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

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

So this topic in particular is a very controversial one especially amongst Sunnis and Shias. I'm eager to understand the different perspectives that everyone has, so feel free to share your views below. The most prodominent perspective which is upheld and I tend to come across is usually a sectarian one which isn't really appealing and it looks silly. Anyway, share your thoughts!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, OmarEl said:

So this topic in particular is a very controversial one especially amongst Sunnis and Shias. I'm eager to understand the different perspectives that everyone has, so feel free to share your views below. The most prodominent perspective which is upheld and I tend to come across is usually a sectarian one which isn't really appealing and it looks silly. Anyway, share your thoughts!

It is all about country interest, and not about conflict between religion sects. That's why you see so many participants in this war, and no one cares about religion in this matter. Turkey is interested because of the Kurds, Iraq interested because of neighbor, Iran is interested because of neighbor and supporting Hisbullah. Israel and the Us and Saudi interested so they could control Iran and Hisbullah influence.

Horrible situation and mostly Syrian people are the ones who dies and suffer in middle of these players.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Abu Nur said:

It is all about country interest, and not about conflict between religion sects. That's why you see so many participants in this war, and no one cares about religion in this matter. Turkey is interested because of the Kurds, Iraq interested because of neighbor, Iran is interested because of neighbor and supporting Hisbullah. Israel and the Us and Saudi interested so they could control Iran and Hisbullah influence.

Horrible situation and mostly Syrian people are the ones who dies and suffer in middle of these players.

I agree, countries are all interested for their own agenda. However, both sides seem to have developed secterian perspectives & there are countless videos to prove this. Do you think it's fair to say it's a sectarian war; the Cold War of the Middle East. It's pretty unfortunate as I used to visit Syria every year and it was so beautiful. The people, the land, the food, the culture, everything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/11/2020 at 9:00 PM, OmarEl said:

So this topic in particular is a very controversial one especially amongst Sunnis and Shias. I'm eager to understand the different perspectives that everyone has, so feel free to share your views below. The most prodominent perspective which is upheld and I tend to come across is usually a sectarian one which isn't really appealing and it looks silly. Anyway, share your thoughts!

Legacy of french British interference in the Middle East 

No sides with clean hands 

Erdogan is the real villain here 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/12/2020 at 6:03 AM, Abu Nur said:

It is all about country interest,

Salam it’s just tip of an Iceberg but also religious prophecies have great rule that a conclusion of all of them is that Syria conflict will last until reappearance of Imam Mahdi (aj) & second coming of Prophet Isa (عليه السلام) that also few individuals are seeking their weird & unrealistic agendas like finding Stargate or any alien technology or a way for connection with them that some Zionist groups are supporting them.

Edited by Ashvazdanghe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/12/2020 at 3:33 AM, Abu Nur said:

Turkey is interested because of the Kurds,

I think a part of it is also just being silly. The Kurds is one thing, but Erdogan tried to make peace with them at first until they threaten his neo-Ottoman dreams. To me it looks like that Erdogan has this silly idea, one might even say childish idea, of reestablishing the Ottoman empire. Whether he does it because he believes in it or just because it is popular with a lot of Turks I don't know, but Erdogan is clearly not the only Turk who has these childish ideas. I saw that my self 35 years ago when I was in Turkey first time and it was still like that when I was in Turkey 8 yeas ago. Being silly like that is not in the real interest of the Turks because they ruin their economy doing it.
 

On 3/12/2020 at 3:33 AM, Abu Nur said:

Israel and the Us and Saudi interested so they could control Iran and Hisbullah influence.

The US and Saudi is in it for the Money I think. Or rather their petrodollar arrangement. The whole Sunni-Shia conflict is because the house of Saud got frightened by the Iranian revolution. In order for it not to spread to their kingdom they invented the anti-Shia takfirism which they have been pushing for decades.
Israel is really just as silly as Erdogan with their mix of 19'th century imperialism and Bronze-age fairy tale nationalism. Only they are more clever and more ruthless than Erdogan.
Their common goal is of cause to break the alliance between Iran, Syria and Hizbollah. An alliance that came into being because of a common interest to resist the attempt of western imperialism to dominate the region. And in that they found common ground with Russia.

So what's in it for the Muslim brothers? (I am not saying Sunnis because there is a lot of Sunnis that is on the side of the government.) I think partially power. A part of their propaganda leading up to the civil war was the idea of cleansing Syria of minorities so that the Sunnis could rule. The Muslim brothers is of cause also known to be conservative and many of them probably didn't like the westernization of Syrian society for better or for worse. Syria had for many years a lax regulation on honor-killings because the government was afraid to ostracize the conservative elements of society. To day the Syrian government has taken steps to make a serious crack down on people who kill their relatives for honor related reasons. Probably because those they tried to appease is either dead or cornered in Idlib.

The takfiri terrorists, Daesh, Al-Qaida and other Salafi groups is of cause doing the bidding of their Saudi patrons, but they also have their own agenda, like Erdogan, to reestablish the Kaliffa. A popular idea among many Sunnis. Probably because many Arabs feel an inferiority after being ruled by Ottomans for centuries and being economically bypassed by Europeans. The Salafis also has a revolutionary zeal that origins from the fight against the Soviets in Afghanistan that appeal to a sense of righteousness in young people. Unfortunately they have been misled to fight against their own interest. Just imagine if all that energy had been used to fight Zionism instead?

The Kurds I think initially just tried to defend their villages, but then they got caught up in PKKs Rojava pipedream. They also tried to play the other players and thought they could advance their cause by allying them selves with the US and Israel and sometimes withe the Syrian government when the two others couldn't help them against Erdogan.

So yes there are many interests in that conflict, but the major underlying trends is anti-Shia takfirism and the Palestine Conflict.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/13/2020 at 6:21 PM, Revert1963 said:

The Salafis also has a revolutionary zeal that origins from the fight against the Soviets in Afghanistan that appeal to a sense of righteousness in young people. Unfortunately they have been misled to fight against their own interest. Just imagine if all that energy had been used to fight Zionism instead?
 

What fighting Zionism though? I haven't seen Iran or Hezbollah fire a single bullet on Israel since 2006. The enemy of Israel has been used as a justification by the Iranians to justify their proxy-empire over the Middle East.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/4/2020 at 12:17 AM, biggasan said:

What fighting Zionism though? I haven't seen Iran or Hezbollah fire a single bullet on Israel since 2006. The enemy of Israel has been used as a justification by the Iranians to justify their proxy-empire over the Middle East.

But they did fire bullets against Israel in 2006. In fact Hizbollah and Iran won the war. Al-Qaida on the other hand has never ever fired a single shot against Israel. Daesh attacked Israel once, but was quick to apologize for it and said it was a mistake. And it probably was.
Iran and Hizbollah has shown a willingness to fight Israel and they are constantly preparing for it and it is just a matter of time when the next war will be. Israel and the US has been delivering weapons to the Salafis and the Muslim Brothers in Syria in order to break the supply line between Iran and Hizbollah. Iran and Hizbollah is fighting in Syria in order to keep that supply line open. Not for the sake of Bashar al-Assad, but in order to maintain their capability of striking a blow to the Zionist occupiers.

That being said now that the mud rat rebels and Turkey has lost the war in Syria I would hope that Assad, Hizbollah and Iran would help Erdogan save his face a little and let the Turkish army use Syria to launch an attack om Israel of cause with the condition that Syria gets the Jolan back. Maybe they could even make a deal with lover ranking Al-Qaida operatives who is not yet bought by the Zionists to cleanse the Tel-Aviv area. So they will be able to save their face also :dwarf:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/13/2020 at 1:07 AM, OmarEl said:

I agree, countries are all interested for their own agenda. However, both sides seem to have developed secterian perspectives & there are countless videos to prove this. Do you think it's fair to say it's a sectarian war; the Cold War of the Middle East. It's pretty unfortunate as I used to visit Syria every year and it was so beautiful. The people, the land, the food, the culture, everything.

It’s not a sectarian conflict, it’s a geopolitical battleground between various players. Syrian Baathist regime is full of lay, secularised Sunnis; from these around Assad to the soldiers on the ground. Assads were and are supported by numerous Syrian Sunni tribes as both sides benefit from mutual symbiosis. Bashar is married to a Sunni woman. Till this day, Syria accepts and promotes its Umayyad past. In 2001, Syrian television released drama series Salah Al-deen Al-Ayyobi that glorified Saladin, not a word about the latter stabbing the Ismaili Fatimids and forcibly, violently changing al-Azhar to Sunni creed. In 2006-2007, the state TV released series that glorified Khalid Ibn Walid, man considered among Shias to be a deviant war criminal.

As late as 2018, in Syrian school textbooks Iran is “presented as an untrustworthy regional rival.” With the exception of embracing mutual antagonism toward Israel and the West, the Islamic Republic’s political culture and way of life are “flatly rejected by the Syrian curriculum.” “No non-Arab should rule the Arab, especially not an Islamist of the Khomeinist-Shiite Persian variety,” the study’s authors observed in explanation of this attitude. “There is no acknowledgement of Iranian cultural heritage and contributions over millennia,” and no Persian language courses are offered, they wrote. “The curriculum maintains the Iranian province of Khuzestan is an Arab territory,” as are the Gulf islands, see here and here

Many prominent Shi’ite clerics from Najaf (Iraq) and Qom (Iran) have never supported the Syrian regime, with majority even forbidding their followers to fight in Syria. Four prominent Najaf clergymen — Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, Sheikh Ishaq al-Fayyad, Seyed Mohammad Sa’id al-Hakim and Sheikh Bashir al-Najafi — were quoted by Asharq Alawsat as adopting a unified stance in 2013: “Individuals who go to Syria for jihad are disobeying the commands of religious authorities.” In Qom (Iran), no prominent clerics have issued fatwas in support of sending Shiite fighters to Syria.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/4/2020 at 11:17 AM, biggasan said:

What fighting Zionism though? I haven't seen Iran or Hezbollah fire a single bullet on Israel since 2006. The enemy of Israel has been used as a justification by the Iranians to justify their proxy-empire over the Middle East.

Iranian rockets rain from Gaza sky regularly. Since 2011, Israel, in air strikes, has killed hundreds of Hezbollah and Iranian forces fighting in Syria. Not counting irregular Palestinian uprisings, with finances and arms donated by Iran, when was the last time when Sunnis fired a single bullet at Israel? 1973. Oh, in 2016 Daesh officially apologised to Israel for opening fire on an Israeli unit in the occupational Syrian Golan Heights. That’s about it. While Sunnis are preoccupied demonising and genociding Shi’ite civilians, Iran focuses on getting the Israel and US out of the Middle East. Priorities. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/4/2020 at 12:17 AM, biggasan said:

I haven't seen Iran or Hezbollah fire a single bullet on Israel since 2006.

what about these ones?

LINK: Hezbollah retaliates against Israel with a missile; Israel fires back at Lebanon

LINK: Hezbollah fires rockets into Israel from Lebanon

Edited by Allah Seeker
just adding another example, there's more I believe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Part of the problem I think is that many nation's around the world have a strong dependency on oil. Any potential threat or concern related to the flow of oil out of the region, jeopardizes the stability of economies around the world.

So externally, the west is always going to want "skin in the game". 

Then you have some middle eastern nation's, like Saudi Arabia or UAE, Kuwait, and Oman that seem to be competing with Iran for regional influence. So they also finance western intervention. 

Then in Syria, you have a hardcore dictatorship, and people who do not like Assad and his rule (or his father's rule before him), like the Muslim Brotherhood. And you have enemies of Assad also over in Iraq and elsewhere in the region who wanted to see a change in leadership.

Protests were crushed, and many foreign nations saw an opportunity to get a leader that would fit their interests. Iran saw a leader they liked (maybe a trade partner) and decided to send members of it's military to help Assad. Russia saw value in their naval stations and Russian bases there and decided to help Assad. The US saw an opportunity to remove an enemy that was also pro Russia and Iran, that could jeapordize the flow of resources, Arab nation's saw an opportunity to gain influence. Both sent money and weapons to opponents of Assad. 

Collectively i think most people agree that the Syrian dictatorship has indiscriminately bombed areas resulting in deaths of civilians. But the counter is that, radical groups like ISIS use guerilla tactics and can be otherwise to difficult to defeat without aggressive action. Assad is then considered a lesser evil to ISIS. But in truth, the war will never end so long as he remains in power. 

I'm just happy that the US hasn't decided to really confront Assad militarily.  It's clearly much harder to rebuild nation's than it is to tear them down. But the people have to want unity and they have to want to rebuild as well. Right now I don't always get that impression with rampant corruption and regional tensions. There seems to be an internal ideological power struggle that is preventing growth and outside influences are exacerbating the violence and are preventing a resolution in either direction.

ICenozoic grabs popcorn and awaits the flaming*

Edited by iCenozoic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Iran slams expansion of EU, US sanctions on Syria

Quote

Mousavi described sanctions as an inhumane tool that directly and seriously jeopardises human rights.

“The Islamic Republic of Iran expresses solidarity with the resilient nation and government of Syria and calls for the lifting of all anti-human sanctions against Damascus so that the Syrians can meet their basic needs and repair the damages caused by Western-backed terrorist attacks against the country’s infrastructure with the help of the international community,” underlined Mousavi.

https://en.abna24.com/news//iran-slams-expansion-of-eu-us-sanctions-on-syria_1043570.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, OrthodoxTruth said:

In Qom (Iran), no prominent clerics have issued fatwas in support of sending Shiite fighters to Syria.

Salam all of them supported word of Imam Khamenei for defending  shrines in Syria that even Imam Khamenei didn't  issue a Fatwa for it but encouraged this voluntary  action , like grand Ayattollah Sistani approved  this action although he issued his  Fatwa just for Iraq but some hardliners like Ahmadinejad were believing to a false idea that ISIS/Daesh in Syria & Iraq was army of Sufyani  (la) so they tried to stop helping Syria & Iraq that through time it proved that they were wrong .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Syrian air defenses thwart Israeli airstrike on Hama (video)

https://en.abna24.com/news//syrian-air-defenses-thwart-israeli-airstrike-on-hama_1043445.html

June 5, 2020 - 6:15 PM News Code : 1043445 Source : parstodayLink:   

Syrian air defenses have thwarted Israeli airstrikes over the Western Province of Hama.

Quote

AhlulBayt News Agency (ABNA): "At 21:25 local time, Israeli warplanes targeted one of our military sites in the vicinity of Masyaf, but our air defense system immediately responded to enemy missiles and shot down a number of them,” Syria's official news agency SANA quoted a military source as saying on Thursday.

According to Lebanon’s al-Mayadeen TV channel, the missiles were fired from Israeli warplanes over the Lebanese airspace.

The Tel Aviv regime mostly keeps quiet about the attacks on Syrian territories that many view as knee-jerk reaction to Syrian government’s increasing success in confronting terrorism in country.

The Israeli attacks are thus considered an attempt to prop up foreign-backed Takfiri terrorist groups suffering heavy defeats against Syrian government forces.

Israel has also been a main supporter of terrorist groups that have opposed the government of President Bashar al-Assad since militancy erupted in Syria in March 2011.

 

Edited by Ashvazdanghe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/5/2020 at 9:46 PM, OrthodoxTruth said:

It’s not a sectarian conflict, it’s a geopolitical battleground between various players. Syrian Baathist regime is full of lay, secularised Sunnis; from these around Assad to the soldiers on the ground. Assads were and are supported by numerous Syrian Sunni tribes as both sides benefit from mutual symbiosis. Bashar is married to a Sunni woman. Till this day, Syria accepts and promotes its Umayyad past. In 2001, Syrian television released drama series Salah Al-deen Al-Ayyobi that glorified Saladin, not a word about the latter stabbing the Ismaili Fatimids and forcibly, violently changing al-Azhar to Sunni creed. In 2006-2007, the state TV released series that glorified Khalid Ibn Walid, man considered among Shias to be a deviant war criminal.

As late as 2018, in Syrian school textbooks Iran is “presented as an untrustworthy regional rival.” With the exception of embracing mutual antagonism toward Israel and the West, the Islamic Republic’s political culture and way of life are “flatly rejected by the Syrian curriculum.” “No non-Arab should rule the Arab, especially not an Islamist of the Khomeinist-Shiite Persian variety,” the study’s authors observed in explanation of this attitude. “There is no acknowledgement of Iranian cultural heritage and contributions over millennia,” and no Persian language courses are offered, they wrote. “The curriculum maintains the Iranian province of Khuzestan is an Arab territory,” as are the Gulf islands, see here and here

Interestingly, the latter article, which derives from a pro-Zionist (!) source, does not seem to have a problem with Iranian influence in Syria. Instead, it implicitly criticises Syria’s anti-Iran tendencies, stating that Syria’s curriculum does not meet Western standards, aside from its stances on sexual equality and protection of Christians. So Syria’s anti-Iran stance seems to be problematic for some factions within Israel and the West, perhaps because some factions on both sides need external enemies, since foreign threats bolster domestic cohesion via nationalism. It is also true that both Iran and the West/Israel have been on good terms with the Muslim Brotherhood since the Revolution of 1979, certain conflicts of interest notwithstanding, since the MB is a religious alternative to secular nationalism/socialism and thus a good anticommunist tool. Both the IRI and the West/Israel made common cause against the Soviet-supported modernist regime in Afghanistan (1978–1992). So perhaps some factions in the West and Israel, for cynical reasons, prefer Iranian (and especially Saudi) religious influence to secular-nationalist and/or socialist influence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/6/2020 at 12:16 AM, OrthodoxTruth said:

,” and no Persian language courses are offered,

Syrian Shopkeeper is speaking Farsi with dialects of every region 

فارسی صحبت کردن فروشنده سوری با لهجه های مختلف

https://www.aparat.com/v/QBL7I/فارسی_صحبت_کردن_فروشنده_سوری_با_لهجه_های_مختلف

a part of "تهران دمشق" (Tehran Damascus) documentary .

both of your links are just some wrong  conclusions of Zionists about Syria for satisfying their American Allies that they are fighting  with communism because communism & communist comrades of soviets aka Russia is still bogyman of all American  politicians that zionists are showing Baath party of Syria is inheritor of former soviet  communism but in reality Jordan is representing Baathi doctrine that has good relationship with Israel & it's king is  wretched enemy  of  Iran & Shia Islam  also Syria most of times was a Roman state that Rome still considers as a great enemy of so called Jews & rival of ancient Persia that majority of monuments that destroyed by ISIS/Daesh were made by Romans so they are trying to show Syria as enemy of Iran from pre Islam era until now 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ba'ath_Party

Quote

The party was again legally registered in 1993, but was forced to change its name to Jordanian Arab Socialist Ba'ath Party.[6] From then on it has been led by Akram al-Homsi.[7] Khalil Haddadeen, Jordan's former Minister of Information, was elected to Parliament during the 1993 and 1997 elections on a pro-Iraqi and pro-Saddam Hussein stance

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jordanian_Arab_Socialist_Ba'ath_Party

Quote

In 2004, Abdullah coined the term "Shia Crescent" to describe a Shia-dominated region from Damascus to Tehran (bypassing Baghdad) which promoted sectarian politics.[37] His warning received international attention, leading Abdullah to clarify that he meant a shift in political (not sectarian) alignment.[37] The king's observation was validated after the rise of Shia Nouri Al-Maliki to the Iraqi government in 2006 and subsequent events.

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

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

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

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

https://www.britannica.com/biography/Ralph-Abercromby

Edited by Ashvazdanghe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/12/2020 at 3:33 AM, Abu Nur said:

It is all about country interest, and not about conflict between religion sects. That's why you see so many participants in this war, and no one cares about religion in this matter. Turkey is interested because of the Kurds, Iraq interested because of neighbor, Iran is interested because of neighbor and supporting Hisbullah. Israel and the Us and Saudi interested so they could control Iran and Hisbullah influence.

Horrible situation and mostly Syrian people are the ones who dies and suffer in middle of these players.

I will just correct two points. 

Turkey is interrested about pkk not "kurds". 

Iran wants to have a stabilized neighborhood but they were also Shia shrines to defend. 

So if religion is not the main issue of this conflict, it also has some elements in it. 

On 6/5/2020 at 9:46 PM, OrthodoxTruth said:

It’s not a sectarian conflict, it’s a geopolitical battleground between various players. Syrian Baathist regime is full of lay, secularised Sunnis; from these around Assad to the soldiers on the ground. Assads were and are supported by numerous Syrian Sunni tribes as both sides benefit from mutual symbiosis. Bashar is married to a Sunni woman. Till this day, Syria accepts and promotes its Umayyad past. In 2001, Syrian television released drama series Salah Al-deen Al-Ayyobi that glorified Saladin, not a word about the latter stabbing the Ismaili Fatimids and forcibly, violently changing al-Azhar to Sunni creed. In 2006-2007, the state TV released series that glorified Khalid Ibn Walid, man considered among Shias to be a deviant war criminal.

As late as 2018, in Syrian school textbooks Iran is “presented as an untrustworthy regional rival.” With the exception of embracing mutual antagonism toward Israel and the West, the Islamic Republic’s political culture and way of life are “flatly rejected by the Syrian curriculum.” “No non-Arab should rule the Arab, especially not an Islamist of the Khomeinist-Shiite Persian variety,” the study’s authors observed in explanation of this attitude. “There is no acknowledgement of Iranian cultural heritage and contributions over millennia,” and no Persian language courses are offered, they wrote. “The curriculum maintains the Iranian province of Khuzestan is an Arab territory,” as are the Gulf islands, see here and here

Many prominent Shi’ite clerics from Najaf (Iraq) and Qom (Iran) have never supported the Syrian regime, with majority even forbidding their followers to fight in Syria. Four prominent Najaf clergymen — Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, Sheikh Ishaq al-Fayyad, Seyed Mohammad Sa’id al-Hakim and Sheikh Bashir al-Najafi — were quoted by Asharq Alawsat as adopting a unified stance in 2013: “Individuals who go to Syria for jihad are disobeying the commands of religious authorities.” In Qom (Iran), no prominent clerics have issued fatwas in support of sending Shiite fighters to Syria.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ashvazdanghe said:

Syrian Shopkeeper is speaking Farsi with dialects of every region 

فارسی صحبت کردن فروشنده سوری با لهجه های مختلف

https://www.aparat.com/v/QBL7I/فارسی_صحبت_کردن_فروشنده_سوری_با_لهجه_های_مختلف

a part of "تهران دمشق" (Tehran Damascus) documentary .

both of your links are just some wrong  conclusions of Zionists about Syria for satisfying their American Allies that they are fighting  with communism because communism & communist comrades of soviets aka Russia is still bogyman of all American  politicians that zionists are showing Baath party of Syria is inheritor of former soviet  communism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ba'ath_Party

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jordanian_Arab_Socialist_Ba'ath_Party

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

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

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

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

https://www.britannica.com/biography/Ralph-Abercromby

...which also shows that the West considers—and has always considered—secular nationalism/socialism a greater threat to its hegemony than Islam, at least in the long (ultimate) term. Otherwise, the West would be demonising Islam more than it demonises Joseph Stalin and the Marxist-Leninist USSR (1917–53). During the Cold War the West always used religion as an ally and proxy against secular nationalism/socialism and labelled any opposition to Western capitalism as “(godless) communism,” whether or not the opposition was truly Marxist-Leninist or simply bourgeois-nationalist in character. Even in the West one can find occasional praise for the IRI, whereas Stalinism is never praised, even in the slightest. The West’s biggest allies in the so-called “Third World” have always been religious fundamentalists who can lay claim to a veneer of pseudo-populism and thus undermine their secular-nationalist/socialist rivals. Historically, religious Muslims have been the West’s greatest assets against modernisers. For example, the West used the Muslim Brotherhood to destabilise Nasser’s Egypt, Baathist Syria, Bhutto’s Pakistan, Sukarno’s Indonesia, and so on. The West needs religion to maintain perpetual Third-World underdevelopment and depopulation on behalf of resource extraction and monopoly capitalism. Even Donald Trump would prefer the IRI to the USSR, if “push came to shove,” so to speak.

Edited by Northwest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Mohammadi_follower said:

What do you mean exactly by influence? 

Supporting and influencing Iraq by what Iran see is right and have an interest between Iran and Iraq. Be it Political, Religion, Economic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Northwest said:

...which also shows that the West considers—and has always considered—secular nationalism/socialism a greater threat to its hegemony than Islam, at least in the long (ultimate) term. Otherwise, the West would be demonising Islam more than it demonises Joseph Stalin and the Marxist-Leninist USSR (1917–53). During the Cold War the West always used religion as an ally and proxy against secular nationalism/socialism and labelled any opposition to Western capitalism as “(godless) communism,” whether or not the opposition was truly Marxist-Leninist or simply bourgeois-nationalist in character. Even in the West one can find occasional praise for the IRI, whereas Stalinism is never praised, even in the slightest. The West’s biggest allies in the so-called “Third World” have always been religious fundamentalists who can lay claim to a veneer of pseudo-populism and thus undermine their secular-nationalist/socialist rivals. Historically, religious Muslims have been the West’s greatest assets against modernisers. For example, the West used the Muslim Brotherhood to destabilise Nasser’s Egypt, Baathist Syria, Bhutto’s Pakistan, Sukarno’s Indonesia, and so on. The West needs religion to maintain perpetual Third-World underdevelopment and depopulation on behalf of resource extraction and monopoly capitalism. Even Donald Trump would prefer the IRI to the USSR, if “push came to shove,” so to speak.

Actually many leftist people and intellectuals in West praised communism and Soviet union (even Stalin before destalinization) a lot. After world War 2 in some countries you would even be considered as a fascist if you criticized too harshly Soviet union. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Mohammadi_follower said:

Actually many leftist people and intellectuals in West praised communism and Soviet union (even Stalin before destalinization) a lot. After world War 2 in some countries you would even be considered as a fascist if you criticized too harshly Soviet union. 

@Mohammadi_follower

The key (operative) word is “leftist.” When I referred to Western anticommunism, I referred to the attitude of the bourgeois ruling class, not the working-class masses. The historical record indicates that the entire capitalist world, including the U.S., feared the October Revolution (1917) from its onset and actively sought to overthrow the nascent Soviet state. Winston Churchill, in particular, played a major role in promoting Zionism as an alternative to Marxism—dispelling the myth that the Bolsheviks promoted Zionism. (In fact, the new Bolshevik regime worked to disclose the covert, czarist-era Sykes-Picot arrangements among the Western imperial powers to occupy the MENA, among which was the plan to install Zionism and the Saudi regime.) Under Stalin, the Soviets even promoted Jewish autonomy in Siberia precisely to counter the Western-promoted, anti-Soviet, pro-Zionist movement. History also indicates that the West built up both fascism and Nazism to counter the USSR.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Northwest said:

@Mohammadi_follower

The key (operative) word is “leftist.” When I referred to Western anticommunism, I referred to the attitude of the bourgeois ruling class, not the working-class masses. The historical record indicates that the entire capitalist world, including the U.S., feared the October Revolution (1917) from its onset and actively sought to overthrow the nascent Soviet state. Winston Churchill, in particular, played a major role in promoting Zionism as an alternative to Marxism—dispelling the myth that the Bolsheviks promoted Zionism. (In fact, the new Bolshevik regime worked to disclose the covert, czarist-era Sykes-Picot arrangements among the Western imperial powers to occupy the MENA, among which was the plan to install Zionism and the Saudi regime.) Under Stalin, the Soviets even promoted Jewish autonomy in Siberia precisely to counter the Western-promoted, anti-Soviet, pro-Zionist movement. History also indicates that the West built up both fascism and Nazism to counter the USSR.

By leftist I didn't talk about Antifa or snowflakes we could see nowadays in social media. I was talking about most left political parties in Europe and most "intellectuals". 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cuba strongly condemns US coercive measures against Syria

Quote

AhlulBayt News Agency (ABNA): Cuba strongly condemned the American coercive measures against Syria, including the so-called “Caesar Act”, affirming that it is a serious violation of the United Nations Charter.

“I condemn in the strongest terms the US sanctions against Syria and the implementation of the “Caesar Act”,” Cuban Foreign Minister Bruno Rodriguez said in a tweet on Saturday.

He stressed that these measures constitute a grave and flagrant violation of the UN Charter, international law and human rights and affect the reconstruction of the country after 9 years of terrorist war on it and under the Coronavirus pandemic.

Cuban Deputy Foreign Minister Anayansi Rodriguez Camejo also condemned, during a phone call with Syrian Ambassador in Cuba, Dr. Idris Mayya, the US coercive measures and the so-called “Caesar Act”, renewing her country’s support to Syria in international forums.

https://en.abna24.com/news//cuba-strongly-condemns-us-coercive-measures-against-syria_1043956.html

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.


×
×
  • Create New...