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

Are Shia who support Assad party to his crimes?

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Advanced Member
6 hours ago, notme said:

I'm not disagreeing.  As I said before, I'm undecided on whether a lesser evil is the only viable option in this case.  But shrines can be rebuilt.  Lives can not.  Rather than supporting a tyrant, we need leaders who support ending the violence and aiding the displaced, injured, widowed, and orphaned people. I don't know how that is best done, maybe by guarding the shrines, but only if the people are protected too.

To add to this excellent point,

The people those shrines are built for  don't want to hear that  their shrines are prioritized over lives. 

Those people lived for the peace and protection of others... to prevent deaths and destruction. 

They sacrificed themselves for others. 

Edited by wmehar2
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 165
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

The problem here is your understanding of geopolitics and consequences of different actions.  You just made a whole bunch of claims you have very little knowledge about and presented them as facts

Salam, Ya Ali (as) Madad, Lanat upon the enemies of the Ahlulbayt (as) If I support a zaalim in his zulm, then I am responsible in part and answerable for my role on qiyamat.  Bashar al assa

How easily people are decieved. Barrel bombs....ask youself this...if an army that is fully equipped..would bother making barrelbombs. Then ask this...would you be happy if it was regular bombs?

Posted Images

  • Moderators
21 hours ago, wmehar2 said:

If he killed part of those 1% protesting, yes he should leave power.  Actually, should really be punished.  Whatever happened to the killing of one soul equating to killing all of mankind?  Aren't those God's words in the Qu'ran?  Or do we make exceptions for someone like Bashar?

I don't think the "army doing what it needed to do" meant killing them.  I don't think those protesters wanted to die.

But this is what I mean, no one knows the truth.   You think those protesters were being violent?  Why would they be violent?  Do you know when protesters in history ever resort to violence?  Usually when the Governments been violent to them, do they lash out in violence. 

Why are things so hazy?  Not black and white?   Why is there so much push and evidence thrown/destroyed and censorship of journalists?

A good leader would have stepped down if he cared about a single person's life and let the people choose their leader.  Did  you even know what those people were protesting against? 

People don't become evil overnight and want to get rid of the one who rules over them.  Something has to trigger that bothers them, threatens them, or afflicts them to put their lives on the line.  This is the middle east, not America.  These men, fathers, boys, can't afford to die over something trivial to protest about.

1 Innocent person dying from the result of any clash, fight, is worth taking down a government for.  That's how you excise a cancer.

You don't say, eh just 1 person or a few dead, maybe it was was an accident or if we keep quiet, perhaps they won't keep doing it.  <---- That's the wrong answer.

-------------------------------

Before the uprising in Syria began in mid-March 2011, protests were relatively modest, considering the wave of unrest that was spreading across the Arab world. Syria until March 2011 for decades had remained superficially tranquil, largely due to fear among the people of the secret police arresting critical citizens.[18]

Minor protests calling for government reforms began in January, and continued into March. Unrelenting protests were occurring in Cairo against Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, and in Syria on 3 February via the websites Facebook and Twitter, a "Day of Rage" was called for by activists against the government of Bashar al-Assad to be held on Friday, 4 February.[19] This did not result in protests. Yet it is said that on the night of Mubarak’s February 11 downfall,[20] the graffiti was seen under a Damascus bridge, “Now it’s your turn, doctor”– in reference to President al-Assad, an eye doctor by training.[21]

Major unrest began on 15 March in Damascus and Aleppo, yet in the southern city of Daraa, sometimes called the "Cradle of the Revolution",[22] protests had been triggered on 6 March by the incarceration and torture of 15 young students from prominent families who were arrested for writing anti-government graffiti in the city,[23][24][25] reading: "الشعب يريد إسقاط النظام" – ("The people want the fall of the regime") – a trademark slogan of the Arab Spring.[26]

Demonstrators clashed with local police, and confrontations escalated on 18 March after Friday prayers. Security forces attacked protesters gathered at the Omari Mosque using water cannons and tear gas, followed by live fire, killing four.[27][28]

On 20 March, a mob burned down the Ba'ath Party headquarters and other public buildings. Security forces quickly responded, firing live ammunition at crowds, and attacking the focal points of the demonstrations. The two-day assault resulted in the deaths of fifteen protesters.[29]

Meanwhile, minor protests occurred elsewhere in the country. Protesters demanded the release of political prisoners, the abolition of Syria's 48-year emergency law, more freedoms, and an end to pervasive government corruption.[30] The events led to a "Friday of Dignity" on 18 March, when large-scale protests broke out in several cities, including Banias, Damascus, al-Hasakah, Daraa, Deir az-Zor, and Hama. Police responded to the protests with tear gas, water cannons, and beatings. At least 6 people were killed and many others injured.[31]

On 25 March, mass protests spread nationwide, as demonstrators emerged after Friday prayers.[29] Over 100,000 people reportedly marched in Daraa,[32] and at least 20 protesters were reportedly killed by security forces. Protests subsequently spread to other Syrian cities, including Homs, Hama, Baniyas, Jasim, Aleppo, Damascus and Latakia. Over 70 protesters in total were reported killed.[33]

Even before the uprising began, the Syrian government had made numerous arrests of political dissidents and human rights campaigners, many of whom were labeled "terrorists" by the Assad government. In early February 2011, authorities arrested several activists, including political leaders Ghassan al-Najar,[34] Abbas Abbas,[35] and Adnan Mustafa.[36]

Police and security forces responded to the protests violently, not only using water cannons and tear gas, but also beating protesters and firing live ammunition.[37]

As the uprising began, the Syrian government waged a campaign of arrests that captured tens of thousands of people, according to lawyers and activists in Syria and human rights groups. In response to the uprising, Syrian law had been changed to allow the police and any of the nation's 18 security forces to detain a suspect for eight days without a warrant. Arrests focused on two groups: political activists, and men and boys from the towns that the Syrian Army would start to besiege in April.[38] Many of those detained experienced ill-treatment. Many detainees were cramped in tight rooms and were given limited resources, and some were beaten, electrically jolted, or debilitated. At least 27 torture centers run by Syrian intelligence agencies were revealed by Human Rights Watch on 3 July 2012.[39]

President Assad characterized the opposition as armed terrorist groups with Islamist "takfiri" extremist motives, portraying himself as the last guarantee for a secular form of government.[40] Early in the month of April, a large deployment of security forces prevented tent encampments in Latakia. Blockades were set up in several cities to prevent the movement of protests. Despite the crackdown, widespread protests continued throughout the month in Daraa, Baniyas, Al-Qamishli, Homs, Douma and Harasta.[41]

During the crackdown in Daraa, the Syrian Army also besieged and blockaded several towns around Damascus. Throughout May, situations similar to those that occurred in Daraa were reported in other besieged towns and cities, such as Baniyas, Homs, Talkalakh, Latakia, and several other towns.[55] After the end of each siege, violent suppression of sporadic protests continued throughout the following months.[56] By 24 May, the names of 1,062 people killed in the uprising since mid-March had been documented by the National Organization for Human Rights in Syria.[57]

Reporting on this conflict was difficult and dangerous from the start: journalists were being attacked, detained, reportedly tortured and killed. Technical facilities (internet, telephone etc.) were being sabotaged by the Syrian government.[citation needed] Both sides in this conflict tried to disqualify their opponent by framing or referring to them with negative labels and terms, or by presenting false evidence.

 

 

I guess if you want to look at it that way than I can understand where you are coming from. No one really knows the exact truth and we can't be judging stuff without seeing or hearing it. People will always have different opinions on different matters and you have to accept that. All I know is we both want all the violence and wars to end so everyone can live in peace.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
4 hours ago, wmehar2 said:

To add to this excellent point,

The people those shrines are built for  don't want to hear that  their shrines are prioritized over lives. 

Those people lived for the peace and protection of others... to prevent deaths and destruction. 

They sacrificed themselves for others. 

Too secular values for the sacrifice of Shia Imams.

I mean just that? As general as that? Saving others from apparent death? Or saving them from eternal misguidance?

Another fallacy is about the shrines. They are not just some sacred buildings. They are the symbols of the collective identity of the very people you're concerned about. What do you mean "not prioritizing them over lives"? to let the be blown up, and then what else? What will happen next? West made terrorists would say ok we are done, let's live happily O dear Shia!

Just saying Imams didn't like it, doesn't suffice. God didn't like seeing Imam Hussein (a) going through that tragedy, but that doesn't mean the Imam shouldn't have sacrificed everything he had for the sake of true Islam. For sure the Imams don't like seeing people going through this, but what else can be done? Wait untill the terrorists destroy the shrines and then humiliate & kill even more people?

Edited by mesbah
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
1 hour ago, mesbah said:

Too secular values for the sacrifice of Shia Imams.

I mean just that? As general as that? Saving others from apparent death? Or saving them from eternal misguidance?

Another fallacy is about the shrines. They are not just some sacred buildings. They are the symbols of the collective identity of the very people you're concerned about. What do you mean "not prioritizing them over lives"? to let the be blown up, and then what else? What will happen next? West made terrorists would say ok we are done, let's live happily O dear Shia!

Just saying Imams didn't like it, doesn't suffice. God didn't like seeing Imam Hussein (a) going through that tragedy, but that doesn't mean the Imam shouldn't have sacrificed everything he had for the sake of true Islam. For sure the Imams don't like seeing people going through this, but what else can be done? Wait untill the terrorists destroy the shrines and then humiliate & kill even more people?

The imams would prefer fighting injustice that's leveraged against civilians. 

Would any of the Imam's retaliate if only shrines were destroyed or blown up?  Why even mention shrines at all in this discussion if we're talking about the deaths of innocents?

God may or may not have liked seeing any innocent person die, but your Imam Hussein AS died fighting injustice and tyranny that was being forced onto the people.  The same kind of man Assad, and many other tyrannical leaderships that exist today.

Yemen is fighting civil war to fight tyrannical influence of Saudi Arabia, and to oust a dictator imposing his rule over the people.  Yet Iran supports them.   Did you hear of the Shia brothers there in yemen killing innocents during their revolt? 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_violations_during_the_Yemeni_Civil_War_(2015-present)

Look at how one sided the civilian casualties are when juxtaposed with the situation of Syria and Assad.  The Houthis are justified by a factor of 5000, when comparing them and Assad with regards to accusations of indiscriminate killings of innocents.

So instead, now you have Assad who is riddled with evidence from both directions, Shia, and Sunni indicative of his crimes towards civilians who are attempting the same revolt to get rid of his tyrannical unopposed rule.  All of a sudden Iran and Shia's has a problem with it?  Don't you see something wrong with that picture? 

You don't think the protesters and rebels within Syria who initially began expressing disapproval are justified like those in Yemen?

Those Imams sacrificed themselves to give you all Shia a message in what to do, as a measure of guidance.  You fight injustice even if it means throwing your precious life away.  Living under injustice isn't living. Period.  You don't compromise whose a lesser evil, go with this guy, or that guy because hes less problematic and seems more aligned with our cause.

The Houthis, and their reverence for their imam Zaid (AS) manifests itself in every sense in what they're doing now in fighting Saudi Arabia and their puppet regime in Yemen.

What needs to be done is Iran switching gears and reevaluating getting involved militarily in Syria.  Problem is I doubt they'd be willing to do so considering how many of their own resources, lives, and commitment they've already leveraged into the mess... Any attempts to step back will diminish their reputation and and undermine the leaderships judgement, unfortunately. 

What should be done in negotiation, is Iran/Iraq sit down and tell Saudi Arabia, we screwed  up with Assad, well help you get rid of him and well put in a leader whose capable of reconciling sectarian differences without disregarding the Alawite minority, and cater to the Sunni Majority.  And you leave Yemen alone and it'll be tit for tat.

That at least would demonstrate the Sunni's and Shia at least having the capacity to resolve their own issues in the Middle East without the Ugly face of the west shoving their face in and corrupting/spinning every stupid thing.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

Yes I know, the sadist blood thirsty killer who takes pleasure in mass killing civilians, assad in western media.

For the west, Problem is not assad as a person, because the west supported and supports real dictators as long as they implant western policies in the region (at the top of which is security of Israel) the west backed saddam because he was not PRACTICALLY against Israel, only verbally he would attack Israel. (As he started to go practically against western policies -by attacking Kuwait- they started to marginalize him). Assad is different. 

For the west it doesn't matter, Shia Sunni, Houthi Saudi, Assad Saddam, Ba'thi Ikhwani, etc; just Israel and its security in the long term, that's what matters for the west when it comes to ME.

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

What Assad and Hezbollah are doing in Syria is much bigger than protecting shrines. They are fighting world oppressors led by America and its zionists. Syria happens to be a strategical point that its fall may signify a great victory for the world opressor and a tipping of balance nearly as colossal as the fall of the Soviet Union. Tragedies in Syria unquestionably happen but to blame Assad when most Syrians are flocking to his territories of control makes zero sense. Assad gains nothing from bombing his own people, it's a waste of money and resources.
 

If you have no alternate news network to the mainstream media, try RT, you might think you lived on a different planet.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

It is about the phenomenon of "trend" in modern societies. We have experienced this a lot, something becomes a trend and everybody tries to take part in it.

Now the target  is assad. It has become a political-moral trend to appose assad, just in order to show how enlightened and democratic you think and to express your humanitarian concerns. Most people don't even know why and where the whole story started, but they know one thing: "this would be very backward and illiterate to support him or even to stay silent, you have to say something against him in order to show your sense of morality or whatever." but why don't you say anything about other dictators in the region to show your sense of morality and democracy? you have been fooled, something has been highlighted for you, for a reason. And you have taken the bait, and are trying to be a part of this trend.

What they have to do, is to make it a "trend" then it goes for itself, snowball. Like the homosexuality and the so called rights of them; they made some efforts to make it a social and moral trend, and then let it go, then sat and watched the snowball, even Muslims, Shia and whatnot, started to think "well, maybe we should really participate in this trend, otherwise it destroys us." and unfortunately fell victim to it. 

And one last rule. Whoever senses something in an unusual way is becoming a trend, soon label him with conspiracy theory and such, let him be off the snowball's way.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I oppose Assad.

I have ideas of alternative solutions to this.  I can't say for certain they will work nor are they based on deep political foresight.

However, just like people don't see many things in Quran,  people always limit the views of solutions to a few and take their blindness of other solutions as proof that there are none.

What happens if Assad becomes faint hearted and gives up his war? We are standing on a house of cards.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/27/2016 at 11:33 AM, repenter said:

How easily people are decieved.

Barrel bombs....ask youself this...if an army that is fully equipped..would bother making barrelbombs. Then ask this...would you be happy if it was regular bombs?

Then ask this....how would you react if syrian army did nothing and let ISIS take over? Then ask yourself how much you actually know about the situation to finally ask yourself how clueless you really are. Borderline hypocrites.

 

Tell me....do you support liberation of Mosul? If you do, but at the same time are against Syrian coalition, and civilians dying in Syria then you are a hypocrite. if you believe that civilians wont die in mosul from all the mortars, air attacks, shelling etc, then you are also slightly slow.

 

Using Assad as an argument for your lack of basirah and foresight won't work anymore. noone cares about Assad, its the bigger picture that is important.

Brother, i'm pretty much on your side with regards to the whole conflict, but the reality is, he does use barrel bombs. His army needs to save resources, is going through economic hell as a country, and not as wealthy or well equipped as you may think.

Regular bombs are horrible too, but barrel bombs are blacklisted and banned under international law for a reason, because of the unique manner in which they explode, sending far more shrapnel indiscriminately , which effects many not even part of the intended target.

However, the syrian arab army could not just do nothing. And it isn't even DAESH they should be worrying about, but the so-called 'moderate syrian rebels', consisting of official alqaeda affiliates such as Jabhat Al Nusra et al, who are vile, qatar backed, and evil groups seeking to make a shariah shurah, saudi-qatari puppet government in syria.

Assad is really only the lesser evil. He is no Ay. Khamanei, and certainly no amirul mumineen. He has made terrible decisions in terms of war strategies, and both sides of the conflict are guilty of many war crimes, but given his superior weaponry, it is no surprise he has committed far more.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Very deceptive tactics being used it here

1) Reducing the Syria conflict to be about Assad

2) Denouncing Assad as zalim

3) Calling for Shias to distance themselves from him

4) Therefore, calling for the Shia resistance movement to abandon Syria.

Those without basirah are knowingly or unknowingly siding with the enemies of Allah. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

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...