Does that apply to the government of Bahrain, Yemen, and Ukraine? (we can actually add Iraq and Afghanistan too)
ISIS in Iraq and Syria
- Thread starter Suli
- Start date
No they really do come across as sectarian and its not just you and Kaos as Shi'a fanboys who are doing it. There are a couple of Sunni posters who are sticking up for that position as well. The thread would be better served if that were taken out of the equation.
No those cases are different from Syria, which is currently in a protracted civil war with a minority dictator who is bombing his own citizens into oblivion, so the analogy doesn't really work.
He's absolutely correct in his assessment, although I'm not at all surprised that raised you Bahrain and Yemen.
Yeah of course, because they (together with the three other cases I mentioned) fit that definition but you and the US seem to take a completely different position on those cases which exposes your (and the US) hypocrisy.
I'm all for more pressure on Bahrain and Yemen but that doesn't absolve Assad from any of the things he's done. You can't drop indiscriminate barrel bombs and chemical weapons on your own civilian citizens and expect a shred of credibility to remain in power.
How about hospitals and weddings? Are they OK to bomb?
No they're definitely not, but there's no equivalence there if those are accidents. Assad is deliberately dropping barrel bombs on civilian populations. He has also deliberately launched a chemical weapons attack on his own civilian population.
The Houthis are Shi'a, just a different type to the majority Twelvers.
Do you think it matters to those people that those were accidents? And that's the ones we've heard about.
Assad's opponents would do the same to him and his, if they had an opportunity, I don't believe in that 'moderate' BS . I'm not justifying what he did, but it's extremely naive to suggest he's the bad guy in all this. In a war, everybody's bad to various degrees. I don't see any force out there capable of replacing Assad and being able to keep things under control. It's either him or the ones that cut people's heads. I know who I prefer.
The intent obviously does matter if one side is targeting terrorists while the other is targeting to kill or maim as many civilians as possible in order to terrorize them into submission. Simply put, supporting Assad makes you morally complicit in his actions, which include a chemical weapons attack on his own citizens.
Anyone interested in more on Assad's Sarin gas attack, this is well worth a watch....(from 2:04 on)
This is the same Assad the Russians and Iranians are fighting hard to keep in power.
This is the same Assad the Russians and Iranians are fighting hard to keep in power.
But it's the Russians everything they do is ok or at least excused away because someone else has done bad things also.
Do you want me to show what kind of terrorists you and the Saudis are trying to help to climb to power.
By the way, if you are honest in your emotions (and not just regurgitating US propaganda here), why did you keep denying that the terrorists possess and have used chemical weapons in Syria? Even though everybody knows that's a fact now. Oh and by the way...
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/08/syria-chemical-weapons-not-assad-bild
Also, the only side possessing chemical weapons right now in the Syrian conflict is the side you and the US are supporting.
Wait, are you actually denying that Assad launched a sarin gas attack on his own people ? Just want to clarify this.
They come from a long history where lies and propaganda were the norm in Soviet discourse and are now being used by the former KGP Colonel who is their current dictator. The Russian public are apparently being overwhelmed by a massive dose of pro-Russian propaganda related to the Syria campaign, just as they were with Ukraine last year. This is how they control public perception of the regime and fend off potential dissent.
When that 'someone else' does bad things far more often and on a much bigger scale and never gets punished for them, it's easy to make a case that Russians are far from the worst bunch out there.
I'm (pleasantly) surprised you asked this question.
As I have stated many times before, I don't claim to know who did it. You and the US don't care about the chemical weapons or the people who died because of them. All you care about is creating an excuse that helps you achieve your political goals, just like you did with Iraq.
IMO if what you really care about is the chemical weapons, then Assad (thanks in part to Russia) has given up all of his stockpile of chemical weapons. Does that make him a better person? No. Does that make him lesser of a dictator? No. But in the issue of chemical weapons, the goal should be that we make sure this doesn't happen again, and Assad did what he should do. The reality is, right now, the only danger of using chemical weapons is coming from the other side, the side you're supporting, and ironically you don't seem to care about that.
Also the article I posted is not quoting me. It's quoting the intelligence service of an anti-Assad country, and they're clearly indicating that Assad didn't order the attack. It doesn't surprise me though that you choose to ignore these reports/facts, because like I said, you're not after the truth, you're just (knowingly or unknowingly) part of the US propaganda machine.
"They did bad things, therefore we should be allowed to as well". Fantastic logic that.
I think you'd you quite wrong here - people in the US as well as many other countries do care if their fellow humans are being attacked with nerve gas, especially if its being done by a rogue dictator who is aligned with everyone from the opening scene of the Naked Gun.
Nobody asks you to allow anything, nobody cares if you approve of it or not. For once in a long time somebody does things without asking Americans for permission and they're unhappy.
Of course regular people do. I'm talking about the US government and its propaganda machine.
Thank you for proving my point.
Stupid is as stupid does
We actually dont!
btw this is not the first time its been brought up in this thread either
I don't think that Kaos is Shia. Or even religious for that matter.
Uzz on the other side looks definitely a Sunni fanboy.
Not just a different type. There are a lot of differences (where they're closer to the Sunnis). In fact their leader (Zaid ibn Ali) was the first to call the Shia "Rafidha", a term used widely by extremist Sunnis.
The Shia actually consider them "Sunnis".
Ain't Alawites considered as Shia?
I'm an atheist Kurd yet have been called 'Shia fanboy' numerous times, its bizarre really.
But again act the person mostly making those accusations works for the US government so I'm hardly surprised at the spin.
Probably because you consistently take the pro-Shi'a position on Iran/Hezbollah and have alluded to having connections (your other half?) in Syria.
The are Shi'a nevertheless. They believe authority in Islam rightfully belongs to the descendants of Ali, although unlike the Ismailis and the Twelvers, they don't believe in the infallibility of the Imams. For most of Islamic history they were the majority Shi'a sect, it was only after the Safavids forcibly converted Iran to Twelver Shi'ism that the latter became a majority and so got to present themselves as 'orthodox' Shi'a.
Historically no, they were considered as 'Ghulat' (extremists) whose deification of Ali placed them beyond the acceptable confines of Islam. The idea that they are Shi'a is a recent political development born of the Assad regime's quest for legitimacy and the alliance with Iran which was a consequence of the Iran-Iraq conflict.
Yep, I was pretty sure that you're Kurd and atheist, so was surprised at Raoul's accusation.
Cheers! I am not very familiar with Islamic sectarianism. I've just read that they're Shia, but didn't know the history behind it.
My pro-Shia positions which have included being critical of the Iranian clergy and preferring Saddam over the current regime?
I'm also not sure what connections you're alluding to. There are Shias in my family, but there are many more Sunnis. Like I've mentioned, my only bias here is a pro-secular one (which I wouldn't have objected to you calling me a fanboy of).
There are tens or even more different sects in Islam. It's only now that they're being categorised into two sects (Sunni vs Shia), mainly in line with the political conflict in the region between Iran and Saudi Arabia. "Shia" actually (religiously) don't consider Alawite Shia, and some don't even consider them Muslims.
A Sunni fanboy? What is that?
I think I've been very fair and level headed on my discussions on these forums. I don't have an anti-Shia rhetoric (if that's what you're trying to insinuate), and calling out Assad for being a murderous butcher has nothing to do with him being Alawi.
Some other people have clear bias in these discussions, and I'm definitely not one of them. I don't support butchers, maybe I'm a fanboy of that.
Which policies? The fact that they don't take refugees when they do? Or that they are to blame for the stampede when they aren't? If they're culpable I'm more than happy to put the blame in. I've been critical of them here, but for legit reasons.
Edit: And I'll get to Kaos' questions in due course. Nice to see I have an audience waiting with such fervour.
Not really. There are many different sects within the Zaidis themselves, but the one in Yemen (called Al-Hadwiya, which is the main one remaining of the Zaidis) is actually closer to the Sunnis than the Shia.
Regardless which the "real Shia" are (which is a whole other discussion), the Zaidis in Yemen do not belong to the same religious sect as the Shia in Iran, Iraq and Lebanon, who constitute the majority of the Shia right now.
Not really. Assad has never claimed he's a Shia. In fact, Sunni Islam is the sect of Islam taught in schools in Syria. It's the other way around, Assad's opponents are the ones who are trying to picture him as a Shia to gather support among the Sunnis, using his political alliance with Iran and Hezbollah as evidence.