Translate

Sunday, June 15, 2014

refresher course
http://www.washingtonpost.com/posttv/world/the-sunni-shiite-divide-explained/2014/06/13/f33d5e72-f343-11e3-8d66-029598e98add_video.html?tid=hp_mm&hpid=z2

16 comments:

  1. The Ba'ath Strikes Back !

    I have to hand it to these guys they really have some staying power. First they fight the Americans for year after year after year - in Ramadi, in Fahluja, and everywhere where their brother Sunnis and tribes will support them.

    They re-invent themselves in Syria so that the Salifists/Wahabbists in Saudi Arabia will give them cash and arms. Then flying the Saudi flag they march back into Sunni Iraq and re-claim everything that was STOLEN FROM THEM by the United States, their Shiite lapdogs, and their zionist and Iranian cronies.....

    These guys have taken the old Saddamist/Ba'athist tools of criminality and terror and "blended" it with Islam to create a force to be reckoned with.

    They've regained what was taken from them...their homes governed by themselves and their own kind.

    Let's see what happens.

    These are mens' men - one determined bunch of rag heads.

    ReplyDelete
  2. There is an obvious parallel here with what happened in Iran from 1954 - 1979.

    The United States and Britain destroyed Iranian self-determination and replaced it with their own regime which was intolerable to the public.

    Under both regimes [Iraqi and Iranian] there was no civil society solution to the grievances the public had. In Iran it was widespread greivances over the tyranny imposed on them and in Iraq it was sectartian - the Sunnis had been put in a subjagated position.

    In both places the lack of a civil society or political solution meant that the only alternative for the public was to support a religous one.

    Now we can look forward to decades more of antipathy from the Iraqis in addition to the Iranians.

    What a cluster-fuck.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Well congrats W.Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Pearl and Wolfowitz.....

    You brought about the exact opposite of what you were trying to prevent.

    I wish we had a gulag to send you all to.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Of shall I say...

      They brought about EXACTLY what they were trying to prevent, and wasn't going to happen anyway except for your fucking bungling of "statecraft" and "straterigy" as your President called it.

      Delete
  4. But could there be any other outcome?

    I mean look at the KIND OF MEN these former Ba'athist Iraqi Army Officers are and COMPARE them to the kind of weak, degenerate, decadant, alcoholic, soft and stupid personalities of conceited assholes like Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Cheney [who shoots his own friend with a shotgun] and the ultimate dry drunk himself....W. Bush......

    These stupid Americans would have just gone back home and muddled through and been humiliated if someone came and took their home from them....

    But not these guys who are now on the march in Iraq.

    These are men....and they are so because they belong to tribes and cultures which support each other as individuals and in which honor is EXPECTED.

    These people grew up in tribes with tribal honor and codes of honor which these American puny weaklings would have no fucking idea exists.

    ReplyDelete
  5. It is IRAQ which is the LAND OF THE FREE and the HOME OF THE BRAVE.

    ReplyDelete
  6. as always, this blog is better because of your comments. being polite is no longer a virtue, its a liability, carry on! Thanks, SP

    ReplyDelete
  7. Tony Blair: The Whole Middle East is Under Threat — But It Is Not Our Fault



    At one minute before midnight, London time, on June 14, the London Telegraph posted a lengthy, rambling and hysterical essay by Tony Blair under that title, reminiscent of Boris Godunov's hysterical screams in the opera, that "It wasn't me! It wasn't me!" that killed the little Tsarevich.

    "The civil war in Syria with its attendant disintegration is having its predictable and malign effect. Iraq is now in mortal danger. The whole of the Middle East is under threat," Blair writes.

    "We will have to rethink our strategy towards Syria; support the Iraqi Government in beating back the insurgency; whilst making it clear that Iraq's politics will have to change for any resolution of the current crisis to be sustained. Then we need a comprehensive plan for the Middle East that correctly learns the lessons of the past decade. In doing so, we should listen to and work closely with our allies across the region, whose understanding of these issues is crucial and who are prepared to work with us in fighting the root causes of this extremism which goes far beyond the crisis in Iraq or Syria."

    He spends page after page trying to deny that his illegal Iraq war was to blame. "It is inevitable that events in Mosul have led to a rerun of the arguments over the decision to remove Saddam Hussein in 2003. The key question obviously is what to do now....

    "However there is also no doubt that a major proximate cause of the takeover of Mosul by ISIS is the situation in Syria. To argue otherwise is wilful....

    "As for how these events reflect on the original decision to remove Saddam, if we want to have this debate, we have to do something that is rarely done: put the counterfactual, i.e., suppose in 2003, Saddam had been left running Iraq. Now take each of the arguments against the decision in turn...." And so on and so forth.

    "The reality is that the whole of the Middle East and beyond is going through a huge, agonising and protracted transition. We have to liberate ourselves from the notion that we have caused this. We haven't. We can argue as to whether our policies at points have helped or not; and whether action or inaction is the best policy and there is a lot to be said on both sides. But the fundamental cause of the crisis lies within the region not outside it."

    He closes: "Iraq is part of a much bigger picture. By all means argue about the wisdom of earlier decisions. But it is the decisions now that will matter. The choices are all pretty ugly, it is true. But for 3 years we have watched Syria descend into the abyss and as it is going down, it is slowly but surely wrapping its cords around us pulling us down with it. We have to put aside the differences of the past and act now to save the future."

    Or, if you don't know about Boris Godunov, just think Lady Macbeth.


    http://larouchepac.com/node/31058

    ReplyDelete
  8. Just been on national talk radio (LBC) talking about this stuff they wanted reaction to Blair because of his statement. I suggested he was a deranged, money grabbing sociopath. Plus whether images should be presented of atrocities in Iraq, I ventured yes as it may mobilize public opinion against intervention and War as it did with the 'napalm girl' shots of Vietnam and as it helped stopped the UK going into Syria. Sodam Insane may have been a tyrant but he was able to control the warring factions in the same way as Gaddafi. However the US was following its old model of put them in, arm them up, then take them down for money and Presidential war ratings.It worked brilliantly for Thatcher with the Falklands (apparently she bullied the French into giving up their Exocet missile specs by threatening to 'nuke' Argentina and they believed she was just crazy enough to do it! and she was.) I think Blair is saying crap like the above because he wants to appear 'Presidential' for the Euro-Presidents job which will be up for grabs.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thought all day about what to post and Bill UK has said it for me! Well put across sir and yes it seems Blair has gone mad with his former allies circling like Bombay shitehawks! Even the mayor of London proclaimed he's gone mad! Tony strangely blames inaction over Syria for the latest troubles in Iraq! My guess is he's being hung out to dry by whoever the real powers that be are! My advice Tony is take the thirty pieces of silver and get out the limelight quick! Could the residents of barvhika stand his guitar playing though?? The world is a stage but the play is indeed badly cast!

      Delete
  9. British-Orchestrated Sunni-Shi'ite Religious War Threatens Entire Southwest Asia Region

    A reported weekend lull in the fighting in Iraq notwithstanding, the entire region of Southwest Asia continues to sink into the British Empire's quicksand of Sunni-Shi'ite religious warfare. As the Washington Post put it succinctly (and cheerily): the situation in the region “is fast becoming a Sunni-Shi'ite war.”

    U.S. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel has ordered the carrier USS GHW Bush into the Persian Gulf, sparking speculation that the US is preparing to launch air strikes in support of the government in Baghdad. The movement prompted a warning from Tehran that foreign military intervention will only complicate the situation. Iranian President Rouhani did say, however, that Iran would be willing to aid the Maliki government if it were asked, and that it would consider cooperating with the US in restoring security to Iraq.

    Meanwhile, there are unconfirmed media accounts that Iran already has troops inside Iraq. CNN is reporting that “a senior security official in Baghdad told CNN on Friday that in recent days, Iran has sent around 500 Revolutionary Guard troops to fight alongside Iraqi government security forces in Diyala province... Amid conflicting reports, a U.S. official told CNN that the head of Iran's elite Quds force, Gen. Qassim Suleimani, was in Iraq this weekend.” The Guardian has a more elaborate version: “Iran has sent 2,000 advance troops to Iraq in the past 48 hours to help tackle a jihadist insurgency, a senior Iraqi official has told the Guardian.” The official said 1,500 basiji forces had crossed the border at Khanaqin on Friday, while another 500 entered the Badra Jassan area. He also said that Gen. Suleimani had arrived in Baghdad “to oversee the defense of the capital.”

    http://larouchepac.com/node/31060

    ReplyDelete
  10. You know when I used to deliver lectures and papers explaining that the reason why Saddam Hussein attacked Iran in 1980 was because of the Sunni-Shiite split and because the Iranian revolution was a Shiite icon which the Saudis and Ba'ath party knew was a mortal threat......

    Everyone scowlled at me and told me the Sunni-Shiite divide was all in my imgination.

    They told me I was completely wrong and that Saddam Hussein was a madman trying to take over Saudi Arabia and Iran because he was the "Hitler" of the Middle East....

    And these were all educated people I was trying to talk to.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If you have a chance go to this site "Secret Vatican Briefings on The Creation of Prophet Muhammad" and there you'll read a Jesuit cardinal named Augustine Bea showed how desperately the Roman Catholics wanted Jerusalem at the end of the third century. Because of its religious history and its strategic location, the Holy City was considered a priceless treasure. A scheme had to be developed to make Jerusalem a Roman Catholic city. The great untapped source of manpower that could do this job was the children of Ishmael, the poor Arabs fell victim to one of the most clever plans ever devised by the Powers of Darkness.
      http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/vatican/esp_vatican33.htm
      Also do some research on the Muslim Brotherhood and the Pallavicini family!


      Delete
    2. I will be more specific about this. It was Nadav Safran who specifically told me that Saudi Arabia viewed Saddam Hussein as a greater threat than the Iranian revolutionaries.

      He and his pipe-smoking troll buttbuddy Laurie Mylroie never knew shit about anything in the Middle East.

      With all the pipe smoke those two generated it's no wonder....

      Delete
    3. Your "lectures" Mit being clear, concise, and perhaps visionary for that time, and which lacked acceptance by "the educated", again might be part of a bigger strategy to keep the Middle East in perpetual chaos via divide and conquer type strategies, otherwise I have to believe our "leaders" are imbeciles, and I'm starting to favor the latter viewpoint as events unfold. Not that these same leaders wouldn't take credit for any unforeseen secondary benefit(s) that arise, which they may or may not have had anything to do with in bringing about. Too bad our decision makers aren't the brightest bulbs in the pack, because if they were we might have more satisfactory outcomes with our interventions and intermeddling across the globe.

      Delete