this Democratic 'tradition' is absent in the Arab World... make it 'absent in most of the World.
    Syria, for one, as a modern State, is very recent, only becoming independent post WWII and having to contend with hostile neighbors and Zio/ZUSA attempts to destabilize it.
    Take a look at the following;
    CIA-MI6 planned to assassinate Syrian leaders in 1957
    https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2003/10/syri-o06.html

    Take a look at a listo f CIA activities against Syria;
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_activities_in_Syria

    However there have been steps foward in the sense of more political freedom, barred of course, the islamic radicals.

    More later.

    “centuries-long struggle for a modern, civilized state”. Make it thousands of years and… it is clearly still not there. Democracy, for one, has been a fleeting experiment in the West, even today few countries in the West, if any, can be considered true Democracies.
    Certainly not ZUSA.

    I agree L.K., on all accounts.

    but we’ve been through the fires and pits of purgatory to get this far, and we’ve come a lot farther than those who still struggle to get past ancient tribal and religious intractability , I believe. (Even as we’re sinking back into the mire of ignorance and brutality, even as I write this).

    CIA-MI6 planned to assassinate Syrian leaders in 1957

    just like Iran in the fifties

    or the Middle East today. Perhaps Trump will bring sanity to our foreign policy. I watched what he said yesterday about wars and such, and how he was against the Iraq war crime from the beginning.

    However there have been steps foward in the sense of more political freedom, barred of course, the islamic radicals.

    the Islamic radicals would get nowhere without ZUSA support, just like the idiots in Kyiv.

    it’s my (occupied) government that is foisting all these horrors, and bedeviling the world’s people. And they (Goldman Sachs) wants the power to tax every breath on the planet, with their sinister carbon tax. Maybe they will push Putin to the brink. Maybe they will end it all. I wonder, if you put the question to them, ‘if you don’t get to dominate the world’s people- as if they are all Palestinians, would you prefer the Sampson option, and the destruction of the entire planet and all its living things – to having to live side by side with the rest of the earth’s denizens, without having total power over all of them? what would they pick?

    Read More
  107. @Fiendly Neighbourhood Terrorist
    A lot of people who should have known better fondly imagined that the Kurds were Syria's allies. The Kurds have no allies except themselves. When ISIS took Mosul the Kurds jumped at the chance to grab Kirkuk. If and when Mosul is captured from ISIS, if it's the Kurds who do the capturing, a second war between Arab militias and the Peshmerga for the city will begin before the ink is dry on the celebratory proclamations. The Kurds think this is their chance to hack out an ethnically cleansed Kurdish state from Turkey through Iraq, and they don't care whom they have to betray to do it. And that's precisely why they'll never have their state - nobody, Turk, Arab, or Persian, trusts the Kurds any longer, and for excellent reasons.

    B.P., your Raghead graphics are totally awesome!

    If you have any more to say about Uncle Sam pressing Saudis against Yemen, etc., please do so. The current assault on the Saudis smells of diversion from US and Israel. Today the Congress is voting to allow Americans to sue Saudis in US Courts for 911.

    Read More
  108. @Andrei Martyanov
    Very few will have guts to accuse Joe Biden of being a low life that he is. I did, though. In general, US political "class" is a collection of low lives. The country is a runaway train at this stage.

    Biden is – straight up – a liar, and he’s really good at it.

    Read More
  109. […] vs. U.S. in Syria http://www.unz.com/emargolis/us-vs-us-in-syria/ “As a result, the two arms of offensive US strategic power, the Pentagon, and CIA, went separate […]

    Read More
  110. […] followed was Washington’s latest nightmare. Two groups of rebel fighters supported and trained by the U.S., the Kurdish YPG and the Sultan […]

    Read More
  111. @Rurik
    Dear Talha,

    Thank you for you thoughtful (as always) reply.

    One of the reasons I like to badger you is to try to get a handle on things that you seem so knowledgeable about. Islam in particular. So in return I'll just do what I can to provide the perspective of a secular minded American, marinated in Americana and a strong believer in the Western traditions of the Greeks up through the Enlightenment and the Renaissance. As they've influence my outlook including so many writers from the purely American perspective. Mencken, Twain, Spooner and others who've I've been influenced by.

    The separation and parallel deployment of religious and secular law, the diversity of beliefs and organizations along the orthodox-heterodox range provided the state with the tools for domination…”
     
    I know this was a quote, and not your own words, but when ever I read something talking about the state's "tools for domination", I wince. Those are the very kinds of words that make an American like me reach for my sidearm. Like palming a phantom holster. Sort of how you check for your wallet when you're forced to navigate an unsavory crowd. That word in particular, is anathema to my soul. "Domination".

    Americans (like me) think the best (only legitimate) kind of government is the kind that governs least. That is fundamentally dominated in all forms be the people who willingly concede to the laws that the government forces all citizens to live by. Like not murdering or stealing your neighbors property. I don't feel like it's any kind of domination to consent to reasonable laws, but at no time do I grant the government the sovereign right to create these laws that they have the power to enforce. No. I only willingly grant any government any legitimacy only when it enforces laws I consider just. The second it tries to create or enforce laws I consider unjust, is the second I withdraw my consent from such a government. Once that happens, it has no legitimate authority over me. Any government that I consider legitimate, is a government that I willingly consent to. Period. And the idea of a government 'dominating' anyone, (other than criminals or foreign aggressors) is the reverse of how a (Western) government should function. Or something like that. Submission should always be from a government - to the people who that government represents. Never the other way around.

    That looks like a very informative link, and I know I'd do well to absorb what's in it.

    the same reason I marched against the Iraq War with my wife and baby daughter – not because I thought Saddam was a great guy, but because I knew the kind of chaos and misery that was in store.
     
    I was against it because I knew for whom and what is was being waged.

    Maybe there will be a possibility for a political change afterwards to slowly, calmly remove (or at least reform) the yoke of the corrupt police state.
     
    When I think of police state, I think of the Shah's SAVAK, which is what Syria is likely to get once it becomes a vassal state of the ZUSA.

    Generals Sherman and Grant did in order to subdue the secession…
     
    they didn't do that to subdue the south- the south was already subdued. They burned it down and imposed a brutal reconstruction in order to punish them. Hatred run amok. It was a Dresden. But you're right, Islam has no monopoly on tribal, bloodthirsty savagery.

    likely hold grudges due to the callous indifference to the innocents by both sides.

    Totally agree that this madness needs to stop immediately! And End the Fed!

    Peace.
     
    ditto, ditto, ditto

    Dear Rurik,

    I know what you mean, after having lived in America for almost 35 years, I’ve imbibed a lot of the good old Anglo-Saxon tradition of spurning political authority; Runnymede, Locke, all that good stuff.

    That word in particular, is anathema to my soul. “Domination”.

    Sure thing, keep in mind, I was talking about the ‘best of Ottoman tradition’ of which this is not one. They were a monarchy/dynasty, and – as all monarchies tend to be – a bit Machiavellian. I generally agree with you, but I am a pragmatist as well. When faced with a government that is willing to completely obliterate its opposition – and when one legitimately has no chance in hell of forcing its hand, the best and most prudent recourse is to either figure out a working compromise (pay your taxes and stay aloof as long as they leave you be) or else work with a long term goal in mind to affect change with wisdom. It’s not an issue of considering it unjust or illegitimate, that is all fine – just an issue of how one deals with it considering facts on the ground.

    Peace.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RobinG
    This thread is a serious disappointment, Talha. After making a few bald accusations and then diverting the discussion to irrelevant religious material, when finally pressed directly about Assad you offer nothing but Caesar's photos. Both "Caesar" and his photos have been soundly debunked (although our dear Congress will never let go of anything that fits its narrative). Even if you don't accept that Caesar is a fraud, you must admit that he hasn't been proven genuine. The most logical explanation for the documentation of the dead, as reported by Rick Sterling, is the hospital morgue log of corpses from various locations. (They are in the midst of a war, you know.) https://consortiumnews.com/2016/09/06/dissecting-the-propaganda-on-syria/

    Supposedly you are a thorough researcher on Islam, so it is especially sad that you cast aspersions and offer opinions on a subject where you seem to have only the most superficial knowledge. I'm looking for real information myself, so this is particularly annoying.

    A further problem with using the "Caesar" allegation is that it comes after years of conflict and hundreds of thousands dead. You and your Syrian-from-Hama friend have offered absolutely nothing against Bashar Assad pre-2011. Surely you know that US plans for regime change began in 2006 when Bashar began instituting reforms, no? I hope you don't mind hearing a Christian American explain this to you, in an interview with a (smart but small) Jew.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ivZKHE-STk
    U.S. Policy in Syria: An Interview with VA Senator Richard Black
  112. @Talha
    Dear Rurik,

    I know what you mean, after having lived in America for almost 35 years, I've imbibed a lot of the good old Anglo-Saxon tradition of spurning political authority; Runnymede, Locke, all that good stuff.

    That word in particular, is anathema to my soul. “Domination”.
     
    Sure thing, keep in mind, I was talking about the 'best of Ottoman tradition' of which this is not one. They were a monarchy/dynasty, and - as all monarchies tend to be - a bit Machiavellian. I generally agree with you, but I am a pragmatist as well. When faced with a government that is willing to completely obliterate its opposition - and when one legitimately has no chance in hell of forcing its hand, the best and most prudent recourse is to either figure out a working compromise (pay your taxes and stay aloof as long as they leave you be) or else work with a long term goal in mind to affect change with wisdom. It's not an issue of considering it unjust or illegitimate, that is all fine - just an issue of how one deals with it considering facts on the ground.

    Peace.

    This thread is a serious disappointment, Talha. After making a few bald accusations and then diverting the discussion to irrelevant religious material, when finally pressed directly about Assad you offer nothing but Caesar’s photos. Both “Caesar” and his photos have been soundly debunked (although our dear Congress will never let go of anything that fits its narrative). Even if you don’t accept that Caesar is a fraud, you must admit that he hasn’t been proven genuine. The most logical explanation for the documentation of the dead, as reported by Rick Sterling, is the hospital morgue log of corpses from various locations. (They are in the midst of a war, you know.) https://consortiumnews.com/2016/09/06/dissecting-the-propaganda-on-syria/

    Supposedly you are a thorough researcher on Islam, so it is especially sad that you cast aspersions and offer opinions on a subject where you seem to have only the most superficial knowledge. I’m looking for real information myself, so this is particularly annoying.

    A further problem with using the “Caesar” allegation is that it comes after years of conflict and hundreds of thousands dead. You and your Syrian-from-Hama friend have offered absolutely nothing against Bashar Assad pre-2011. Surely you know that US plans for regime change began in 2006 when Bashar began instituting reforms, no? I hope you don’t mind hearing a Christian American explain this to you, in an interview with a (smart but small) Jew.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ivZKHE-STk
    U.S. Policy in Syria: An Interview with VA Senator Richard Black

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    Hey RobinG,

    And you will continue to be disappointed by me if you expect me to bring forth proof that there is not a multi-national conspiracy to bring down the Syrian government. That has never been my contention and I have always recognized that aspect to be a fact.

    As far as sources, I do not trust the US government on this or most other aspects of the current political narrative. I am trusting of Human Rights Watch and Doctors Without Borders who cite many of the same things I do plus other damning evidence like indiscriminate firing/bombing of hospitals. Anyone is free to dismiss them as an arm of the CIA if they wish. For me, they have been a consistent upholder of rights of the oppressed everywhere.


    You and your Syrian-from-Hama friend have offered absolutely nothing against Bashar Assad pre-2011.
     
    Correct, other than it was a corrupt, authoritarian police state - which is par for the course in that area. I'm not saying anything Amnesty International (or other rights groups) hasn't for decades:
    http://www.amnestyusa.org/research/reports/annual-report-syria-2010

    People deal with it as they historically have. I actually had a lot of hopes when Bashar came into office, thank God his older brother never had a chance. In fact I think a lot of the reform was out of his hands since the 'old guard' of the deep state was too far entrenched for him to bring about radical change - he was never as powerful as his father.

    I'm a bit tired of making my specific point again and again and people claiming I am stating something else. Feel free to reread my posts - my point is in there if you can look for it without bringing preconceptions to the table.

    As far as the religious stuff...ignore it if you like. However a Syrian friend with relatives in both safe areas and devastated areas has told me the people have not lost their faith, in fact people have grown more religious due to this war. As with the Iraq War, such is the historic tendency among Muslims because of their metaphysical outlook.

    I never claimed to be an expert on the Syria matter, simply in touch with a legitimate voice in the narrative. If you want expert-level input on this subject, please skip any of my posts - neither do I have the time nor the desire to establish myself as an online 'Seymour Hersh'. I encourage everyone to do their own research in this ever-shifting tragedy.

    Thanks by the way on that link about the 'Caesar' photographs - I did not know that around 45% were purely included in there for propaganda purposes and that 'Caesar' may have had links with the CIA. That certainly casts aspersions on a good amount of the claims based on him.

    Peace.

    , @Anon
    don't know what the Caeser references are all about but thnx for the video link.
    Black is very good on most points -- it's good that he has a favourable understanding of Syria n hope he talks to important people about it. he seems to have a blind spot about israel, it's all the saudi's mischief, that and the US but no mention of israel acting bad. he's a bit childishly naive about 'stains on america's honor' re Libya n Syria. like that's the 1st time US ever did that kinda evil? CIA was hatched on the evil side of the petri dish. Black sounds like a good guy but his Marine-ness is more like goo goo eyed cub scout than honestly confronting the world as it is and as US functions in it, or rather, fubars it.
  113. @RobinG
    This thread is a serious disappointment, Talha. After making a few bald accusations and then diverting the discussion to irrelevant religious material, when finally pressed directly about Assad you offer nothing but Caesar's photos. Both "Caesar" and his photos have been soundly debunked (although our dear Congress will never let go of anything that fits its narrative). Even if you don't accept that Caesar is a fraud, you must admit that he hasn't been proven genuine. The most logical explanation for the documentation of the dead, as reported by Rick Sterling, is the hospital morgue log of corpses from various locations. (They are in the midst of a war, you know.) https://consortiumnews.com/2016/09/06/dissecting-the-propaganda-on-syria/

    Supposedly you are a thorough researcher on Islam, so it is especially sad that you cast aspersions and offer opinions on a subject where you seem to have only the most superficial knowledge. I'm looking for real information myself, so this is particularly annoying.

    A further problem with using the "Caesar" allegation is that it comes after years of conflict and hundreds of thousands dead. You and your Syrian-from-Hama friend have offered absolutely nothing against Bashar Assad pre-2011. Surely you know that US plans for regime change began in 2006 when Bashar began instituting reforms, no? I hope you don't mind hearing a Christian American explain this to you, in an interview with a (smart but small) Jew.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ivZKHE-STk
    U.S. Policy in Syria: An Interview with VA Senator Richard Black

    Hey RobinG,

    And you will continue to be disappointed by me if you expect me to bring forth proof that there is not a multi-national conspiracy to bring down the Syrian government. That has never been my contention and I have always recognized that aspect to be a fact.

    As far as sources, I do not trust the US government on this or most other aspects of the current political narrative. I am trusting of Human Rights Watch and Doctors Without Borders who cite many of the same things I do plus other damning evidence like indiscriminate firing/bombing of hospitals. Anyone is free to dismiss them as an arm of the CIA if they wish. For me, they have been a consistent upholder of rights of the oppressed everywhere.

    You and your Syrian-from-Hama friend have offered absolutely nothing against Bashar Assad pre-2011.

    Correct, other than it was a corrupt, authoritarian police state – which is par for the course in that area. I’m not saying anything Amnesty International (or other rights groups) hasn’t for decades:
    http://www.amnestyusa.org/research/reports/annual-report-syria-2010

    People deal with it as they historically have. I actually had a lot of hopes when Bashar came into office, thank God his older brother never had a chance. In fact I think a lot of the reform was out of his hands since the ‘old guard’ of the deep state was too far entrenched for him to bring about radical change – he was never as powerful as his father.

    I’m a bit tired of making my specific point again and again and people claiming I am stating something else. Feel free to reread my posts – my point is in there if you can look for it without bringing preconceptions to the table.

    As far as the religious stuff…ignore it if you like. However a Syrian friend with relatives in both safe areas and devastated areas has told me the people have not lost their faith, in fact people have grown more religious due to this war. As with the Iraq War, such is the historic tendency among Muslims because of their metaphysical outlook.

    I never claimed to be an expert on the Syria matter, simply in touch with a legitimate voice in the narrative. If you want expert-level input on this subject, please skip any of my posts – neither do I have the time nor the desire to establish myself as an online ‘Seymour Hersh’. I encourage everyone to do their own research in this ever-shifting tragedy.

    Thanks by the way on that link about the ‘Caesar’ photographs – I did not know that around 45% were purely included in there for propaganda purposes and that ‘Caesar’ may have had links with the CIA. That certainly casts aspersions on a good amount of the claims based on him.

    Peace.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RobinG
    Fortunately, I can recognize passive-aggressive. Re-read? Sheesh, it was enough of a slog the first time, and you've acknowledged there's nothing there.

    "...other than it was a corrupt, authoritarian police state – which is par for the course in that area."
    I read through your Amnesty link. The numbers of abuses are pretty "par for the course" in the US also. (You do remember the fellow sodomized with a toilet plunger by the NYPD, the "Holyland 5," Waco, just to mention a few. And of course there's Guantanamo, and Jeffrey Sterling, and Snowden. Pretty laughable that Amnesty lists Syrian death sentences for convicted murderers.)

    Let's get the Canadians (still part of the Commonwealth, right?) to help us overthrow the brutal Obama regime, lol.
  114. Anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @RobinG
    This thread is a serious disappointment, Talha. After making a few bald accusations and then diverting the discussion to irrelevant religious material, when finally pressed directly about Assad you offer nothing but Caesar's photos. Both "Caesar" and his photos have been soundly debunked (although our dear Congress will never let go of anything that fits its narrative). Even if you don't accept that Caesar is a fraud, you must admit that he hasn't been proven genuine. The most logical explanation for the documentation of the dead, as reported by Rick Sterling, is the hospital morgue log of corpses from various locations. (They are in the midst of a war, you know.) https://consortiumnews.com/2016/09/06/dissecting-the-propaganda-on-syria/

    Supposedly you are a thorough researcher on Islam, so it is especially sad that you cast aspersions and offer opinions on a subject where you seem to have only the most superficial knowledge. I'm looking for real information myself, so this is particularly annoying.

    A further problem with using the "Caesar" allegation is that it comes after years of conflict and hundreds of thousands dead. You and your Syrian-from-Hama friend have offered absolutely nothing against Bashar Assad pre-2011. Surely you know that US plans for regime change began in 2006 when Bashar began instituting reforms, no? I hope you don't mind hearing a Christian American explain this to you, in an interview with a (smart but small) Jew.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ivZKHE-STk
    U.S. Policy in Syria: An Interview with VA Senator Richard Black

    don’t know what the Caeser references are all about but thnx for the video link.
    Black is very good on most points — it’s good that he has a favourable understanding of Syria n hope he talks to important people about it. he seems to have a blind spot about israel, it’s all the saudi’s mischief, that and the US but no mention of israel acting bad. he’s a bit childishly naive about ‘stains on america’s honor’ re Libya n Syria. like that’s the 1st time US ever did that kinda evil? CIA was hatched on the evil side of the petri dish. Black sounds like a good guy but his Marine-ness is more like goo goo eyed cub scout than honestly confronting the world as it is and as US functions in it, or rather, fubars it.

    Read More
  115. @Talha
    Hey RobinG,

    And you will continue to be disappointed by me if you expect me to bring forth proof that there is not a multi-national conspiracy to bring down the Syrian government. That has never been my contention and I have always recognized that aspect to be a fact.

    As far as sources, I do not trust the US government on this or most other aspects of the current political narrative. I am trusting of Human Rights Watch and Doctors Without Borders who cite many of the same things I do plus other damning evidence like indiscriminate firing/bombing of hospitals. Anyone is free to dismiss them as an arm of the CIA if they wish. For me, they have been a consistent upholder of rights of the oppressed everywhere.


    You and your Syrian-from-Hama friend have offered absolutely nothing against Bashar Assad pre-2011.
     
    Correct, other than it was a corrupt, authoritarian police state - which is par for the course in that area. I'm not saying anything Amnesty International (or other rights groups) hasn't for decades:
    http://www.amnestyusa.org/research/reports/annual-report-syria-2010

    People deal with it as they historically have. I actually had a lot of hopes when Bashar came into office, thank God his older brother never had a chance. In fact I think a lot of the reform was out of his hands since the 'old guard' of the deep state was too far entrenched for him to bring about radical change - he was never as powerful as his father.

    I'm a bit tired of making my specific point again and again and people claiming I am stating something else. Feel free to reread my posts - my point is in there if you can look for it without bringing preconceptions to the table.

    As far as the religious stuff...ignore it if you like. However a Syrian friend with relatives in both safe areas and devastated areas has told me the people have not lost their faith, in fact people have grown more religious due to this war. As with the Iraq War, such is the historic tendency among Muslims because of their metaphysical outlook.

    I never claimed to be an expert on the Syria matter, simply in touch with a legitimate voice in the narrative. If you want expert-level input on this subject, please skip any of my posts - neither do I have the time nor the desire to establish myself as an online 'Seymour Hersh'. I encourage everyone to do their own research in this ever-shifting tragedy.

    Thanks by the way on that link about the 'Caesar' photographs - I did not know that around 45% were purely included in there for propaganda purposes and that 'Caesar' may have had links with the CIA. That certainly casts aspersions on a good amount of the claims based on him.

    Peace.

    Fortunately, I can recognize passive-aggressive. Re-read? Sheesh, it was enough of a slog the first time, and you’ve acknowledged there’s nothing there.

    “…other than it was a corrupt, authoritarian police state – which is par for the course in that area.”
    I read through your Amnesty link. The numbers of abuses are pretty “par for the course” in the US also. (You do remember the fellow sodomized with a toilet plunger by the NYPD, the “Holyland 5,” Waco, just to mention a few. And of course there’s Guantanamo, and Jeffrey Sterling, and Snowden. Pretty laughable that Amnesty lists Syrian death sentences for convicted murderers.)

    Let’s get the Canadians (still part of the Commonwealth, right?) to help us overthrow the brutal Obama regime, lol.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    Hey RobinG,

    Well, you got me there, I can't say with a straight face that we aren't slipping more and more into an authoritarian police surveillance state ourselves. But no, I don't advocate violent removal of either our government or Syria's.

    Peace.

  116. @RobinG
    Fortunately, I can recognize passive-aggressive. Re-read? Sheesh, it was enough of a slog the first time, and you've acknowledged there's nothing there.

    "...other than it was a corrupt, authoritarian police state – which is par for the course in that area."
    I read through your Amnesty link. The numbers of abuses are pretty "par for the course" in the US also. (You do remember the fellow sodomized with a toilet plunger by the NYPD, the "Holyland 5," Waco, just to mention a few. And of course there's Guantanamo, and Jeffrey Sterling, and Snowden. Pretty laughable that Amnesty lists Syrian death sentences for convicted murderers.)

    Let's get the Canadians (still part of the Commonwealth, right?) to help us overthrow the brutal Obama regime, lol.

    Hey RobinG,

    Well, you got me there, I can’t say with a straight face that we aren’t slipping more and more into an authoritarian police surveillance state ourselves. But no, I don’t advocate violent removal of either our government or Syria’s.

    Peace.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RobinG
    You're a slippery one, Talha. Looks like you can still say with a straight face that Amnesty and Human Rights Watch aren't NATO tools.
  117. @Talha
    Hey RobinG,

    Well, you got me there, I can't say with a straight face that we aren't slipping more and more into an authoritarian police surveillance state ourselves. But no, I don't advocate violent removal of either our government or Syria's.

    Peace.

    You’re a slippery one, Talha. Looks like you can still say with a straight face that Amnesty and Human Rights Watch aren’t NATO tools.

    Read More
  118. Amnesty and Human Rights Watch aren’t NATO tools

    Correct, and Doctors Without Borders as well. I’m sure NATO and others use their reports to buttress their points or justify their policies against the specific governments they don’t like while ignoring abuses of allies, and I will even agree that these organizations can be a bit hasty in coming to a conclusion (for instance, what you mentioned regarding the Caesar photos)…but do I think they are an extension of NATO or the CIA or deliberately collude with such agencies or are funded by them, etc., then no – I have not seen evidence for such. Feel free to forward any that you have in this regard – I’m not dogmatic when it comes to this, I’m open to change my mind.

    Peace.

    Read More
Current Commenter says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Eric Margolis Comments via RSS
Personal Classics
Bin Laden is dead, but his strategy still bleeds the United States.
Egyptians revolted against American rule as well as Mubarak’s.
“America’s strategic and economic interests in the Mideast and Muslim world are being threatened by the agony in Palestine, which inevitably invites terrorist attacks against US citizens and property.”
A menace grows from Bush’s Korean blind spot.
Far from being a model for a “liberated” Iraq, Afghanistan shows how the U.S. can get bogged down Soviet-style.