I'd say its more Russia and Iran going out of their way to uphold their regional interests than Assad running to them.
ISIS in Iraq and Syria
- Thread starter Suli
- Start date
I'd say its more Russia and Iran going out of their way to uphold their regional interests than Assad running to them.
Fat chance, they're not going to risk direct confrontation with the Russians, even if their beloved jihadists are getting slaughtered out there. Maybe if some batshit looney tune like Trump were president, but certainly not Obama.
They could simply do it and the Russians wouldn't be able to stop it. They don't have the technology or weapons to stop it.
I heard the Russians were thinking along the same lines.
But they're not going to, because they know themselves it would be a foolishly dangerous manuveur. They did feck all in Ukraine and they'll do feck here. Its just empty posturing to warn the Russians and appease their allies.
NATO and the US only specialises in attacking smaller, poorly armed nations. No chance they'll risk attacking the Russians, even if their weapons and collective military resources are superior.
The Russians have air bases on the ground. They're in Syrian air space at the invitation of the Syrian government.
NATO are going to tell them: 'Syrian air space is ours. We're going to fly our warplanes over it. If you fly yours, we'll shoot you down?' Can't see that happening.
I don't think there would be a confrontation, but if there were the Russians would come out on the losing end. Not only would their forces be in jeopardy but there would be yet more economic sanctions to strangle their already flaccid economy.
Well there you go, you pretty much summarised it there. All of this is irrelevant because its not going to happen.
...precisely for this reason.
So it would seem, but there's clearly a precedent in northern Iraq where the US flew missions from Turkey to protect the Kurds from Saddam. When you have the military, economic, and moral imperative, there's nothing to hold you back if you're so inclined.
And that wasn't so long ago when Russians were perceived by a big chunk of the Middle East in the same light as the Americans were perceived by the world during the Vietnam War. Of course some Putin ass-kissers will say that Russia doesn't care how other countries perceive them, but they better remember that the Russian government's own actions have led Russia in the fecking mess they're in both socially and economically. That's the result of "electing" an asshole who still lives in the Cold War.
Very solid post, man.
Regardless of who supports who on the geopolitical stage, I will keep wishing the downfall of all forms of dictatorships in my lifetime, including a number of dictatorial countries currently supported by the US.
You've got to be on a windup.
I don't need google to tell me about Al Anfal and how the US sat back and happily watched Saddam gas the Kurds with the very same chemical weapons they gifted him.
The 'moral imperative' part I'm convinced you yourself don't even believe.
Not sure why you're quoting yourself here or why you're raising something Saddam did - the same Saddam I might add, whose reign you tacitly supported by opposing the US intervention.
I'm with you there as well. I'd like to see all dictatorships crumble including those where the US has historically looked the other way. And I'm sure that will happen in the coming years as the global system can't support authoritarian strongmen in a world of economic interference .
Ahh this old gem again. You know despising Saddam and opposing military intervention aren't mutually exclusive. Just ask the majority of Iraqis or pretty much most of the world.
Saddam was indeed responsible, but the US gave him the weapons and had tried to downplay the horrors of Al Anfal since they feared it would detract from the negative attention geared towards Iran. The point is it rubbishes your claim that the US were morally incentivised to help the Kurds, since precedence actually says otherwise.
Well you can't really have it both ways can you. You either hate his murderous, Assad-like ways and want him out, at which point you are in tacit support of an intervention to remove him - or - you reject the intervention and are thereby tacitly supportive of him staying in power, perhaps indefinitely before handing over to his sons. If its 2003, these are your choices.
The neocons would have you believe its as black and white as that but luckily in the real world its more layered. Unfortunately a million dead Iraqis aren't around today to express their gratitude at being liberated, I'm guessing they were all Saddam loyalists.
Ok, cool. I'll take that as a you prefer Saddam to still be around today.
I'd rather he was never around. But even as someone who's family suffered under his tenure, I much preferred Ba'athi Iraq to the violent, tragic, and impoverished cesspit it is today. I'm afraid westerners who make sanctimonious points about being 'liberated' from his reign don't really understand the middle east. Ditto for Syria.
We're not talking about the history roots. The Hadwiya (the Zaidi sect in Yemen) are actually even closer than that to the Sunnis, which is why they're not even recognised as Shia.
Also your definition of Shia and Sunnis is not accurate for our days. That only applied long ago when it was basically 'whom do you want to rule'. Now it's much different, with many new ideas and sects appearing and the Islamic empire collapsing, which clouded the whole picture. Now most Sunnis (if not all) actually respect Ali bin Ali Talib (many Sunnis in Egypt actually even regularly visit the shrine of Hussein bin Ali in Egypt). On the other hand you see many shia now respect the other 3 caliphs. So the old definitions of Shia and Sunni don't apply nowadays, which is why it's now very difficult to categorise all Muslims into just Sunnis and Shia. The way some are trying to do it now is based mainly on political affiliations rather than religious beliefs.
And by the way, the same applies for the Sunnis. Al-Qaeda (and all the terrorists that share their ideology) are not actually "Sunnis". They're really "Wahhabis" or "extremist Salafis". The problem is Saudi Arabia (the only country in the world where Wahhabism is the official religion of the state) is actively trying to spread Wahhabism among the Sunnis communities, using sectarianism as their best tool to achieve that (besides direct funding, and materialistic/military support of course). The war in the Middle East is political, not religious. However, Saudi Arabia and its allies are actively trying to make this a "religious battle" to attract more Sunni masses to the conflict, and it has succeeded to some extent in doing that.
Regarding the Alawite, that article is only talking about "attempts" at best (if accurate, and many parts of the article is based on 'newspapers'). The reality is the Alawite has never been really Shia, neither in their own eyes, nor in the eyes of the other Shia. Their alliance with Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas is only political.
Also worth mentioning here, the Shia in Iraq actually hated Bashar Assad (they actually despised him), and even the Iraqi government had a very poor relation with him until the conflict in 2011. In fact the first intervention of the "Shia" in the Syrian conflict was to defend the Zainab shrine near Damascus. To claim that Assad is a Shia who is being defended by the Shia because he's Shia is in reality a pretty dumb statement. He has been defended by Iran and Hezbollah because they had a political alliance (same as Russia, which I'm pretty sure is not Shia). It's actually only later in the conflict that the Iraqi Shia started to change their position about Assad, mainly because they realised the danger that's going their way if Syria falls in the hands of the terrorists.
So what about the rest of Iraq in 1991? Do you know how many people died there at the time?
I knew you'd be here in no time Danny.This isn't even nearly mentioned enough. People forget that Bashar had actually allowed terrorists to cross into Iraq to help destabilise it. This quasi Alliance between Shia Iraq and Assad is one built solely on pragmatism and fears of the repercussions of Syria falling to the wrong hands.
Glad I'm bringing smiles to your face, even though you shouldn't be laughing at my question really. You said "regular people care...", right?
I understand why you don't want to answer the question though.
Im not questioning you on this danny, but I find this a little suprising, do shia no longer curse the 3 caliphs in friday kutbahs? I was led to believe they still do.
He did indeed. Damascus airport was being used as a hub for many, primarily north African Al-Qaeda fighters to fight the US and Iraqi Army in 2007-09 - in fact many of them set up logistical hubs within Syria that ultimately helped facilitate ISIS' ability to function in the present.
Not really. In the last couple of years it started to happen again though to some extent because of the sectarian tension, but it was basically led by two "unknowns", one of them lives in England and the other lives in the US. Iran has expelled one of them and closed his TV channel (which he's airing now from the US) and the other fled Kuwait and he's living now in England.
All the major Shia figures are actually strictly against that, including Khameni, Nasrallah, Muqtada Al-Sadr, Al-Sistani, ... and have made numerous public statements about it.
Thanks for the reply bro, never knew those clerics were against that.
Anything Moqtada Al-Sadr says shouldn't be taken the slightest bit seriously. The man is an oaf who would endlessly chase his own tail if he had one.
I'd be very interested to see credible scholarship which claims the Zaidis are not Shi'a. Any links? Here for example are a few snippets from a recent article on the Houthis by the same author of that book I recommended above (he wrote his dissertation at Princeton on the early Zaidis and did the bulk of his research in Yemen - he is a Pakistani-American Shi'i himself):
The Houthis trace their origins to a religious tradition known as Zaidism, a branch of Shia Islam that emerged during the failed revolt of Zaid — a great-great-grandson of the Prophet Muhammad — against Syria’s Umayyad caliphs in A.D. 740. Zaidism was distinguished by its political activism. The Zaidis believe that any descendant of the prophet with the proper credentials becomes a divinely sanctioned imam by virtue of leading an armed rebellion against a tyrant.
Zaidi Shiism became the dominant religious tradition of the northern Yemeni highlands at the end of the ninth century...
...In 1918, after the Ottoman defeat in World War I, a new line of Zaidi imams (the Hamid al-Din imams) took control of the country, remaining in power until the September 1962 revolution, which ushered in a republican government.
The new republic’s leaders set about fundamentally reinterpreting the history of the Zaidi imamate. Although the later Zaidi imams explicitly favored Sunni scholars, they were now depicted as avid — if not fanatical — tyrants who persecuted all non-Zaidi religious groups. The revolution was thus interpreted as a victory of the larger Yemeni population over a parochial tribal Zaidism...
...Zaidism declined steadily through the republican period, exemplified by the rise of scholars from Zaidi backgrounds who adopted Sunni theological and legal views. This development has contributed to a popular but mistaken belief that Zaidism closely resembles Sunni Islam...
Zaidi Shiism became the dominant religious tradition of the northern Yemeni highlands at the end of the ninth century...
...In 1918, after the Ottoman defeat in World War I, a new line of Zaidi imams (the Hamid al-Din imams) took control of the country, remaining in power until the September 1962 revolution, which ushered in a republican government.
The new republic’s leaders set about fundamentally reinterpreting the history of the Zaidi imamate. Although the later Zaidi imams explicitly favored Sunni scholars, they were now depicted as avid — if not fanatical — tyrants who persecuted all non-Zaidi religious groups. The revolution was thus interpreted as a victory of the larger Yemeni population over a parochial tribal Zaidism...
...Zaidism declined steadily through the republican period, exemplified by the rise of scholars from Zaidi backgrounds who adopted Sunni theological and legal views. This development has contributed to a popular but mistaken belief that Zaidism closely resembles Sunni Islam...
http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2015/2/what-do-the-leaders-of-yemens-houthis-want.html
By the way, I'm not making this point in order to argue that the conflict in Yemen is a sectarian one. I agree the Iranian and Houthi traditions are miles apart, and the alliance (the strength of which is overstated anyway) is based purely on current political considerations. Similarly, the Saudis were happy to support the Zaidi Imamate during the Yemen Civil War of the 1960s as a buffer against the expansion of Nasserist Republicanism on the Arabian Peninsula.
I also agree with your broader point that the supposed Sunni-Shi'a dichotomy is a really unreliable guide to understanding the religious dynamic driving politics in the Islamic world. All these identities are fluid and subject to change over time. The important thing for me when ascribing a label to them is how they describe themselves, since it's certainly not up to me to judge the legitimacy of a group's identity. This is why, for example, I'm happy to accept the Ahmadiyya claim that they are indeed Muslims. By the same token, since the Zaidis consider themselves to belong within the fold of Shi'ism, it would be ridiculous for me or anyone else to deny it.
That's pretty much exactly the point I was making. You seem to be arguing a point I haven't made. See my first post on this question:"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."
Last edited:
Sure, that would be awesome (I am including as dictators also the likes of Putin and Erdogan). The problem though is that in Middle East, the fall of a dictator is usually succeded with an extreme instability, a civil war which will end with Islamic radical groups taking control (Lybia, Iraq and most of Syria) or just an another dictator replacing the old one (Egypt). So, my feelings on what should happen are a bit mixed here. While I hate Assad (I even put him as my No.1 pick in the celebrity death thread a few years back) I just have a feeling that Syria after Assad will actually be significantly worse than Syria before the Civil War, and probably even worse than a Syria when Assad would win the civil war.
Maybe the best solution is a Kurd state in the North, an Alawite state near Damascus and an another state for non-Assad supporters (basically the territory when the moderate rebels have the control). That, and obviously destroying ISIS. Not sure how much that is plausible, especially with Iran and especially Russia having interest in Assad keeping the power in complete Syria.
It is a clusterfeck, no doubt about that.
Last edited:
The "Zaidis" is a general term. Like I said, originally they emerged as a branch of the Shia (but against the other Shia). However, the Zaidis who live in Yemen (Hadwiya) are indeed different from the other Zaidis in that they're even closer to being Sunnis than Shia (like I explained). I'm not talking about the historical roots here, I'm talking about the situation in Yemen (and at least the public perception) in our days.I'd be very interested to see credible scholarship which claims the Zaidis are not Shi'a. Any links? Here for example are a few snippets from a recent article on the Houthis by the same author of that book I recommended above (he wrote his dissertation at Princeton on the early Zaidis and did the bulk of his research in Yemen - he is a Pakistani-American Shi'i himself):
The Houthis trace their origins to a religious tradition known as Zaidism, a branch of Shia Islam that emerged during the failed revolt of Zaid — a great-great-grandson of the Prophet Muhammad — against Syria’s Umayyad caliphs in A.D. 740. Zaidism was distinguished by its political activism. The Zaidis believe that any descendant of the prophet with the proper credentials becomes a divinely sanctioned imam by virtue of leading an armed rebellion against a tyrant.
Zaidi Shiism became the dominant religious tradition of the northern Yemeni highlands at the end of the ninth century...
...In 1918, after the Ottoman defeat in World War I, a new line of Zaidi imams (the Hamid al-Din imams) took control of the country, remaining in power until the September 1962 revolution, which ushered in a republican government.
The new republic’s leaders set about fundamentally reinterpreting the history of the Zaidi imamate. Although the later Zaidi imams explicitly favored Sunni scholars, they were now depicted as avid — if not fanatical — tyrants who persecuted all non-Zaidi religious groups. The revolution was thus interpreted as a victory of the larger Yemeni population over a parochial tribal Zaidism...
...Zaidism declined steadily through the republican period, exemplified by the rise of scholars from Zaidi backgrounds who adopted Sunni theological and legal views. This development has contributed to a popular but mistaken belief that Zaidism closely resembles Sunni Islam...
http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2015/2/what-do-the-leaders-of-yemens-houthis-want.html
By the way, I'm not making this point in order to argue that the conflict in Yemen is a sectarian one. I agree the Iranian and Houthi traditions are miles apart, and the alliance (the strength of which is overstated anyway) is based purely on current political considerations. Similarly, the Saudis were happy to support the Zaidi Imamate during the Yemen Civil War of the 1960s as a buffer against the expansion of Nasserist Republicanism on the Arabian Peninsula.
"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."
It's true that Zaidism has changed a lot along the years, leaning towards Shia one time, and towards the Sunnis another time (which is why it has many 'sub'-sects). However it's the political alliances that decided that, not the other way around.
And by the way, now the Houthis are again leaning back towards the Shia, because of the political conflict and because of their alliance with Iran, but it's not really the religion that's deciding the alliances, it's the politics. Saudi Arabia is actually pushing most other religions/sects/minorities (with their extremist ideologies) towards Iran's alliance to save them from the Takfiri ideology that those terrorists carry, in many countries.
true. I honestly think he's mentally retarded.
I wonder how he got on with his studies in Qom?
I don't know what the hell he did there, and I don't think he's actually "studied" or even earned any "religious degree", his reputation is only based on the fact that he's the son of Mohammad Al-Sadr, who was a "Marja'".
But then again I don't think they're studying nuclear physics there are they?
Training to be a religious scholar is no mean feat. You have to be well read in sociology, philosophy, Farsi and Arabic in addition to religious studies. Its no wonder Moqtada came sprinting back to Iraq, the sight of a book probably petrified him.
He would definitely fail in Arabic.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...ia-border?module=TopNews&position=10_headline
More Russian soldiers could be voluntold they're going to Syria to fight on the ground.
More Russian soldiers could be voluntold they're going to Syria to fight on the ground.