ISIS in Iraq and Syria

[Kaos]

Its not a competition but a bit of perspective won't hurt.

The Assad family has been ruling Syria (albeit via a dictatorship) for decades. While they've been heavy handed in putting down protests and uprisings in the past, they've hardly had a systematic program of murdering minorities, recruiting child soldiers, raping young girls and blowing up places of worship. In fact it was probably the most secular Arab nation, just ask the Christians, Druzes, Atheists and Alawites of Syria today. So to even put the regime in the same sentence as ISIS' purely heinous campaign of evil is absurd.

It also doesn't help that the Syrian opposition groups have been notorious for spreading lies to empower their cause. It seems all they have to do is take some unverified footage or photos from an unrelated conflict, fabricate a story around it and the media swallows it up. Hence my immediate scepticism whenever I hear statistics pulled out of their arses.

 

[LeChuck]

Ahh, so a completely impartial source then?

Yes.

Najib Ghadbian (Ph.D. Graduate School, City University of New York, CUNY, 1995) is an Associate Professor of Political Science and Middle East Studies. He is the author of Democratization and the Islamists Challenge in the Arab World, (English 1997 & Arabic 2002). His second Arabic book, The Second Asad Regime: Bashar of Lost Opportunities, was published in Jeddah and Beirut in 2006. Dr. Ghadbian has published articles in English and Arabic in several journals including: New Political Science, Middle East Journal, Middle East Review of International Affairs, and al-Mustaqbal al-`Arabi. He has contributed political commentaries to several US, European, and Middle East media outlets. He's been a frequent political commentator for al-Jazeera Satellite TV Channel since January 2000. Professor Ghadbian has served on the board of several think tanks, including the Center for the Study of Islam & Democracy (CSID) in Washington, DC (2005-8). Ghadbian's research interests include democratization & leadership in the Arab world, Syrian politics, Islamic movements, and US-Mideast relations. Dr. Ghadbian is active in the Syrian dissent movement as an independent academic.

Possibly though if isis had access to chemical weapons, an airforce and barrel bombs plus as much heavy artillery as assad then who knows...
As you say its not a competition its all a bit sad and it seems to be spreading with no real idea as to how to stop it becoming an all out regional clusterfek.

I doubt that. Even in their killings, IS have stuck to what they think is the correct way to kill. Chemical weapons, torture, and the such contravenes their wrong interpretation of how to kill.

 

[Kaos]

Yes.

Najib Ghadbian (Ph.D. Graduate School, City University of New York, CUNY, 1995) is an Associate Professor of Political Science and Middle East Studies. He is the author of Democratization and the Islamists Challenge in the Arab World, (English 1997 & Arabic 2002). His second Arabic book, The Second Asad Regime: Bashar of Lost Opportunities, was published in Jeddah and Beirut in 2006. Dr. Ghadbian has published articles in English and Arabic in several journals including: New Political Science, Middle East Journal, Middle East Review of International Affairs, and al-Mustaqbal al-`Arabi. He has contributed political commentaries to several US, European, and Middle East media outlets. He's been a frequent political commentator for al-Jazeera Satellite TV Channel since January 2000. Professor Ghadbian has served on the board of several think tanks, including the Center for the Study of Islam & Democracy (CSID) in Washington, DC (2005-8). Ghadbian's research interests include democratization & leadership in the Arab world, Syrian politics, Islamic movements, and US-Mideast relations. Dr. Ghadbian is active in the Syrian dissent movement as an independent academic.

So he's hardly impartial then. To re-iterate my point above, the Syrian dissent movement has developed a notorious reputation for fabricating claims regarding the regime, while covering up their own heinous crimes.

 

[LeChuck]

Its not a competition but a bit of perspective won't hurt.

The Assad family has been ruling Syria (albeit via a dictatorship) for decades. While they've been heavy handed in putting down protests and uprisings in the past, they've hardly had a systematic program of murdering minorities, recruiting child soldiers, raping young girls and blowing up places of worship. In fact it was probably the most secular Arab nation, just ask the Christians, Druzes, Atheists and Alawites of Syria today. So to even put the regime in the same sentence as ISIS' purely heinous campaign of evil is absurd.

It also doesn't help that the Syrian opposition groups have been notorious for spreading lies to empower their cause. It seems all they have to do is take some unverified footage or photos from an unrelated conflict, fabricate a story around it and the media swallows it up. Hence my immediate scepticism whenever I hear statistics pulled out of their arses.

The bolded bit is simply not true. Some of Assad's men have carried out such depraved crimes, and torture, it's even horrifying to read.

Furthermore, the army has destroyed places of worship, and significant Islamic heritage (the burial place of Khalid bin Waleed (RA)), the burial place amongst others.

I think you need to reassess your perspective.

 

[sun_tzu]

I doubt that. Even in their killings, IS have stuck to what they think is the correct way to kill. Chemical weapons, torture, and the such contravenes their wrong interpretation of how to kill.

But burning somebody alive in a cage is acceptable?

 

[LeChuck]

So he's hardly impartial then. To re-iterate my point above, the Syrian dissent movement has developed a notorious reputation for fabricating claims regarding the regime, while covering up their own heinous crimes.

He is a respected academic. He is not a puppet. The fact that I have to explain this, is silly.

But burning somebody alive in a cage is acceptable?

I did say it's the wrong interpretation.

They also don't do torture.

 

[Kaos]

The bolded bit is simply not true. Some of Assad's men have carried out such depraved crimes, and torture, it's even horrifying to read.

Furthermore, the army has destroyed places of worship, and significant Islamic heritage (the burial place of Khalid bin Waleed (RA)), the burial place amongst others.

I think you need to reassess your perspective.

Of course the regime used torture, its a ba'athist regime no different to the one Saddam embraced to consolidate his power. My perspective isn't remotely hazy there.

As for shrines and places of worship being destroyed - they were destroyed during this civil war. Prior to that, the Assad family had 30 years to destroy the shrine, but surprise surprise they weren't touched, along with all the churches that ISIS, Al-Nusra and the FSA have deliberately torched while forcing thousands of Christians into exile.

 

[Kaos]

He is a respected academic. He is not a puppet. The fact that I have to explain this, is silly.

I'm sure he is, but as with all Syrian dissenters, they have their agenda. Your academic credentials don't guise you from fabrications.

I did say it's the wrong interpretation.

They also don't do torture.

You're shitting me right?

So raping young Yezidi girls, beheading minorities, burning down places of worship, setting people on fire.....none of that is torture then?

 

[sun_tzu]

They also don't do torture.

there are many many accounts stating the opposite - How can you be so categoric that these accounts are all false?

 

[LeChuck]

Of course the regime used torture, its a ba'athist regime no different to the one Saddam embraced to consolidate his power. My perspective isn't remotely hazy there.

As for shrines and places of worship being destroyed - they were destroyed during this civil war. Prior to that, the Assad family had 30 years to destroy the shrine, but surprise surprise they weren't touched, along with all the churches that ISIS, Al-Nusra and the FSA have deliberately torched while forcing thousands of Christians into exile.

They were destroyed by Bashar's lot during the civil war. We can dress it up however you want, but the facts are the FSA are primarily a Sunni group, whereas Bashar et al are primarily an Alawi/Shia group. Destroying things such as Khalid bin Waleed's (RA) burial place would be a blow to any Sunni. This isn't the only place that they have destroyed with Sunni significance, in the region. And I wouldn't put the FSA in the same boat as ISIS.

ISIS are wrong for doing the same thing in Iraq (destroying places of worship), and I've commented on it before, but there needs to be a distinction made between the FSA and ISIS.

Destroying it anytime in the 40 years preceding the civil war, well, you'd basically have what is happening now but a lot sooner.

I'm sure he is, but as with all Syrian dissenters, they have their agenda. Your academic credentials don't guise you from fabrications.

Agreed-but I think in this case, you're mistaken.

You're shitting me right?

So raping young Yezidi girls, beheading minorities, burning down places of worship, setting people on fire.....none of that is torture then?

there are many many accounts stating the opposite - How can you be so categoric that these accounts are all false?

I don't want to get into the nitty, gritty of Wahabbism, which is what IS have claimed to derive their actions from. But, there is a method to the madness, if you will.

With killing with fire, and beheading, this is form of execution, not torture.

With destroying places of worship, this doesn't constitute torture, (at least in a physical/tangible sense).

With the Yazidi girls, this is torture, but as I said before, their ideology are based on wrong interpretations. The jurisprudence of POW is a very lengthy and hotly debated topic.

When I said 'they don't do torture', I meant it more in the sense of what occurred at Al Ghuraib, waterboarding, Bagram, which is more of a Western practice. They wouldn't, for example, capture someone with the sole intention of torturing them indefinitely.

 

[Kaos]

They were destroyed by Bashar's lot during the civil war. We can dress it up however you want, but the facts are the FSA are primarily a Sunni group, whereas Bashar et al are primarily an Alawi/Shia group. Destroying things such as Khalid bin Waleed's (RA) burial place would be a blow to any Sunni. This isn't the only place that they have destroyed with Sunni significance, in the region. And I wouldn't put the FSA in the same boat as ISIS.

ISIS are wrong for doing the same thing in Iraq (destroying places of worship), and I've commented on it before, but there needs to be a distinction made between the FSA and ISIS.

Destroying it anytime in the 40 years preceding the civil war, well, you'd basically have what is happening now but a lot sooner.

But you're forgetting another key fact - the vast majority of Syrian government soldiers are Sunni. What justification would they have in deliberately desecrating their own sect's places of worship?

I don't want to get into the nitty, gritty of Wahabbism, which is what IS have claimed to derive their actions from. But, there is a method to the madness, if you will.

With killing with fire, and beheading, this is form of execution, not torture.

With destroying places of worship, this doesn't constitute torture, (at least in a physical/tangible sense).

With the Yazidi girls, this is torture, but as I said before, their ideology are based on wrong interpretations. The jurisprudence of POW is a very lengthy and hotly debated topic.

When I said 'they don't do torture', I meant it more in the sense of what occurred at Al Ghuraib, waterboarding, Bagram, which is more of a Western practice. They wouldn't, for example, capture someone with the sole intention of torturing them indefinitely.

I still don't understand your stance here. Why not just denounce them as the vile, evil, malicious vermin that they are instead of finding pedantic ways to justify their actions based on their misguided interpretations?

 

[LeChuck]

But you're forgetting another key fact - the vast majority of Syrian government soldiers are Sunni. What justification would they have in deliberately desecrating their own sect's places of worship?

A vast majority, or a few? Do you have a source?

I'd suggest that either a) their allegiance to the state transcends that or religion/freedom etc or b) they are in a compromised situation.

I still don't understand your stance here. Why not just denounce them as the vile, evil, malicious vermin that they are instead of finding pedantic ways to justify their actions based on their misguided interpretations?

Would you feel appeased if I did?

Can I ask you-what is your take on Assad, and his actions since 2011? Just so I can be sure.

 

[Kaos]

A vast majority, or a few? Do you have a source?

I'd suggest that either a) their allegiance to the state transcends that or religion/freedom etc or b) they are in a compromised situation.

Well the vast majorty of Syria's population is Sunni, so that would be expected to be reflected in the military too. Granted the officers are mostly Alawite as you'd expect from a dictator wanting to consolidate his power, but most of the foot soldiers and almost all pilots are Sunnis.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...my-syrias-war--the-generals-view-9206169.html

As for being in a compromised situation, they could just do what a few of their compatriots have done and defect to the opposition forces. But most have stayed put since they've sensibly recognised the regime being a lesser evil and providing a less macabre alternative for their families in the future than the opposition would.

Would you feel appeased if I did?

Can I ask you-what is your take on Assad, and his actions since 2011? Just so I can be sure.

I'm a vehement anti-ba'athist who champions democracy in the middle east. Hence I've always thought Syria had needed reforms. On the other hand I'm also a staunch secularist, so I feel very nervous whenever a country's secular fabric is in danger of being compromised as it currently is in Syria.

I would support reforms which would replace Assad but not at the expense of toppling the secular setup Syria has. The Islamist-led opposition forces assuming power would be disastrous in my eyes.

 

[LeChuck]

Well the vast majorty of Syria's population is Sunni, so that would be expected to be reflected in the military too. Granted the officers are mostly Alawite as you'd expect from a dictator wanting to consolidate his power, but most of the foot soldiers and almost all pilots are Sunnis.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...my-syrias-war--the-generals-view-9206169.html

As for being in a compromised situation, they could just do what a few of their compatriots have done and defect to the opposition forces. But most have stayed put since they've sensibly recognised the regime being a lesser evil and providing a less macabre alternative for their families in the future than the opposition would.

I'd gander that it'd be harder to defect if their rank was higher, as their family etc could easily become collateral. But, I think we're getting into semantics again and have diverged from the original point. My original point is that the conflict in Syria is primarily a Sunni v Shia/Alawi one.

Also, the article, do you believe that is impartial?

I'm a vehement anti-ba'athist who champions democracy in the middle east. Hence I've always thought Syria had needed reforms. On the other hand I'm also a staunch secularist, so I feel very nervous whenever a country's secular fabric is in danger of being compromised as it currently is in Syria.

I would support reforms which would replace Assad but not at the expense of toppling the secular setup Syria has. The Islamist-led opposition forces assuming power would be disastrous in my eyes.

Thanks.

 

[Kaos]

I'd gander that it'd be harder to defect if their rank was higher, as their family etc could easily become collateral. But, I think we're getting into semantics again and have diverged from the original point. My original point is that the conflict in Syria is primarily a Sunni v Shia/Alawi one.

Except its not that simple. The whole Sunni vs Shia angle is something exploited by ISIS/Al Nusra recruiters to fabricate the obtuse overview of the Shia minority dictator murdering Sunnis. Likewise its also conversely used by Shia hardliners to come to the aid of president Assad.

The fact of the matter is Syrian demographics are far less black and white than this reality. We're not factoring in the Druzes, Christians and secular Sunnis, most of which prefer to side with the government over the terrifying consequences likely to surface for them should the alternative prevail. Heck, even Alawites are not strictly speaking Shia if we're being pedantic.

A lot of this "us vs them" mentality is straw-clutching used to incite sectarian tension.

The Grand Mufti of Syria - considered the highest Sunni religious authority in Syria, is himself a supporter of the government. He even lost his son to the FSA.



This is not a sunni vs Shia conflict, its extremism vs secularism.

Also, the article, do you believe that is impartial?

Its an independent article gauging the thoughts of Syrian soldiers, it offers a different perspective.

 

[LeChuck]

Except its not that simple. The whole Sunni vs Shia angle is something exploited by ISIS/Al Nusra recruiters to fabricate the obtuse overview of the Shia minority dictator murdering Sunnis. Likewise its also conversely used by Shia hardliners to come to the aid of president Assad.

The fact of the matter is Syrian demographics are far less black and white than this reality. We're not factoring in the Druzes, Christians and secular Sunnis, most of which prefer to side with the government over the terrifying consequences likely to surface for them should the alternative prevail. Heck, even Alawites are not strictly speaking Shia if we're being pedantic.

A lot of this "us vs them" mentality is straw-clutching used to incite sectarian tension.

The Grand Mufti of Syria - considered the highest Sunni religious authority in Syria, is himself a supporter of the government. He even lost his son to the FSA.



This is not a sunni vs Shia conflict, its extremism vs secularism.

Its an independent article gauging the thoughts of Syrian soldiers, it offers a different perspective.

In its inception, that'd hold true-the fact that an Alawi/Shia family has held power for 40+ years etc. But the fact that Hezbollah and other Shia militias have pledged allegiance to Bashar would suggest that it isn't a solely secular conflict anymore, but a struggle between Shia and Sunni forces. This is the overriding face of the civil war.

I also wouldn't use Sheikh Ahmad Badreddin Hassoun as a reasoned view in this conflict. He has come out with a wide range of illogical statements 'I am both Shia and Sunni', as well as advocating suicide bombing and terrorist attacks.

I'd also call into question the impartiality and independence of that article.

 

[Kaos]

In its inception, that'd hold true-the fact that an Alawi/Shia family has held power for 40+ years etc. But the fact that Hezbollah and other Shia militias have pledged allegiance to Bashar would suggest that it isn't a solely secular conflict anymore, but a struggle between Shia and Sunni forces. This is the overriding face of the civil war.

I also wouldn't use Sheikh Ahmad Badreddin Hassoun as a reasoned view in this conflict. He has come out with a wide range of illogical statements 'I am both Shia and Sunni', as well as advocating suicide bombing and terrorist attacks.

I'd also call into question the impartiality and independence of that article.

Hezbollah and other militias have pledged loyalty largely because they are funded and supported by the Assad regime and its Iranian ally, so if the regime were to collapse and Iran's ally consequently weakened, then their position would also be compromised. Hence their support is a no brainer.

Since you're adamant on this being a sunni/shia conflict, I'm curious as to where you'd put the Christians, Druzes and other minorities in this - how would you explain their support for the regime?

I'm also not advocating Sheikh Hassoun, merely showing how a senior Sunni cleric putting his weight behind the government kind of dilutes this whole sectarian angle.

 

[PedroMendez]

just because there is a (strong) sectarian influence doesnt mean, that its only a sectarian conflict. People also have tribal and purely opportunistic/pragmatic motives.

 

[LeChuck]

Hezbollah and other militias have pledged loyalty largely because they are funded and supported by the Assad regime and its Iranian ally, so if the regime were to collapse and Iran's ally consequently weakened, then their position would also be compromised. Hence their support is a no brainer.

Since you're adamant on this being a sunni/shia conflict, I'm curious as to where you'd put the Christians, Druzes and other minorities in this - how would you explain their support for the regime?

I'm also not advocating Sheikh Hassoun, merely showing how a senior Sunni cleric putting his weight behind the government kind of dilutes this whole sectarian angle.

Do you really believe that the only reason Hezbollah joined the conflict is because some of their funding will be stopped? Considering they're receiving millions upon millions from Lebanon, and Iran (I'd guess at least 90% of their funding are from these two sources), and are significant players in the drug trade, making an absolute killing, they wouldn't get involved in a conflict unless it would give them a chance to aid their own goals, rather than losing a bit of funding. Assad was a relatively late contributor to Hezbollah's funding, regardless. It wouldn't make sense, from a strategic POV, for Hezbollah to give aid to a secular government on a land they have historically never really controlled.

I'm not adamant on dressing this up as a Shia/Sunni conflict, btw. I agree that, in its inception, it started off as a revolution against the government, but the longer it has continued, it's as plain as day to see that it currently is a conflict between Sunnis and Shias.

Wrt, Christians, Druze and other minorities-well Druze specifically are an offshoot of Ismaili Shiite Islam, so their support for the current regime isn't that surprising.

Shafiq highlighted the good relationship between Idlib’s Druze community and the Syrian rebels in the province, accusing the Syrian government of “fabricating these reports to intimidate the Druze” and divide the Syrian opposition.

Shafiq added: “The Druze of Idlib, who are estimated at 30,000, are part of the Syrian revolution,” and he dismissed the media reports as being part of a “game played by the Syrian regime to provoke strife between the Druze and Sunnis.”

He affirmed that meetings had taken place between Sunni clerics and Druze sheikhs that included religious discussions, but stressed that these discussions highlighted the unity of both sides and the rejection of sectarian strife. Shafiq said that Sunni and Druze leadership had subsequently met to discuss the false media reports of Druze forced conversions.

There are dark tactics at play, that's what I'll say. The FSA aren't in the same category as IS, which is the point you've been trying to make, I feel.

Sheikh Hassoun-he has lost a lot of respect amongst scholarly circles. The Muslim clergy in Aleppo are renowned for being the most corrupt around. I could write a lot about this guy, but my work laptop is acting up due to the length of the post.

 

[Kaos]

Do you really believe that the only reason Hezbollah joined the conflict is because some of their funding will be stopped? Considering they're receiving millions upon millions from Lebanon, and Iran (I'd guess at least 90% of their funding are from these two sources), and are significant players in the drug trade, making an absolute killing, they wouldn't get involved in a conflict unless it would give them a chance to aid their own goals, rather than losing a bit of funding. Assad was a relatively late contributor to Hezbollah's funding, regardless. It wouldn't make sense, from a strategic POV, for Hezbollah to give aid to a secular government on a land they have historically never really controlled.

Well without their funding they'd pretty much heavily weakened, so Hezbollah are essentially fighting for their survival considering they'd pretty much be dissolved if their links to Iran and Syria are severed. And despite being a Shia Islamic movement, their outlook has largely been secular. They've often been in a coalition with Christian parties in the Lebanese government, and unlike their FSA oppononents, have vowed never to impose their religious beliefs on others. So in essence, they pretty much have quasi-secular setup.

I'm not adamant on dressing this up as a Shia/Sunni conflict, btw. I agree that, in its inception, it started off as a revolution against the government, but the longer it has continued, it's as plain as day to see that it currently is a conflict between Sunnis and Shias.
Wrt, Christians, Druze and other minorities-well Druze specifically are an offshoot of Ismaili Shiite Islam, so their support for the current regime isn't that surprising.

Again, Christians make up a considerable minority. Where do you place them in this supposed Shia vs Sunni conflict? Furthermore, Druzes don't even consider themselves Muslim these days.

There are dark tactics at play, that's what I'll say. The FSA aren't in the same category as IS, which is the point you've been trying to make, I feel.

The FSA had no qualms allying with Al-Nusra and ISIS in the earlier stage of the conflict, and had only turned on them when there was an internal power struggle. They've also been implicated in similar acts of sectarian barbarity as their (ex) ISIS comrades.

Sheikh Hassoun-he has lost a lot of respect amongst scholarly circles. The Muslim clergy in Aleppo are renowned for being the most corrupt around. I could write a lot about this guy, but my work laptop is acting up due to the length of the post.

Again, I'm not here to argue Sheikh Hassoun's credibility and reputation, I'm merely use his and his fellow scholars' support for the government as an example of this sectarian division being more diluted than you claim it to be.

 

[Ballache]

@Uzz How do you explain the fact that some Christians in Lebanon are against the regime and the vast majority of Druzes in Lebanon are also against the regime? It's far more complicated than a Shia/Sunni conflict (which is all fairness does exist to a certain extent). It's the big boys fighting to keep their sphere of influence, throw Israel into the mix and you understand why the Middle East is a major wreck.

 

[LeChuck]

Well without their funding they'd pretty much heavily weakened, so Hezbollah are essentially fighting for their survival considering they'd pretty much be dissolved if their links to Iran and Syria are severed. And despite being a Shia Islamic movement, their outlook has largely been secular. They've often been in a coalition with Christian parties in the Lebanese government, and unlike their FSA oppononents, have vowed never to impose their religious beliefs on others. So in essence, they pretty much have quasi-secular setup.

Definitely not fighting for their survival. These guys are funded by millions upon millions upon millions by Iran and Lebanon primarily. They're also big players in the drugs trade. I think we're just gonna go back and forth here, about this anyway.

Hezbollah, in my eyes, aren't the enemy. It's Assad and his men. Imo, Hezbollah shouldn't have got involved in this conflict.

Again, Christians make up a considerable minority. Where do you place them in this supposed Shia vs Sunni conflict? Furthermore, Druzes don't even consider themselves Muslim these days.

Did you see the quote I posted earlier about Druze? They are fine with the Sunni/FSA guys. I'm not going to discuss the semantics of Druze religion.

Wrt Christians, they tried to remain neutral but unfortunately they've been embroiled in it. From what I've heard some support the regime and some definitely don't. But both IS and Assad have caused untold grief to these innocent groups.

The FSA had no qualms allying with Al-Nusra and ISIS in the earlier stage of the conflict, and had only turned on them when there was an internal power struggle. They've also been implicated in similar acts of sectarian barbarity as their (ex) ISIS comrades.

The acts that have been committed by Assad's lot, and some of the Shia militias are disgusting, and I know that the FSA won't have committed such acts. The FSA aren't angels, but they aren't as inhumane as Assad. He's gassed his own people and killed scores of children and innocent civilians. The FSA have primarily targeted soldiers.

Again, I'm not here to argue Sheikh Hassoun's credibility and reputation, I'm merely use his and his fellow scholars' support for the government as an example of this sectarian division being more diluted than you claim it to be.

And I'm saying (again), he is a corrupt individual. He's lived in his Aleppo mansion, with expensive cars while the people he preaches to are in poverty. He is not respected amongst the clergy, in fact, you'd be hard pressed to find any scholar in support of Assad.

In fact, have a read of this :

More than one hundred Islamic scholars representing various Islamic trends have issued a statement denouncing the Syrian regime and forbidding continued service in the Syrian army and security forces. They have also called on all Arab and Muslim states to withdraw their ambassadors from Syria and put pressure on the states which are continuing to support President Bashar al-Assad’s regime, especially Russia and China.
107 of the most well-known Muslim scholars from various countries, representing various Islamic groups and organizations have signed the statement which was issued on Tuesday 7th February 2012 / 15th Rabi’ al-Awwal 1434. They include Dr. Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the President of the International Union of Muslim Scholars, Dr. Ali Gomaa, the Grand Mufti of Egypt, and Shaikh Rached Al-Ghannouchi of Tunisia.

Shaikh Dr. Haitham al-Haddad also joins these scholars in signing this declaration as well as calling on the scholars of the United Kingdom to join the signatories.

The scholars call on Muslims and free people all over the world to support the Free Syrian Army and at the same time call on the Free Syrian Army to be disciplined in order not to stray from its mission to protect the Syrian people – they should steer clear of harming innocent people and carrying out revenge attacks.

You can see the use of that Sheikh to make a point is counter productive.

@Ballache - I did say it isn't solely Sunni/Shia but this is the overriding face of the conflict. There are a myriad of facets to the conflict, but increasingly, this is the prevailing face of the conflict. Sunnis don't blindly follow Sunni representatives, and vice versa for Shia. Many Sunni factions have come out against IS, even though they are both Sunni.

The Christians and Druze from Lebanon on the side of the FSA want justice to prevail, as do I, and the only way it will is if Assad reliquishes power and is tried for war crimes.

Anyway, as I said, it isn't based/solely based on Sunni/Shia, but this is what it has become.

The ME is a mess atm, and I really feel for the people there.

 

[2cents]

On the topic of the Druze in Idlib (most of which appears to be under JaN control these days), here's a recent report claiming they've been forced to convert. I've no idea on the credibility of the report or website - http://syriadirect.org/main/36-inte...conversion-destroyed-shrines-under-nusra-rule

@Uzz, what's the link for the article you quoted in #4300?

 

[LeChuck]

@2cents i'm on my phone so can't view post numbers. Was it my most recent one or the one about Druze?

 

[2cents]

@2cents i'm on my phone so can't view post numbers. Was it my most recent one or the one about Druze?

The quote which says that Druze and Sunnis in Idlib are actually getting along just fine, and that reports to the contrary have been fabricated by the regime.

 

[Ballache]

@Uzz In my opinion, Assad needs to stay in power but loosen his grip on things and make reforms. As a Lebanese person I'm far from being a fan of the Assad family but I honestly know that there's no better alternative. Shia/Sunni feud is an aspect I agree, one that is used to ignite shit when needs be. As for the Middle East, I feel sorry for us too. I have never seen real peace in my 25 years and will probably die before any stability takes place.

 

[LeChuck]

@2cents -it was an article from Arsharq al Awsat. I typed that from my work laptop but try googling some of what I quoted and the article should come up.

 

[2cents]

Got it - http://www.aawsat.net/2013/12/article55326047/syria-druze-rebels-deny-forced-conversion-reports7

On a related matter, this appeared on Twitter today:

There's some debate over whether or not the account is genuine.

 

[Danny1982]

Got it - http://www.aawsat.net/2013/12/article55326047/syria-druze-rebels-deny-forced-conversion-reports7

On a related matter, this appeared on Twitter today:

There's some debate over whether or not the account is genuine.

He has praised them in the past.

 

[LeChuck]

@Uzz In my opinion, Assad needs to stay in power but loosen his grip on things and make reforms. As a Lebanese person I'm far from being a fan of the Assad family but I honestly know that there's no better alternative. Shia/Sunni feud is an aspect I agree, one that is used to ignite shit when needs be. As for the Middle East, I feel sorry for us too. I have never seen real peace in my 25 years and will probably die before any stability takes place.

It's a self serving dynasty there (Syria), the family has been ruling for 40+ years-change is needed and Assad needs to go. With Shia/Sunni tensions, it's a shame that two sets of people, who share so much in beliefs can be divided so easily.

And the state of the Middle East really saddens me. This is what happens when you carve up lands that you have no real knowledge about, drawing arbitrary borders, ignoring ethno or religious autonomy, with puppet leaders and fake monarchies. It's a sad state, and these issues are down to Balfour, Sykes Picot and Western intervention, and it'll continue. The first step to resolving this is to begin redrawing these maps.

 

[Hernandez - BFA]

Admittedly I don't know much about ISIS apart from the fact that they are terrorists and want a "caliphate".

Is there something that should make us more nervous about them than Al-Qaeda or previous terror groups?
Are they growing in popularity/numbers, or is it just a select thousand that will eventually (hopefully) pipe down?

 

[Relevated]

Admittedly I don't know much about ISIS apart from the fact that they are terrorists and want a "caliphate".

Is there something that should make us more nervous about them than Al-Qaeda or previous terror groups?
Are they growing in popularity/numbers, or is it just a select thousand that will eventually (hopefully) pipe down?

they're growing every day and control their land like a proper government, a bit like the taliban were but a bit more educated and smart in terms of how to run things i'd say.

 

[Hernandez - BFA]

they're growing every day and control their land like a proper government, a bit like the taliban were but a bit more educated and smart in terms of how to run things i'd say.

So I'm assuming it's worse for the Western world that they're more smarter as they're probably a whole lot more tactical? In which case, we should be worried?

 

[The Mitcher]

So I'm assuming it's worse for the Western world that they're more smarter as they're probably a whole lot more tactical? In which case, we should be worried?

They are barely more tactical, they were kind of lucky the Iraqi army simply abandoned their positions back to baghdad and were in disaarry as they conquered most of the north, in other areas they have taken over where its already in war, like Syria. The kurds and to a lesser extent the coalition forces have shown that they aren't THAT good militarily yet, and the Iraqi's have begun to turn the tide. ISIS really should not have lost the siege of Kobani, they basically had the kurds running out of ammo and surrounded at one point.

 

[Hernandez - BFA]

They are barely more tactical, they were kind of lucky the Iraqi army simply abandoned their positions back to baghdad and were in disaarry as they conquered most of the north, in other areas they have taken over where its already in war, like Syria. The kurds and to a lesser extent the coalition forces have shown that they aren't THAT good militarily yet, and the Iraqi's have begun to turn the tide. ISIS really should not have lost the siege of Kobani, they basically had the kurds running out of ammo and surrounded at one point.

So hopefully we can wipe them out within the next 5 years or so?

I sound so naive and I do apologise for that, I just don't understand much how these terrorist group work.

 

[LeChuck]

This picture really saddened me today.

In Syria, a journalist pointed the camera at this little girl. She raised her arms to surrender, as she thought it was a weapon.

 

[The Mitcher]

So hopefully we can wipe them out within the next 5 years or so?

I sound so naive and I do apologise for that, I just don't understand much how these terrorist group work.

Dunno, they'd be destroyed if the likes of Saudi Arabia and Turkey stopped funding them. I guess we have to be careful what we wish for when the West decides to back revolutionary forces.

 

[Hernandez - BFA]

Dunno, they'd be destroyed if the likes of Saudi Arabia and Turkey stopped funding them. I guess we have to be careful what we wish for when the West decides to back revolutionary forces.

I had no idea Saudi Arabia and Turkey were involved. They're ISIS driven too?

Cheers anyway for the info.

 

[The Mitcher]

I had no idea Saudi Arabia and Turkey were involved. They're ISIS driven too?

Cheers anyway for the info.

No no, they are not ISIS driven. Turkey are allegedly doing it because of the kurds, Saudi Arabia because a lot of their influential players want to fund isis for various reasons.

 

[Kaos]

No no, they are not ISIS driven. Turkey are allegedly doing it because of the kurds, Saudi Arabia because a lot of their influential players want to fund isis for various reasons.

Pretty much this.

Turkey see no reason to fear ISIS since their military is easily amongst the most capable on the planet. They do however fear the flourishing of Kurdish nationalist movements who seek to gain autonomy and independence - which would be at Turkey's expense. So they see supporting ISIS as a necessary evil since they're also at odds with the Kurds.

The Saudis and various other Gulf Arab states covertly support ISIS for similar reasons, but this time its to antagonise their regional rival - Shia Iran, who ISIS deem as their most hated enemy.