Syrian civil war is reignited.

[AbdusSibtayn]

4 hours ago, Irfani313 said:

Leave the rest of Syria to jolanis, bolanis, fulanis, and let turkey have the fun of a new Salafi infested talibanistan next to her border. Turkey with all its evilness deserves to be Kabul-ized by these hordes of kharji shaytoons. 

Ded 

[AbdusSibtayn]

On a serious note, I also like @Irfani313bhai's suggestion- let these cavemen rule over parts of Syria for some time, and let more penniless and homeless refugees flood into the NATO countries; let poverty and crime in these countries skyrocket; let the terrorists sneak in with the refugees to carry out a few sew-side bombings and mass stabbings; let the refugees inundate their suburbs, outbirth the natives and cause a permanent demographic transformation causing the Westoids more panic; maybe then the NATO colonizers will understand how it feels to watch the chickens come back home to roost. 

Edited December 1, 2024 by AbdusSibtayn

[Ashvazdanghe]

18 hours ago, Abu Nur said:

the advance of the Turkish brothers until they descend to the peninsula (jazira),3 the advance of the rebels of Rome until they descend to ar-Ramla.4 In that year there will be many schisms in the whole Earth from the direction of the West (al-maghrib). The first land that will be destroyed is Sham, and they will schism at that point upon three banners: the red banner, the spotted banner, and the banner of the Sufyani. (Tusi’s Ghayba, Signs Before His Appearance, hadith #434)

Salam according to Ayatollah Korani (رضي الله عنه)  Turkish brothers will be Russians   & their entourage from the nations of Eastern Europe.&  the rebels of Rome will be America & it's allies whom will support zionist Israel although it's possible that they will be Turks of Turkey which they will fight with Imam A,hdi (aj) while  russians will  fight with Sufyani. 

 

In his book "The Age of the Emergence""عصر ظهور", Hojjat al-Islam and Muslims Ali Kurani has said about this: "In our opinion, the Turks in the narrations of the blessed movement of the advent of the Holy majesty are the Russians and their entourage from the nations of Eastern Europe. Although they are historically Christian and are considered to be among the nations of the Roman Empire, to the extent of claiming their inheritance, and calling their kings Caesar like the Germans and others, they are,

first of all, from various tribes of the East Asian-European region, which in the language of narrations and history have been called "Turkish tribes and nations", and this name includes, in addition to the Turks of Turkey and Iran, the Tatar and Mongol tribes, Bulgarians, Russians and others.

Second: Christianity has recently spread to them and is not truly popular among them, but has become a superficial stratum, and worse than their situation, it exists among the nations of Western Europe, because their polytheistic materialism has prevailed, and perhaps this is why they have surrendered to the theory of materialistic and atheistic communism and have not resisted its influence

Third: The narrations related to the movement of the Turks against the Muslims, although some of them correspond to the invasion of the Mongol Turks and their invasion of our land in the seventh century AH. However, some of those narrations describe their movements that are connected to the events of the emergence of Imam Mahdi (AJ), as well as their cooperation with the Romans against us and their disagreement with each other at that time, and this incident does not apply except to the Russians, or if the matter is prolonged, it applies to the heirs of their state from the tribes that have Turkish roots and descent in Russia and Eastern Europe. Here are some examples of the narrations in which their role is stated: Among them are the narrations of the recent sedition and chaos that was caused by them and the Romans to the Muslims, which was mentioned earlier, which cannot be interpreted except as the invasion of the Westerners and the Russians into the Muslim lands in the early part of this century, as it continued continuously until Allah will remove it with the ground-breaking movement  then with his blessed reappearance  of Imam Mahdi (AJ) in the Ummah, and.

 

And the narrations related to Sufyani’s war with the Turks are also among these narrations, and probably the Turks are the same Russians, since Sufyani will be an ally of Rome and the Jews, and it is stated in the Akhbar that his movement in the region of Syria and Jordan will be occurred following the Turkish domination of Syria. And if the narration related to it is correct, the duration of that domination will be short, because that domination occurs after the defeat of the rebellion (Alaj As'hab  علج أصهب). "When the caliph of As'hab rises, and the capital of the state will be in difficulty and crisis, he will be killed after a while, then (Ak'hal أکحل) will rise up to seek revenge of his blood, and this is when the country will be returned to polytheism (Turkish - a different version)"[1]. In the narrations related to the emergence, As'hab and Ab'qa are mentioned as two leaders opposing Sufyani's movement, and Sufyani will defeat them both and will gain control of the region.

Quote

And I did not find any narrations that indicate a war between Sufyani and the Turks in Damascus or its suburbs and surroundings, but many narrations have come down in a brief sequence[2] that indicate a major conflict between Sufyani and them in Qirqisiya, located on the border of Syria-Iraq-Turkey. This battle is one of the great wars that has been promised in advance, and its motivation is the conflict and struggle over a treasure that will be discovered in the Euphrates River or near it.

In addition, perhaps what is meant by Atraak in this battle is the Turks of Turkey, not the Russians. It is possible that Russia secretly will support Sufyani in the war with the Turks. And Allah willing, a mention of the Qirqisiya war will soon appear, along with the events in the Levant and the movement of Sufyani.

Among the narrations related to the Azerbaijani revolution in confrontation with the Turks, it is narrated from Imam Sadiq (عليه السلام) that he said: "Azerbaijan is necessary for us, nothing can resist against it, and when our revolutionary rises, rush towards him, even if it needs walking on all fours on snow"[3].

Quote

It is possible to use the words of the Imam (عليه السلام) who said: "Azerbaijan is inevitable and nothing can resist against it"

in such a way that it is a guiding movement that has arisen in Azerbaijan or from the people of that region, which must be waited for and delayed until the signs of its imminent beginning begin, and as can be understood from the following narration, this may be in confrontation with the Russians; "Two exodus will occur for the Turks, in one of which Azerbaijan will be destroyed, and in the other, they will roam the island,will cause terrifying the brides in the Hijlah. It is at this time that Allah Almighty will help the Muslims, and there will be a great sacrifice of Allah among them"[4].

When we examine this narration alone, it is probably one of the narrations related to the invasion of the Turks and Mongols into Islamic lands, which in the first stage when they reach Azerbaijan, they will destroy it, and then they will reach the Euphrates and the Muslims will be victorious over them. At the spring of Goliath and elsewhere, there will be a great sacrifice among them.

But if we combine this narration with the previous narration, it is likely that the Turks in it are the Russians. And their first exodus will be before the Second World War and after it, and before the signs of their imminent emergence and occupation of Azerbaijan.

And the second exodus is towards "Jazira" which is the name of a place on the border between Iraq and Syria near the Qirqisiya region, and their exodus to that region is for the purpose of fighting Sufyani. And the meaning of the Muslims' victory in that conflict is an indirect victory that will be achieved by the destruction of their oppressor enemies, and as you will see in the Qirqisiya conflict region, there is no banner or flag of guidance or a flag that will accompany the victory of the Muslims, and indeed the Prophet and Imams ((عليه السلام).) gave good news about it because in this campaign, the oppressors will be destroyed by the swords of some of their own supporters.

Other narrations are related to the landing of the Turks in the "Jazira" and "Euphrates" regions, which probably refers to the Russian Turks, because their landing coincided with the landing of the Romans in the Ramla region of Palestine and its coasts.

Quote

And we have already mentioned that Qirqisiya is a region near the "island" which is called Diar Bakr and Jazeera Rabi'ah, and the meaning of the word (Jazeera) which is generally stated in historical books is this point, not Jazeera Al-Arab or any other island.

And this does not contradict the landing of the Mongol Turks on Jazeera and the Euphrates in the seventh century AH, because some have considered it among the signs close to the advent of the majesty, while one of the signs close to the advent will be their landing and then fighting with Sufyani in the Qirqisiya region.

Among the previous narrations, there are narrations related to the war of Imam Mahdi (عليه السلام) with the Turks. It is narrated from Imam Sadiq (عليه السلام) that he said: "The first army that Imam Mahdi will prepare will be sent to the Turks, and after defeating them, taking them captive, and taking their property as booty,so then  they will set off for Syria and will conquer it." [6]

This means that this is the first army that Imam Mahdi equips and sends, and that Imam Mahdi himself does not participate in it. Some narrations state that Imam Mahdi (AJ) will send his army after his entry into Iraq and following several battles, to liberate the Hijaz and Iraq.

And the Turks here may mean the Turks of Turkey, but it is more likely that they are the Russians, with whom Sufyani campaigns in the Battle of Qirqisia, and neither one prevails over the other, and as the narrations say, their destruction will be by Hazrat Mahdi (AJ) and their land is destroyed by lightning(missiles) .

Another group of these hadiths are the narrations that consider the destruction of the Turks’ land as a result of lightning and earthquakes, and they may refer to weapons such as missiles, whose destructiveness is like lightning or earthquakes. It seems that this incident will be followed by their battle with Imam Mahdi (AJ) and the destruction will be very widespread, leading to the destruction and disappearance of their power and glory, because after that, no mention of them was made in the narrations of the advent, only after their second excoduse did the phrase “there will be no Turks after that” appear, meaning that after that incident, there will be no more Turks, so it is possible that they are the same Russians, because in the narrations related to the advent, such a statement has not been made about any Muslim nation. [7]

https://fa.imamatpedia.com/wiki/منظور_از_ترک‌ها_در_روایات_آخرالزمان_چیست؟_(پرسش)

 

https://www.rajanews.com/news/315059/حوادث-فتنه-منطقه-شام-رمزگشایی-از-بازیگران-داخلی-و-بین-المللی-بحران-سوریه-قبل-از-ظهور

[Guest Adam]

8 hours ago, AbdusSibtayn said:

The Shi'a support Assad because they simply don't want to live under the rebels who are programmatically anti- Shi'a. They were shouting genocidal slogans about massacring Shi'a and Christians, about levelling Karbala, their clerics like Urayfi gave fatwas to raze the shrine of Sayyida Zaynab (sa) in Damascus and to kidnap Shi'a women and sell them as sex-slaves in open air slave markets. 

It was a question of survival for us- rebel mobs of all hues from ISIS to diet ISIS, al Qaeda to diet al Qaeda, who wanted to genocide us, versus an authoritarian and militant secular ruler who nonetheless guaranteed us the right to life and worship. At the end of the day nobody wants to live under al Qaeda or its minions, and many Sunnis prefer Assad for similar reasons even though they don't like him. I still remember Sunnis in Manbij celebrating when the government forces liberated that city. Christians to this day thank the Shi'a militias for protecting their heritage sites and towns in the Aramaic belt, especially Maloula. 

If we wanted to oppress Sunnis and show them no mercy then it made no sense for us to undergo all that violence, starvation, sanctions, death and destruction in Iran, Lebanon and Yemen to help Gaza. It made no sense for us to arm Sunni tribes in North Iraq against ISIS and al Qaeda. It made zero sense for us to help Sunni Bosnians when the rest of the Sunni world had abandoned them. We could have normalized with the Zionists and abandoned Palestine like the rest of the Sunni Arab world has done, and the sanctions on us would be lifted immediately. But we chose to suffer as a matter of principle. In Syria, the situation offered us only two alternatives- get genocided or support the government to survive. We had to choose the lesser of the two evils.  We don't want to be ruled by people who want to genocide us. 

Salam, the same Adam guy. I don't believe that all Sunni rebels are anti-Shia. The majority of them are simply focused on removing Assad, nothing more. It's true that there are extremists who hate Shias, but they are a minority—a minority that we Sunnis despise first and foremost. Unfortunately, a falling tree makes more noise than a growing forest, which is why it seems to you that those who hate you are the majority of Sunnis.

IS*S has nothing to do with the Sunni rebels. It is an organization that originated with the soldiers of the Iraqi Ba'ath Party, which was identical to the party that now dominates Syria. The criminals of I**S are no different from Assad. They were once loyal puppets in the hands of the Party, but after Saddam’s fall, they exploited Sunni religiosity to return to power, presenting themselves to the masses as Muslims, while under Saddam they would beat people inside mosques.

What I want to point out is that this issue is common to both Iraq and Syria. These are two countries that were tied by the same deviant Ba'ath ideology, an ideology that thrives on pitting Sunnis against Shias, as it did in Iraq, in order to maintain power. At the start of the Syrian civil war, the majority of Sunnis who protested did so peacefully and unarmed. They had no desire to go to war. If Assad had surrendered, there would have simply been a peaceful transition, like in Tunisia. Assad was the one who started repressing the protests, which then forced the Sunnis to arm themselves. Had the Sunnis experienced the peaceful fall of Assad, as happened with the despots of Tunisia and Egypt, there would have been no civil war, and no guns pointed at the Shias.

What happened instead was repression, and the Sunnis had to arm themselves for self-defense. Seeing that the Shias were ideologically aligned with Assad, this led to some mistrust towards you—not for religious reasons, I assure you, but for political ones. It's not easy to see your brothers siding with a dictator who is killing you.

Then I**S intervened, which, as I repeat, has nothing to do with Sunnis. It’s a crazy bomb that even attacked Sunnis who didn’t agree with its ideology.

As for the last part of your speech, I agree with it. I know that Shias have been extremely generous toward us.

 

 

 

 

[mahmood8726]

59 minutes ago, Guest Adam said:

Salam, the same Adam guy. I don't believe that all Sunni rebels are anti-Shia. The majority of them are simply focused on removing Assad, nothing more. It's true that there are extremists who hate Shias, but they are a minority—a minority that we Sunnis despise first and foremost. Unfortunately, a falling tree makes more noise than a growing forest, which is why it seems to you that those who hate you are the majority of Sunnis.

This is just false. HTS are former al quaeda, who still have the same beleifs about al quaeda, who are notorious for being lunatics, liars, etc... then you have FSA who like HTS are western/turkish/Gulf state funded with connections to Israel, which have been shown over and over again.

This is not how you're framing it, as in "they're just these moderate rebels and these minority of extreemists? Don't mind them, we just want a free syria", this is false and it's been shown to be false since atleast 10 years ago. 

59 minutes ago, Guest Adam said:

IS*S has nothing to do with the Sunni rebels.

Yes they do, despite fighting them, they often mix with them too. This is very misleading as a claim. 

59 minutes ago, Guest Adam said:

It is an organization that originated with the soldiers of the Iraqi Ba'ath Party, which was identical to the party that now dominates Syria.

Isis by no means is secular ba'athist, their ideology is far more similar to the ideology of al quaeda (HTS now). Just because they originated from saddams soldiers, it means nothing. 

59 minutes ago, Guest Adam said:

The criminals of I**S are no different from Assad.

They're absolutely diffirent, they're so brutal, almost everyone in Syria fought them, just like the Soviets and Americans fought the nazis.

59 minutes ago, Guest Adam said:

They were once loyal puppets in the hands of the Party, but after Saddam’s fall, they exploited Sunni religiosity to return to power, presenting themselves to the masses as Muslims, while under Saddam they would beat people inside mosques.

That's barely relevant now, saddam has been dead for 21 years now, isis today does not have some secret ba'athist room where they worship saddam and secularism. They follow a similar ideology to al quaeda(which I repeat again, is what HTS is). 

59 minutes ago, Guest Adam said:

What I want to point out is that this issue is common to both Iraq and Syria. These are two countries that were tied by the same deviant Ba'ath ideology, an ideology that thrives on pitting Sunnis against Shias, as it did in Iraq, in order to maintain power.

Is this what's this all about? 

59 minutes ago, Guest Adam said:

At the start of the Syrian civil war, the majority of Sunnis who protested did so peacefully and unarmed.

Syria is a majority sunni country, obviously most of them would be sunnis. Sunnism has nothing to do with anything here, given most of bashars army is sunni and many of his generals are sunni. 

59 minutes ago, Guest Adam said:

They had no desire to go to war.

True, but they got quickly hijacked by the CIA as they were trying to capitalise on this for years before 2011.

59 minutes ago, Guest Adam said:

If Assad had surrendered, there would have simply been a peaceful transition, like in Tunisia.

Nope, there would have been a regime change operation like in Libya where a pro american dictator takes power and normalises with israel fully. Just like sisi in Egypt, he's a disgusting tyrant who is a puppet of America and is normalizing with israel.

59 minutes ago, Guest Adam said:

Assad was the one who started repressing the protests, which then forced the Sunnis to arm themselves.

59 minutes ago, Guest Adam said:

Had the Sunnis experienced the peaceful fall of Assad, as happened with the despots of Tunisia and Egypt, there would have been no civil war, and no guns pointed at the Shias.

59 minutes ago, Guest Adam said:

What happened instead was repression, and the Sunnis had to arm themselves for self-defense.

Again nothing to do with sunnis. This is just a liberal take on geopolitics my friend. Just like they frame palestine and Israel as "Muslims/arabs vs jews".

59 minutes ago, Guest Adam said:

Seeing that the Shias were ideologically aligned with Assad, this led to some mistrust towards you—not for religious reasons, I assure you, but for political ones. It's not easy to see your brothers siding with a dictator who is killing you.

We told you why we beleive what we beleive, I urge you to read my response.

Shias aligned with Bashar because his opposition who were not "moderate rebels" were often mixing with al quaeda, had similar ideologies to them and commited many mass attrocities against shias and other minorities. Most of the "non extreemist" groups have practically dissapeared or are irrelevant if they still exist. The SNA and HTS are nasty peices of work, they're not the rainbows and sunshine you're trying to paint them as. I survived a car bombing from these "moderate rebels" myself in 2013 in Lebanon before isis was even prominent like in 2014.

 

However, most of bashars supporters are sunnis, most of Syria is sunni, so again this has nothing to do with sunnism. 

59 minutes ago, Guest Adam said:

Then I**S intervened, which, as I repeat, has nothing to do with Sunnis. It’s a crazy bomb that even attacked Sunnis who didn’t agree with its ideology.

Isis ideology is salafi islam but taken to the extreem, what I mean is, they took salafi islam and decided to violate the core tenants of salafi islam by going overboard and behaving like lunatics.

Edited December 1, 2024 by mahmood8726

[Muhammed Ali]

45 minutes ago, Guest Adam said:

as happened with the despots of Tunisia and Egypt,

Doesn't this tell you everything? Are they in a better state than before the uprisings?

Egypt doesn't even allow Gazans to leave to safety.

They have both been taken over by leaders that oppose the people's will. America would have ensured that Syria went the way of the other revolutions at that time.

There is enough evidence in this thread that the Syrian rebels are terrorists. 

[mahmood8726]

I created this post to cover the recent reignition of the Syrian civil war and talk about what's millitarly happening and how Israel is behind this. 

 

I don't want this to turn into another forum of sunni vs Shia debate, as they already exist. 

Please continue this debate here:

 

If I could have my replies and everything Guest wrote, taken to this forum, it would be appreciated.

 

Edited December 1, 2024 by mahmood8726

[mahmood8726]

https://t.me/Middle_East_Spectator/13204

BREAKING: SAA-affiliated channels report that thousands of Iraqi Shia volunteer units belonging to the Popular Mobilization Forces are now heading towards Syria

 

https://t.me/Middle_East_Spectator/13208

NEW: More footage of Iraqi reinforcements heading towards the Syrian border

 

Unknown if they want to secure the Iraqi border or join Syria against al nusra. 

[Muhammed Ali]

Quote

 

However, there is no evidence that the FSA ever enjoyed significant popular support among Syrians, including among Syria’s Sunni community, the FSA’s presumed demographic base. Instead, Syrians broadly feared the FSA groups, which invaded town after town and city after city over the course of the war.

Syrians widely hated and feared the so-called rebels because, contrary to the mainstream narrative, the armed groups comprising the FSA were not secular and democratic, nor comprised primarily of army defectors. As I have shown elsewhere, the early earliest and strongest FSA factions were primarily comprised of civilians-turned-fighters from Syria’s Salafist community, which in turn served as auxiliaries for foreign jihadist groups, namely the al-Qaeda offshoots of the Nusra Front, Ahrar al-Sham, and ISIS.

 

https://libertarianinstitute.org/articles/did-the-syrian-revolution-have-popular-support/

A article worth reading.

[mahmood8726]

1 minute ago, Muhammed Ali said:

https://libertarianinstitute.org/articles/did-the-syrian-revolution-have-popular-support/

A article worth reading.

Thanks, but please continue this here: 

 

I'm trying to keep this more military oriented, to see if Israel will win in Syria or not and if hezb will be crushed or not or if hama, Damascus and etc.. fall

[Guest Adam]

17 minutes ago, Muhammed Ali said:

Doesn't this tell you everything? Are they in a better state than before the uprisings?

Egypt doesn't even allow Gazans to leave to safety.

They have both been taken over by leaders that oppose the people's will. America would have ensured that Syria went the way of the other revolutions at that time.

There is enough evidence in this thread that the Syrian rebels are terrorists. 

 

22 minutes ago, mahmood8726 said:

This is just false. HTS are former al quaeda, who still have the same beleifs about al quaeda, who are notorious for being lunatics, liars, etc... then you have FSA who like HTS are western/turkish/Gulf state funded with connections to Israel, which have been shown over and over again.

This is not how you're framing it, as in "they're just these moderate rebels and these minority of extreemists? Don't mind them, we just want a free syria", this is false and it's been shown to be false since atleast 10 years ago. 

Yes they do, despite fighting them, they often mix with them too. This is very misleading as a claim. 

Isis by no means is secular ba'athist, their ideology is far more similar to the ideology of al quaeda (HTS now). Just because they originated from saddams soldiers, it means nothing. 

They're absolutely diffirent, they're so brutal, almost everyone in Syria fought them, just like the Soviets and Americans fought the nazis.

That's barely relevant now, saddam has been dead for 21 years now, isis today does not have some secret ba'athist room where they worship saddam and secularism. They follow a similar ideology to al quaeda(which I repeat again, is what HTS is). 

Is this what's this all about? 

Syria is a majority sunni country, obviously most of them would be sunnis. Sunnism has nothing to do with anything here, given most of bashars army is sunni and many of his generals are sunni. 

True, but they got quickly hijacked by the CIA as they were trying to capitalise on this for years before 2011.

Nope, there would have been a regime change operation like in Libya where a pro american dictator takes power and normalises with israel fully. Just like sisi in Egypt, he's a disgusting tyrant who is a puppet of America and is normalizing with israel.

Again nothing to do with sunnis. This is just a liberal take on geopolitics my friend. Just like they frame palestine and Israel as "Muslims/arabs vs jews".

We told you why we beleive what we beleive, I urge you to read my response.

Shias aligned with Bashar because his opposition who were not "moderate rebels" were often mixing with al quaeda, had similar ideologies to them and commited many mass attrocities against shias and other minorities. Most of the "non extreemist" groups have practically dissapeared or are irrelevant if they still exist. The SNA and HTS are nasty peices of work, they're not the rainbows and sunshine you're trying to paint them as. I survived a car bombing from these "moderate rebels" myself in 2013 in Lebanon before isis was even prominent like in 2014.

 

However, most of bashars supporters are sunnis, most of Syria is sunni, so again this has nothing to do with sunnism. 

Isis ideology is salafi islam but taken to the extreem, what I mean is, they took salafi islam and decided to violate the core tenants of salafi islam by going overboard and behaving like lunatics.

I will try to reflect on what you said. Honestly, I’m not sure myself whether I want Bashar’s fall or not. When I think about it, deep down, I think I don’t. What I would like to see is a united and strong Middle East, and I sense that this pan-Islamic vision is generally well-accepted by Iran, which makes me happy.

But I can assure you that those who oppose Assad do so for equally rational reasons as yours. There are no barbarians on the other side, foolishly wanting to be invaded by external enemies and occupied. Saudi Arabia and Iran share the same political goal: a more stable and peaceful Middle East. We need to learn to understand each other better; only then will there be peace.

Waalaikom assalam.

 

 

[Muhammed Ali]

A Sunni from Aleppo who is against HTS: 

 

Edited December 1, 2024 by Muhammed Ali

[Muhammed Ali]

9 minutes ago, mahmood8726 said:

I'm trying to keep this more military oriented, to see if Israel will win in Syria or not and if hezb will be crushed or not or if hama, Damascus and etc.. fall

Ask the mods to split the thread. 

[mahmood8726]

There is a letter circulating about al joulanis(la) death

i dont know if its fake or not, but here is the translation:

"In the name of Allah, the most gracious, the most merciful

 

With great sadness and sorrow, we mourn the martyrdom of the millitary leader, the hero Abu Muhammad al-joulani, who gave his life for the revolution 13 years after it's inception. The leader was a symbol of sacrifice and dedication, leading his forces with courage and sincerity in facing challenges and hardships.

Since the beginning of the revolution, the leader stood at the forefront of it's ranks, defending the rights of the Syrian people to freedom and dignity. He never hesitated to provide support to his comrades in arms and was always a model of sacrifice and loyalty.

Today, we have lost a great leader who was martyred by a treacherous Russian airstrike amid international silence. However, his vision will live on in our hearts and memories. We will continue to, (bla bla bla.... same nonsense)

29 Jumada Al-Awal 1446

01 December 2024"

 

[mahmood8726]

13 minutes ago, Muhammed Ali said:

A Sunni from Aleppo who is against HTS: 

 

I wondered about these doctors, I could see they were scared in the video. Thank you for this post. 

[AbdusSibtayn]

3 hours ago, Guest Adam said:

Salam, the same Adam guy. I don't believe that all Sunni rebels are anti-Shia. The majority of them are simply focused on removing Assad, nothing more. It's true that there are extremists who hate Shias, but they are a minority—a minority that we Sunnis despise first and foremost. Unfortunately, a falling tree makes more noise than a growing forest, which is why it seems to you that those who hate you are the majority of Sunnis.

IS*S has nothing to do with the Sunni rebels. It is an organization that originated with the soldiers of the Iraqi Ba'ath Party, which was identical to the party that now dominates Syria. The criminals of I**S are no different from Assad. They were once loyal puppets in the hands of the Party, but after Saddam’s fall, they exploited Sunni religiosity to return to power, presenting themselves to the masses as Muslims, while under Saddam they would beat people inside mosques.

What I want to point out is that this issue is common to both Iraq and Syria. These are two countries that were tied by the same deviant Ba'ath ideology, an ideology that thrives on pitting Sunnis against Shias, as it did in Iraq, in order to maintain power. At the start of the Syrian civil war, the majority of Sunnis who protested did so peacefully and unarmed. They had no desire to go to war. If Assad had surrendered, there would have simply been a peaceful transition, like in Tunisia. Assad was the one who started repressing the protests, which then forced the Sunnis to arm themselves. Had the Sunnis experienced the peaceful fall of Assad, as happened with the despots of Tunisia and Egypt, there would have been no civil war, and no guns pointed at the Shias.

What happened instead was repression, and the Sunnis had to arm themselves for self-defense. Seeing that the Shias were ideologically aligned with Assad, this led to some mistrust towards you—not for religious reasons, I assure you, but for political ones. It's not easy to see your brothers siding with a dictator who is killing you.

Then I**S intervened, which, as I repeat, has nothing to do with Sunnis. It’s a crazy bomb that even attacked Sunnis who didn’t agree with its ideology.

As for the last part of your speech, I agree with it. I know that Shias have been extremely generous toward us.

 

 

 

 

Wassalam, 

I understand that you come from a position of sincerity, and that's why I am asking you- think for once that the rebellion broke out in 2011, the Shi'a militias did not get involved until 2014 with the battle of Qusayr, a time when the rebels begun to close in on Damascus itself, threatening to raze the Zainabiyya shrine, mass murder the minorities and parade their women as sex slaves. If the Shi'a were supporting Assad simply based on sectarian considerations and were ideologically aligned with him, then it makes no sense for them to wait almost 4 years, for the rebels to take over large swathes of Syria and for an alleged all-time allied government to become a doddering regime. They would have intervened in 2011 itself. This shows that their intent behind getting involved in the war at a critical moment was simply protecting themselves by choosing the lesser of the two evils. 

One might bring up how most of the rebels are not programmatically anti-Shia, and purely theoretically they may even be correct but when the biggest of the two rebel factions- the al-Qaeda linked Nusra front (rebranded as HTS) and the Turkish/Muslim Brotherhood supported Free Syrian Army (rebranded as Syrian National Army) make their intentions very clear, it leaves little to speculation and whether or not all of the rebel factions were programmatically anti-Shia becomes a moot point. Maybe all of them weren't, but the biggest ones among them certainly were. Even as we discuss this, a HTS supporter from Aleppo yesterday itself was threatening that they'd repeat a Hatla Massacre if they seize power; I have kept the screenshot. 

The point is that the Shi'a did not make the war sectarian, the rebels did. We had pretty much left Syria and Syrians to their fate for four whole years. The threats to raze Zaynabiyya and exterminate the Shi'a were made well before the actual military intervention happened. 

It's not just the Shi'a alone- the Christians, the Alawites, the Druze, the Ismailis, the Yazidis, the Sunni Kurds, in short, all of the minorities who make up roughly 40% of the population have no love lost for the rebels, and this speaks volumes. None want to live under them because they have had their share of sordid experiences with them and their backers and they all fear the worst, and rightly so. 

Edited December 1, 2024 by AbdusSibtayn

[AbdusSibtayn]

2 hours ago, Guest Adam said:

 

I will try to reflect on what you said. Honestly, I’m not sure myself whether I want Bashar’s fall or not. When I think about it, deep down, I think I don’t. What I would like to see is a united and strong Middle East, and I sense that this pan-Islamic vision is generally well-accepted by Iran, which makes me happy.

But I can assure you that those who oppose Assad do so for equally rational reasons as yours. There are no barbarians on the other side, foolishly wanting to be invaded by external enemies and occupied. Saudi Arabia and Iran share the same political goal: a more stable and peaceful Middle East. We need to learn to understand each other better; only then will there be peace.

Waalaikom assalam.

 

 

Bashar is being supported because his fall would mean that the Syrian supply line for Hamas and Hezbollah collapses entirely. It is open knowledge that the rebels are collaborating with the Americans and Israelis- they are being given logistical help by the Zionists and recuperating in Israeli hospitals, being trained by the IDF. I could link you to mounds of admission by topmost intelligence and military Israeli officials about backing the rebels. There is ample news coverage about the rebels thanking the Americans and the Israelis for their help. I can share the screenshots here if you want. A strong Islamic government committed to Palestinian independence and end to all foreign domination, right at Israel's doorstep- is it something which the Americans and the Zionists would want? 

Remove Shi'a-Sunni tensions from the equation, even from a purely strategic view, the fall of Bashar means the death knell for all dreams of Palestinian independence and a united Middle East. This is why despite all his faults, the resistance is backing Assad, because he may be anything, but he's not a Zionist sellout for sure. 

[Muhammed Ali]

3 hours ago, Guest Adam said:

 

I will try to reflect on what you said. Honestly, I’m not sure myself whether I want Bashar’s fall or not. When I think about it, deep down, I think I don’t. What I would like to see is a united and strong Middle East, and I sense that this pan-Islamic vision is generally well-accepted by Iran, which makes me happy.

But I can assure you that those who oppose Assad do so for equally rational reasons as yours. There are no barbarians on the other side, foolishly wanting to be invaded by external enemies and occupied. Saudi Arabia and Iran share the same political goal: a more stable and peaceful Middle East. We need to learn to understand each other better; only then will there be peace.

Waalaikom assalam.

 

 

Asalaamu alaykum,

Have a listen to this Sunni view for the first 30 minutes. He dislikes both sides but is against the rebels' current uprising. 

 

[Abu Hadi]

4 hours ago, Guest Adam said:

Salam, the same Adam guy. I don't believe that all Sunni rebels are anti-Shia. The majority of them are simply focused on removing Assad, nothing more. It's true that there are extremists who hate Shias, but they are a minority—a minority that we Sunnis despise first and foremost. Unfortunately, a falling tree makes more noise than a growing forest, which is why it seems to you that those who hate you are the majority of Sunnis.

IS*S has nothing to do with the Sunni rebels. It is an organization that originated with the soldiers of the Iraqi Ba'ath Party, which was identical to the party that now dominates Syria. The criminals of I**S are no different from Assad. They were once loyal puppets in the hands of the Party, but after Saddam’s fall, they exploited Sunni religiosity to return to power, presenting themselves to the masses as Muslims, while under Saddam they would beat people inside mosques.

What I want to point out is that this issue is common to both Iraq and Syria. These are two countries that were tied by the same deviant Ba'ath ideology, an ideology that thrives on pitting Sunnis against Shias, as it did in Iraq, in order to maintain power. At the start of the Syrian civil war, the majority of Sunnis who protested did so peacefully and unarmed. They had no desire to go to war. If Assad had surrendered, there would have simply been a peaceful transition, like in Tunisia. Assad was the one who started repressing the protests, which then forced the Sunnis to arm themselves. Had the Sunnis experienced the peaceful fall of Assad, as happened with the despots of Tunisia and Egypt, there would have been no civil war, and no guns pointed at the Shias.

What happened instead was repression, and the Sunnis had to arm themselves for self-defense. Seeing that the Shias were ideologically aligned with Assad, this led to some mistrust towards you—not for religious reasons, I assure you, but for political ones. It's not easy to see your brothers siding with a dictator who is killing you.

Then I**S intervened, which, as I repeat, has nothing to do with Sunnis. It’s a crazy bomb that even attacked Sunnis who didn’t agree with its ideology.

As for the last part of your speech, I agree with it. I know that Shias have been extremely generous toward us.

 

 

 

 

Salam, 

Like other have said, the civil war started in 2010. Hezb and Haji Sha3bi didn't get involved until ISIS started to destroy the Shrine of Sayyida Zainab(عليه السلام) in Damascus. By doing this, they are the ones who forced a confrontation. If they would have stayed within Syria and not done the above or tried to erect bases on the other side of the Lebanese border and the Iraqi border, I'm not sure if Hezb and Sha3abi would have gotten involved. Before that point, they saw it as an internal matter within Syria and they were sitting on the sidelines. 

The mandate given to Hezb by the Lebanese people is to protect Lebanon from being invaded and taken over by the Zionsists. That is their only mission. Nothing else. They were forced by the Lunatics to get involved in Syria after they did what they did. The Haji have a mandate from the people of Iraq, and by the fatwa of Sayyid Sistani(may Allah give him long life) to protect the cities and Holy Places of Iraq, again nothing to do with Syria. They only got involved when ISIS went into Iraq and took over Mousel and other surrounding cities with the help and backing of Zionists and US / UK in 2014 and then were kicked out. 

If you talk to Shia and supporters of Hezb, they will clearly tell you that they don't want Hezb overextending themselves by getting involved in Syria. The Shia, in general are not big fans of Assad, although I know there are a minority that are. Before 2014, they were generally indifferent whether he stayed in power or not. They were forced to help him because of two reasons. 

1. They know that if he is out of power, at this point the ISIS lunatics will take over Syria. Since Syria is on the Lebanese border, they can't allow that to happen. 

2. The Zionists (around 2013 or so) started using these lunatics to set up bases for them on the border with Lebanon which they used to do terrorist attacks inside Lebanon. This is not something Hezb could ignore and so they had to get them out. 

As a Shia, I can say that I speak for the majority in saying that we want the same thing as you. A government in Syria which looks out for the interests of the Syrian people and has a democratic mandate. We don't care if this government is Shia or Sunni, so long as it is democratically elected and is a true representative government of the Syrian people. InShahAllah, we will both make dua for this to happen. 

[Abu Nur]

It seems that this is all Erdogan doing for pleasing Trump and Israel to make the F35 deal (to cut the support for Hisbullah) and to take the Kurds land in Syria and Irak. He use HTS and the rest to cause instability in Syria and Iraq. This cursed man should literally be assassinated, for he will go so far to this fitnah.

[AbdusSibtayn]

2 minutes ago, Abu Nur said:

It seems that this is all Erdogan doing for pleasing Trump and Israel to make the F35 deal (to cut the support for Hisbullah) and to take the Kurds land in Syria and Irak. He use HTS and the rest to cause instability in Syria and Iraq. This cursed man should literally be assassinated, for he will go so far to this fitnah.

Precisely why he shouldn't have ever been invited to join BRICS. 

Lifting a scorpion on your palm and hoping that it won't sting is more sensible than trusting this demon and hoping that any good can come out of him. 

[AbdusSibtayn]

Al Jazeera Syrian Desk, after publishing the fake news about a military coup in Damascus-

[AbdusSibtayn]

Some more comic relief in these difficult times... 

[Muhammed Ali]

13 hours ago, Muhammed Ali said:

In 2012, early in the terrorist uprising, Hillary said: "AQ is on our side in Syria".

Source: https://www.wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/23225

Correction: The email was from Jake Sullivan to Clinton. Not the other way around.

[Irfani313]

1 hour ago, Abu Hadi said:

Salam, 

 

If you talk to Shia and supporters of Hezb, they will clearly tell you that they don't want Hezb overextending themselves by getting involved in Syria. The Shia, in general are not big fans of Assad, although I know there are a minority that are. Before 2014, they were generally indifferent whether he stayed in power or not. They were forced to help him because of two reasons. 

1. They know that if he is out of power, at this point the ISIS lunatics will take over Syria. Since Syria is on the Lebanese border, they can't allow that to happen. 

2. The Zionists (around 2013 or so) started using these lunatics to set up bases for them on the border with Lebanon which they used to do terrorist attacks inside Lebanon. This is not something Hezb could ignore and so they had to get them out. 

As a Shia, I can say that I speak for the majority in saying that we want the same thing as you. A government in Syria which looks out for the interests of the Syrian people and has a democratic mandate. We don't care if this government is Shia or Sunni, so long as it is democratically elected and is a true representative government of the Syrian people. InShahAllah, we will both make dua for this to happen. 

Take me for example, I’m an Shia Alhamdolillah, and everybody here knows my views on AOR, and I’m not a fan of Asad. I truly want his downfall inshAllah and he be replaced with someone preferably a Shia or even a Sunni who is more unifying, more capable, more strategic, and more empathetic to his people, more like leadership in Yemen.
 

But until that happens, I like him more than any broombeard so called Sunni who is actually Salafi and like all of their leadership worldwide, on the payroll of all sorts of clandestine agencies. 
 

…. And while I was writing this, it made me thinking I couldn’t count ONE Sunni leader or government who is pure to their people or islamic causes. Not one.. shame!!! 

[Eddie Mecca]

48 minutes ago, Irfani313 said:

Sunni who is actually Salafi

Not Sunni...not Salafi...but Takfiri (the most extreme version of Salafism)

[Diaz]

PMU from iraq reached Syria and will be aiding Syrian army. We all know they will do the work while the Syria army will be aiding them. Shias are protecting the Middle East, without the shia, Middle East will be next Palestine. All people who hate the resistance should be ashamed oh themselves. Seriously tho I’m so proud I’m shia, these men make us really proud. 

[realizm]

Sometimes I just wish for Syria to fall and let people cope with those crazy apes. Give them folks the freedom they have been longing for. 

Only fear is for Lebanon, but IDF could not advance in Lebanon so I doubt any Ibn Taymiya lover would. And of course, I fear for honest Syrians.

[realizm]

6 minutes ago, Diaz said:

PMU from iraq reached Syria and will be aiding Syrian army. We all know they will do the work while the Syria army will be aiding them. Shias are protecting the Middle East, without the shia, Middle East will be next Palestine. All people who hate the resistance should be ashamed oh themselves. Seriously tho I’m so proud I’m shia, these men make us really proud. 

Hezbollah : born to fight Israel

HTS : born to fight helpers of Hezbollah 

Tells you everything 

[realizm]

https://t.me/Middle_East_Spectator/13241.

16 minutes ago, realizm said:

— ️BREAKING: Convoys of the Iraqi Popular Mobilization Forces entered Syria today to aid the Syrian Arab Army in its fight against terrorism

 

The PMF consists of various different Shiite militias, many of them Iran-backed, that were originally formed to defeat ISIS back in 2014, which they did with great success.

 

Several of them are also part of the 'Islamic Resistance in Iraq', which has been launching attacks against Israel and US military bases since Israel's invasion of Gaza in 2023

 

@Middle_East_Spectator

 

Oh now that's great, we have Iraqi Shias parading in Syria like they came for slaughtering sunnis. Let's get the world hate us again for the sake of Syria's maté-drinking troops and corrupt mu5abarat who sit on their chairs all day. 

Serioulsy, who asked those Iraqis to go there in the first place. They could have moved a few hundred miles down south when it was needed mast month, but it was better to leave Lebanese chabab hold their own, right ?

I am truly sick of this simulacre of Axis which apart from displaying sectarianism, proved not much except flaws when needed.

I am almost as sick of this as I am sick of those NATO dogs, kufar of Qureish.

[Diaz]

4 minutes ago, realizm said:

Serioulsy, who asked those Iraqis to go there in the first place. They could have moved a few hundred miles down south when it was needed mast month, but it was better to leave Lebanese chabab hold their own, right ?

Brother, our men in Lebanon do not need aid from anyone, they need weapons only and after that they  can do the needful. Let’s be honest, Syrian army are weak, they can’t protect their country without Hezbollah, since Hezbollah are taking break from war, our shia brothers in iraq will aid Syria (I do believe they will do everything while the Syrian army will help them little or just watch). Someone needs to stop these terrorists in Syria or else Lebanon and Iraq will be destroyed. 

[Eddie Mecca]

3 hours ago, Abu Hadi said:

As a Shia, I can say that I speak for the majority in saying that we want the same thing as you. A government in Syria which looks out for the interests of the Syrian people and has a democratic mandate. We don't care if this government is Shia or Sunni, so long as it is democratically elected and is a true representative government of the Syrian people. InShahAllah, we will both make dua for this to happen. 

Any progressive government would be welcomed by all...agreed

3 hours ago, Abu Hadi said:

They know that if he is out of power, at this point the ISIS lunatics will take over Syria. Since Syria is on the Lebanese border, they can't allow that to happen.

Yes

[StrangerInThisWorld]

44 minutes ago, realizm said:

Serioulsy, who asked those Iraqis to go there in the first place. 

Last time when the extreme SJs gained strength in Syria it lead to them taking over huge parts of Iraq and committing all kinds of crimes against the population. 

So I think the aim here is to weaken them as soon as possible in order not to let the same scenario happen again. 

In addition to that the Hashd al-Sha'bi are quite experienced and successful when it comes to fighting these type of groups.

Edited December 1, 2024 by StrangerInThisWorld

[realizm]

25 minutes ago, Diaz said:

Brother, our men in Lebanon do not need aid from anyone, they need weapons only and after that they  can do the needful. Let’s be honest, Syrian army are weak, they can’t protect their country without Hezbollah, since Hezbollah are taking break from war, our shia brothers in iraq will aid Syria (I do believe they will do everything while the Syrian army will help them little or just watch). Someone needs to stop these terrorists in Syria or else Lebanon and Iraq will be destroyed. 

What happened these last days is just another flaw in our AOR organization. Just like we saw our leaders assassinated one after the other, ammo and missiles stashs sacrificed, because everything had been hacked and we could nothing but watch, we now have to see Syria fall town after town, thanks to the Motorways that cross the country and which are not even blockaded.

Well I am very upset tonight. I hope Sufiyani emerges soon and Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) makes me focus on Imam Mahdi's mission (aj) when the time comes because apart from our brothers who repelled the Zios, I see nothing but failure and blood splnilled in vain.

[realizm]

6 minutes ago, StrangerInThisWorld said:

Last time when the extreme SJ gained strength in Syria it lead to them taking over huge parts of Iraq and committing all kinds of crimes against the population. 

So I think the aim here is to weaken them as soon as possible in order not to let the same scenario happen again. 

In addition to that the Hashd al-Sha'bi are quite experienced and successful when it comes to fighting these type of groups.

At that point in time, I do not consider it normal anymore that Syria's fate gets handled by other people. Plus, this burden has been too costly for us. It is most probably in Syria that our commandment was exposed and infiltrated. Should this be the Iraqis turn now to get exposed ? 

And most important I think. Why does it have to turn militia style on the spot ?Why can we not resort to diplomacy, when it comes to 'our' problems ? Neighboring countries, for God's sake. Can we not show the world we are able to solve our issues by the political way ?