Syria: Jabhat al-Nusra, Not The FSA, Fighting With ISIS
The infighting between several foreign sponsored jihadist insurgency groups in northern and eastern Syria is sold by some as a fight of the "moderate" Free Syrian Army against the al-Qaeda affiliate ISIS. But this does not seem to be the reality. While there is some showing of the FSA flag over conquered ISIS territory this is likely just a fake to hide the real group behind the fighting, the al-Qaeda affiliate Jabhad al Nusra and a new, probably fictitious, Army of the Mujahideen.
A similar fake was reported from southern Syria where Jabhat al-Nusra successes get sold to "western" supporters as sole FSA operations:
“The FSA and Al Nusra join together for operations but they have an agreement to let the FSA lead for public reasons, because they don’t want to frighten Jordan or the West,” said an activist who works with opposition groups in Deraa.“Operations that were really carried out by Al Nusra are publicly presented by the FSA as their own,” he said.
A leading FSA commander involved in operations in Deraa said Al Nusra had strengthened FSA units and played a decisive role in key rebel victories in the south.
“The face of Al Nusra cannot be to the front. It must be behind the FSA, for the sake of Jordan and the international community,” he said.
Whether this infighting between the two al-Qaeda affiliates Jabhat al-Nusra and ISIS is about, money or other issues, is not yet clear. ISIS seems not be putting up a real fight but is mostly just retreating when challenged. Something is fishy in this. Whatever it may be it is for now good news for the Syrian government. It may even open a chance to kick those fake "revolutionaries" out of Aleppo.
Posted by b on January 6, 2014 at 18:28 UTC | Permalink
next page »ISIS may be rolling back in Syria, but it is formally and literally the same entity that has taken over Falluja and is fighting hard in Ramadi. It is in a fair way toward controlling Anbar, which of course is the province of Iraq that borders Syria (and Jordan). So what is happening is that, having flooded into Syria over the last year from Iraq, the same characters are now flooding back again, into Iraq where they came from. They can do this ad nauseam.
Posted by: Rowan Berkeley | Jan 6 2014 20:04 utc | 2
Off topic but the North korean execution/dog eating story was fake as anyone should have realized.
Posted by: Anonymous | Jan 6 2014 20:28 utc | 3
@3
i did...but many sheep(4 legs good 2 legs bad) programmed by the media to hate DPRK had no problem regurgitating it
Posted by: brian | Jan 6 2014 20:33 utc | 4
@3
'
The story of Jang Song Thaek being ravaged by 120 hounds originated from a Chinese satirist. English media ran with the story after The Straits Times of Singapore wrote the first English account of his death by hounds, but experts say North Korea's human right's track record is so tarnished that the story was completely plausible.
Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/kim-jong-release-hounds-article-1.1567604#ixzz2peWQjjNO'
this is a joke..DPRKS human rights record is far better than any the US can boast of. Thye idea the story was ever 'completely plausible' only confirms the western media (and Straits times) is peddling propaganda and should be shunned.
Posted by: brian | Jan 6 2014 20:35 utc | 5
"It is the responsibility of intellectuals to speak the Truth and expose lies."
- Noam Chomsky
so why dont they?
Posted by: brian | Jan 6 2014 20:39 utc | 6
'Greenwald explains to Dutch journalist Marjolein van de Water. “Their ultimate goal is to end internet freedom. Because the more the US knows about people, the more control they have over them.”'
http://thepowerhous.wordpress.com/2013/10/15/greenwald-upcoming-snowden-leaks-will-shock-netherlands/
the reverse is also true, for honest people:
The more people know about the US, the less control it haa over them.”'
Posted by: brian | Jan 6 2014 20:44 utc | 7
jihadists living the high life
‘Holland House’: Dutch jihadists stay in Saudi-funded villa in Aleppo
by Linda Housman
April 23, 2013 – Dozens of Dutch jihadists are housed in a luxurious villa in one of the richest neighbourhoods of the Syrian city of Aleppo. They receive salary and training, and have to stay in service for at least one year, Dutch newspaper de Volkskrant reports in its April 20 paper edition.
The newspaper spoke to several Dutch parents whose sons – and in two cases, daughters – travelled to Syria to join the over two year old rebellion against the Assad government. Before leaving their homeland, the youngsters sent their families vague messages such as, “You won’t hear from us in a while. We are going on a training course. Don’t worry”, or cryptic notes like, “See you in paradise”.
One of the parents recently received a photo from their son showing Dutch fighters at the edge of a swimming pool of a luxurious villa “in Haleb” (Arabic for Aleppo) which, according to the fighters, has been made available by “a rich Saudi”.
They also told their parents not to worry about their livelihood: “We receive one hundred dollars a month.” For the rest, they are reluctant in giving information. The parents assume that their phone conversations are recorded.
“The villa looks like a ‘Holland House’ where dozens of Dutch live”, they say.
“Ahmad”, a Syrian activist who on condition of anonymity spoke to de Volkskrant, said he knows the villa with the Dutch men. According to him, they are part of the Jabhat al-Nusra Front, the rebel extremist group with close ties to Al Qaeda that has been at the helm of the fight against the Syrian government.
“They live separated from other fighters because they don’t speak Arabic”, Ahmad said. “Only during the fighting they move among the others. There are also other non-Arabic fighters in the battalions, Afghans, Chechens, Turks. They take the oath to become anti-government fighters to Mohammed al-Jolani, the emir of Al-Nusra. Their freedoms as for where and how to fight are limited. But nobody goes to war without training.”
The concerned parents state that jihadists recruiting for jihad in the Netherlands should be criminalized.
Earlier this year, the chief of Dutch intelligence agency AIVD warned that Dutch citizens who are fighting with rebels in Syria could return home battle-hardened, traumatized and even further radicalized.
“I think many of the jihad fighters who go there realize very quickly it is less romantic than they were led to believe,” he said. “But at the same time they realize there is no way back.”
Posted by: brian | Jan 6 2014 20:48 utc | 8
the official attitude is a joke and should have them fired:
The concerned parents state that jihadists recruiting for jihad in the Netherlands should be criminalized.
Earlier this year, the chief of Dutch intelligence agency AIVD warned that Dutch citizens who are fighting with rebels in Syria could return home battle-hardened, traumatized and even further radicalized.
“I think many of the jihad fighters who go there realize very quickly it is less romantic than they were led to believe,” he said. “But at the same time they realize there is no way back
===================
what hes saying is the dutch authorities dont see this as a criminal action but a juvenile lark...if their country was being subject to jihadists theyd be singing a different tune. #irresponsible
Posted by: brian | Jan 6 2014 20:53 utc | 9
What is interesting about the success of ISIS so far in Anbar is its reported turning of Awakening fighters, at least in Falluja, to fight under the black flag. The Sons of Iraq, a.k.a., the Anbar Awakening, were widely attributed to be the ones responsible for the eradication of ISIS precursor Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia.
The reporting usual attributes this changing of sides to a antipathy to al-Maliki, but I suspect it has to do with old-fashioned greed. ISIS can outbid the Iraqi government.
Posted by: Mike Maloney | Jan 6 2014 21:14 utc | 10
@Brian #8
That article is correct. There have been some stories around to the same extent: Radicalized youths travelling to Turkey, Egypt to train and then off to Syria.
@rusty pipes #1
Jahbat al Nusra has also been blacklisted.
On topic: Together with Ahrar al Sham these 3 are linked to al Qaeda. While JaN has been given authority by al Zawahiri ISIS(ISIL) tried taking over territory (and has conquered quite a lot of important areas like oil fields and the only provincial capital to fall Raqqa). This is more like 3 al Qaeda franchises dishing it out to each other. The role of ISIS seems a complicated one. They have made notable gains but will now fight on a 4 front war meaning SAA in the south Iraqi forces in the southeast (Iraq Anbar province), YPG Kurds in the northeast and JaN, AaS and the Syrian Islamic front in the northeast.
I left out Hezbollah. Even though they claim to have carbombed beirut I find it hard to believe since most reports indicated JaN people from the Arsal (Lebanon)/Qalamoun (Syria) region. Is that an atttempt to claim someone else's achievement or are they still working together in some places?
ISIS has made a fast rise the last couple of years but this is just madness (strategically speaking).
this article is quite interesting: strong warning to ISIS
“The Islamic State is pulling out without a fight. Its fighters are taking their weapons and heavy guns,” activist Firas Ahmad said. He added that the ISIS fighters headed in the direction of Aleppo, where Assad’s troops have stepped up pressure on rebel forces who captured the city 18 months ago."
Right between the anvil and the hammer...
Posted by: Gehenna | Jan 6 2014 21:15 utc | 11
brian
You're correct about North Korea, bet you wont see this fakery-news being admited by the western-MSM.
Posted by: Anonymous | Jan 6 2014 21:19 utc | 12
@11
beware punctuation and sentence structure:
'I left out Hezbollah. Even though they claim to have carbombed beirut... '
this makes it seem Hezbollah has used car bombs.....really?!
Posted by: brian | Jan 6 2014 21:37 utc | 13
You're right.
The Syrian opposition is trying to mislead the public opinion and the Western countries by claiming that they are encouraging the FSA to fight ISIL, therefore that they are secular.
Of course they don't mention the JN as if it does not exist.
Will the West be fooled and rehabilitates the FSA as a valid partner in Geneva II?
The North-East of Syria is now the scene of confrontation of several group of Sunnis fighters with dubious roles. The Kurds and the Syrian army are playing low key in these areas waiting to see who will come out victorious of this 'war'.
a) The Islamic Front funded at 100% by the Saudi Government who want an Islamic State whose shape they prefer to hide
2) The Muhahideen Islam whose funding is unclear who also want an Islamic State
3) The FSA funded by Qatar and Turkey who claim they want a secular state
4) The Jabhat al Nusra funded by Saudis, Kuwaitis individuals and 'charities' who want an Islamic State
5) ISIL funded by Saudis, Kuwaitis, Iraqis individuals and 'charities who wants a Caliphate.
In view of the money been poured in, this war may last a long long time...
Posted by: Virgile | Jan 6 2014 21:55 utc | 14
The Saudis are apprehensive and furious at the ISIL that is indirectly allowing Bashar al Assad's to regain all the territories it has helped the FSA to occupy
http://saudigazette.com.sa/index.cfm?method=home.regcon&contentid=20140107191698
..As a result, Isis, which by many accounts has been one of the most effective forces fighting against Assad’s armies, has threatened to abandon front-line positions in Aleppo to government troops. Such an action would have a catastrophic effect on the military situation in Syria’s second city, which a year ago the FSA was vowing to take within days. A statement from ISIS also seemed to indicate that the organization would make similar battlefield withdrawals elsewhere, unless the attacks upon it ceased and those of its members who have been captured by mainstream FSA forces were freed.It is hard to conceive of a greater betrayal of the cause to which ISIS was supposed to be dedicated. Moreover, this treachery will not simply be confined to the surrender of territory which has been hard-won with the blood of many rebels. What ISIS has effectively done is to make itself an ally of Assad, joining the ranks of Hezbollah and the covert units of Iranian Revolutionary Guards who have thus far sustained this bloody dictatorship.
Assad is not about to concentrate his fire on ISIS fighters when they are doing his bloody work for him, fighting mainstream FSA forces.
Posted by: Virgile | Jan 6 2014 22:04 utc | 15
@gehenna#11:
Thanks for the update. I knew that AQI had long been officially designated as a terrorist org, so the Obama administration wouldn't fund anything that went to them directly. Then when ISIS/L and JaN had their nominal split, the Administration did not officially designate them as terrorist orgs initially, but continued to avoid aiding them directly (although it did treat ISIS/L more as the official successor to AQI). I haven't followed when the Administration made their terrorist status official.
These recent developments look like many of the same players are remaining, but just reshuffling their formations and titles. ISIS is turning over its operations to JaN and taking many of its foreign brigades to other fronts, leaving behind its Chechen brigades in Syria:
On the afternoon of January 5, reports surfaced that al-Nusra Front had seized the town of Dana, taking advantage of the disarray in ISIS’ ranks. But Al-Akhbar’s sources denied that al-Nusra had taken full control of the town, saying that an agreement was reached whereby ISIS hands over its posts to al-Nusra Front.Either way, al-Nusra Front, which is designated by many as a terrorist group, has rushed to take advantage of the situation, calling on foreign jihadists who had defected to ISIS to rejoin its ranks. Al-Nusra has proposed itself as a mediator, when it is actually on the side of Army of the Mujahideen.
In the same vein, an opposition source told Al-Akhbar, “It is a known fact that the Chechens would rather die than hand themselves over to the FSA, while al-Nusra Front represents an acceptable party for them to surrender to, in preparation to be reabsorbed into its ranks.”
I believe ISIS has two main problems: the foolishness and arrogance of the Tunisian, Libyan, and Iraqi members; and the disloyalty of Syrian supporters.It is also worth noting that ISIS’ ultra extremist brand has helped promote among some the notion that al-Nusra is a moderate Islamist front, when this is definitely not the case.
Posted by: Rusty Pipes | Jan 6 2014 22:12 utc | 16
It seems the Sunnis in Syria and Iraq are reaching the same difficult choice: Either be represented by Al Qaeda and its affiliates and be driven in destructive and violent internal confrontation or accept to have a role in a secular government even if it is dominated by Shias or Alawites.
http://www.trust.org/item/20140106213156-1fbw0/
MALIKI A "BETTER OPTION"Ayham Kamel, of Eurasia consultancy, said a significant portion of the Sunni community would prefer to play a role in central government politics rather than involve themselves with al Qaeda.
"I do not expect confrontations in Anbar to trigger a country-wide civil war," he said.
The authorities' counter-strike against al Qaeda's advance in Anbar, as well as divisions among Sunni politicians, are likely to solidify Maliki's national authority, Iraqi analyst Hashim al-Habobi said.
"Many Sunnis see Maliki as a much better option when compared to al Qaeda," he said.
Posted by: Virgile | Jan 6 2014 22:22 utc | 17
“ISIS is getting routed all over the place,” said Joshua M. Landis, director of the Center for Middle East Studies at the University of Oklahoma and curator of Syria Comment a widely followed blog. The ISIS alienation of Syria’s homegrown rebels, Mr. Landis said, “was their big mistake — now they’ve got all these other groups aligned against them.”What remains unclear, he said, is whether the rebel infighting “is part of a Darwinian shakedown, with more unity, or just a sign of complete chaos and dysfunctionality.”
Posted by: Virgile | Jan 6 2014 22:28 utc | 18
@ Rowan
ISIS may be rolling back in Syria, but it is formally and literally the same entity that has taken over Falluja and is fighting hard in Ramadi.
Good. Just means that there are 2 armies to defeat them, rather than Syria's Army shouldering all the heavy work. You'd almost have to wonder at the stupidity of ISIS commanders, already losing on the Syrian Arab Army front, they open up a second front against the Iraqi Army, obviously they haven't heard of the term "divide and conquer".
Now ISIS is fighting a war it can't win on 2 fronts, as well as pissing off every other rebel group, including the Kurds.
@ B
Whether this infighting between the two al-Qaeda affiliates Jabhat al-Nusra and ISIS is about, money or other issues, is not yet clear.
It's about getting back all the Nusra fighters that defected to ISIS. ISIS arrived in late 2012 and bled fighters from Al Nusra. Nusra wants to be the monopoly on the "Jihadist Wing" of the rebellion.
On the broader topic of rebels killing rebels in Syria. No matter which group wins, the Syrian Army will be the real winners. ISIS have always been the best, most organised rebel faction. One of the only groups that can produce suicide bombers, and the bravest of the rebel fighters. If the Islamic Front wipes them out, the rebellion will lose 5,000 - 8,000 of their best fighters. Also ISIS have said if this fighting continues they will withdraw from Aleppo city where they are currently holding the Eastern flank. It would be a windfall for the Syrian Army.
On a historic point I've pointed out before that this happened during the Algerian Civil War. The Jihadist groups ended up killing each other while the Army sat back and watched. It's how that civil war ended. Similar happened in Iraq with the Jihadists angering the tribes leading to the "Awakening" movement.
Posted by: Colm O' Toole | Jan 6 2014 22:31 utc | 19
@brian #13
'I left out Hezbollah. Even though they claim to have carbombed beirut... 'this makes it seem Hezbollah has used car bombs.....really?!
Yeah I see what I did there. The subject was ISIS and I was naming their fronts. ISIS claimed the carbomb in Beirut so opening another front in Lebanon would be nr 5. I just doubt that since I read quite some reports and articles about JaN being fingerpointed as the culprits. My bad, I know it could have been better written (shows how much English is not my first language).
@rusty pipes #16
Don't sweat it. Easy to overlook fact with all these whahabi wackjobs opening one franchise after another.
Your link points out some of the inconsistencies in the news. Someplaces they work together and some places they act like enemies. Either this means there is no unity of command as a whole (that brigades act independent of each other and can even be counterproductive to the whole ISIS structure e.g. one ultrafanatical leader compared to a strategic thinking leader) or there is something else going on. The withdrawing without a fight makes you wonder.
Posted by: Gehenna | Jan 6 2014 22:36 utc | 20
@Colm O' Toole #19
"Now ISIS is fighting a war it can't win on 2 fronts, as well as pissing off every other rebel group, including the Kurds."
My point exactly except that it's a 4 front war. This is just strategic suicide. It doesn't make any sense.
As to the events in Iraq (and Algeria) you are totally correct. ISIS alienated itself back then in Iraq (it was AQI but rebranded itself into ISIS/ISIL to include the levant/Syria). Either the same thing is happening all over or they are experiencing quite some leadership issues.
Posted by: Gehenna | Jan 6 2014 22:47 utc | 21
Gehenna @ 21: What about reports coming out of Falluja that have Awakening fighters switching sides to fight with ISIS against the Iraqi government?
Posted by: Mike Maloney | Jan 6 2014 23:18 utc | 22
@Virgile#18:
And as usual for the NYT, not a single reporter is anywhere in Syria:
Anne Barnard reported from Beirut, and Rick Gladstone from New York. Reporting was contributed by Hwaida Saad and Mohammad Ghannam from Beirut, Karam Shoumali from Istanbul, and Eric Schmitt from Washington.
Rather, they are relying upon:
The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, an antigovernment group based in Britain with a network of contacts inside Syria,and
Abu Bakr, an activist in Raqqa from the Shaam News Network, an antigovernment organization,
For all we know, they may be fighting over who gets control of the oil wells and kidnapped victims. And their greatest objection to ISIS' extremism is that ISIS won't give them a cigarette break.
Posted by: Rusty Pipes | Jan 6 2014 23:37 utc | 23
@Mike Maloney #22
In these cases for me as an outsider it's difficult to see what is really going on (tribal politics). In Ramadi the militias joined forces with the Iraqi army against ISIS. In Fallujah it seems they joined forces with ISIS.
source
There has been blood shed in the past but now they may join forces along sectarian lines (sunni vs shia). Wether or not they will join forces and wether the central government can disunite them remains to be seen. Al Maliki has quite a job on his hands to prevent all the Awakening militias to to join ISIS. If he doesn't the civil war will reignite (it's been slumbering) back to a full blaze.
What is the difference between Ramadi and Fallujah? Different tribes?! I'm not too familiar with the whole situation.
Posted by: Gehenna | Jan 6 2014 23:48 utc | 24
@ Mike
What about reports coming out of Falluja that have Awakening fighters switching sides to fight with ISIS against the Iraqi government?
Probably the same thing that happened in the Syria war with some soldiers defecting. My best guess is that obviously when you ask Sunni to fight Sunni there will be some mass defections. Still won't change much in Iraq, even in the worst case of a civil war. The facts remain that in Iraq 60%+ of the population is Shia and under 20% is Sunni (with the remaining 20% being Kurdish, that have a bitter history of Sunni oppression). Any civil war by the Sunni's won't end well for them and doubt much want one.
Posted by: Colm O' Toole | Jan 7 2014 0:27 utc | 25
Via http://en.alalam.ir/news/1548509 :
Dated 25 Dec 2013. The World Health Organisation’s representative in Syria, Elizabeth Hoff, says: "I have been in Syria for a year and a half and the difference in that time is devastating to see. The healthcare system has totally, totally broken down.... when you get outside Damascus."Three years ago, nine out of every 10 medicines provided by the country’s network of public and private clinics were made by the country’s own flourishing pharmaceutical industry, which manufactured drugs not only for domestic use but for export to 50 countries globally. Today, ninety per cent of Syria'a pharmaceutical industry is defunct. The government is now dependent on medical supplies from its allies abroad and from the UN.
Nationwide, 40 percent of the country’s hospitals have been destroyed or rendered altogether useless. 66 percent have been damaged. The situation is most dire in rebel-held and Kurdish northern regions. Medical facilities near the front lines of war have been targeted by both warring sides, under the logic that the fewer doctors there are to put to put people back together, the fewer men will come back to fight.
Syria’s population had for years been lifted up by the safety net of modern medicine. Now that has been taken away. Syria is the first State ever to have established an extensive, intensive, up-to-date, modern healthcare system – and then seen it collapse.
@ 26. That's pretty good evidence that America's (pro-Privatisation) 1%'s fingerprints are all over this SNAFU.
Most, if not all, of America's targets for regime-change had a fully-functioning state-run healthcare system before the Yankees marched in and wrecked the place.
("How DARE those effing Eye-Rackies, Libyans, Syrians et al, even DREAM about a publicly-funded non-profit health system which entitles every member of society to free (gag, retch, throw up) healthcare!!!!")
Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Jan 7 2014 2:43 utc | 27
When Yankee Oligarchs and their satraps talk about "Communism" they mean not-for-profit, affordable (to everyone) public utilities and services.
That's it - the Yankee translation of Communism.
Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Jan 7 2014 2:53 utc | 28
When you visit a doctor in the US of A, he can't tell you what's wrong with you until he's phoned the insurance co to find out how sick you can afford to be...
Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Jan 7 2014 3:05 utc | 29
That article in al-Akhbar, though very welcome, is largely incomprehensible to me. I can only say that Nusra are playing a double game, being simultaneously for ISIS and against it, and all the other more-or-less Jihadis value them highly for exactly that reason. Also, it makes an interesting point, namely that Chechens are vanishing. It then spins a web of moralistic bullshit to explain this, but I think that, just like the AQI types who came from Iraq have gone back to fight in Iraq again, so the Chechens have gone back to get ready to fight in Sochi. And I left a comment saying so. I keep leaving hair-raisingly frank comments there. Sometimes I think they must have banned me, but in fact they never do. They've never banned anybody, even that pest Abu Omar, whose every comment on whatever subject used to end up with the image of Iyad Allawi "riding into Baghdad on the back of American tanks".
Posted by: Rowan Berkeley | Jan 7 2014 3:26 utc | 30
I remember the first details emerging of fighting within the opposition - being peddled by Al Jazeera - at a time when a plethora of videos were emerging of numerous rebel atrocities, causing pause for thought in Western capitals. Rather than fighting hand in hand with militant Islamists, we were being fed the line that 'secular' rebels were actually taking on the fight against extremism and needed our help. I laughed and continue to laugh at any fundamental distinctions that pro-rebel media attempts to conjure up - somehow compartmentalising levels of man-eater.
The goal is as it's always been, as described here
Separately, the propensity for friendly fire in Syria must be enormous. At what point are we supposed to believe that one group of opposition fighters identifies the allegiance of an approaching group of opposition fighters? Does a man ride out front on horseback with a flag, depicting the colours of his tribe? What if there is no flag? Are they all identified by their haircuts?
Instances of militants devouring militants are due to the inherent similarities amongst mercenaries, in so far as they want to kill people for financial gain. If they're not posting videos of themselves killing Syrian soldiers to send back to their Saudi and Kuwaiti sponsors, they have to show themselves killing somebody else. Now, create the perception that one group of opposition fighters is somehow derailing the 'true spirit of the revolution' and thereby aligned with Assad, and they become as good for the kill as Syrian soldiers themselves - at the same time winning kudos with Washington.
Posted by: Pat Bateman | Jan 7 2014 10:49 utc | 31
'In the space of a week, two new formations of armed rebels mysteriously appeared across the mass-media lexicon and declared war on the dominant extremists through the usual “activist” social media accounts. The new brigades have virtually no historical record in the conflict, and appear to be largely a creation of the impotent exile opposition and its western sponsors. An abundance of reports relay stories of the Islamic State of Iraq and ash-Sham (ISIS) simply abandoning their posts and being turned over by this supposedly “moderate” new force. Yet, in reality, the most predominant militia in Syria – those of a Salafi-Wahhabi fundamentalist bent, who now fight under the umbrella of the Islamic Front (IF), and are led by Hassan Abboud of Ahrar al-Sham, and Zahran Alloush of Liwa al-Islam – have made a concerted effort to avoid sowing discord between themselves and the overt Al Qaeda affiliates of ISIS and Jabhat al-Nusra (JaN).
The new narrative emerging draws heavily from the Sahwa (Awakening) in Iraq, in which Sunni tribes from the western province of Anbar took up arms against, and eventually defeated, the Al Qaeda insurgency that followed the US invasion and occupation of that country. Western and Gulf media are now attempting to reinvigorate the rebels’ public image by concocting a portrayal of brave “moderates” taking on the extremists within ISIS. Yet contrary to the Syria-Sahwa narrative, the vast majority of opposition forces, as much as one can generalise, have in fact been shown to share far more in common with their extremist equivalents than they have differences, particularly in regards to their reciprocal – and sectarian-laden – religiopolitical ideologies.
According to Western & Gulf propagandists, Jabhat al-Nusra ostensibly represent the “homegrown” Syrian Al Qaeda branch. Whereas in actual fact, the claim is entirely false; JaN’s militia hold a distinct foreign contingent and many of its commanders have also been found to be of foreign descent – particularly Iraqi. Jabhat al-Nusra, therefore, should be correctly viewed as a semi-Syrian militia at most, built and sustained by ISIS and its former incarnation: the Islamic State of Iraq, (ISI) also formerly known as Al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI).
The ideologically aligned Salafi-Jihadists of Ahrar al-Sham, Jabhat al-Nusra, and more recently ISIS, have formed the spearhead of the insurgency throughout the entire Syrian crisis, leading offensives against Syrian army installations, whilst also having enough manpower, funds & materiel to attack, encamp and militarily fortify civilian areas across the country. Most notably in Raqqah, which has become a virtual Al Qaeda statelet under the control of either Jabhat al-Nusra or ISIS.
Examples of the dominant role fundamentalists have played in the insurgency are abundant, during an interview with TIME magazine, Ahrar al-Sham fighters – who, as we have seen through a plethora of evidence, are inextricably linked to Jabhat al-Nusra – freely admit they were planning a violent insurgency in Syria well before any peaceful protests occurred in 2011, and that recruits with underlying sectarian agendas made efforts to sanitize and mask their true Jihadist cause during the earlier phases of the conflict in order to win over the Syrian population. Whats more, a recent report in the National relayed much the same admissions from supposed “FSA” rebels operating in the south of Syria around Dar’aa. The rebels interviewed admitted that “They [JaN] offer their services and cooperate with us, they are better armed than we are, they have suicide bombers and know how to make car bombs,” rebel sources went on to say that “the FSA and Al Nusra join together for operations but they have an agreement to let the FSA lead for public reasons, because they don’t want to frighten Jordan or the West,”. During the interview rebels further elaborate on the efforts made to boost the public image of the western-backed imaginary moderates saying that “operations that were really carried out by Al Nusra are publicly presented by the FSA as their own,” and that supposed moderate FSA fighters “say that Al Nusra fighters are really from the FSA to enable them to move more easily across borders,”. The reports bolster earlier analysis that contradict the dominant narrative, often dismissed as “conspiracy theory”, which indicated such actions were being undertaken, and that the armed groups responsible for the initial violence in March-April 2011 were indeed religious fundamentalists, not the secular “freedom fighters” endlessly lionized by the lackeys of western governments and media.'
etc
http://notthemsmdotcom.wordpress.com/2014/01/07/the-reactionary-essence-of-the-syrian-insurgency/
Posted by: brian | Jan 7 2014 11:18 utc | 32
'A more recent example of the Islamic Front cooperating with its Al Qaeda-affiliates came in December, when the IF took part in the attack and ensuing massacre of civilians in the workers district of Adra, Damascus – another rebel war-crime almost totally omitted from western media, regardless of the fact the BBC’s chief foreign correspondent was a mere 20 miles away while the massacres were occurring.'
Posted by: brian | Jan 7 2014 11:21 utc | 33
According to ABC News.au this evening, there has been a 'flood' of islamic militants into Syria during the last month or so. And many of them are from ... Gaza ... which suggests that the Jews are going to bomb the crap out of the women and children trapped in their open-air prison camp - again.
I suppose a lousy excuse is better than no excuse at all for wrecking houses in winter, during a fuel shortage. It probably helps take the heat off the demolitions in West Bank producing vacant land for new squattlements, and gives the MSM another excuse not to mention the AfPak SNAFU.
Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Jan 7 2014 11:53 utc | 34
salafism is rife in gaza...and extremism makes people do stupid things, like attack one of your main state supports
Posted by: brian | Jan 7 2014 13:10 utc | 35
Re #33: It's being argued that the real trick is to make the Egyptians do the bombing. Whether they want Egypt to reabsorb Gaza is an open question.
Posted by: Rowan Berkeley | Jan 7 2014 15:29 utc | 36
@Brian #34,
Why do you think people are attracted to Salafism?
What is it about Salafism thats so alluring?
Posted by: Irshad | Jan 7 2014 15:33 utc | 37
Olivier Roy had an interesting take on it. As I remember what he wrote, and knowing the way I read into things, this is most unlikely to be accurate: Salafism appeared as an ideological style in Saudi-funded establishments all over the world, when the Saudis felt a need to distinguish their mode of indoctrination from that of the radicalised Ikhwanis who had become al-Qaeda. So the international Salafi style, at least in the western diaspora, was politically disengaged, even quietist. It was based on withdrawal from the world rather than engagement with it. This was the line that was coming from the Saudi Grand Mufti, Abd'ul-Aziz bin Baz. Bin Baz was succeeded as Grand Mufti in 1999 by a much more aggressive character, Abd'ul-Aziz ash-Sheikh, but the change in Salafism which led back to the Jihadi mentality that bin Baz had been concerned to downplay, happened rather gradually. I think it is still important, no matter where in the world, to be able to present the quietist, apolitical image of Salafism when necessary, otherwise every Salafi would be branded an incipient terrorist.
Posted by: Rowan Berkeley | Jan 7 2014 17:30 utc | 38
A well, it is all about youth culture, I suppose ...
The Saudis are a really confusing bunch. In public, the Saudi government funds and exports a fundamentalist form of Islam. But as any party boy in New York can attest, wealthy Saudis are the most decadent, liquored-up, drugged-out people in the world.
Like in Iran, the government in Saudi Arabia imposes repressive religious mores on the population while urban youth in particular are increasingly exposed to freer, more open societies. Some experience other parts of the world by going abroad to study there, while others learn through satellite television and the Internet. High rates of drug and alcohol consumption are commonly ascribed to the pressures of living in a repressive environment coupled with the widespread availability of these illegal substances.
Inside Islam's druggy underworld
Posted by: somebody | Jan 7 2014 17:53 utc | 39
@ Pat Bateman
Separately, the propensity for friendly fire in Syria must be enormous. At what point are we supposed to believe that one group of opposition fighters identifies the allegiance of an approaching group of opposition fighters? Does a man ride out front on horseback with a flag, depicting the colours of his tribe? What if there is no flag? Are they all identified by their haircuts?
A good question. It (the lack of uniforms) became a problem early on in the Syrian war, hard for insurgents to know who is on whose side, or who is in whose group, or who is just a regular civilian. In Syria this is solved by wearing arm-bands. Here is a picture of Hezbollah in Syria, notice the yellow armbands. It's how Hezbollah can identify there fighters when in combat with groups like FSA or Al Nusra. Another picture of Hezbollah with yellow arm bands.
Other groups allied with Assad also wear arm bands. Here a fighter from the Abu al Fadl Al Abbas brigade (made up of Palestinian and Iraq Shia militias) wears their red armbands. Another of Al Abbas Brigade here. The National Defence Forces (NDF) the Pro Assad volunteer militia, have got uniforms with the Syrian flag.
On the side of those opposed to Assad, its more disorganised. Some examples like these Funny Pink Headbands or the traditional Nusra black headbands are used. Thats how they prevent friendly fire in a war where few wear uniforms.
Posted by: Colm O' Toole | Jan 7 2014 18:20 utc | 40
Happy New Year, Colm. As always, thank you for your comments on Syria. I'm sorry for having nothing further to contribute though. A lull before the impending storm once all chemical weapons have been removed..
I Googled 'Damascus' earlier and the top news result was a house party in Damascus, Maryland. It goes to show the difficulty sometimes in trying to keep up with what's happening in Syria.
I tend to stick primarily to ANNA News on Youtube these days. Their news updates (with English subs) are frequent, though sometimes bloody. I prefer the operation videos, though these are delayed for strategic reasons.
Posted by: Pat Bateman | Jan 7 2014 18:47 utc | 41
@somebody
Whoever has written for New Rpublic is certainly a neo-con. But you don't need to know this to understand that the interview you linked to is a piece of propaganda for the dis-illusionned neo-cons... and Israeli. The guy is even failing to mention source of heroin in consumption in Iran, which is obvious to any observer. Afghanistan has become the biggest producer of poppy seeds since 12 years ago under the goodwill of the occuppiers. Iran is the shortest and most economic route for the transit of the by-products of this crop to Europe, the target. While Europeans are busy interdicting night-vision goggles and other equipments export to Iran, trying at the same time to asphyxiate her economy by a total banking embargo, the Iranian border control police has had the biggest rate of casualties in the world during the last 5 years.
Posted by: ATH | Jan 7 2014 19:04 utc | 42
Happy New Year to you too Pat. That's crazy about the top news on Damascus being a house party in Maryland. Major US news failure, but I imagine in the US, if its not about American troops getting blown up somewhere, they aren't interested in World News.
ANNA News is a good source of footage from Syria, watched a good few of there videos. Manar and PressTV also have a few good reports.
Posted by: Colm O' Toole | Jan 7 2014 19:30 utc | 43
41) The guy is even worse than you make him
The interview is done by a website dedicated completely on how to get yourself out of drug addiction. I guess Baude did it because he is through with respectable society anyway.
What would you say is more of a problem to be concerned about, unemployment, religious fundamentalism, gun proliferation or drug abuse?
Or let's ask the other way round - are unemployment, religious fundamentalism, gun proliferation and drug abuse related?
Posted by: somebody | Jan 7 2014 19:45 utc | 44
Parviziyi | Jan 6, 2014 8:36:06 PM | 26
Thanks for this.
A passages sums up what the war is about, looting and "opening" the country's market for the looters, UK, US, France, Turkey. Now, it seems to want to be part of reconstruction.
http://english.al-akhbar.com/node/17985 Here is an interview of the Syrian PM about the level of devastation.
and in pictures: http://english.al-akhbar.com/photoblogs/after-storm-ersal
Those ominous plastic sheets with UNHCR sign are well known for those who have experienced "help" of the "international community". That help is coming from the western countries, and with their products. Such one trading company was in Brussels during the war in Balkan, thus during that time Clinton's made a lot of money on commodities that went to the region.
Posted by: neretva'43 | Jan 7 2014 19:45 utc | 45
brian@34, others
I'm more inclined to believe that Gazans are desperate, and the salaries being paid to jihadists in Syria are one of few options to support themselves and family. After al Sisi closed the border to Gaza, destroyed the tunnels, etc, the Zionist regime celebrated knowing more jihadists would end up in Syria.
Posted by: okie farmer | Jan 7 2014 20:15 utc | 46
@37
yes there are reportsa violent form of salafism emerged in thr 1990s
Understanding the Origins of Wahhabism and Salafism
Publication: Terrorism Monitor Volume: 3 Issue: 14
July 15, 2005 03:54 PM Age: 7 yrs
Category: Terrorism Monitor
By: Trevor Stanley
The phenomenon of Islamic terrorism cannot be adequately explained as the export of Saudi Wahhabism, as many commentators claim. In fact, the ideological heritage of groups such as al-Qaeda is Salafism, a movement that began in Egypt and was imported into Saudi society during the reign of King Faisal.
The official ‘Wahhabi’ religion of Saudi Arabia has essentially merged with certain segments of Salafism. There is now intense competition between groups and individual scholars over the 'true' Salafism, with the scholars who support the Saudi regime attacking groups such as al-Qaeda as ‘Qutbists’ (following Sayyid Qutb) or takfiris (excommunicators).
The easy explanation for differences within the Salafi movement is that some aim to change society through da’wa (preaching/evangelizing) whereas others want to change it through violence. But as the Saudi example shows, all strains of Salafism, even the most revolutionary and violent, make a place for social services such as education in their strategies for the transformation of society.
Origins of Wahhabism
When Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab began preaching his revivalist brand of Islam amongst the Bedouins of the Najd [1] during the 18th century, his ideas were dismissed in the centers of Islamic learning such as al-Azhar as simplistic and erroneous to the point of heresy.
Ibn Abd al-Wahhab claimed that the decline of the Muslim world was caused by pernicious foreign innovations (bida’) - including European modernism, but also elements of traditional Islam that were simply unfamiliar to the isolated Najdi Bedouins. He counseled the purging of these influences in an Islamic Revival. Ibn Abd al-Wahhab’s creed placed an overriding emphasis on tawhid (monotheism), condemning many traditional Muslim practices as shirk (polytheism). He also gave jihad an unusual prominence in his teachings. The Wahhabis called themselves Muwahideen (monotheists) - to call themselves Wahhabis was considered shirk.
Origins of Salafism
Salafism originated in the mid to late 19th Century, as an intellectual movement at al-Azhar University, led by Muhammad Abduh (1849-1905), Jamal al-Din al-Afghani (1839-1897) and Rashid Rida (1865-1935). The movement was built on a broad foundation. Al-Afghani was a political activist, whereas Abduh, an educator, sought gradual social reform (as a part of da’wa), particularly through education. Debate over the place of these respective methods of political change continues to this day in Salafi groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood.
The early Salafis admired the technological and social advancement of Europe’s Enlightenment, and tried to reconcile it with the belief that their own society was the heir to a divinely guided Golden Age of Islam that had followed the Prophet Muhammad’s Revelations.
The name Salafi comes from as-salaf as-saliheen, the ‘pious predecessors’ of the early Muslim community, although some Salafis extend the Salaf to include selected later scholars. The Salafis held that the early Muslims had understood and practiced Islam correctly, but true understanding of Islam had gradually drifted, just as the people of previous Prophets (including Moses and Jesus) had strayed and gone into decline. The Salafis set out to rationally reinterpret early Islam with the expectation of rediscovering a more ‘modern’ religion.
In terms of their respective formation, Wahhabism and Salafism were quite distinct. Wahhabism was a pared-down Islam that rejected modern influences, while Salafism sought to reconcile Islam with modernism. What they had in common is that both rejected traditional teachings on Islam in favor of direct, ‘fundamentalist’ reinterpretation.
Saudi Arabia Embraces Salafi Pan-Islamism
Although Saudi Arabia is commonly characterized as aggressively exporting Wahhabism, it has in fact imported pan-Islamic Salafism. Saudi Arabia founded and funded transnational organizations and headquartered them in the kingdom, but many of the guiding figures in these bodies were foreign Salafis. The most well known of these organizations was the World Muslim League, founded in Mecca in 1962, which distributed books and cassettes by al-Banna, Qutb and other foreign Salafi luminaries. Saudi Arabia successfully courted academics at al-Azhar University, and invited radical Salafis to teach at its own Universities.
Saudi Arabia’s decision to host Egyptian radicals hinges on three factors: the need for qualified educators, Faisal’s struggle against Egyptian-led pan-Arab radicalism, and Saudi openness under King Khaled. Between the 1920s and 1960s, Saudi Arabia was emerging as a modern state. Increased oil production required technical infrastructure and a bureaucracy, resulting in a demand for educators that outstripped the administration’s capacity. [2] The Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood represented a source of qualified educators, bureaucrats and engineers, many of them anxious to leave Egypt.
During the late 1950s and the 1960s, the Middle East was gripped by a struggle between the traditional monarchies and the secular pan-Arab radicals, led by Nasser’s Egypt, with the pan-Islamist Salafis an important third force. [3] By embracing pan-Islamism, Faisal countered the idea of pan-Arab loyalty centered on Egypt with a larger transnational loyalty centered on Saudi Arabia. During the 1960s, members of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood and its offshoots, many of them teachers, were given sanctuary in Saudi Arabia, in a move that undermined Nasser while also relieving the Saudi education crisis. [4]
Saudi Arabia’s foreign policy concerns eased in 1970 with Nasser’s death. But in the 1970s, the Saudi education system was awash with Egyptian Muslim Brothers and other Salafis, much as Berkeley was awash with Marxists. Under King Khaled (r.1975-1982), some of the most important proponents of Qutbist terrorism, including Abdullah Azzam, Omar Abd al-Rahman and Muhammad Qutb, served as academics in the Kingdom. Qutb, an important proponent of his late brother Sayyid’s theory, wrote several texts on tawhid for the Saudi school curriculum. [5]
A generation of prominent Saudi citizens was exposed to various strains of Salafi thought during the 1970s, and although most Saudi Salafis are not Qutbist revolutionaries, the Qutbists did not miss the opportunity to awaken a revolutionary vanguard.
Wahhabi-Salafism
Although Salafism and Wahhabism began as two distinct movements, Faisal's embrace of Salafi pan-Islamism resulted in cross-pollination between ibn Abd al-Wahhab’s teachings on tawhid, shirk and bid’a and Salafi interpretations of ahadith (the sayings of Muhammad). Some Salafis nominated ibn Abd al-Wahhab as one of the Salaf (retrospectively bringing Wahhabism into the fold of Salafism), and the Muwahideen began calling themselves Salafis.
Today, a profusion of self-proclaimed Salafi groups exist, each accusing the others of deviating from 'true' Salafism. Since the 1970s, the Saudis have wisely stopped funding those Salafis that excommunicate nominally Muslim governments (or at least the Saudi government), condemning al-Qaeda as ‘the deviant sect’. The pro-Saudis correctly trace al-Qaeda’s ideological roots to Qutb and al-Banna. Less accurately, they accuse these groups of insidiously 'entering' Salafism. In fact, Salafism was imported into Saudi Arabia in its Ikhwani and Qutbist forms. This does not mean that the pro-Saudi Salafis are necessarily benign - for example, Abu Mu'aadh as-Salafee’s main criticism of Qutb and Muslim Brotherhood founder Hassan al-Banna is that they claim Islam teaches tolerance of Jews.[6]
Meanwhile, non-Muslims and mainstream Muslims alike use the ‘Wahhabi-Salafi’ label to denigrate Salafis and even completely unrelated groups such as the Taliban.
Conclusions
Faisal’s embrace of pan-Islamism achieved its main objective in that it helped Saudi Arabia to overcome pan-Arabism. However, it created a radicalized Salafi constituency, elements of which the regime continues to fund. It should be kept in mind, though, that this funding is now confined to more compliant Salafis.
Saudi Arabia still has some way to go. Some will say that a leopard can’t change its spots, but in fact the Saudi Government is capable of serious doctrinal change under pressure. Faisal’s broad introduction of Salafi policies involved such a shift, as did the subsequent rejection of Qutbist interpretations of Salafism by pro-Saudi Salafis.
The Middle East today is clearly in need of alternative models of political change to counter takfiri Salafism. In the West, education has been a major factor in social integration. But as the Saudi case study indicates, we need to be aware of not only the quantity, but also the nature of education. Saudi students in the 1970s learned engineering and administration alongside an ideology of xenophobic alienation. In the long run, the battle against violent Salafism will be fought not only on the battlefields of Afghanistan and Iraq, but also in the universities of the Middle East.
Notes
1. A province in the Arabian Desert, now part of Saudi Arabia.
2. Madawi al-Rasheed, A History of Saudi Arabia, Cambridge University Press, 2002, pp122-123. Rasheed observes that most teachers in Saudi Arabia at this time were Egyptians.
3. For a comprehensive account of this struggle, see Abdullah M Sindhi, King Faisal and Pan-Islamism, in Willard L Beling (ed), King Faisal and the Modernisation of Saudi Arabia, London, 1980.
4. Madawi al-Rasheed, p144.
5. Syed Muhammad al-Naquib al-Attas (ed), Aims and Objectives of Islamic Education, King Abdul Aziz University, Jeddah, 1979, p48. Introduction to Muhammad Qutb’s chapter, The Role of Religion in Education. (Proceedings of the 1977 World Conference on Islamic Education, Mecca).
6. Abu Mu'aadh as-Salafee, Exposing al-Ikhwaan al-Muflisoon: the Aqeedah of Walaa and Baraaa’, SalafiPublications.com and As-Sawaa’iq al-Mursalah ‘Alal-Afkaar al-Qutubiyyah al-Mudammirah, SalafiPublications.com, pp48, 50.
Posted by: brian | Jan 7 2014 20:39 utc | 47
Posted by: okie farmer | Jan 7, 2014 3:15:20 PM | 44
NO
and dont blame al-sisi for palestinians stupididy
@36
pure forms of a religion tend to attract the young and converts, and salafism has missionaries who go on recruitment drives....many reports of converts going on jihad to syria
Posted by: brian | Jan 7 2014 20:47 utc | 48
@somebody
You linked him with a title "inside islam druggy underworld". What was your goal and what would you say?
In Iran, in the last 10 years heroin addiction increase among youngster is directly related to the effort by some policymakers to facilitate the production of popy in the land under their control and Iran is not a "fundamentalist" society in a sense that is propagated in this artic le.
Posted by: ATH | Jan 7 2014 21:04 utc | 49
47) An unelected (by the population) clerical leader who is the final decision maker fits my definition of a theocracy - society is something else.
Is the Iranian regime fundamentalist - well, Sufi poetry is beyond their tolerance trying to alienate Iranians from a great cultural heritage (Sufi poetry will win).
There is a very progressive, antiimperialist side to the Iranian way of mixing religion and politics. That did not prevent socialists and communists from getting murdered after the revolution. And it did not prevent the Iran-Iraq war. And it does not prevent trade unionists ending up in prison.
It is a fallacy to think you have to back one side in a conflict. Sometimes choices are all bad.
It is another fallacy to think a phenomenon - head cutting fundamentalists - is important because it is spectacular. That's is what I meant pointing to that interview.
Posted by: somebody | Jan 7 2014 21:38 utc | 50
@Colm O' Toole(39)
Well, I think regular Hezb fighters, if u look at them even as
far back as the 90's, look pretty much like regular
Western soldiers.
They certainly look nothing like these rag tag insurgent
gangs in Syria. I have wondered about this when shown the
rare photos purporting to show Hezb fighters in Syria.
Couldn't they just be Shia from the border with Lebanon,
perhaps trained to some extent by Hezbollah?
Some vids that show regular Hezb fighters in training;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1EcLg85cvYw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rssPhiFGISM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ix0kHDHM5r0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OWUnc1PhiYo
Posted by: Luca K | Jan 7 2014 21:57 utc | 51
@somebody
No state, even the closest to your own ideal, will tolerate any grouping aiming at irredentism or at overthrowing the established (or in the process of being established) political order especially if those groups are either backed by external adversaries, or espousing an ideology close to theirs.
An overwhelming majority of the iranians, I would say in the order of 95% of the population, won't accept violence as a means to change the current political order. And I would estimate that around 70 to 75% of them accept this order as a legitimate one, bringing enough freedom for them to be able to reform it if they wanted it. These proportions can be considered as dream for the French, German or Anglo-American political elites.
The head of state in Iran has the same functions as the head of the state in UK. If their formal powers differ, this is because of one major fact, the function of leadership is not hereditary and is mandated, indirectly, by the population with an election procedure reformable and subject to interpretation. The ultimate function of this leadership is to legitimize the political system and not to rule it as a dictator. As the recent elections has shown, the political orientation, the excecution of the laws and day to day management of the country is done by the office of the president. Basically the system in Iran today remains, unlike the one in SA, Israel, France, Anglo-American one to name a few, reformable and more important is being reformed step by step.
Your constant opposition to Iranian political system, apparently because of your dislike of Islam, sounds pretty close to the one espoused by the like of Brooks and Kristols.
Posted by: ATH | Jan 7 2014 22:17 utc | 52
"And I would estimate that around 70 to 75% of them accept this order as a legitimate one, bringing enough freedom for them to be able to reform it if they wanted it. These proportions can be considered as dream for the French, German or Anglo-American political elites."
The bold part is a complete nonsense. In fact it is the exact opposite of the reality. When did anyone see a crowd of people in the order of one million on the streets of any Western capital doing subversive demonstration?
The main difference between the Western liberal democracies and the Iranian *liberal* democracy is not in the respect for dissent in one and the lack of it in the other. Both systems punish dissent. The only difference is the degree of tolerance and the level of punishment. And this difference is nothing but the result of the difference between the size of the social basis for dissent in Iran and in the West.
In Iran radical dissent (in one form or another) appeals to 30-40% in the West it does not go any where close to even a few percent. In the West the Occupy movement would be ecstatic if could bring out any number close to the turn out of demonstrations in Iran in 2009.
And make no mistake if radical dissent brings out any number even close to what came out in Iran, the Western reaction will be as brutal or perhaps even much more brutal than Iran's reaction.
"The ultimate function of this leadership is to legitimize the political system and not to rule it as a dictator."
The legitimacy of a political system comes from the support of the people and their direct control on the affairs, not from through the blessing of a "leader" who has been selected by an assembly which itself has been elected through an "engineered" election in which candidates have to be politically approved beforehand!
"As the recent elections has shown, the political orientation, the excecution of the laws and day to day management of the country is done by the office of the president."
Again this pure nonsense. The president of Iran as could be seen from what happened to Rohani cannot even accept a phone call and has to be humiliated by his own foreign minister when he (Zarif) admits that there has been "mistakes" and apologizes to the leader for taking a phone call!! The president of Iran cannot even appoint his own fucking deputy without the consent of the "leader" as it could be seen from the case of Ahmadinejad. The president cannot even sack one of his ministers without the leader's consent. In fact I can think of NO OFFICE in Iran which can be occupied against the wishes of the leader!
Posted by: Pirouz_2 | Jan 7 2014 23:03 utc | 53
Amusing discussion among believers of "democracy".
A land-owners, aristocracy with absolute ruler on the top, reinvented itself into, nowadays, a FIRE bourgeois society ruled by an executive orders.
No doubt...huge progress. Some say the serfs, in medieval time, had been less taxed than today's serfs.
Posted by: neretva'43 | Jan 8 2014 0:25 utc | 54
An unelected (by the population) clerical leader who is the final decision maker fits my definition of a theocracy - society is something else.
That's interesting? You just invented something what was unknown in Theory of the State and the Law.
How do you call society whose an elected leader(s), prominently Evangelical zealots, killed several hundred of thousands of innocent people and send out that society into the stone age? And a carnage is continuing on daily basis.
Posted by: neretva'43 | Jan 8 2014 0:47 utc | 55
@pirouz_2
Like every other of your comments on Iran you seem driven by your feelings rather than the facts. This will ultimately put you on the same camp (if it's not already done) of the adversaries of Iran.
It has been proven by several credible pollsters that Ahmadinejad second term election was a valid and legitimate one. The millions you are talking about, assuming that the number you put forward is correct which I doubt, were not all questioning the legitimacy of the system. Among Moussavi voters (30 to 40% of the electors) I can definitely affirm that only 10 to 15% are radical in a sense that they reject the system. Those are the same percentage in any sound political system.
A state should have a form of legitimization. The mass by itself doesn't provide this. The mass opinion is a fluid and moving thing it cannot bring stability to any government without the hard structure of the state and its representation which it follows and stick to it. The US legitimacy is based on its capitalist mantra represented by its finance, banking and militaro-industrial war making machine. Iran is more tuned to its society by having a muslim/religious legitimacy.
Instead of proffering your feelings publicly on Iran's system of governance go revisit your political science courses and try to be objective.
Posted by: ATH | Jan 8 2014 2:28 utc | 56
"When did anyone see a crowd of people in the order of one million on the streets of any Western capital doing subversive demonstration?"
In 2002/3. Crowds estimated at a million plus in at least two Spanish cities, London and, I suspect, other European capitals. They were protesting their governments complicity with and US aggression.
What made these demonstrations unusual, in 21st century terms, was that they were not organised with the assistance and approval of the US State Department. Twitter did not postpone its scheduled maintenance to facilitate them and the media did not lead their news broadcasts with pro-demonstration propaganda designed to promote the anti-government cause.
And let us not even begin to discuss the British "riots" of a couple of years ago which were massive demonstrations of popular anger and alienation.
Posted by: bevin | Jan 8 2014 2:47 utc | 57
There are three reasons at least for Iranian anti-Leftism, and none of them bode well for the alliance between Shi'ism and the Left in Lebanon, which is persistent enough, but at the same time opportunistic in its very philosophical roots:
(1) Pseudo-Leftist 'colour revolution' conspiracies orchestrated by the CIA;
(2) Russian imperialism as it was, in full effect during the Soviet period;
(3) Actual class antagonism, because just like Catholics in the West, Shi'ite rulers believe God sanctifies private property.
Posted by: Rowan Berkeley | Jan 8 2014 3:12 utc | 58
"In Iran, in the last 10 years heroin addiction increase among youngster is directly related to the effort by some policymakers to facilitate the production of poppy in the land under their control"
I have only watched documentaries - but Iran seems positively progressive when it comes to treating heroin addiction.
I find it hard to imagine (but only because I know too little to imagine too much) that there is large scale heroin production in Iran - if only because it seems the government is fighting heroin addiction so vigorously since it poses such a problem there. I find it even harder to imagine that Iranian heroin production could compete in scale and price with that which is coming out of Afghanistan under the watchful eye of the United States.
I'd be interested in hearing more, certainly. It is big business and, in the past, and instrument of social control. I just picked up a book called "The Politics of Heroin" but it is about Southeast Asia.
Posted by: guest77 | Jan 8 2014 3:13 utc | 59
@Rusty
I find this conversation about the different uniforms, and especially the balaclavas, very interesting. It makes you wonder - just who is under them?
I am always drawing this comparison, but I think it is apt generally, but this might take it too far: In Mexico, it seems that balaclavas are worn by two groups - the government, and the community self-defense units. They are worn by these groups because, presumably, they have their normal lives to go on with.
The narcos don't seem to bother with them too much except for maybe during an explicit action - they are soldiers 100% of the time. They have no alter-egos, they have no normal lives to live. They control the spaces they live and fight in. We would imagine the Jihadis would do the same.
So it really begs the question then: why? The idea that they are foreigners is likely correct. But you have to wonder - could it occasionally be more than just "Islamic" foreign fighters? That kind of uniform would give a squad of Israelis or British commandos pretty good cover too...
Posted by: guest77 | Jan 8 2014 3:26 utc | 60
ATH;
You are the one who is completely subjective. Instead of assertions try to disputes the *facts* that I have provided with evidence.
No one is denying the fact that Ahmadinejad did win his second term without any sort of cheating. I have never made any claims to that effect. Talking as if I have done so and then trying to prove me wrong with poll results will not help your case.
Even when the president has "carte blanch" he cannot take a phone call from US president and has to be humiliated by his own subordinate's (ie. Zarif) admission that the president made a mistake by taking the call which Obama had made. "Day to day management of the country is done by the office of the president" but apparently he is not even allowed to sack a member of his own cabinet without the leader's consent!
And based on what do you claim that "only 10 to 15%" of Mousavi voters were anti-regime? Your gut feeling? Your own acquaintances who had voted for him? These are not statistics as you know. If you ask some people in northern Tehran, "everyone he knows is against the Islamic system"! Should we take that as an evidence?
Let's have a look at the election results of 2009 and 2013, shall we?
Voter turnout in 2009 was 85%, in 2013 it was less than 73%. That means a 12% decrease. Total mousavi vote was ~34%, so he had the support of 29% of the total electorate. It is plausible to assume that the extra 12% who did not participate in 2013 elections were most likely the people who voted for Mousavi in 2009. 12/29=41%.
Based on this one can make an "educated guess" that perhaps some 41% of Mousavi supporters did not participate in the eletions in 2013. By the way I know people who voted for Mousavi in 2009, and are against the regime and also voted for Rowhani in 2013. So the number of anti-regime supporters of Mousavi is probably more than 41% of his voters. How much more? Since unlike you I don't make subjective claims with zero evidence, I will not speculate about that.
Now what is the basis for your claim that only 10-15% of Mousavi supporters were anti-regime? Words of Mr. Marandi?!?!?
By the way, there is an even easier way of making an educated guess about the radical dissent in Iran: voter turnout was ~73% in 2013. So AT LEAST 27% are against regime. This is an absolute lower bound, there were many people who voted for Rowhani and still are against the regime. What percentage of Rowhani voters were against regime? No one can tell for sure.
But it really does not matter. By your own admission there are 25-30% anti-regime citizens in Iran. How many anti-regime citizens do we have in the West? How many people would want a complete regime change in Germany, France, UK or USA? Do you really think the number would come anywhere even close to 30%?!?!?
And all you needed were "eyes" to see there were roughly (give or take 15%) in the order of 1 million on the streets of Tehran in the immediate aftermath of the 2009, go back and try to find the pictures of the mass demonstration in 2009.
PS. You said in your comment #50, that 25-30% of the population does NOT consider the regime legitimate (you said 70-75% consider it legitimate which means that 25-30% don't). My number for regime opponents was 30-40%. These two "guesstimates" are really not that far from each other, considering that we have no referendum to base our estimates on. And still you have the urgent need of disputing my numbers, now who is the one who is "emotional" rather than "rational"??
Posted by: Pirouz_2 | Jan 8 2014 3:37 utc | 61
Bevin;
Are you saying that in the West there are ~30% who are proposing a total regime change?
Posted by: Pirouz_2 | Jan 8 2014 3:46 utc | 62
By the way Bevin;
That order of one million demonstrating on the streets in Spain and UK, were they demonstrating against the "government" or were they demonstrating against the "regime" all together?
Posted by: Pirouz_2 | Jan 8 2014 4:02 utc | 63
Pirouz_2, you wrote
[...] voter turnout was ~73% in 2013. So AT LEAST 27% are against regime. [...]
By that measure, what are we to assume from the following figures:
US Presidential Elections (Voter Turn Out)
2012 66.65%
2008 70.33%
German Federal Elections (Voter Turn Out)
2013 71.55%
2009 70.78%
German EU Elections (Voter Turn Out)
2009 43.27%
2004 43.00%
The 73% turnout in Iran last year beats both US and German participation. How come then that Iran has a "regime" while the US and Germany have a "government"? If what you say is true, then 57% of Germans are against the EU regime and 28% against the Merkel regime, and some 33% of US Americans against the Obama regime.
Posted by: Juan Moment | Jan 8 2014 5:10 utc | 64
Juan Moment;
Very good question. The difference is that in the West the people who abstain from voting are mostly apolitical, in Iran on the other hand they are not apolitical, they are very much political.
Don't misunderstand me, I am not trying here to claim that the Western system is "democratic" or that those who abstain from voting in the West are being represented in the parliament. After all the fact that you are apolitical and don't vote does not alter the fact that you do not see any meaning in the act of voting. A person who does not vote -be it in the West or in Iran, be (s)he apolitical or political- does not think that his/her vote will make any meaningful difference in his life.
Bu this has little to do with my argument.
The main argument I am trying to make is that there is no substantial difference in the essence of the Western system and the Iranian one. The difference is not in the essence of the systems but rather in the fact that radical dissent in Iran is much more substantial (and by the way radical dissent does not necessarily mean progressive dissent) than it is in the West.
If we see a much smaller proportion of Western intelligentsia being prosecuted, jailed, harassed, or murdered compared to Iran, that is NOT because the Western system is more civilized or that it is based on "freedom of dissent", FAR from it. The reason for the difference is the fact that in countries such as Iran radical dissent has a much broader social basis and therefore poses a far greater threat to the stability of the system than it does in the West.
Posted by: Pirouz_2 | Jan 8 2014 5:29 utc | 65
Addition to my message #63;
Not to mention that a big proportion (but definitely not all) of radical dissent in Iran is being manipulated by the world's sole superpower which is trying to destabilize the system.
Posted by: Pirouz_2 | Jan 8 2014 5:35 utc | 66
By the way bevin;
You said in your message #55:
"What made these demonstrations unusual, in 21st century terms, was that they were not organised with the assistance and approval of the US State Department. Twitter did not postpone its scheduled maintenance to facilitate them and the media did not lead their news broadcasts with pro-demonstration propaganda designed to promote the anti-government cause."
Yes the green movement was indeed reactionary, yes indeed it was being manipulated by the imperialism, but make no mistake it was a movement of a part of Iran and it had a significant social basis (NONETHELESS a minority!). You see "coloured coups" cannot be made against just any state, they can be made against states which have certain important weaknesses. Imperialism cannot create dissent out of thin air! It can only manipulate an already existing reactionary dissent. Or as you very often say to Rowan: "the system is not omnipotent, indeed it is very weak" (I paraphrased you to the best of what I recalled). Had USA had such great "manipulating powers" to create dissent against Islamic Republic out of thin air, it would have definitely created a 30% support for the Shah! Shah's regime was changed by more than 99% of votes in the referendum of 1979. Where was the manipulative power of USA back then?
Posted by: Pirouz_2 | Jan 8 2014 6:40 utc | 67
Posted by: ATH | Jan 7, 2014 5:17:51 PM | 50
ok, step by step
No state, even the closest to your own ideal, will tolerate any grouping aiming at irredentism or at overthrowing the established (or in the process of being established) political order especially if those groups are either backed by external adversaries, or espousing an ideology close to theirs.
a) That is the usual trick - accuse internal opposition to do the bidding of an external enemy. External enemies are very useful for power if there is not any (dissolution of the Soviet Union) they have to be found (al Qeida), Christian conservatives in Germany used to tell opponents to go leave for the GDR ..., you can find examples for this in any country since Napoleon exported the French revolution to the rest of Europe.
b) The Iranian theocracy is not founded on a national movement constricted to the defense of Iran, they subscribe to a political Islam closely linked to Muslim Brotherhood theorists and designed to cross borders. So whilst yes they would not tolerate (i.e. murder) Socialism or Communism crossing their border, they intend to do exactly the same with their ideology.
Iran used to be part of the US Muslim alliance fighting in Afghanistan and Bosnia.
An overwhelming majority of the Iranians, I would say in the order of 95% of the population, won't accept violence as a means to change the current political order.
Agreed. Neither would Germans or Russians go to war. The knowledge of what it means it handed down generations.
And I would estimate that around 70 to 75% of them accept this order as a legitimate one, bringing enough freedom for them to be able to reform it if they wanted it. These proportions can be considered as dream for the French, German or Anglo-American political elites.
I would calculate that by the number of political prisoners and emigrants.
The head of state in Iran has the same functions as the head of the state in UK. If their formal powers differ, this is because of one major fact, the function of leadership is not hereditary and is mandated, indirectly, by the population with an election procedure reformable and subject to interpretation. The ultimate function of this leadership is to legitimize the political system and not to rule it as a dictator.
You are right in principle. As with all Iranian elections (and elections worldwide) the issue is who is allowed to run. You have to be a Shiite cleric to have ultimate power in Iran. That fact cannot be changed within the framework of the existing constitution. The people who decide who is allowed to run never change.
As the recent elections has shown, the political orientation, the excecution of the laws and day to day management of the country is done by the office of the president. Basically the system in Iran today remains, unlike the one in SA, Israel, France, Anglo-American one to name a few, reformable and more important is being reformed step by step.
Yep. Who has got the power in a company, the owners or the management.
Your constant opposition to Iranian political system, apparently because of your dislike of Islam, sounds pretty close to the one espoused by the like of Brooks and Kristols.
I can assure you, I would hate a Catholic theocracy and I was baptized a Catholic. The issue is - should personal belief be allowed to take decisions.
There is one convincing argument - that political decisions always have to be ethical. So the solution would be to agree on a common human ethical framework, politics cannot based on religion it is too personal.
German chancellor Schröder was shocked to hear from Bush that he took decisions asking God - Schröder had to that the decisions taken by the only remaining world power would be irrational - as in a dialogue with god you never know if it is really god talking to you or your own imagination (otherwise we have to assume that god is telling different things to different people as everybody claims him).
There is a John F. Kennedy classic on his relation to the pope
Posted by: somebody | Jan 8 2014 8:09 utc | 68
add 66) That ethical framework should be no problem as the 10 commandments apply to all people of the book - right?
My point though would be Kennedy's point - there are more important problems than religion.
Posted by: somebody | Jan 8 2014 9:11 utc | 69
Despite all your nonsense about theocracy, you've shown over the years that you have no problem at all with a Jewish Theocracy.
Posted by: stfu | Jan 8 2014 10:08 utc | 70
No doubt it will be interpreted as wrath of God...
(and while they are at it, http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContent/1/64/91089/Egypt/Politics-/Breaking-Trial-of-Jan--activists-cancelled-due-to-.aspx)
Posted by: Mina | Jan 8 2014 11:11 utc | 71
"When did anyone see a crowd of people in the order of one million on the streets of any Western capital doing subversive demonstration?"
Let me, probably the first comment on this blog to be a genuine Guinness book of record holder, and as part of the 800 city protests world wide, recorded by the Guinness book of records as being the largest protest in human history against the Iraq war, I was, along with over 1 million others in Hyde park London in 2003, proud to be a subversive on that day. Although very disappointed not to have my name mentioned in the book.
Posted by: harrylaw | Jan 8 2014 11:59 utc | 72
@70
But no twitter campaign, so it doesn't count as "subversive".
Almost as if it never happened
Posted by: stfu | Jan 8 2014 12:28 utc | 73
Harrylaw;
You are describing the 2003 *anti-war* demonstrators to be against the UK regime all together and wanting a completely different form of governance? I am not asking about your personal opinion, you may be anti-regime;I am asking you about the majority of the demonstrators. Do you believe that they were motivated by anti-war feelings or did they want a regime change in the UK all together? If in UK a referendum were to be held on the future of the parliamentary system how many people do you believe would vote for a complete regime change? 1%? 10%? 30%? 90%?
Posted by: Pirouz_2 | Jan 8 2014 12:35 utc | 74
In June last year we've had a similar discussion here at the Moon regarding the legitimacy of Iran's government vis-à-vis the gangs running western sheepocracies.
Here in Australia, every parliamentary sitting starts with the Lord's prayer. Quote:
[...] Give us this day our daily bread. And forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive them that trespass against us. [...]Fuckin snakes they are, clearly demonstrated by Australia's PM Tony Abbott and his immigration minister's inhumane treatment of boat people, such as having the navy tow ships filled with refugees back into international waters. How very Christian. Western style theocracies, sickening.
Same in the US, every session of the senate has been opened with a prayer, 'strongly affirming the Senate's faith in God as Sovereign Lord of the Nation.' Just how fake their Christian veneer is can be seen in almost every decision those immoral bastards are taking. Window dressing at its finest.
Which brings us back on topic. Who loves seeing the ISIS running amok in Iraq's Anbar province? The various powers interested in stalling or even reversing the US withdrawal from Afghanistan (eg Zionazies and US Neocons). They will argue that the re-emergence of ultra radical jihadies in Iraq would not have been possible if the US had continued to occupy the country, with the same being true for Afghanistan. Once US troops are gone the Muslim radicals are gonna take over Afghanistan to spread fear and death.
As a side note, SyrPer reports two Syrian ISIS leaders have carked it thanx to some infighting with a competition terrorist group. I drink to that.
Posted by: Juan Moment | Jan 8 2014 12:39 utc | 75
Pirouz, why are you so biased? Why wouldn't the referendum include a question on the monarchy? Anyway my bet is 30%.
Could anyone translate Bhadrakumar into modern English?
http://blogs.rediff.com/mkbhadrakumar/2014/01/08/fallujahs-lessons-for-afghanistan/
Posted by: Mina | Jan 8 2014 12:53 utc | 76
You could cite multiple public opinion surveys, statistics for turn out at elections, and how many understood what they were voting for when they voted (over 90%) in a referendum that established the Islamic Republic in Iran ....
One could ponder the relevance or secularism, atheism, or religion to the legitimacy of a political order, and achieve absolutely nothing clearer than mud ...
But, superseding all of that as measures of what really -- and I mean REALLY -- moves people, is when they take to the streets in huge numbers.
So let Somebody, anybody ponder this for a moment. Of all the grievances the public has had about how Iran is run, all the student, and labor protests over the last 34 years, what was it that irked Iranians enough to demonstrate in large numbers?
Answer: the accusation that Ahmadinejad's re-election was rigged.
Think about it for a moment. People were indignant enough to take to the streets in 2009 because they believed their votes did not count, and they wanted a new election.
There have been lots of elections in Iran, and no mass demonstrations about the election results. Why? Now it is possible that folks were seething with anger at an illegitimate, and unrepresentative political order for decades and finally had enough in 2009. Very unlikely catalysts have been mentioned, twitter revolution, etc, which have all been debunked.
Alternatively, and I think much more plausibly, people genuinely believed they had had a representative system of government that was accountable to them, and that is why they put up with all its shortcomings over the preceding 3 decades. This explains why the accusation of 2009 election fraud caused such indignation that led to an unprecedented outpouring of emotions, and drove people to the streets.
Bolstering the above argument, is the consideration of what caused the demonstrations to subside: Public's realization that the accusations of election fraud was baseless.
Do read the the chapter in "Going To Tehran" dealing with the 2009 elections. Folks who have not read that book, should refrain from commenting on the legitimacy and durability of the political order that obtains in Iran.
Posted by: BiBiJon | Jan 8 2014 13:15 utc | 77
Well Mina, if indeed in the UK/USA/Germany the number of people who would like to go for a regime change (and regime change does not mean getting rid of Queen, France has no Queen, but it essentially has the same form of system as UK, ie. liberal democracy) are as many as Iran (or indeed as ATH claims that number is even higher than it is in Iran), if the danger posed to the system by radical dissent is the same in the West as it is in Iran, then given the obvious fact that the number of political prisoners, imprisoned journalists, imprisoned trade unionist, imprisoned/tortured/murdered bloggers in the UK/Germany/USA does not come anywhere close to the number in Iran, we have to conclude that UK/USA/Germany have a system which is far more tolerant of dissent than the barbaric regime in Iran.
Is that what you people are trying to conclude?
Posted by: Pirouz_2 | Jan 8 2014 13:17 utc | 78
Posted by: Mina | Jan 8, 2014 7:53:25 AM | 74
Bhadrakumar is saying that the Yankees are using recent events in Fallujah to reinforce the bs about staying in AfPak. And that the morons making this argument are forgetting what utter clusterfucks the Dumbass Yankees have turned both countries into - and that no-one should ever be gullible enough to confuse Yankee military occupation with "help."
He's still too diplomatic. He didn't say a word about them not leaving Afghanistan because they haven't (and probably never will, unless Obama licks Putin and Xi's boots on the White House lawn) worked out how to do it 'safely'.
Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Jan 8 2014 13:45 utc | 79
@somebody
It is difficult ascertain what is you formal/informal education level or how well you are informed. By judging what you wrote, I might infer it is very low. Actually, some kind of zeal is speaking out of you, i.e. the worst kind of a zeal. Why is anyone is in business of judging some distant country while is everything wrong with own one is something that I don't understand.
"You are right in principle. As with all Iranian elections (and elections worldwide) the issue is who is allowed to run. You have to be a Shiite cleric to have ultimate power in Iran. That fact cannot be changed within the framework of the existing constitution. The people who decide who is allowed to run never change."
This is something unfathomable to you but Iran is the Nation state ruled by Shi'ite. Like in any other "modern" state those behind the power - power brokers are well hidden. Otherwise, known as Deep State or the Security State.
In the U.S., there is "organ" called Commission on Presidential Debates. Benign name, but wielding lots of power. They decide who is going to run on presidential election. Who is behind this "organ"? Big question. The most straight answer is US establishment from the Beltway and and the most influential from the Bible Belt. Detail are important but for now that's enough.
Posted by: neretva'43 | Jan 8 2014 13:56 utc | 80
Posted by: Mina | Jan 8, 2014 7:53:25 AM | 74
Bhadrakumar is saying that the current turmoil in Fallujah is being used to justify prolonging the US occupation of Afghanistan and that it's such an extraordinarily stupid idea (that US military occupation = help) that only the Dumbass Yankees would dare to say it out loud.
And MKB is still too diplomatic. He didn't say a word about them not being ABLE to leave AfPak - safely.
Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Jan 8 2014 13:57 utc | 81
Bhadrakumar has a little game he plays with himself, and I mean that in both senses. As an ex-diplomat, he plays the game of pretending that there is no such thing as covert action, or any policies which revolve around covert action. Goodness me, no. If that was the case, we diplomats would be professional liars, and we aren't. Of course we aren't.
Posted by: Rowan Berkeley | Jan 8 2014 14:09 utc | 82
@Mina
"Whereas, what Iraq and Afghanistan truly need is generous international assistance to cope with their problems on their own steam and in terms of their cultural ethos and ebb and flow of history."
Mr. ex-Ambassador is a bit out of whack. Or since there is no such thing as "generous international assistance" this is wishful thinking. It presumes "good will", if there is a one there would be no war.
Both countries were in quite normal state Afghanistan in 50s and Iraq till Anglo-American aggression. Somebody did not like their "regimes" but who are they tell them how to rule own country. Former is victim of cold war and later of unilateral the U.S. regime aggression.
One need to take look at (South) Sudan, its dismemberment was spearheaded by Germany and US behind and presently fight in that presumably independent country, as well as Central Africa Republic. All victims of meddling into internal affairs of mentioned countries by the western colonial powers.
Posted by: neretva'43 | Jan 8 2014 14:16 utc | 83
Pirouz #78
If that helps, I am 100 percent sure that no one here would exchange his #*! passport for an Iranian one.
Posted by: Mina | Jan 8 2014 14:33 utc | 84
All,
Thank you for the urban translation.
My suggestion would be that as for "help", the UN blackmail Iraq and Afghanistan following this line: "Either you empower your women or we watch you killing each other for another millenium without any help, assistance or commercial exchanges, because your problems' root is precisely in patriarchy."
(Before I am accused of Islamophobia by people who have never set a foot in the Middle East, or the Far East for that matter, let me say that I met Iraqi and Syrian Christians who were just as patriarchal as their cousins from another religion).
Posted by: Mina | Jan 8 2014 14:39 utc | 85
@ 79/81.
So it's true. Comments really can disappear without a trace for a few minutes.
Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Jan 8 2014 14:53 utc | 86
Pirouz_2 | Jan 8, 2014 8:17:28 AM | 78
No doubt that view would work...for liberals such as Andrew Sullivan, Greenwald, Snowdeen i.e. for those who are in, and promote, a Government's dominant discourse.
But for those with wide angle of view and who with historical perspective it cannot stand test of any metrics. A nations who like to be alone and built self-sustained societies, whose people are murdered on massive scale, not allowing that their wealth are plundered, would strongly disagree with you.
Posted by: neretva'43 | Jan 8 2014 14:54 utc | 87
Mina | Jan 8, 2014 9:39:38 AM | 85
"...I met Iraqi and Syrian Christians who were just as patriarchal..."
Just curious, is being patriarchal that terrible?
Posted by: neretva'43 | Jan 8 2014 14:59 utc | 88
democracy, patriarchy, freedom of speech, Internet freedom, right to vote, rule of law, market economy,
sex and gender politics...
and so on, are bullshits which equivalent in 18 and 19 century was, and still is, Mission Civilisatrice.
Posted by: neretva'43 | Jan 8 2014 15:07 utc | 89
Posted by: Mina | Jan 8, 2014 9:39:38 AM | 85
If you're saying the UN is an Imperialist Trojan, I'd agree.
If you're saying that you know of any religion which isn't hopelessly and irrevocably blokey, perhaps you'd care to name it.
Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Jan 8 2014 15:08 utc | 90
Swedish journalists are luckier than the French one, left with HRW negociating for them with people "who don't want to negociate" (read: use them as human shields)
http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContent/2/8/91121/World/Region/ISIL-loses-HQ-in-Syrias-Aleppo,-Swedish-journalist.aspx
http://www.lemonde.fr/proche-orient/article/2014/01/06/syrie-les-journalistes-francais-otages-sont-en-bonne-sante-et-aux-mains-de-djihadistes_4343722_3218.html
Neretva
If you think that to have the right of life and death, starvation, going out, seeing a doctor, on someone of your household (be it your partner or you kids) is normal, just keep your beliefs...
Posted by: Mina | Jan 8 2014 15:13 utc | 91
But well... why should I be suprised... if it took 3 years for the FIFA men to discover that it is hot in Qatar in summer (http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/football/25653594) and that the city does not have so many bars, cabarets, and venues to offer... I guess it's all 'normal'.
Posted by: Mina | Jan 8 2014 15:15 utc | 92
80) I wrote "you have to be a Shiite cleric"
where is your argument now?
Posted by: somebody | Jan 8 2014 15:21 utc | 93
Mina | Jan 8, 2014 10:13:25 AM | 91
is it what's patriarchy about?
Well, patriarchy might mean different things in different epochs, in different cultures, meridians and parallels.
Of course, it is power relationship manifested differently in the world. Patriarchy narrative is no substitute for Social justice and real equality not phony one promoted by the Western liberal values. The womans suffer in the West (if not more) just as in the East or the South.
I do not think the Femen is helpful, quite contrary.
Posted by: neretva'43 | Jan 8 2014 15:30 utc | 94
of course, somebody
I forgot you are writing from position of a Secularism, aren't you? With multiculturalism that would be another blunder. Luckily, and officially, multiculturalism is dead.
Posted by: neretva'43 | Jan 8 2014 15:40 utc | 95
Forgot to write a title to my post (77). Here it is:
Ironically, 2009 disturbances may show most Iranians like their system of government.
Also, as to how heavy handed a legitimate government should be, and what internal/external excuses are used to justify that heavy handedness, folks should take a peek at:
http://rt.com/usa/50-black-40-white-arrested-297/
http://www.salon.com/2010/11/30/oversized_security_hurts_america/
Posted by: BiBiJon | Jan 8 2014 16:06 utc | 98
@Mina
I read this few days ago.
http://www.indiandefencereview.com/spotlights/plight-of-women-in-the-us-military/
Posted by: neretva'43 | Jan 8 2014 16:09 utc | 99
98) So because x is bad, y is not so bad at all? Because z lives in a country with flaws he/she should shut up about other countries and bring their house in order first?
How come this line of argument favors shutting up?
Posted by: somebody | Jan 8 2014 16:31 utc | 100
The comments to this entry are closed.
A few weeks back, an article in Al Akhbar described the only visible difference between AQ affiliates and other takfiri groups was that they wore the standard AQ haircut -- and that members of ISIS wore balaclavas, while those in Al Nusra did not. Otherwise, Al Nusra and ISIS cooperated closely on the ground. My assumption is that Al Nusra is composed mostly of fighters who either are or look Syrian. Fighters who look too foreign work with ISIS.
Since ISIS is the only group that is officially on a terrorist list, it is faking a retreat. ISIS has stepped up its operations in Iraq, so it may be basing more of its fighters there for now. There have been highly touted personality differences between the leadership of both groups and recent claims about the deaths of one of its leaders. Hard to know how much of that is based on fact.
Meanwhile, the SAA is claiming that more deals have been worked out with rebel groups and deserters for amnesty.
Posted by: Rusty Pipes | Jan 6 2014 20:01 utc | 1