Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله
Sign in to follow this  
Noura

Notes On The Syrian Uprising.

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

You're disillusioned if you think Mubarak has gone. Mubarak hasn't gone anywhere. Omar Sullaiman is still out there, and he was #1 head of the Egyptian regime. Things have gotten worse in Egypt, they're still in Tahrir Square. What you're seeing in Egypt is an extension of the Mubarak Era, only under different leadership. So the question doesn't make sense seeing that there have been no changes in Egypt. It's like asking "is the US better under Bush Snr or Bush Jnr?"

Dark side is the GCC taking hold of the country :)

KRG have very good relations with the Syrian KNC and the Syrian KNC aren't taking a stance against Bashar.

Did the opposition not come to Iraqi Kurdistan, a while back, to meet Barzani?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did the opposition not come to Iraqi Kurdistan, a while back, to meet Barzani?

They've met a lot of people, including Mu'allam, and also went to Iran http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/8889824/Iranian-officials-meet-with-Syrian-opposition.html , what's your point?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Syria even before the baath has had a history of secularism, of a civil society, of a stable structure, a unifying language, of not being a tribal country, and so on.

Afghanistan as a state existed WAY before Syria did. When Afghanistan was a secular country most in Syria did not even know what secularism was. Syria has been stable exactly because of the Baath regime and its VERY tribal country. just wait and see when the unifying umbrella of the Baath regime is taken away.

That said, Taliban did not take over Afghanistan because it was a religious society or.... but because of the salafi finance which btw is very present in Syria as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When Afghanistan was a secular country most in Syria did not even know what secularism was. Syria has been stable exactly because of the Baath regime and its VERY tribal country. just wait and see when the unifying umbrella of the Baath regime is taken away.

That said, Taliban did not take over Afghanistan because it was a religious society or.... but because of the salafi finance which btw is very present in Syria as well

When was Afghanistan ever a secular country and non tribal country, for the exception with when the communist were there . Syria existed before the baath and will exist after the baath, and it is not a tribal and has never been a tribal country, And Syria also has significant minorities.

The opposition views this group as "fake"

That is wrong the NCC has signed an agrement of understanding with the SNC which can be considered syria's largest opposition.

Edited by Noura

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where were they going to go? They are certainly in Turkey now aren't they?

When your village gets taken over by Al-Qaida terrorists, what do you expect? The sad thing is, they were raped in Turkey http://www.mecn.org/...-turkish-hosts/

This on top of the beheadings by Al-Qaida.

22304.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When was Afghanistan ever a secular country and non tribal country, for the exception with when the communist were there . Syria existed before the baath and will exist after the baath, and it is not a tribal and has never been a tribal country, And Syria also has significant minorities.

Afghanistan has always been secular except from 1992-2001. And it was during this time that it was divided along the ethnic lines. Syria on the other hand has been in existence, in its modern form, only after the break up of the Ottoman empire. And wait and see how its going to get divided and fractured once the salafi money fills the vacuum left by the fall of the Assad regime. President Assad wasnt wrong or far off when he said that Syria would become another Afghanistan.

The problem with Afghanistan is that it has earned a bad rep thanks to mass media. Just like westerners see all muslims as bearded ax-swinging angry polygamists, the muslim world see Afghanistan as some sort of backwater backward country/society. While Afghans love to think of themselves as inheritors of a 7 thousand years old culture. What muslims dont realize is that Afghans fought the feared Red Army for 10 long years. Imagine where Lebanon would be today if the 26 day war with Israel lasted for 10 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salaams,

The question in my mind is how one can look at an armed group which has the backing of Saudi Arabia and Qatar, as a force that's going to bring democracy? I mean they're run on utterly feudal lines. These are the vanguards of democratic revolution in Syria and the Middle East? I don't think so.

The Free Syrian Army is supported by a sectarian, fanatical Wahhabi 'scholar' like Adnan 'Ar'ur. No wonder the 12ers, Christians, Alawites, Druze and quite a few traditional Sunnis like Shaykh Ramadhan al-Buti (as well as the murdered imam of the Anas bin Malek mosque, Shaykh Muhammad Ahmad Ouf Sadeq) aren't particularly keen on their potential 'liberators'.

Secondly, it's funny how the West and the GCC countries tell the Palestinians and Hezbollah to abandon armed struggle and in the same breath urge the Syrians, like the Libyans before them, to take up arms. Very consistent.

The Assad regime is guilty of crimes and does need reform but if anyone thinks that the Syrian people (especially women and religious minorities) are going to be emancipated by Saudi and Qatari proxies, then they're in for a major (and possibly bloodier) disappointment.

Wasalaam.

Edited by Hagop

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

'Islamic theory rejects monarchy as well as the various forms of dictatorial government; it also rejects the aristocratic regimes and proposes a form of government, which contains all the positive aspects of the democratic system.'

Mohammed Baqir Al-Sadr, Lamha fiqhiya, p.20

This is taken out of context. The question was posed to you in another thread , either you missed it or chose to ignore it, but here it is again ...

So failure to implement the full extent of Islamic law and existing as a secular Arab nationalist/socialist state and thus not an Islamic republic is all fine and dandy from your perspective?

If you're suggesting that a country that has 5% or less Shia should have an Islamic State based on the laws of Ahlul Bayt (as), surely you'd have to hold the same views for other countries too like Saudi, Japan, USA, New Zealand, China, Brazil, etc. Yes? No?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Afghanistan has always been secular except from 1992-2001. And it was during this time that it was divided along the ethnic lines. Syria on the other hand has been in existence, in its modern form, only after the break up of the Ottoman empire. And wait and see how its going to get divided and fractured once the salafi money fills the vacuum left by the fall of the Assad regime. President Assad wasnt wrong or far off when he said that Syria would become another Afghanistan.

I thought Afghannistan was a religious monarchy before the soviets. Well he is wrong Syria even before the baath was a secular republic and when the syrian people see that the salafist are bad they will reject them .

The Free Syrian Army is supported by a sectarian, fanatical Wahhabi 'scholar' like Adnan 'Ar'ur. No wonder the 12ers, Christians, Alawites, Druze and quite a few traditional Sunnis like Shaykh Ramadhan al-Buti (as well as the murdered imam of the Anas bin Malek mosque, Shaykh Muhammad Ahmad Ouf Sadeq) aren't particularly keen on their potential 'liberators'.

The Assad regime is guilty of crimes and does need reform but if anyone thinks that the Syrian people (especially women and religious minoritiea) are going to be emancipated by Saudi and Qatari proxies, then they're in for a major (and possibly bloodier) disappointment.

That is the problem the people for Bashar blame everyone but assad for their problems, its either the gcc, or Israel, or saad hariri, or America and so on with the conspiracies. they can not see that Bashar murdering and torturing people is what causes extremism and helps extremism, and the fact that his family is very corupt. Also, Riad Assad the head of the fsa was a colnel in the army of Bashar just like General Mustafa Shekh it is not all salafist terroist.

Edited by Noura

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought Afghannistan was a religious monarchy before the soviets. Well he is wrong Syria even before the baath was a secular republic and when the syrian people see that the salafist are bad they will reject them .

No not at all. Afghanistan was the first country in the Islamic world with women in parliament. My concern for Syria is not as much with this regime or that but with the salafi microbes infesting that society and rotting it from within. I guess the only hope for Syria aside from the current regime is its vicinity to Israel. Then again, it can be all that great when an entire country is tailored to security needs of another country. Although safe from salafi horrors, it could become another Egypt.

Oh and lets not forget that the so called tyrants of today were liberators of yesterday. Could today's political shuffle create another system that'd need to be broken tomorrow? i hope not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is taken out of context.

Oh. Please contextualize it for me.

If you're suggesting that a country that has 5% or less Shia should have an Islamic State based on the laws of Ahlul Bayt (as), surely you'd have to hold the same views for other countries too like Saudi, Japan, USA, New Zealand, China, Brazil, etc. Yes? No?

Missing the point I was making in that thread, the user I quoted was trying to justify supporting the regime (as is the norm here), by citing their opposition to zionism, however I was asking whether it is justified in supporting them knowing they are not an Islamic state who are secularists...

I also never suggested that Syria should have one that is "based on the laws of the Ahlul Bayt" either... but at least you highlighted the fact that it is not a Shia majority country..... yet you are all in favour of Bahrain overthrowing their minority rulers... and I'm also sure you were not exactly against Saddam's overthrow either (another minority ruler). Why can't the same enthusiam be applied to Syria? Oh wait it's too important to Iran's regional interests.

Just face it, most of you are political Shias concerned with real power and not against oppression wherever it is or whoever commits it. Shias are not the only people to have suffered.

This selective support you have is all based on Iranian interests... and is no different from America and the West being selective in their application of the so-called "Humanitarian Intervention" which is why they tried to justify Iraq to some degree (After no WMDs were found) based on this..... yet turned a blind eye to the likes of Rwanda for example.

All states act in self-interest.. and Iran is no different. You are only keeping in mind their interests when you selectively choose to highlight oppression.

I'll give you a further example that Iran is no different from other states.... Iran champions the Palestinian cause because it suits them, given that they do not have relations with USA and Israel..... yet they are politically closer with Russia and China.....yet the oppression and abuse inflicted by the latter two against the Chechens and Uighurs (both Muslims), respectively does not faze or affect Iran's relationship with them.

Edited by Propaganda_of_the_Deed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salaams,

I'm not 'for' Bashar or the Assad clan btw.

I did actually say (to quote myself): "The Assad regime is guilty of crimes and does need reform but if anyone thinks that the Syrian people (especially women and religious minorities) are going to be emancipated by Saudi and Qatari proxies, then they're in for a major (and possibly bloodier) disappointment."

I repeat my first paragraph: "The question in my mind is how one can look at an armed group which has the backing of Saudi Arabia and Qatar, as a force that's going to bring democracy? I mean they're run on utterly feudal lines. These are the vanguards of democratic revolution in Syria and the Middle East? I don't think so."

I don't see much democracy in Libya at the moment. Instead you've got a weak central government, a plethora of armed gangs and lack of security for ordinary citizens. With Syria's sectarian mix you could, potentially, be looking at a long running civil war. I hope for the sake of the Syrian people that doesn't happen.

Not every member of the Free Syrian Army is an extremist Salafi but you only need a few heavily armed units to wreak major havoc. I hope Bashar and his clan step down but don't want to see the victory of the Free Syrian Army.

In the same way that the Shabiha are guilty of murdering innocent civilians, the FSA also has innocent blood on its hands. Who was the imam of Anas bin Malek mosque oppressing? Did he deserve to die for taking a political position against the uprising? Hardly bodes well for democracy. Ordinary Alawite and Christian civilians have been killed by the opposition. There are just too many foreign journalists confirming this for it to be dismissed as regime propaganda. Not every Alawite or Christian works for the Assad regime.

Edited by Hagop

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you highlighted the fact that it is not a Shia majority country..... yet you are all in favour of Bahrain overthrowing their minority rulers... and I'm also sure you were not exactly against Saddam's overthrow either (another minority ruler).

Minorities and majorities have nothing to do with it. This, again, is sectarian thinking. I wouldn't have a problem with Bahrain being ruled by 'Sunnis' if they were just and not supporting Terrorism. And you're right, i was against the overthrow of bani Umayya by the 'Abasiyya Ghaddafi/Saddam by US/NATO, even though the former two murdered two scholars i revere highly (i was more in favour of Sayyid Al-Hakim's continuation of building up the Badr Brigades). And this is the same in Syria. Again you're dribbling off without knowing the consequences of Bashar's overthrow. You're living in some idealist utopian dream lalaland thinking that 'democracy' will take over Syria, and the people will laugh and dance with freedom and welcome you with open arms in joyful hysteria.

No son, that's not what will happen, and Iraq/Egypt/Libya are proof of this. Bahrain on the other-hand won't have this problem. See the difference?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Minorities and majorities have nothing to do with it. This, again, is sectarian thinking. I wouldn't have a problem with Bahrain being ruled by 'Sunnis' if they were just and not supporting Terrorism. And you're right, i was against the overthrow of bani Umayya by the 'Abasiyya Ghaddafi/Saddam by US/NATO, even though the former two murdered two scholars i revere highly (i was more in favour of Sayyid Al-Hakim's continuation of building up the Badr Brigades). And this is the same in Syria. Again you're dribbling off without knowing the consequences of Bashar's overthrow. You're living in some idealist utopian dream lalaland thinking that 'democracy' will take over Syria, and the people will laugh and dance with freedom and welcome you with open arms in joyful hysteria.

No son, that's not what will happen, and Iraq/Egypt/Libya are proof of this. Bahrain on the other-hand won't have this problem. See the difference?

I never said Democracy in Syria will ensure some utopian dream lalaland as you called it, but you would be somewhat silly in thinking the status quo can continue as it does in Syria with the situation we are in- when clearly the system in place has been comitting atrocious acts against it's own people.

Also it is pure folly to plan for certainty after political upheaval.. so why are you so certain that Bahrain wont have the problems faced by the others if the ruling family are overthrown? The neighbouring countries will be affected by the change and shift in power balances, as will the region as a whole... the region is still being affected by the shift in the power balance after the fall of Saddam in Iraq. There is no ensuring that there will be no further worsening of violence should a Shia government be formed in Bahrain, especially with Saudi Arabia losing a key ally.

You also totally overlooked the points raised about your selectivity in bemoaning oppression. Calling out oppression in Bahrain but not in Syria, even though any objective person can see the military is opressive against protestors, and I'm not even talking about the FSA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like how idiots like propaganda constantly compare Bahrain with Syria when the two have nothing in common.

I like how narrow-minded and uneducated members resort to personal insults as a substitute for actual wit and content when making a point.

Not that I'm surprised at your own simplicity, and simplification of the two scenarios, as they have absolutely "nothing in common", apparently, despite both being unelected, minority dictators ruling a majority population. Oh well.

Edited by Propaganda_of_the_Deed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like how narrow-minded and uneducated members resort to personal insults as a substitute for actual wit and content when making a point.

Not that I'm surprised at your own simplicity, and simplification of the two scenarios, as they have absolutely "nothing in common", apparently, despite both being unelected, minority dictators ruling a majority population. Oh well.

It's simple - when the government is totalitarian/dictatorship, then thats a good signal that the official government narrative should be rejected by any sane person. It's not rocket science :no: .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's simple - when the government is totalitarian/dictatorship, then thats a good signal that the official government narrative should be rejected by any sane person. It's not rocket science :no: .

and yet the narrative of your terrorist salafi dictator masters are like ayas from quran for you to the point that you are embarassed of where you are from and who you are. talk about irony.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

and yet the narrative of your terrorist salafi dictator masters are like ayas from quran for you to the point that you are embarassed of where you are from and who you are. talk about irony.

Stop the personal attacks, kid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay seriously. What's the big deal with Bashar being a Baathist?

So what? Nasser was also a Baathist.

But didn't he stand up for both Arabs and Muslims at a time where Israel was hostile in the region?

I don't get why people think "Baathist= Atheist= Muslims must hate".

Yeah they have ideological differences.

But if some of them are good, there's nothing wrong with making alliances with them.

North Korea is a state without religion, and they have good relations with our Muslim brothers in the fight against Western Imperialist Powers.

So why do you guys hate Saddam so much ? Come to admit it, you hate anyone who was againt the Islamic Republic of Iran in any way, shaoe or form, whether it be Baathists, Salafists, aliens, atheists, anyone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not really, it seams like they only hate the haters. If Sadam wasn't a hater, they wouldn't have hated him.

Its all about perceptions, buddy. Historically it has been proven, that in the last 60 years, any public figure with any amount of "power" in the M.E who put his face against what is deeded "desirable" by the Shia usooli establishment, has been villified, slandered, compared to the devil, accused of freemasonry and what not. Infact it starts with Lawrence of Arabia, lol. 1 year ago Khamenei was supporting the Egyptian Uprising, but nowadays his followers have an entirely different view when the election resulsts were not to their liking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...