Tuesday, November 06, 2007

Why do all the pseudo journalists and "experts" on Islam talk about a Shia/Sunni conflict in Islam as inevitable and almost "reformation-like" whilst not asking the one vital question. In recent history, who has been behind stoking all the fires of Shia/Sunni conflicts if not the very United States' whose moral values they lament the loss of? Let me see, supporting Saddam Hussein against Iran, umm invading Iraq, egging Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan to build a "united front" against a "Shia" crescent. Arming militias in Lebanon and fomenting sectarian violence in that same country.

You see, Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia's governments are the paragons of Sunni Islam and it's virtues, when it suits them that is. The Shia Sunni "civil war" is inevitable only as long as the United States keeps arming and stoking the fires of sectarianism in the Middle East. Thanks but no thanks for your expert analysis gentlemen.



G.Gar said...

"supporting Saddam Hussein against Iran"

Correct me if I am wrong:

1) Bani Sadr in 1979 stated that the revolution will stop only in Bahgdad

2) Ayatollah Khomeini called upon the shiites of the "south" [shiites in Iraq follow diffeent political streams] to revolt. The majority of shiites in Iraq are Arabs, howver some of them especially those in the south are either of a mixed Irani origin or of a pure Iranian lineage. And it was those that were kicked out of Iraq in seventies and later some of them took refugee in Iran During the Iraqi war of defence against the sectarian terrorist Khomeinists. And I think it is quite jsutified to persecute thm in Iraq as they sided with the fantic asectarian terrorist Iranian enemy which launchd a ruthless war against Iraq.

3) Ayatollah khomeini called Arab nationaluism heresy

4) Iran' attempts to play a a role in country like Iraq which is more civilised, advanced and with a longer and more important history.

5) Iraq filed 100 official complaints to U.N about Irani border harrasments

6)Iraq's embassy in Tehran was stormed.

Iraq was progressing tremndously and quickly the Persian freak Khomeini wa destabilising the country. So Iraq had no choice but break the back of Iran to secure the country. Time has shown the long vision of sadam in tyhis war; Iran actively participated using special forces and intelligence a well as Iranised " Badr" Iraqis in the inavsion of Iraq( quoting here the deputy of Khatemy).

No sir it is no the U.S that made up the sunni-shiite division, indeed, it is maliciously using it, however it remains and IRANI TRADEMARK

Iran's most efficient tool in destabilsing Iraq was and still is a rhetoric that calls for division along Sunni-shhite lines and a bitter grudge against Arabism, which transcends sunnis-shiite divides, or any ideations of a common Arab culture and destiny because that would necessarily entail the isolation of Iran in the middle east

what aboyut the Israeli support of Iran? Israel supported iran with training and weapons- do you remebe something called Iran contra.

American support of Iraq meant that U.S doesnt oppose the operations.

90% of Iraqi equipment were french and Russian. And Russian was selling arms to Iran as well.

After the fanatic Iranian enemies invaded El-Fao, Iraqis asked for equipment and strategists form Field marshal "Abou Ghazala" which proves that had Iraq enjoyed full American suppport like the terrorist Khomeinists like to claim, they wouldnt have needed a country lik Egypt.

Given that in 1988 beore the final victorious battles agaionst the Iranian hords, Abou ghazal spent a month in Iraq , and according to many Iraqi sources Iraq employed plans laid out by the operqtions commitee of th Egyptian army as well as the sakr 80 missiles and technologies for fitting them with special heads which resulted in the massacre of Iranians by thousands. What I am trying to say is that American support was quite shady, otherwise Iraq wouldn't have needed Egypt.



Whether the Irans are shiites, sunnis, zoroastarians, persian natinalsits- Iran always remains the eternal strategic enemy of Arabs.

Ibn Bint Jbeil said...

they are not only bad at their political analysis, their crude analysis can also be used to gauge or predict upcoming sectarian strife, because its real purpose is to stoke sectarian emotions as well as prepare public opinion to be apathetic once the fires of sectarian strife is lit.

Sarmad said...

Time has proven that Saddam was right ,the regime in iran has a long past of dealing with the israelis and americans ,i do not believe their slogans.