Did Erdogan Declare War On All Shia?
This remark by the Turkish prime minister Erdogan is either dangerously stupid or a declaration of war against all Shia:Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, a strong critic of Bashar al-Assad's regime in Syria, drew a parallel between the bloody campaign against civilians by the Syrian government and the Battle of Karbala during a speech on Friday.Battle of Karbala:“What happened in Karbala 1,332 years ago is what is happening in Syria today,” Erdoğan said at an international conference titled “Arab Spring and Peace in the Middle East: Muslim and Christian Perspectives.”
On one side of the highly uneven battle were a small group of supporters and relatives of Muhammad's grandson Husain ibn Ali, and on the other was a large military detachment from the forces of Yazid I, the Umayyad caliph, whom Husain had refused to recognise as caliph. Husain and all his supporters were killed, including Husain's six months old infant son, and the women and children were taken as prisoners.Shia
"Shia" is the short form of the historic phrase Shīʻatu ʻAlī (شيعة علي), meaning "followers", "faction", or "party" of Muhammad's son-in-law Ali, whom the Shia believe to be Muhammad's successor.On first sight Erdogan's remark will be taken as a threat of another Karbala in the sense that the followers of Ali, the Shia and by extension the Alawites in Syria, will get killed by the caliph and his followers.
This is a very sectarian and terribly dangerous thing do say.
In March 2011 Erdogan also mentioned the Battle of Karbala in a different context but, after that led to a controversy, he suggested that he only used it do warn against all Muslim strive:
Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan said his recent call to prevent a repetition of a “Karbala” tragedy was meant to underline his concerns about bloodshed in Libya, underlining that the remarks had nothing to do with Sunni-Shiite divide as some interpreted his words to mean.But the issue in Erdogan's controversial Karbala remark back then was not Libya. When he then made the public remark it was on the topic of Bahrain where a Sunni dictatorship was, with little protest from Turkey, suppressing a Shia majority. He only later set that remark into the context of Libya and general strife between Muslims.“I drew similar lines during my previous parliamentary group speech between Karbala and the recent violence in Libya.
Erdogan is not stupid and he clearly knows that the use of Karbala as a warning against general strife under Muslim can be easily misunderstood. He certainly knows that it has a controversial and sectarian undertone. Despite that he keeps using it.
It thereby seems that Erdogan is using Karbala as a dog whistle politics item, as a codeword to suggest to his partisan and sectarian Sunni followers something very specific, killing the followers of Ali, while keeping a plausible deniability in more general terms.
To do so on a Friday, the Muslim day of a congregational prayer, is reinforcing the sectarian impact and makes it thereby more dangerous. This is certainly something someone who is presumably wishing for peace should and would NOT do.
On Wednesday evening an explosion occurred at the site of a Turkish military depot and killed 21 soldiers. In the official version a group of soldiers was counting a stock of handgrenades which somehow blew off. The story is fishy. Handgrenades in storage do not have their fuse inserted. When the fuse is inserted there is still a security ring to pull. When that ring is pulled there are still several seconds to throw the grenade away. The explosion happened in darkness at 9pm. Was this a squad of soldiers really just counting a stock of handgrenades at 9pm? Were they preparing them for transfer to the insurgents in Syria? What did really happen here?
Posted by b on September 7, 2012 at 13:39 UTC | Permalink
B, no I am not surprised that this kind of statements are coming from politicians now. This is the final battle for control of the desert religions, each knows it's place, it's alliances and what the end game is going to be.
Posted by: hans | Sep 7 2012 14:57 utc | 2
Erdogan has enough problems with the Kurds, who happen to be Sunni. You would not think he would go looking for more trouble...
Posted by: JohnH | Sep 7 2012 15:04 utc | 3
The region just took a dangerous turn for the West..Turkey's policies have failed so now they're playing the religious card.
Just today, a bomb exploded in a Shia mosque in Iraq, killing 8...Iraqi Shia's have been cautious not to react to such bombings but I think this won't last long..They will sooner or later react and it'll make the Baghdad ethnic cleansing during the US occupation look like picnic..
http://www.todayszaman.com/news-291652-violence-in-syria-is-new-karbala-pm-erdogan-says.html
Posted by: Zico | Sep 7 2012 15:15 utc | 4
This is a very nasty bit of rhetoric from the Premier of what is an historically genocidal state.
Modern Turkey was built on the massacres, and subsequent ethnic cleansings, of Armenians, Greeks, Alevites and Kurds, and, in time of difficulty the first thing the Erdogans of this world do is start Sunni-Turkic lynch mobs up.
I'm wondering whether the EU kingpins, such as Merkel and Hollande, have not promised Erdogan that, if he can do the Empire's dirty work in Syria, they will gain him the EU membership for Turkey that he so ardently desires. There isn't much that he and his party would not do to get that.
Posted by: bevin | Sep 7 2012 17:08 utc | 6
Erdogan has backed himself into a corner. He is saddled with 100's of thousands of refugees, an reinforced Kurdish insurgency, and a Syrian government that considers Turkey's actions an act of war. Not to mention losing Iran and Russia over this whole mess.
His last card to play is the Sunni religious card. The Saudi's will love it and he needs to say something to the FSA to keep them from becoming demoralised. What better way than to paint the struggle within a thousand year epic history.
@ Bevin
I'm wondering whether the EU kingpins, such as Merkel and Hollande, have not promised Erdogan that, if he can do the Empire's dirty work in Syria, they will gain him the EU membership for Turkey that he so ardently desires.
Way I read it is that Turkey has given up on EU membership (and really at this stage who would want to join). Instead it is choosing to become a world player through Neo-Ottomanism. I suspect that was the Plan B. If you cannot command influence and respect through being the third largest EU member state than command influence by returning to Ottoman power over everything North of Saudi Arabia.
Posted by: Colm O' Toole | Sep 7 2012 17:35 utc | 8
You are totally missing the point here. Erdogan is saying that the Syrian rebels, whom he supports, are like the followers of Ali & Hussein in this case—because they are outnumbered and overwhelmed by the forces of a cruel tyrant, and risk facing a massacre—while Assad and his forces are like the cruel tyrant, Yezid.
The fact that the rebels happen to be mostly Sunni, while the tyrant's inner circle happens to be mostly Shia (actually Alawi, a small subgroup), has nothing to do with this, except perhaps as an ironic twist of history. The point of mentioning Karbala is to stand with the underdog against a cruel and corrupt tyrant. This is something anyone who appreciates the meaning of Karbala can understand.
If anything, I take Erdogan's comment as a challenge to the Iranians, who are of course Shia, and the Assad regime itself as to where their principles lie. He is saying, "How is it that you, who claim to stand with Hussein, now find yourselves in the role of Yezid, his oppressor?" It is moral shaming, not a call to sectarian war.
eatbees @ 9
You can call it whatever you want but mark my words, Turkey won't be left standing for their involvement in Syria..It's hard enough Erdogan dealing with Syria and now he wants to throw in Iran as well???
I really hope he's not that stupid...
Posted by: Zico | Sep 7 2012 18:05 utc | 10
Sorry for being off the track in this discussion but it is relevant for following what's going on.
I can no longer get into the Russian www.rt.com site. Does anyone know if it blocked by the US? or if it is just a local temporary problem?
Posted by: JohnE | Sep 7 2012 18:54 utc | 12
@ JohnE
It is working fine here in Ireland. Generally if it was blocked your ISP would have a message on the page explaining that it is blocked, at least thats how it is here with the Pirate Bay block. If it's just the Page Expired Message could be just a regular problem (with Firewall or Network Connection). If you think it is blocked try Proxy Browsing.com and type RT.com into the browse bar. Its designed to get around most government blocks but alot slower loading.
Posted by: Colm O' Toole | Sep 7 2012 19:26 utc | 13
@ eatbees
Yeah that could very well be it. Generally revolutionary Shiism is all about fighting oppression. Musa Al Sadr's writings on "Shia empowerment" and Ayatollah Khomeini's writing on Political Islam being the pillars. It could be an appeal to Iran to not practice oppression. However it would be a bit hypocritical for Erdogan to portray the FSA as an oppressed force. After all its the Free Syrian Army that is killing religious minorities and has the backing of the Empire, they look more like oppressors than oppressed.
Posted by: Colm O' Toole | Sep 7 2012 19:50 utc | 14
JohnE
It is OK now(in Canada) but in the past three days it has, on several occasions, defaulted to an RT.COM site which is a dead end.
Posted by: bevin | Sep 7 2012 22:01 utc | 15
what a barefaced lie by ErDOGan:
' drew a parallel between the bloody campaign against civilians by the Syrian government'.
there is no bloody campaign against syrian civilians by president Assad...how does he geta way with lying like this and remain in office as turkeys dictator?
Posted by: brian | Sep 7 2012 22:08 utc | 16
A message from the head of the Evangelical church in Syria to Obama about the terrorist gangs the US supports destroying my Alma Mater, Aleppo College.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J5YLC1B3szA&feature=youtu.be
Posted by: brian | Sep 7 2012 22:36 utc | 17
I keep thinking erdogan is itching for a fight but has been told to stand down by Hillary a short time ago. The analysis that the US has decided on an Afghanistan type scenario is excellent and I believe it fits with obama's style of covert wars like his drone wars where it is limited and targeted killings. In Syria I think he does not want a full scale war and is confident he can drain Syria to the last drop and achieve weakening the alliance with Iran keeping Israel happy and Iran worried.
Erdogan has no horse in this fight but is trying to look like he belongs so he can salvage what he can in the end.
Bottom line, this is a US vs Russia tag and the rest are mere puppets while Saudi Arabia and Qatar are happy to flip the bill since they win too either way.
The joker is in Lebanon. These guys are so unstable both sides will use them to try and get some advantage. I would keep my eyes there as to what is happening.
Posted by: ana souri | Sep 8 2012 0:20 utc | 18
FSA mercenary Terrorist kill Syrian family in Homs daughter tells the tragic story
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NZjEAYrZbOE
Posted by: brian | Sep 8 2012 2:19 utc | 19
I agree with eatbees's explanation @ 9. This is what Erdogan meant: the small, weak force of the Syrian rebels is being massacred by the large army of the regime, just as Yazid's forces wiped out Hussain and his small band.
Karbala is a potent symbol in Muslim consciousness, and Erdogan's raising it now is a sign that he is seriously concerned at the looming fate of the Syrian rebels.
Can you please stop using the word Sunni in this context. It is not only wrong, but obfuscates what really is going on.
What normally goes under the collective term of Sunni in reality is a very diverse collection of groups with different interpretations of Quran and Sunna. They agree on some things amongst eachother but disagree about many other things.
Since Erdogan has taken over the Saudi/Qatari position, he is now no longer in the Sunni camp, but has changed to the Wahhabi one.
The latter clearly are not Sunni, and they don't consider themselves as such. They consider themselves to be the only true Muslims, separate from all other with everyone else - which includes not only all Sunnis, and especially Sufis, Ahmadis and Shia, but also Christians, Jews, Secularists, etc - to be Kuffar, which either need to be converted to Wahhabism or killed.
What we are witnessing here is an attempt at takeover of Islamic countries - and Islam - by a small, financially very potent, sect, which - surprisingly - has the support of Western democracies. Their is nothing Sunni about this sect from Najd. It's not even clear whether they are still inside Islam or not.
Posted by: Parvaneh | Sep 8, 2012 12:53:57 AM | 21
fair enough,..only problem is.... in Homs some of the people killed by the terrrists were sunnis converted to shia...
Posted by: brian | Sep 8 2012 5:19 utc | 22
From the way I see, all the actors involved in the Syrian non-conflict have effectively tied their fate to that of Assad and are betting on the downfall of Assad..
In other words, Assad's survival is/will be their end..Which is why Erdogan is throwing everything at it..His very survival is on the line here...I believe the guy's on drugs.
Posted by: Zico | Sep 8 2012 6:47 utc | 23
I guess you can also interpret it as Kurds are like the followers of Ali & Hussein and Erdodan is like the tyrant Yezid
Posted by: nikon | Sep 8 2012 8:28 utc | 24
Posted by: brian | Sep 8, 2012 1:19:34 AM | 22
I don't get your "only problem is". What you are saying doesn't contradict the fact that the attackers (most likely) were not Sunni and certainly do not represent or speak for (all) Sunnis be it in Syria or elsewhere.
This is a fight of a small crappy group of people looking for superiority over all otherg groups and killing everyone who opposes them or their brand of "Islam". Unfortunately this crappy group has lots of money and the support of the West. It also gets a lot of airtime in Western media in which this group is usually equated with Islam itself. In reality there is no Sunni-Shia problem, there is only a Wahhabi-everyone else problem.
"this group is usually equated with Islam itself
which is precisely what zio/Racists such as Michael Ledeen & Bernard Lewis have spent decades trying to achieve - that anything remotely associated with 'Islam' be viewed as backward and violent - hence confirming Lewis' bullshit racist Zionist theory of a 'Clash of civilisations' - between the 'civilised' 'rational' supposed 'Judeo'-Christian West versus the irrational (religious) uncivilised (beheading, wife-beating etc) Islamic world, one in which both can never be accommodated, and one or the other must inevitably be destroyed.
Posted by: Hu Bris | Sep 8 2012 11:50 utc | 26
Posted by: Parvaneh | Sep 8, 2012 6:27:39 AM | 25
let me spell it out..the islamists attacking syria are salafist sunni....they attack and kill particularly christians alawite shia sunni converts to shia...what they dont do is specifically target sunni, unless the sunni is a Assad supporter which overrides the sunni.
and they are not a small band..they are quite large, with an endless supply of new killers turning up in syria
Posted by: brian | Sep 8 2012 12:20 utc | 27
Posted by: Hu Bris | Sep 8, 2012 7:50:11 AM | 26
problem here is the salafist have been in existence for some time...tho their turn to violence only began in recent decades...that turn to violence needs more investigation.
nevertheless the point everyone now notes is none of these jihadis, tho active in UK france and germany where they are pushing the Koran and sharia law(!), has gone to israel to aid the palestinians...that tells us who is ultimately behind this
Posted by: brian | Sep 8 2012 12:23 utc | 28
@Parvaneh
What we are witnessing here is an attempt at takeover of Islamic countries - and Islam - by a small, financially very potent, sect, which - surprisingly - has the support of Western democracies. Their is nothing Sunni about this sect from Najd. It's not even clear whether they are still inside Islam or not.
In reality there is no Sunni-Shia problem, there is only a Wahhabi-everyone else problem.
quite illuminating; it's the first time I hear the problem framed this way
@Hu bris #26
which is precisely what zio/Racists such as Michael Ledeen & Bernard Lewis have spent decades trying to achieve - that anything remotely associated with 'Islam' be viewed as backward and violent - hence confirming Lewis' bullshit racist Zionist theory of a 'Clash of civilisations'
what needs to be explained is the exact opposite: western support of the Wahhabi even outside of the "special relationship" between US and SA, and well beyond the traditional support for jihadis against communists and nationalists
there's a trend towards policies driven or justified by religious radicalism, which generate alliances with other anti-humanist radicals: Teocons, Zionists, now also Wahhabis; they obviously have some common ground
I think it's another ominous symptom of the crisis of our civilization
Posted by: claudio | Sep 8 2012 12:44 utc | 29
THE COLLAPSE OF THE MOSLEM WORLD
"Professor Bernard Lewis is Jewish and has worked for British intelligence.
Lewis, born in London in 1916, is a historian and 'expert' on Islam.
In 1974, Lewis accepted a position at Princeton University.
In 1990, Lewis wrote an essay entitled The Roots of Muslim Rage.
In this essay, Lewis argued that the struggle between the West and Islam was gathering strength.
In this essay Lewis invented the phrase "clash of civilizations", which got mentioned in the book by Samuel Huntington.[13]
The phrase "clash of civilizations", was first used by Lewis at a meeting in Washington in 1957. [14]
There has been speculation that Lewis, the intelligence services and people like Brzezinski want to make the Moslem world look bad, so that it can be more easily controlled and exploited."
Posted by: Hu Bris | Sep 8 2012 13:01 utc | 30
Me "which is precisely what zio/Racists such as Michael Ledeen & Bernard Lewis have spent decades trying to achieve - that anything remotely associated with 'Islam' be viewed as backward and violent - hence confirming Lewis' bullshit racist Zionist theory of a 'Clash of civilisations'"
claudio - what needs to be explained is the exact opposite: western support of the Wahhabi even outside of the "special relationship" between US and SA, and well beyond the traditional support for jihadis against communists and nationalists
what needs to be explained?
Western support creation of the Wahhabi-[movement] was dictated by the zioint/Neo-Con/Racist need to try and permanently associate 'Islam' with backwardness and, more importantly, extreme violence
Posted by: Hu Bris | Sep 8 2012 13:36 utc | 31
Posted by: claudio | Sep 8, 2012 8:44:55 AM | 29
quite illuminating; it's the first time I hear the problem framed this way
I have been drumming this for the last few months, it is all about control of the desert religions. The same alliances that existed during the Khazar empire between Khazar's, the Caliphate, Mosel Kurds also exist today. Many mercenaries who fought under the Khazar empire were Islamist. The battle then was between the Persian, Byzantine or Rus. The Neptune Pluto square was then and is now and on it goes. This is all predicted by the Mayan Ninth wave.
Posted by: hans | Sep 8 2012 13:37 utc | 32
"Teocons" ?
are you sure that these "Theocons" actually believe what they say? It is far more likely that the vast majority simply see religion/"theo" as a tool for their use
Posted by: Hu Bris | Sep 8 2012 13:40 utc | 33
Hu bris all that crap about the clash of civilizations is of little help in understanding the West's attitude towards the current unrest in the Middle East; after the "clash of civilizations" meme we had the sunni-shia divide, the "export of democracy" and "human rights" and R2P memes, and now joint ventures with SA exporting wahhabism outside the Arabic peninsula;
SA and Israel had two things in common: a religiously-founded political radicalism, and the fact of being unpresentable, almost pariah states in the Middle East political discourse; the SA has now almost been elevated to the status of partner in NATO and US military initiatives (more than Israel has ever achieved);
Western support creation of the Wahhabi-[movement] was dictated by the zioint/Neo-Con/Racist need to try and permanently associate 'Islam' with backwardness and, more importantly, extreme violenceyou got your timeline a bit confused ...
Posted by: claudio | Sep 8 2012 13:56 utc | 34
"and now [?] joint ventures with SA exporting wahhabism outside the Arabic peninsula; "
See?
There's your blind-spot, right there.
There's been a 'joint-venture' for simply yonks. The 'exportation' has been going on for quite some time now.
"Western support creation of the Wahhabi-[movement] was dictated by the zioint/Neo-Con/Racist need to try and permanently associate 'Islam' with backwardness and, more importantly, extreme violence"
you got your timeline a bit confused ..."
No - pretty sure I haven't ya know. You might wanna go back to check again.
Posted by: Hu Bris | Sep 8 2012 14:06 utc | 35
of course there's been quite a bit of cooperation with Israel as well; but never official joint ventures such as we have witnessed between NATO, Qatar and SA over Libya, and between NATO, Turkey, Qatar and SA over Syria (almost official, I repeat)
regarding the timeline, maybe it's better if you check (use "wahhabi + neocons + zionism" as keywords)
Posted by: claudio | Sep 8 2012 14:10 utc | 36
"of course there's been quite a bit of cooperation with Israel as well; but never official joint ventures such as we have witnessed between NATO, Qatar and SA over Libya, and between NATO, Turkey, Qatar and SA over Syria (almost official, I repeat)"
hmmm . . . ain't that cos they're an Empire now?
"We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors…and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."
Posted by: Hu Bris | Sep 8 2012 14:40 utc | 38
@ 25: "In reality there is no Sunni-Shia problem, there is only a Wahhabi-everyone else problem."
I agree with everything you say about the takfiris not being Moslems. But I think you go too far in the above statement. Until the true Sunni (those who believe and live by one of the four rites or mazhabs) learn to prefer us Shi'a to the Wahhabi and Salafi (laa-mazhab) scum, and to fight on our side against them, there is a Sunni-Shi'a problem. These people's money and influence has done a fine job of driving a wedge deeply between the two creeds.
Incidentally, I learned recently that there is a large Palestinian settlement in a Damascus suburb which the takfiri terrorists tried to enlist to their cause. When the Palestinians refused, they fought them, and an intense battle raged for days, in which the rats were eventually defeated. During this time, Khaled Mesh'al, who had left for Qatar months ago, remained silent. What an asshole.
Brian: I am not sure if you are the one who said this, so if it is not, apologies in advance. In any event, there is no such thing as a "Sunni Salafi". They say they are Sunni, of course. But they are not, by definition. Sunnis believe in practicing Islamic law in accordance with one of the four Sunni madhhabs or Islamic religio-legal rites, by which I mean they emulate (taqlid) the findings of the eponymous founders of the four rites, whereas for Salafis, which is just a sanitized name for Wahhabi, which has a bad reputation in Egypt, for example, taqlid or emulation is haram (forbidden), whereas for Sunnis it is wajeb or compulsory. You can't get much clearer than that, and that has been and remains the acid test. Its like the whole thing about north Africans considering themselves and referring to themselves as Arabs. They are not, and their thinking that they are does not make it so. Unfortunately, the pervasiveness of the success of Wahhabism, like the success of the immoral Arab wars of aggression against Egypt and north Africa in the 7th century, has made it so that the Salafi= True Sunni meme is taking hold, just as these folk are convinced that they are Arab. So to the extent that perception is reality, that is true; but on a deeper epistemological level, it is false.
Posted by: Unknown Unknowns | Sep 8 2012 14:54 utc | 39
Unraveling the Myth of Al Qaida
By Peter Chamberlin
Global Research, January 13, 2008
January 13, 2008
Theme: 9/11 & 'War on Terrorism', Intelligence
The myth of “al Qaida” is built on an expansive foundation of many half-truths and hidden facts. It is a CIA creation. It was shaped by the agency to serve as a substitute “enemy” for America, replacing the Soviets whom the Islamist forces had driven from Afghanistan. Unknown American officials, at an indeterminate point in time, made the decision to fabricate the tale of a mythical worldwide network of Islamic terrorists from the exploits of the Afghan Mujahedeen. The CIA already had their own network of Islamic militant “freedom fighters,” all that was needed were a few scattered terrorist attacks against US targets and a credible heroic figurehead, to serve as the “great leader.”
The really tricky part of creating a mythical terrorist monster out of an incomplete truth is laying-out the facts behind your mythical story without revealing the whole truth about your part in its creation. In order to explain away the billions of dollars worth of weapons and training that went into the operation, they chose a rich jihadi, a Saudi millionaire named Osama bin Laden, who had been a faithful recruiter and business agent of the Mujahedeen. He was painted as the sole financier of the entire enormous operation that was centered in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Bin Laden may not even have known that he was playing a part in a deceitful CIA global drama until after the fact. It is more likely that his history was chosen many years later to serve as the legacy of “al Qaida,” than it is that he was a brainwashed tool of the spy agency all along.
The story of bin Laden is the story of the secret CIA/ISI insurgent camps in Pakistan and Afghanistan. According to Prof. Michel Chossudovsky, Osama was 22 years old in 1979, when he was trained in a CIA sponsored guerilla training camp near Peshawar, Pakistan.
“Bin Laden family was put in charge of raising money for the Islamic brigades. Numerous charities and foundations were created. The operation was coordinated by Saudi intelligence, headed by Prince Turki al-Faisal, in close liaison with the CIA. The money derived from the various charities was used to finance the recruitment of Mujahedeen volunteers. Al Qaeda, the base in Arabic was a data bank of volunteers who had enlisted to fight in the Afghan jihad. That data base was initially held by Osama bin Laden.”
Posted by: Hu Bris | Sep 8 2012 15:12 utc | 40
Posted by: Unknown Unknowns | Sep 8, 2012 10:54:53 AM | 39
During this time, Khaled Mesh'al, who had left for Qatar months ago, remained silent. What an asshole.
This is the same Khaled that the clergy of Iran and especially the SL supported, not only that but they also supported the rats and bigots who are causing the same mayhem today in Syria. They really believed in the slogan Islamic Awakening, Arab Spring, that Egypt will come to the Iranian camp.
Posted by: hans | Sep 8 2012 15:34 utc | 41
Unknown Unknowns, just wanted to say I appreciated your post on the Enlightenment Project, the "Constructivist" Left and the "Destructivist" Left.
I'd have a few things to say on the so-called Enlightenment Project, over which I believe there are many misunderstandings. I'll try to write something on the open thread, hoping you'll respond.
Posted by: claudio | Sep 8 2012 15:34 utc | 42
Hans-sahn:
Oh, I fully realize it is the same ingrate Khaled. When we supported him, it was the right thing to do. The problem is not with our support, but with his ingratitude.
As far as our (alleged) support of the rats, I don't think so... but I will not get into that with you, as I let you know my positon on it over at raceforiran.com months ago, as I am sure you will recall.
Best,
UU.
Posted by: Unknown Unknowns | Sep 8 2012 16:06 utc | 43
Claudio-san:
Good to hear from you, as I was losing hope of engaging with one of the only voices or fora of the true left, which is b's MOA, after no response to my earlier post of a couple of weeks back regarding the importance of cohesion and possessiveness in community, I thought that this post was going the same way. So I am glad to hear from you and I will look for your response.
- WWM might or might not be a troll, as b says. And whom and I to argue with him? But irrespective of that, IF that is true, hey, the way I look at it, even a trashcan gets a steak once in a while. Hell, look at all the dumpster diving that late capitalism has spawned :D
- If we agree that the Clash of Civilizations is an MI6/ Straussian meme, then we have to provide an alternate narrative, which can only be that there are good people and bad people in all civilizations and religions; yes, even in the various sects within the secular humanist religions; and that the good people within each civilization, culture, religion must work together against their common enemies, because the good people share the same or by and large very similar values and ideals.
Posted by: Unknown Unknowns | Sep 8 2012 16:20 utc | 44
@44 '...one of the only voices or fora of the true left, which is b's MOA..."
Personally I don't see MOA that way. I don't even see it as a question of right and left. They are equally irritating IMO. I'm quite conservative in many ways and I'm tired of the media lies.
Posted by: dh | Sep 8 2012 16:47 utc | 45
UU, the themes you would like to engage us on aren't simple :-) I take your invitation first of all as an opportunity for self-clarification; and I'm sure many readers here are interested even though they don't post;
not too long ago there has even been a debate here at MoA as to why some posts received more responses than others, and it was acknowledged that many inspiring posts went unanswered for many reasons, certainly not for lack of interest
Posted by: claudio | Sep 8 2012 17:27 utc | 46
dh- thank you for that correction. I agree with you. And I will go further and say that I reject the more academic distinction that is made between libertarian and communitarian tendencies in that posited spectrum...
Claudio: yes, that's true, though that never occured to me :D Also, blogistan is not exactly conducive to sustained discussions of a deep and serious nature. Anyway, thanks again, and we will make the best of the resources that we have. Interesting to read that what you mention was a subject of a debate here. Just goes to show what a good watering hole MOA is.
Posted by: Unknown Unknowns | Sep 8 2012 17:33 utc | 47
Parvaneh says, "Their is nothing Sunni about this sect from Najd. It's not even clear whether they are still inside Islam or not."
Not true. According to all 4 Sunni rites and both Zaydi and Imami or Ja'fari rites, if a Moslem pronounces takfir on another - this is based on a hadith proof - either the person he is denouncing is a kafir, or he becomes one himself (by virtue of the false takfir). The leader of the non-Moslem Anglo-American funded Wahhabite sect, Md ibn Abdul-Wahhab pronounced takfir on the entirety of the Moslem community, includive of the Shi'a, the Sufis and the Sunnis (on account of their taqlid, which he said was haram). As a result, both his father and his brother, both of whom were Sunni alems (scholars of Islam) pronounced takfir on him. For a short scholarly summary of the history of this evil sect, see Hamid Algar's *Wahhabism: A Critical Essay.*
Posted by: Unknown Unknowns | Sep 8 2012 17:49 utc | 48
Anyone imagining Erdogan hasn't appointed himself principle 'secular' spokesman for Sunni obliteration of the Shīʻatu ʻAlī needs to check out what has been happening in Iraq and Turkey in the last 24 hours.
From an AP article in my local fishwrap (I.E. take cynically with saline solution)
Iraq's fugitive Sunni vice president has been sentenced to death by hanging on charges he masterminded death squads against rivals in a terror trial that has fuelled sectarian tensions in the country. Underscoring the instability, insurgents unleashed an onslaught of bombings and shootings across Iraq, killing at least 92 people in one of the deadliest days this year.
The article goes at great length to claim that the verdict/sentence and subsequent terror attacks upon Shia were coincidental. Yeah right I had heard the same spiel from that wellspring of honesty and objectivity, the BBC World news channel overnight.
This is hardly surprising when we consider that on the same day as the verdict and all these Iraqis dying, the convicted murderer and war criminal met with the Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu in Ankara. Al-Hashemi has been holed up in Turkey since the investigation into his activities began. The Erdogan govt are quick to accuse amerika's enemies of all sorts of crimes have been hanging on to this scumbag refusing to hand him over despite an interpol arrest warrant.
The gloves are off after today. It seems that after killing a million Iraqis and displacing 4 million more to get rid of a Sunni led govt - actually that is a bit harsh on the Saddam Hussein administration, which was multi-cultural compared to amerika’s mates in Saudi & Israel a multi-culturist and in 04 the amerikans saw everyone in the mid-east that wasn't a four be two, as sand kissing ragheads- Now fukusi want to get rid of the Shias and install a compliant Sunni mob.
Sectarianism was a bit of a dead duck in the ME until the amerikans stirred it up with false flag terror raids, I wonder what the fools and charlatans running Saudi, Turkey and Jordan (which if I remember correctly has a huge shia underclass) can be thinking? The amerikans have made it plain that they take the side of compliance not Shia or Sunni, yet the rift they created has fractured Islam so badly that it will create resentments likely to last several generations. What would happen if the amerikans got their way and beat Iran, installing a compliant dictatorship there? It would be Shia for sure and if amerikan corporations wanted to secure the hydrocarbons in Iraq and Iran properly they would have to back the Shia side of the argument once more. Saudi which is turning into a very expensive sinkhole for petro-dollars would likely be left in the cold.
Jordan is worth fuck all to the amerikans for anything other than a refugee camp for those Palestinians 'lucky' enough to escape the zionist genocide with their lives would be left to fester once more and Turkey would be lining up to join a disintegrating EU (one amerikan project that appears to be proceeding exactly as planned).
By the way it is possible to be occasionally informed by following the sensationalist media. The family nearly wiped out in France on Friday have lost their status as 'british' and been reverted by the media back to sand nigger status. The parents were born in Iraq and were 'uplifted' by USuk soon after the fall of Baghdad; presumably during the usual 'abduct the scientists' operation that amerika always pulls when illegally invading a sovereign state. This means that Saad al-Hilli, an aerospace engineer specialising in satellite technology, was considered very important indeed.
There will be forests mown down to print the bullshit conspiracies about this horror, that I believe is unlikely to be credibly solved.
This 'operation' which the english media is pointing the finger at Iran for instigating, reeks of israeli overkill (yeah I know, an awful pun). All the adults copped a double tap to the back of the head and while the media have been quick to highlight the 'professionalism' of the perpetrators there hasn't been much criticism of the keystone kops style investigation apart from the usual franco-phobic english racism that is an intrinsic part of englander commentary on france.
Posted by: Debs is dead | Sep 9 2012 22:58 utc | 50
Sheep-Shagger, that was uncalled for. Debs has a perfectly reasonable, yet colorful - pun intended, vocabulary.
Posted by: Alexander | Sep 10 2012 16:19 utc | 52
You are completely blinded by some words, clearly you haven't understood what Debs is writing.
Posted by: Alexander | Sep 10 2012 17:23 utc | 53
Grabbing racist terminology from the society one has to relate to does not nessesserily reflect personal views. In New Zealand, as many other places, racism permeates the language as history, and dealing with it in no way should be interpreted as integral to his personal ideology. If you won't see that, you are a troll, and I'm a sucker for feeding you.
Posted by: Alexander | Sep 10 2012 18:41 utc | 55
Well troll I loathe englanders but I don't have any particular bias for or against english people. Just as I loathe zionists but have no bias against jews & could butcher an amerikan then happily party with my best mate who was born in a small town on the Kansas Oklahoma border.
You wouldn't understand because you are an englander a person so inculcated with the centuries of oppressive and divisive claptrap yer 'betters' feed you that you only know to touch yer forelock while they give you a good old fashioned 'rogering' as they say, ass rape is how normal peeps term it.
Like the nym tho denial is no river. One of the most persistent issues which Tangata Whenua are working hard to beat is inter generational child abuse. It seems to have become part of the culture in some communities. Interestingly they are all communities that were regular stops for englander whaling boats two centuries ago.
The problem is similar to that which surfaced in Pitcairn Island a few years ago, the Pitcairn Islanders are descendants of the Bounty mutineers and when those englanders murderers settled down to live a life of tropical decadence, they fucked anything that moved. Mainly children - boys or girls didn't matter.
Posted by: Debs is dead | Sep 10 2012 19:58 utc | 56
Alexander, your comment #53 was appropriate and helpful
Posted by: claudio | Sep 10 2012 20:35 utc | 57
The comments to this entry are closed.
Erdogan seems to want to hint rather than come out and say. If he were asked for clarification of this statement, he would likely argue that the Syrian "regime" is committing a massacre like Karbala against innocent civilians and that therefore Shiites should not support it if they wish to remain true to their own faith.
That's probably what Erdogan would **say** he meant. In his mind he could have meant anything and it is doubtful he would be honest or straight forward about it.
Turkey is more than 20% Shiite/Alevi/Arab Aliwite. And a huge proportion of Sunnis Muslims are not thinking in terms of sect. Does he have enough Brotherhood/Salfist support in Turkey to win? Before his opposition to the military deep state likely attracted leftists and secularists. Not so sure about now.
Posted by: Lysander | Sep 7 2012 14:04 utc | 1