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

What Is The Difference Between Saddam & Bashar?

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Basic Members

I'm not sure I'm posting in the right forum, but here goes anyway. I was browsing this site and noticed that there are many pro Assad people here. I can't lie, this is really heartbreaking for me, as a Syrian. I do not understand this blind support. So to make me understand, I ask of you pro Assad people to tell me, exactly, what is the difference between Bashar hafez al assad and his counterpart Saddam Hussein? They are both dictators, and both baathists, but i have a certain feeling that if you went to iraq today, no one (or at least a minority) of people would tell you that they loved Saddam.

Thanks and I don't mean to offend anyone.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Iran foreing policy is based on sectrian Shia crescent (labenone,syria,yemen,bahrain and iraq) they have spent a lot of money converting sunnis and empowering Shias.

the Palestine issue is just to create a friendly, good image of themselves and to cover-up their real agenda.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Iran foreing policy is based on sectrian Shia crescent (labenone,syria,yemen,bahrain and iraq) they have spent a lot of money converting sunnis and empowering Shias.

the Palestine issue is just to create a friendly, good image of themselves and to cover-up their real agenda.

We don't spend a dime, people convert because they seek truth. Go look at sunni dawah programs sponsored by Saudi Wahabis and their millions.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Basic Members

Saddam Hussein was an ally to the Americans, and didn't help any resistance in the Middle East.

Bashar al Assad helps resistance in the Middle East, and stands against America and israel.

But hafez al assad was also an ally to the Americans. and Saddam did help the PLO also, no? so he did support the palestinian cause. but I think they both did for their political gain and not for the cause itself...

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Basic Members

Saddam was a hoodlum lunatic

Assad is an educated doctor

Saddam attacked his neighbors

Assad hasnt

Saddam put Iraq under immense debt

Assad has not

Saddam was sectarian

Assad is not

Saddam was a puppet

Assad is not

Saddam's stupidity impoverished Iraqis

Assad's foresight has helped Syrians

Saddam was an idiot

Assad is smart

How is Assad not a puppet? I am sorry but you are making that up. Most governments that came to power in the 70's were either backed by the USA or the Soviets. Considering Assad and Saddam weren't communists, they had to be backed by some other power (hint: USA) in order to stay sitting on their throne. so if saddam is a puppet, then so is assad. as for your other differences... I have to admit that they are very subjective! Nowhere in your post do you show any sign of objectivity, with all due respect....

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

The main difference is that Syria under Assad was a secure and peaceful country and embodied ecumenical harmony with its cooperation and tolerance between the various sects of Muslims and other non-Muslim religions in the area without weakening its national unity in the face of Israeli/USA aggression. True, Syria gets support from Russia, China and Iran, and the regime has a history of questionable authoritarian policies. There's no doubt there, but there's a strong difference between Ba'athist Syria and Ba'athist Iraq. The difference is that Ba'athist Syria doesn't invade other countries without justifiable precedent for Russia, Iran or China, the difference is that Ba'athist Syria stood by the Palestinians and gave them support against a common enemy out of religious and national pride and just plain common sense, the difference is that Sunni, Shia, Catholic, and Orthodox Christian lived together, worked together and valued each other's company and strived together for national unity and strength in the face of Western aggression and in spite of some of the harsh regulations imposed by the Ba'athist regime and this was encouraged by the Ba'athist regime there for practical and ideological reasons. And unlike the USA, who actually puppeteer their allies to their exact bidding and consistently wage proxy wars, China and Russia at least have enough respect to let their allies fix their own problems among themselves and try to settle their sides of the disputes through the proper channels.

I'm not an Assad supporter and giving Assad the credit himself for what Syria was before this mess would be giving the man too much credit. But he's certainly not the worst leader around and he's way better than his father (who did all the dirty work so Bashar wouldn't have to). If Assad has to go, then he has to go, but when it comes to a choice between the FSA and Assad, I'm willing to choose the lesser evil in this case.

Edited by Saintly_Jinn23
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

How is Assad not a puppet? I am sorry but you are making that up. Most governments that came to power in the 70's were either backed by the USA or the Soviets. Considering Assad and Saddam weren't communists, they had to be backed by some other power (hint: USA) in order to stay sitting on their throne. so if saddam is a puppet, then so is assad. as for your other differences... I have to admit that they are very subjective! Nowhere in your post do you show any sign of objectivity, with all due respect....

Assad being a doctor and Saddam uneducated is not subject but a fact.

Saddam having drowned Iraq under debt of Western countries for buying weapons. Assad did not. this is not subjective but a fact.

Saddam attacked its neighbors (Iran and Kuwait). Assad did not. This also is not subjective but a fact hitting you on your head.

Saddam was sectarian He did not trust shias and thus did not allow them in senior positions in army/govt. Most senior members of Assad regime are Sunnis. Also not subjective but a fact.

Syrians in a country with no Oil did/doing economically far better than Iraqis with Oil under Saddam. Also not subjective but a fact.

Saddam being an idiot was my subjective take based on aforementioned facts. Assad otherwise likewise.

The main role of puppets are to funnel the resources of their country to the puppet master's country. Iraqi wealth was thus funnelled to Western countries through armaments companies. This is not the case with Syria and Russia whose partnership resembles that of US and Canada. Do you think Canada is a US puppet?

But hafez al assad was also an ally to the Americans. and Saddam did help the PLO also, no? so he did support the palestinian cause. but I think they both did for their political gain and not for the cause itself...

you have to look up the meaning of 'ally' in dictionary and then hit wikipedia.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

By the way, @Syrian..

Bro i hope you realise that not all shias support/accept bashar..

I am an Iraqi and can safely say that I know EXACTLY what saddam is and what he used to do.. I can also tell you as ive lived in Sayyeda Zainab for around 2 years bashar is a dictator, criminal and an oppressor like saddam but of a different magnitude..

I do not support Bashar or even like to give him credit for anything except for supporting resistance movements!

I wish you a real leader (like our leadership in iran inshallah - one that doesnt fear an oppressor no matter how big or mighty because it knows the all-mighty is with them and not for political gains) I wish freedom for all syrians but at the same time, i do not hope that by replacing one small tyrant/criminal by a MUCH larger one (salafi/wahabi/qatari/saudi funded or backed [theologically or politically])

If you ask me, i dont think syria will ever get any better because right from the very first step syrians have invited satan (terrorists) into syria.. If you really want a revolution, seek a peaceful and national revolution.. not a terrorist rebellion...

Look at Bahrain for example and ask yourself, why didnt Iran help bahrain? is it because they are scared or they cant? arent they also a shia majority? Why does qatar and saudi (including israel, america and the west) supporting the terrorism in syria but nor bahrain?

the situation is quite clear.. It isnt JUST a faithful revolution on a tyrant.. it is terrorism in the name of jihad against oppression...

wallahi those who die (muslims who are fighting bashar) will not all go to paradise.. not everyone that gets killed by a tyrant or oppressor is a martyr!!

check your sahih narrations and authentic books my brother!!

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

One is shia and the other is sunni.....

One killed more people then the other....

One was with the enemy,the other wasnt....

One has a big nose and the other doesnt.....

One has killed kurds,iraqies,irains,kwaities......

One is a rat the other isint......

Both have killed to be in power ,but one is better then the other.....

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

Alshemary reminds me of the shias in Afghanistan who were happy to topple the secular leader under the very same excuses mainly being non-religious. Guess what happened after Dr. Najib was toppled? The Wahabi terrorists declared war on the Shia and a terrible bloodshed ensued. I am positive that the fate of the shia community in Syria is going to be the same, if not worse, and it will all start with destruction of their holiest places of worship under the guise of bida.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

(salam)

Many "pro-Assads" are anti-West. So that is why they support Bashir.

Bashir comes from a 'power-family' but he is his own person. Unlike Western puppets and playthings, Bashir is a descent person. That is the real basis for Western hatred. Yes, hatred of him. That a small country like Syria is allied with Iran is a factor and the excuse to send hezshatani to destroy it. And, in US policy mythology [polthology] Syria is a 'threat' to client state Israel. But Syria never attack Israel first in 1967 or 1973.

We won't know the outcome of this fighting for another two years.

Assad needs to find someone to alter the TO&E, training and tactical drills of the Syrian Army and police so he can more rapidly defeat them.

It is also said that some allegded 'car bombs' are really TV/GPS stealth-coated bomb drops. Searches of vehicle registration information will confirm the plausibilty of this. This kind of car-bombing serves to present a false image of larger opposition and SNC/SFA capabilities. Notice the location of these allegedly ground based car bombs? They are more like assassination bombs. If a car was hit like Jabari's a couple of days ago, then Western weapons would obviously be involved. Hit the car next to it and Western bombs and missiles are deniable.

Edited by hasanhh
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Alshemary reminds me of the shias in Afghanistan who were happy to topple the secular leader under the very same excuses mainly being non-religious. Guess what happened after Dr. Najib was toppled? The Wahabi terrorists declared war on the Shia and a terrible bloodshed ensued. I am positive that the fate of the shia community in Syria is going to be the same, if not worse, and it will all start with destruction of their holiest places of worship under the guise of bida.

You are making a weak argument comparing Afghanistan with Syria. First of all, afghan civil war was not based on sectarian lines but it was power struggle between different factions and groups. Second, if we look at afghan politics today, shias, about 10~15% of populations, are the strongest political and economical force in Afghanistan. The second vice-president of Afghanistan is a Shia. All the major industries are controlled by shias. Compared to its neighbors, Afghanistan never had sectarian issues; however, it does have racial issues eg. Pashtoon, Tajik, Hazara, Uzbek, etc conflicts.

Now lets compare that with Iran. About 10~12% of Iran are sunnies. how much power do they have? Almost none. how many sunni representatives are in Iranian Majlis?????? How many sunni political parties are in Iran???

Finally, lets look at the Syria, shias are about 20~25% of populations, they are the ruling class. Although sunnies are active in syrian politics however, they are not the main force behind Syrian politics.

You may argue the current government is secular. However, from history we know that Baa'th party system is an oppressive system. Therefore, it justifies to rise up against Asad.

I am not supporting any sides; however, I am shading some light.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

You are making a weak argument comparing Afghanistan with Syria. First of all, afghan civil war was not based on sectarian lines but it was power struggle between different factions and groups. Second, if we look at afghan politics today, shias, about 10~15% of populations, are the strongest political and economical force in Afghanistan. The second vice-president of Afghanistan is a Shia. All the major industries are controlled by shias. Compared to its neighbors, Afghanistan never had sectarian issues; however, it does have racial issues eg. Pashtoon, Tajik, Hazara, Uzbek, etc conflicts.

The first battles that took place in Afghanistan after the fall of the secular govt was when Wahabis from Itihad-e Islami led by Sayyaf declared war on Shias in West Kabul. Then they joined with Masood led Jamiat-e Islami and surrounded and blockaded Shias from 3 sides- North, West, and East. You dont have to go far to see the utter animosity of Wahabis towards Shias who they dont see as Muslims. The Afshar massacare, the bloodiest massacare in recent history of Afghanistan that took place against Shias, was also Wahabi led and Wahabi operated. Same was the case in Mazar when 18 Iranian diplomats were beheaded along a big massacare of shias. These massacres were not factional but sectarian because the Shias were their only victim and no one else.

Now lets compare that with Iran. About 10~12% of Iran are sunnies. how much power do they have? Almost none. how many sunni representatives are in Iranian Majlis?????? How many sunni political parties are in Iran???

After Nadir Shah Afshar's dead one of his generals by the name of Ahmad Shah Abdali who happend to be Pashtun took the opportunity to form Afghanistan by breaking it away from Iran. Pashtuns were tribal people and illitrate. Hence, to run the country Ahmad Shah invited/imported shias from Iran to run his bureaucracy. This was not out of love for Shias but out of necessity. Thus Shias in Afghanistan to this day are the literate sect of the country and thus somewhat nicely placed because of this very fact. Now the Sunnis in Iran for the most people are tribal people (be it the North-Western Kurds or South-Eastern Balouchs) and often illiterate compared to the mainstream Iranians. Thus, the reason for their absence from the ancient Iranian bureaucracy. This too is not out of hate for sunnis but out of necessity for literate people for various jobs in the country. To define this simple fact based on sectarian lines is to have skewed the issue.

Finally, lets look at the Syria, shias are about 20~25% of populations, they are the ruling class. Although sunnies are active in syrian politics however, they are not the main force behind Syrian politics.

You may argue the current government is secular. However, from history we know that Baa'th party system is an oppressive system. Therefore, it justifies to rise up against Asad.

I am not supporting any sides; however, I am shading some light.

Looking at Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq leads me to believe that Wahhabis are sworn enemies of the Shias. Sure they dont have the wits to run a country be it Pakistan or be it Syria or Iraq but they do operate in power vacuum by terrorizing the Shias. From bombing Ashura processions to blowing up shrines etc they have made a mark of their MO. After the fall of Assad, if he falls God forbid, there is going to be a period of chaos in which the massacare of shias is going to take place and their shrines blown to pieces.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

Finally, lets look at the Syria, shias are about 20~25% of populations, they are the ruling class. Although sunnies are active in syrian politics however, they are not the main force behind Syrian politics.

You may argue the current government is secular. However, from history we know that Baa'th party system is an oppressive system. Therefore, it justifies to rise up against Asad.

I am not supporting any sides; however, I am shading some light.

Can you name at least top 10 Syrian government officials and tell us their sectarian affiliations? Ruling class who holds different positions in the Syrian government, except (Assad, half Sunni) and Muhalim, that is another one, and a few who were killed recently?

Where all these high ranking Sunni officials, from PM to top army generals, minsters, to ambassadors, to governors and etc who every day defect to the opposition or are killed by rebels come from? And their names and lists are also published on your favorite channel Alarabiya and Aljazeera with their official titles?

And why don't you compare Bahrain, 70% Shia, Saudi 15% Shia, Yemen 43% Shia, Kuwait 25% Shia, Iraq 65% Shia, where for centuries and decades have been oppressed, marginalized and sidelined for sectarian reasons? In countries like Bahrain (Shia majority) and Saudi the Shias by law cannot put on the police, army and MANY more uniform, simply because they are Shia... forget about other posts in the government or even having permissions of building their mosques.

On Iranian Majlis, also you have limited information..no Shia can go to Majlis from a Sunni region, it is the Sunni candidates and the Sunni voters... if you have said president or vice president, I would have agreed with you, but you picked the wrong sectors because of lack of info..

And when it comes to Afghanistan.. Shias always been oppressed... it is not new, it goes back to decades. By law Shias could not gain certain position in the army, and many other things... the only reason they survived was because Shias of Afghanistan did not choose to confront too much on certain religious issues. For example, someone mentioned Afshar...west Kabul... For decades, in Afghanistan's capital Kabul, in the heartland of Shia population, Afshar, Chendawol and the entire west Kabul, Shias were holding Ashura and other religious gatherings in the basements (underground) in hiding for decades because of the society and the governments of the time... forget about other activities and freedom that they were already denied.

As recently as 1996, Shia mosques were restricted all across Afghanistan, the loudspeakers were brought down, no Shia could do any religious activity in public... to the limit that one official from the government declared that: Shias in Afghanistan have 3 options. 1. Become Muslim (Sunni). 2. Leave Afghanistan for Iran. 3. Die

I am just giving you a short summary on different countries.. it is either you lack information on Shias conditions in different countries or simply trying to ignore the facts.

Edited by Noah-
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Alawis and 12ers shia will support each other to advance common goals.

Saddam Hosein was Ahlul-Sunnah

Bashar al Assad belongs to Ahlul-Taqqiyah

Most kurds are ahlul-sunnah and that didn't stop Saddam from killing them.

Iran and Syria do not agree 100% on everything. iran supported shia mujahideen against the soviet union in afghanistan, while Syria was always a soviet ally and supported the kabul communist government.

Iran also called the soviet union "little satan", while syria always were allies to the soviets.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

@Wahdat

Again you are mistaken; the Afghan civil war was a power struggle not a sectarian war. There is no doubt that atrocities have been committed by all sides; however, these atrocities were not based on sectarian lines but could be attributed to political affiliations. You have mentioned that Masood and Sayaf joined forces to massacared Shias but didn't provide any evidence to support your theory. Sayaf, Masood and Syed Hussin Anwari (Leader of Harakat-e-Islami, another Shia political party) joined forces to fight against Hiz-e-Islami (Hekmatyar) and his allies Junbish-i-Milli (Rasheed Dostum), Hiz-e-Wahdat (Mazari) and many other smaller factions. And that alliance was not based on sectarian lines. Moreover, to refute your point, Hiz-e-Wahdat joined forces with Masood after their failed attempt to join forces with Taliban (In March 1995, the Taliban invited Mazari for a political dialogue on an alliance against Msood but then arrested him along with his five companions and executed him).

As for Iranian 18 Iranian diplomats, first of all majority of them were part of revolutionary guard aka spies. Second, they were providing assistance and arms to Junbish-e-Milli. Third, Taliban was supported by ISI and Sons of Saud (UAE, Qatar, Bahrain, etc.) and Pakistan and Iran were in tug-of-war over influence in Afghanistan; therefore, ISI ordered their execution. Even if it was ordered by the Taliban, still it does not prove that the Afghan Civil was based on sectarian lines.

Hopefully, I have provided enough information that will convince you that Afghan conflict was not based on sectarian lines. .

Again you are making claims about the Afghan History without any evidence Without evidence it is a fairy tale. You stated "...Shias in Afghanistan to this day are the literate sect of the country and thus somewhat nicely placed because of this very fact...." Majority of Shias in Afghanistan are Hazaras (90~95) and historically speaking Hazaras never played any role in afghan politics and/ or civil society until modern era. Please provide evidence for your claim.

As for Iranian Sunnies, please tell that fairy tale to academia they will laugh at you. Without evidences, your claims are nothing else but air coming out of your mouth.

@ Noah-

The reason I compared Afghanistan and Iran is because both of these countries have similar numbers of sunni/shia minorities. As for Bahrain, KSA, etc they are kingdoms and or republics and they dont claim to be an Islamic Republic.

Since, you brought point of different counties let’s look at them individually.

1. Bahrain majority Shia; however, it is a kingdom and King of Bahrain is trying to hold on to his kingdom. Similar to Shah of Iran.

2. Kuwait: another Kingdom

3. Saudi: another Kingdom

3. Yemen Ali Adbullah Saleh was a Zahidi Shia in majority sunni country. Even after departure of Saleh, Zahidies have a lot of political power.

4. Iraq after departure of Saddam Hussein, Iraq is run by Shias.

5. Pakistan another Islamic Republic: President is Shia (Zardari) in majority sunni country. Benazir, Zulfiqar ali Bhutto, and Mohammad ali Jinah were all shias.

Now let’s look at history:

Abbassid dynasty: Shias were never oppressed

Ottomans: Again Shias were not oppressed

Ghaznavids: Shias were not oppressed. in fact Sultan Mhamud Ghaznavi's son-in-law was an ismaili shia

Mughal: Shias were not oppressed.

Now lets look at safavid dynasty (Shia)

1. Iran and Azerbaijan were majority Sunni before 1500 (Accepted both by Muslims (Sunni/Shia) and western academia )

2. How many sunnies were in their ranks???

3. Sunnies were not allowed to practice their madhab openly.

4. Sunni Leaders /Imams/ Islamic scholars were killed or expelled.

5. Sunnies were massacred (Accepted both by Muslims (Sunni/Shia) and western academia)

6. Extermination of Ismaili Shias. (Accepted both by Muslms (Sunni/Shia) and western academia)

Now Let’s look at Islamic Republic of Iran

1. After Revolution Sunni were oppressed.

2. Their leaders were jailed and or executed. (Shams Party)

3. There is only one Sunni Islamic school in country which was built during the shah.

4. Sunnies are not allowed to build Learning centers.

Edited by msabiri
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

^This is not a discussion my dear, this is nonsense... and escaping from the reality... I can reply and refute you point by point, but it seems that you want to ignore, and I don't like people who simply ignore, and not even knowing the difference between right and wrong!!

{KSA is kingdom,

Bahrain is kingdom,

Kuwait is another kingdom,

Egypt is Muslim brotherhood and Salafis, this and that} case is closed. No one to blame.

What the hell that supposed to mean? That easy? Everything is justified against Shias by the hands of Sunnis?

Islamic republic or not, what is that mean? Saudi is not based on Sharia?

Also, you jump so quick and gave a free pass to Ottomans and others who clearly oppressed Shias, forced and converted to Sunni Islam, not only Shias but millions of Christians and Jews were massacred.. Armenians are a clear example of modern times. The reason Ottomans could not wage massacres of Shias, because Nadir Shah Afshar beat them on the mouth and did not even allow them to pass South Iraq..made them to sign agreements and stopped their expansion eastward.

I wish you wouldn't closed your eyes and knew a little bit about history, then I could discuss with you the massacre and barbarism that you Sunnis and your tyrant leaders and history brought upon North Africa. The countries in North Africa, be it Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, Algeria and many more were all Shias, and then forced to Sunnism... Remember now? Or you would like a 101 African history session?

After revolution Sunni were oppressed, Shah built school... what are you talking about? Do you know how to put an evidence or give a few solid examples when you make a discussion.. I am not here for the childish arguments.

Edited by Noah-
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

@Wahdat

Again you are mistaken; the Afghan civil war was a power struggle not a sectarian war.

The two and ONLY two massacres (Afshar and Mazar) of the so called Afghan civil war was carried out by Salafi factions and against Shia civilians. I call that sectarian and its irrelivant whether you call it French Fries or Double Big Mac or factional.

For if it was factional then similar cases would have happened against non-Shias. Which did not.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

@ Wahdat

your arguments lack evidences.

Mass bombardment of Kabul killed thousands (10K~15K). Conducted by Hiz-e-Islami (hekmatyar) and Hiz-e-Wahdat (mazari) and as i mentioned before Hiz-e-Wahdat is a Shia political party.

I made my point clear that the Afghan Civil war was not based on sectarian lines; however, it was power struggle among different groups.

Edited by msabiri
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

@ Wahdat

your arguments lack evidences.

Mass bombardment of Kabul killed thousands (10K~15K). Conducted by Hiz-e-Islami (hekmatyar) and Hiz-e-Wahdat (mazari) and as i mentioned before Hiz-e-Wahdat is a Shia political party.

What mass bombardment are you talking about? You want evidence? Two Shia neighborhoods (Chindawool and Afshar) were completely razed. Now name me one other neighborhood in Kabul that came even close. Can you? Lets see if you could put forth 'evidence'

Not to mention that only mass bombardments that took place in Kabul were against Shia neighborhoods in West Kabul and by Masood jets and salafi salvos.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

"Massoud’s objective during the tenure of the Islamic State of Afghanistan (ISA) was to defeat the forces fighting against

him (these began with Hikmatyar’s Hizb-i Islami, then later included the Shia party Hizb-i

Wahdat and Gen. Dostum’s Junbish-i Milli forces), and expand and consolidate the ISA’s control

of territory within and around Kabul. In the first year, his principal foe was Hizb-i Islami, whose

rocket attacks killed thousands of civilians between 1992 and 1995, according to humanitarian

agencies working in the city. However, Hikmatyar was not the only leader ordering such attacks:

every major armed faction in Kabul had an arsenal of heavy weaponry that they used in battles

that raged in the streets of Kabul during this period...".

"..... Hizb-i Wahdat also used heavy artillery in its battles with Ittihad and Massoud. All of

these attacks, the vast majority of which were indiscriminate and resulted in tens of thousands of

civilian casualties, represented grave breaches of the laws of war because they were undertaken

“to spread terror among the civilian population,” or because they caused “loss of civilian life,

injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects … excessive in relation to the concrete and direct

military advantage anticipated.”'

Please refer to : http://afghanistanjusticeproject.org

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sieges_of_Kabul

Edited by msabiri
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

You haven't provided any supporting evidence to your claims. I believe I made my case very clear that the Afghan Civil war was not what you have portray.

The following parts of Kabul were completely destroyed by bombardment of Hiz-e-Islami and Hiz-e-Wahdat.

Karte Se, Karte Parwan, Kote-Sangi, Shar-e-Now, Khair Khana, etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

"Massoud’s objective during the tenure of the Islamic State of Afghanistan (ISA) was to defeat the forces fighting against

him (these began with Hikmatyar’s Hizb-i Islami, then later included the Shia party Hizb-i

Wahdat and Gen. Dostum’s Junbish-i Milli forces),

You complicate things too much here... Yea, it was factional and groups fight in Afghan civil war... BUT, it is very clear that people were killed on the bases of (ethnic, race and language). At the top of all those, Shias civilians were taken out from their homes in Shia towns and villages and were massacred by Saudi funded Salafi groups... This did not happen to other people. And even a few incidents led to mass-massacre of Shia civilians, especially in west Kabul. Those massacres did not have anything to do with group or political alliances of the parties. It was simply based on 'hate' and Takfiri mentality.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

@Noah-

There is no doubt that innocent people died during the Afghan Civil War. Your statement is false when you stated:

"At the top of all those, Shias civilians were taken out from their homes in Shia towns and villages and were massacred....."

Harkat-e-Islami, lead by Syed Hussin Anwari, was allies of "Saudi funded Salafi groups" (though Masood was never supported by Saudis).

if your statement is the following i don't have any objection. however, when you paint the Afghan Civil war as sectarian conflict, I would object to that point.

At the Top of all those, Hiz-e-Islami supporters were taken out from their homes in Hiz-e-Islami's supporting towns and villages and were massacred.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

@Noah-

There is no doubt that innocent people died during the Afghan Civil War. Your statement is false when you stated:

"At the top of all those, Shias civilians were taken out from their homes in Shia towns and villages and were massacred....."

Harkat-e-Islami, lead by Syed Hussin Anwari, was allies of "Saudi funded Salafi groups" (though Masood was never supported by Saudis).

if your statement is the following i don't have any objection. however, when you paint the Afghan Civil war as sectarian conflict, I would object to that point.

At the Top of all those, Hiz-e-Islami supporters were taken out from their homes in Hiz-e-Islami's supporting towns and villages and were massacred.

You see this is because of lack of info.

Anwari sided with central government at the time, and Wahdat sided with Gulo and Doustom, demanding more power before joining the so called Mujahideen government. Same with Sayyaf, he joined the temp. government instead of the opposition factions.

And by the way, Iran was also OK with the government, asked other groups to join Rabbani.

The massacre of Afshar, Chendawol and the rest of west Kabul had nothing to do with Anwari's alliances and he was a nobody, he never had anything to do with Arab and Afghan fighters loyal to Salafis and Sayyaf group. Those who were on the front lines fighting were mainly Sayyaf, and a few lunatic anti Shia Masood commanders.

For your information, most of west Kabul, Chendawol and other areas who faced massacre, were controlled by Wahdat forces, but the residents were mainly Qezelbash, Sayyeds and the Hazaras who were mostly pro Harakate Islami, the same group Anwari belonged to, not Wahdat.

It wasn't about Wahdat armed killing Sayyaf or Sayyaf killing Wahdat men, that was happening all the time. It was an ethnic (Shia) cleansing once the Wahdat forces lost control, where it made all those Shia factions loyal to the government or oppose to the gov. to scream. Where around 15000 people were forced out from their homes in Afshar and surrounding areas, every single home was looted, destroyed and their goods and properties were taken to Paghman, a Salafi base belonging to Sayyaf.. close to 5000 people (only a few hundreds of them Wahdat forces) were killed in a very small side of the city.

The massacre of the people were never on the agenda of the government alliances or the oppositon group, that came out of nowhere because of the reserved hatreds and oppression for Shias.

Edited by Noah-
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

I am not portraying anything. I was making a point about salafi animosity towards the shias and gave you the example of the ONLY 2 massacares of the Afghan Civil War that were committed by Salafis and against the Shias. What case you have made clear is beyond me. Furthermore, I lived those times and in those areas while you are reading a 20 year old report from wikipedia. If you still think the war was factional then why do you think that no massacres took place against Sunnis or other factions? See if you could wiki an answer for me.

Karte Se and Kote Sange were/are shia neighborhoods. Kart-e Parwan, where our house was, was safe from the fighting because it was sandwitched between two mountains. Khair Khana was the only neighborhood that saw bombardment from the other side. But they were not damaged even remotely as the shia neighborhoods.

Why the Shia neighborhoods suffered the most you might ask? The answer is that the majority of fighting took place there as those neighborhoods were attacked by salafi terrorists.

@Wahdat

Are you ignoring all the massacres that were committed by Hizb-e-Islami and its allies?

"the ONLY 2 massacares of the Afghan Civil War that were committed by Salafis and against the Shias." It is absolutely baseless. In both Operations Haraket-e-Islami, which is a shia group, were involved and Massod, which was a Hanafi, and Sayaf, hanbali, (Shia, Hanafi, and Hanbali united as one front) were the other factions.

Edited by msabiri
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.

×
×
  • Create New...