Back from my short trip I want to share with you a hodge-podge of observations and thoughts. Let’s begin by the Caucasus.
Two things are happening simultaneously in Chechnia, Dagestan: Wahabi insurgents have embarked on a systematic campaign of terror against non-Wahabi Muslim clerics and scholars. This is happening against a background of major losses for the Wahabi insurgency whose leaders are being killed by the Russian security forces one by one. It appears that the Wahabis are realizing that their insurgency has no chance of success and that they are lashing out against those whom they perceive as “traitors” and “collaborators”, in particular in the ranks of the Islamic clergy and scholars. This confrontation between the Wahabi insurgency and the local Muslims is rooted in the historical fact that the type of Islam the Wahabis advocate has no historical roots in the region. Historically, the type of Islam practiced in the Caucasus is a mix of moderate Sunni Islam heavily laced in with pre-Islamic tribal traditions, Sufism and modern secular influences. Sadly, many local Muslim clerics and scholars did not take enough security measures to protect themselves and they paid the price for presenting an easy, “soft”, target. I can only hope that the local Muslim communities will now realize the full extend of the threat against it and take the same type of protection measures government officials and security force commanders have taken. The skills to do so are available locally so all is needed is a political decision to do so.
I am sad to say that from what I can see the Muslim community worldwide is still studiously looking away from the Caucasus and not paying any attention to the plight of its fellow-Muslims there. When Muslims were killed by Russian “kuffar” the Muslim world was vocal in its touching sympathy and support for the Chechen and Dagestani people (regardless of the immense list of atrocities committed against everybody by the insurgents!). Now that it is quite clear that these very same Muslims are being terrorized by Saudi-backed Wahabis, the Muslims suddenly find themselves looking elsewhere. I find that very discouraging.
Libya. Predictably, NATO is now going fully into the so-called “widening” phase of its Bosnia/Kosovo-like campaign against Libya: its destroying more and more of the socio-economic infrastructure of the country. When I watch the images of the bombs falling on Tripoli I always flash back on the bombs being dropped on Belgrade. In those tragic days I was amongst the few who were trying to sound the alarm about the fact that the breaking of international law by the US Empire in its war against Serbia and Montenegro over Kosovo was setting a precedent and would have terrible repercussions later. I was telling my Muslim friends, “hate the Serbs all you want (if you have to), but realize that sooner or later you will be on the receiving end of these very same policies”. But just as in Chechnia, the Muslim world was mostly steered up into an anti-Serb frenzy (carefully induced by the US propaganda machine) and almost nobody seemed capable of thinking more than just one step ahead of the “stop the genocide! stop the genocide!” hysteria. We now know that no “genocide” took place in either Bosnia or Kosovo (or Chechnia, for that matter), but it’s too late now. Bosnia and Kosovo have turned into the black hole of Europe: with a mix of abject poverty, corruption, mafia thuggery, Wahabi Islamists and US military personnel overseeing it all. Welcome to the New World Order folks! In Chechnia, Russia finally pushed back, but at a terrible price not only for Russian, but even more, so for the Chechen people. What will now happen with Libya?
Frankly, I don’t know. My feeling is that Gaddafi is no Milosevic. Oh, by the way, if I remember correctly: was Gaddafi not the ONLY Muslim leader who oppose the NATO war in Bosnia and Kosovo? I am not sure of that, but I think I recall that he did see through the propaganda.
Anyway – Gaddafi must know and understand what NATO has in store for him and his country: a cell in the Hague for him and his sons, and a Kosovo-like enslavement of Libya. When I hear that he wants to fight to death I tend to believe him. More importantly, as far as I know the Libyan population is highly educated and probably understands what is going on. As for the resistance, which I supported initially, it must come to realize that it has been hijacked, co-opted and manipulated and find the courage to do exactly what Akhmad Kadyrov and so many other Chechen leaders did when they realize that they were being used by the US Empire: break-off its alliance with CIA/MI6 controlled puppets, choose “country over politics” and find some arrangement with Gaddafi who has made innumerable offers of peace, negotiations and democratic elections. This will be tough, of course, and I sympathize with the plight of those who loathe Gaddafi himself (as I personally do), but what is at stake now is the very survival of Libya as an independent country. Furthermore, for all the bad things that Gaddafi has done, he has also done quite a few things right and all these socio-economic achievements will turn into dust if the international bankers and Zionists get their teeth deep int the Libyan economy, which they will if their newly acquired CIA/MI6 puppets ever seize power.
Yet again, the Muslim world appears to be studiously looking away from these painful realities. Are they afraid of the almighty USA? Or do they feel duped as they were in Kosovo and simply cannot fess up to it? Or do they hate Gadaffi more than they love Libya? I frankly don’t know, but I notice that even Hezbollah, to my great sadness, has nothing to say about all this (more about Hezbollah’s strange silences below)
Egypt. The military junta running Egypt has committed the “crime of crimes”, at least in my opinion. It has re-closed the Rafah border. Check out this exclusive report by DemocracyNow!:
I find that totally sickening and I can only hope and pray that the Egyptian people will rise again to stop this abomination.
By the way, there is something which the opposition could already do to help. It could declare that it has begun making lists of the names of all government officials (military, police, border guard, ministries, etc.) who in any way have collaborated with this obscene policy of betrayal of the Palestinian people of Gaza and that as soon as when the opposition comes to power these officials will all be charged with treason and tried in court. Such a threat could go a long towards dampening the zeal of the many folks involved in the implementation of this policy.
Sadly, besides the outraged people of Gaza, the Muslim world seems to be strangely silent on this topic also. Again, I do not understand why.
Syria now. This will be my first post about Syria. I did not post about the situation there until now not because of any strong political leanings of mine, but simply because I did not feel that I understood what is going on there. I still don’t understand, by the way, but I feel that there are a few things which I would like to share with you.
First, I have no way of knowing whether the majority of the Syrian population support Assad’s regime or not. Unlike Iran, Syria did not have an election, and there is no way to know whether the opposition or the regime have a democratic legitimacy. What we do know is that the Syrian regime under Hafez al-Assad did crush popular uprising with extreme violence several times in the past. Assad Jr. is probably as ruthless has his father. Besides, I also personally loathe Assad junior, Bashir, whom I always saw as a covert collaborator of Israel and the United States (on whose behalf he tortured “rendered” suspects!) and whom I strongly suspect of being involved in the murder of Imad Mugniyeh (as does Mugniyeh’s widow, I would add). But when I see the very same forces which are attempting to conquer Libya throwing their support behind the anti-Assad insurgency it gives me pause. Folks like Eltsin, Milosevic, Saddam, Gaddafi or Assad are loathsome and brutal dictators, no doubt, but I simply do not believe that replacing them with a NATO Viceroy is making things better. There is “bad” and there is “worse” and “worse” is often a lot worse than “bad”. Or, to loosely paraphrase Hegel, quantitative changes can eventually result in qualitative changes. Why is it that some many political figures and otherwise astute observers stubbornly refuse to see that?
Which brings me to Hezbollah.
For a self-professed “Hezbollah groupie” and “Nasrallah fanboy” like myself it is rather painful to have to admit that I am becoming frustrated, if not disappointed, with Hezbollah. Why?
First, Hezbollah had absolutely nothing to say about the alleged (and probably fictional) murder of Osama Bin-Laden in Pakistan.
Second, Hezbollah is not sounding the alarm about the USraelian Empire’s successful attempt to co-opt and control the (initially spontaneous and legitimate) opposition to Gaddafi.
Third, Hezbollah is also remaining mostly silent or, even worse, supportive of the Assad regime in Syria.
Of course, I understand the political reasons for all this. In the first case, Hezbollah does not want to alienate Sunnis, in the second case Hezbollah still remembers the kidnapping and murder of Musa al-Sadr by Gaddafi, and in the third case Hezbollah feels that it cannot come out against a regime whom it largely, but not exclusively, depends on for weapons and support. But are these ethically valid reasons or are these considerations of petty politics?
My secular readers will not understand this, but I hold religious leaders to a far higher standard than their secular counterparts. If I am not mistaken, Hassan Nasrallah’s clerical title is Hojatoleslam (also transcribed as Hujjat al-Islam from Arabic), meaning the “proof of Islam”. In other words, Hassan Nasrallah is a “proof of the surrender to God”. Can any person – in particular a Shia cleric – upon whom such a noble title is bestowed really choose to remain silent out of petty political considerations?
I hope that I am not offending my fellow “Hezbollah groupies” and “Nasrallah fanboys” or, more seriously, my Shia readers. But I have to call it the way I see it and Hezbollah’s heavy silence baffles, frustrates and disappoints me.
If I am wrong, which I would readily admit, please tell me why.
All I can say in my defense is that this is my personal blog. Not only because I control it, but because I share my personal feelings, doubts, fears, frustrations, with the rest of you here. This blog is not the antiseptic, polished and always politically correct editorial page for a corporate newspaper.
So I will say it frankly here: I am deeply disturbed and disappointed by the seeming inability of so many Muslim leaders to speak up and dare to say a very unpopular truth (sometimes even in a personal correspondence).
All the evil in this world is based on two ingredients: violence and lies. And the latter is far more important than the former. In the past I have already vented my frustration and disappointments with Muslims when they resort to what I call a knee-jerk “my Ummah, right or wrong” kind of reaction to a far more complex and nuanced reality. But we are not talking about wars between Muslims and kuffar here, we are talking about tragedies which are taking place very much inside the Ummah, and yet even Hezbollah is silent, all its attention focused on Bahrain (which, no doubt, fully deserves that attention, but not exclusively).
So I would like to directly address my Muslim readers here and ask: can you explain what is going on here? What am I missing? Are you personally comfortable with the deafening silence which bothers me – an Orthodox Christian – so much?
The Saker
As for me Saker, I consider myself as a Shia wanna be, meaning I try to follow, yet I am not anywhere near to being a perfect Shia believer and follower. And I choose for myself to never blindly support any group or leader. Even ones that I find much agreement with like Hezbollah and Sayed Hassan. I try to think as much as I can for myself. I really do not know what is going on behind the scenes, and if I said anything at this time it would be my personal speculation only.
Your obscurantist idealism is running riot again… (and that’s putting it very mildly).
Meh – I wrote a reply but google messed it up.
Regarding the three points of Hizbollah well I have not been keeping up with the news much lately simply due to my studies and other commitments however let me try and mentiong things which I have picked up from reading snippets and talking to a few friends.
1- Bin Laden issue: Iran made a statement about the whole incident in the sense not too vocal but at the same time strong worded regarding that incident. Hizbollah have always been passive or quiet ones in issues where Iran leads the way they tend to silently follow so I am not surprised there is no comment from them regarding this.
2- Regarding Libya, Hizbollah have taken a silent approach simply due to the chain of events for instance when Iraq was invaded in 2003 there was vocal sound about the US taking over after Saddam and imposing their rule in Iraq et all and the same will follow in Libya if NATO continues and is successful in obtaining a 3 month extension regarding air strikes. At the moment I think most of the nations like Iran, Lebanon and others recognise that losing Libya or rather Gaddafi is not a bad thing however if there is ever a point raised of invasion or replacement with an US based or influenced government expect the drums from Tehran and Beirut to sound loudly.
3- Regarding Syria which is probably the most sensitive issue atm for Hizbollah and the Lebanese in general is somewhat tinted. I say this because speaking to some arab friends who have been following the events there has been a mix views for example Al-Jazeera has been attacking Syrian regime continously for trying to suppress the regime while Al-Manar and some other channels are showing a side which shows biased reporting of the regime and its actions. Not saying there has not be casualties or oppression, yes there has been but given the events it would not be feasible to give a black and white statement. However I would expect something to be mentioned in the speeches of Nasrullah from 1st June and 6th June. I have not heard them yet so have a look and they may might provide some insight regarding your questions.
Hope that helps
Ayaz
Gaddafi was the sole arab country did vote with yes against Iran in the security council,even Egypt were abstain.I don’t think Hizbollahis feel sorry for him or OBL.They are really shia haters.
I guess also we stick middle in the sunni(Wahhabi,including Muslim Brotherhood)against shia,or friendly to them war.Look at Turkey reaction to Assad and all revolutions are hijacked from the saudis.
your comments are insightful. the military and govt here in egypt are very disappointing but this is no surprise. they fear standing up to the US and israel.
the rafah border is not completely closed, but not completely open. both the govt and military are weak and indecisive after 30 yrs of mubarak.
a ray of hope – a big egyptian delegation met with ahmedinejad and this principled support is just what an indecisive egypt needs. and the people need re-educating. there is much anti-communist, US-imperial baggage here that needs unpacking. you can’t expect clear articulate anti-imperialists overnight. we have much educational work to do with muslims everywhere.
@anonymous: yes, while I have immense admiration for Sayyed Hassan, and while so far I have always found myself in agreement with his positions, the current ambiguous stance of Hezbollah shows that no leader or movement should ever be supported blindely.
@Guthman: thanks for the insightful, well substantiated and non-idealistic comment ;-)
@Ayaz: if there is ever a point raised of invasion or replacement with an US based or influenced government expect the drums from Tehran and Beirut to sound loudly.
I would argue that there can be no doubt that we are already at this point. Look at the history of the Empire’s intervention in Bosnia – they are following exactly the same blueprint. The time to beat the drums is now. Unless we want to beat funeral drums.
As for Seyyed Hassan June speeches so far, I have made them available for download from here:
http://www.mediafire.com/?k1mbn17xcd15vy7
@Afghani: I don’t feel sorry for Gaddafi either. I would love to see him booted out by a real national opposition. But the fact is that the folks who have been recognized as the “legitimate government of Libya” by the Empire are former regime bonzes and current CIA/MI6 puppets. I oppose BOTH, but I will say that Gaddafi at least is a national leader.
they are really shia haters
I totally agree. So why are so many Shia reluctant to say this openly?
@Eric: US-imperial baggage here that needs unpacking. you can’t expect clear articulate anti-imperialists overnight.
Yep. and this is why I bring back the example of Bosnia and Kosovo over and over and over and over again and I will continue to do so until the day when Muslims realize that they were manipulated, used and betrayed by their so-called “friends” and “allies” in the USA.
Saker, what you are describing in your post is precisely the usual irredeemable sectarian mess that the Abrahamic “revelation” has been producing since time immemorial. Piousness as the political way forward? Well, good luck to all of us.
@Guthman: as I said, I don’t expect a secularist to understand what I wrote. I would just note that a quick look at the appalling historical track record of godless ideologies should indicate to you that the problem is just a tad more complex than bad Abrahamic revelations :-)
Hizb’s popularity has, unfortunately, taken a hit due to its allegiance to Assad. I don’t think it is decisive or that Hizb can’t recover from it, but it is definitely a hit.
That said, I’m not sure how they should square that circle. They would look like opportunists if they turned on Assad. Perhaps it would have been best to make a perfunctory “we are friends of both the Syrian Government and people and will not interfere in their affairs.” While at the same time calling out The Saudis, Israelis and Americans for trying to hijack the Syrian uprising.
And that is a critisizm Angry Arab has often made about Hizb: That they always avoid any insult to the Saudi government, when they should be openly condemning them for their obvious collaboration with the Empire.
Saker and Lysander…,
Damn if they do and Damn if they don’t…Lebanon’s Geopolitics demand prudence…
HSA tried his best in his speeches, in my view, that’s the best he could have done given the environment…
It’s best to wait it out, because they are more focused on a possible coming war in the region… :)
Joe
And that is a critisizm Angry Arab has often made about Hizb: That they always avoid any insult to the Saudi government, when they should be openly condemning them for their obvious collaboration with the Empire.
Ah the Angry Arab who is so smug sitting in his USA home thinking he has the voice of the Arab Street. Is he not the same one who called Chavez, Evo clowns. Well let me tell you I prefer the clowns to that middle class American who thinks he can influence the ME. Ask him why does he not move to the ME and help the people attain their goals. I will tell you why, his couch is too comfortable!
@Lysander:That said, I’m not sure how they should square that circle. They would look like opportunists if they turned on Assad. Perhaps it would have been best to make a perfunctory “we are friends of both the Syrian Government and people and will not interfere in their affairs.”
I understand and agree. This is a tough situation for them. But silence is just not a good option, in my opinion. Also, a morally correct stance should always trump any pragmatic considerations.
As for Saudi Arabia, I see it as THE ultimate evil in the entire region and I was not aware that Hezbollah did not dare criticize it. If that is the case, I very much regret that. This would, by the way, also explain why Hezbollah does not want to denounce Wahabism as such, rather than just blame, say, the Bahraini regime.
Joe: Damn if they do and Damn if they don’t I understand that, but I still think that the Shia should stop side-stepping the issue and that they should openly declare that Wahabism is the enemy and the plague of our planet. The Wahabis will not be restrained in their hatred of Shia Islam by the Shia’s silence. As I have written many times here in the past, Wahabism can only be defeated by the Islamic community. The non-Muslim world can only try to isolate the Wahabis, or deny them certain areas, but only the Muslims themselves can really crush Wahabism. The question for me is do they understand that and, if yes, are they willing to put all their strength to do so?
@Anonymous: I am not a big fan of Angry Arab, nor a big opponent for that matter, but I think that you are being a little unfair. If he called Chavez and Morales “clowns” then is is wrong, but being outside the ME does not, in itself, mean that he choice is due to considerations of comfort. I remind yo that Ayatollah Khomenei did lead a comfotable life in Neauphle-le-Château before returning to Iran…
I agree that Saudi is the biggest menace in the region, far worse than the Israelis, bad as they are. The unholy alliance between the Saudi royal family and Wahabism has produced nothing but misery for the Arabian people. I fear Saudi will be the last dictatorship in the area to fall; the oil revenues mean they can bribe their people into acquiescence.
@Anonymous
In agreement with you on Angry Arab….I used to read his blog on a regular basis and do still read it on occasion. And I have often found myself agreeing with him; yet I am critical of his constant critiques, as it is easy to be a critic…Critiquing everyone and everything is what Angry Arab is basically all about….He is full of words, but I don’t believe he would ever sacrifice himself through actions to back up his words….
@Robert: I agree that Saudi is the biggest menace in the region, far worse than the Israelis, bad as they are
I see the two as two components of a symbiotic relationship, both almost demonically evil, the Israelis always upfront with their crazed racism, and the Saudis quiet in the background, pretending to be civilized when in reality their are totally corrupt, insane and a mortal danger to everybody.
Saker,
I don’t know if you are aware of this source of information that I just discovered, if not, I think it is worth checking out:
http://arabia2day.com/
@Mari: thanks for the pointer!! I was not aware of this site.
I hope that you are doing well. Stay safe and take care, my friend.
The Saker
Indeed it is a tad more complex than the bad “revelations”. For if it weren’t for our apparently endemic existential cowardice, why would anyone ever have chosen to believe them…
@Guthman: LOL! it’s actually the other way around. It’s the non-believers who are existential cowards (as my Bishop always points out). They simply cannot cope with the implications that there *is* a God ;-)
Ayatollah Khamenei said that westerners are trying to turn Libya into a weak and helpless country and added: “Libya is an important oil-rich country and it is very close to Europe. The west wants to weaken Libya with a civil war so that it can, directly or indirectly, take control of the country later on.” (see full speech here:
http://shiatv.net/view_video.php?viewkey=f3951004c8ebb7511ffc
from the same speech: Imam Khamenei says: if a movement that arises that is supported by the US and the zionist entity, Iran will *not* support such a movement …
Shi’as do regard wahabbis (aka nasibis) … as enemies … however, two points: 1) this gets diulted somewhat because there is a section of Shi’as who are sectarian, meaning they regard just about any Sunni a wahabbi… and 2) IRI has a bunch of wahabbi monarchs not to far from where they are… and they just can’t declare ’em all as enemies.
Hizb. also has to consider its own politics… however, they will follow the line of Imam Khamenei – meaning they regard Syria as a US/Zionist sponsored uprising, and Libya the same…
Saker,
I agree with the last Anon re: Khamenei etc. However, you have to remember that the Zionists and the Evil Empire have been trying very very hard to ignite a real war between SHIA and Sunni in Lebanon and beyond, and that has been the paramount concern of Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah and his biggest fear. I can tell you that he said at some point, even if you kill a thousand of us SHIA in cold blood, we will not be drawn into a FITNA, between Sunni and SHIA…The same goes for Sistani in Iraq… Both Sistani and SHN know full well that this is the biggest weakness of a sectarian society and they will do anything to avoid it. That’s the crux of SHN views, plus his eyes are always on the South and the border with Israhell….
As for Syria, despite the fact that I, like you, do despise the ASSAD Mafia through and through, and like you I know that they do work for the Empire…., I think that if you look at the tactics employed so far in Syria, it demonstrates clearly that somebody thought out a real MILITARY/INTELLIGENCE Ops. in order to shake the foundations of SYRIA to the CORE and make the regime completely subservient to the Empire… and SHN knows that well, and is acting accordingly…
Best,
Joe
Stop using this Wahhabbi nonsense as a scapegoat.
The fascist terrorist states in Bosnia, Kosovo, Chechnya, Uyghur’s, etc. are mainly supported and maintained by Turkish ancestral ethnic support not Wahhabism.
The Syrian “uprising” militant terrorist groups are coming from Turkey.
http://robertlindsay.wordpress.com/2011/06/08/video-muslim-brotherhood-forces-entering-syria-from-turkey/
“But just as in Chechnia, the Muslim world was mostly steered up into an anti-Serb frenzy (carefully induced by the US propaganda machine) and almost nobody seemed capable of thinking more than just one step ahead of the “stop the genocide! stop the genocide!” hysteria. We now know that no “genocide” took place in either Bosnia or Kosovo (or Chechnia, for that matter), but it’s too late now”
There was/is a genocide against Orthodox Russians and Serbs mass rapes, murder, torture and ethnic cleansing against Russians which was the reason for the first Chechen war not the fake rudder and Finn and other “genocide” fables which is directly lifted from bogus stories used in the Bosnian war.
http://conrad2001.narod.ru/english/genocide/genocide_1.htm
“As for the resistance, which I supported initially, it must come to realize that it has been hijacked, co-opted and manipulated and find the courage to do exactly what Akhmad Kadyrov and so many other Chechen leaders did when they realize that they were being used by the US Empire: break-off its alliance with CIA/MI6 controlled puppets”
Well then you are a fool as ethnic insurgencies have always been a tool used by western powers especially Britain.
Chechens have been supported by the British since 1835 and various foreign powers lead by Britain ever since.
http://alexandrelatsa.blogspot.com/2011/05/battle-for-eurasia-i.html
Chechens like the Uyghurs, Bosnians, KLA, etc worked hand in glove from the very beginning with foreign intelligence who set up creating there criminal networks, arms traffickers, etc long before the engineered conflicts they created.
Chechnya which was never an independent country which the same can be said about Bosnia has always been ruled by warlords, criminals and terrorist.
“Folks like Eltsin, Milosevic, Saddam, Gaddafi or Assad are loathsome and brutal dictators, no doubt, but I simply do not believe that replacing them with a NATO Viceroy is making things better”
Eltsin was a drunk buffon who was not even running the country during his second term and Milosevic was not a brutal dictator in fact the main problem he had is that he did not intervene in the various conflicts in Yugoslavia.
“So I would like to directly address my Muslim readers here and ask: can you explain what is going on here? What am I missing?”
The thing you are missing is that they do not care about non-Muslims as long as it benefits Muslims and the NWO.
Muslims are all for seeing western conspiracies in the Mid East and elsewhere when it is against Muslims yet completely blind to the overwhelming western support of Muslim terrorist insurgencies around the world especially against Christians.
”Are you personally comfortable with the deafening silence which bothers me – an Orthodox Christian – so much?”
They think of you as third class citizen just ask your Orthodox brethren in Chechnya, Bosnia and Kosovo.
Maybe they will give a good price for you in their slave markets.
@Joe:the Zionists and the Evil Empire have been trying very very hard to ignite a real war between SHIA and Sunni in Lebanon and beyond, and that has been the paramount concern of Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah and his biggest fear. I can tell you that he said at some point, even if you kill a thousand of us SHIA in cold blood, we will not be drawn into a FITNA, between Sunni and SHIA
What if the Sunni or some Salafist Sunni subset decides to wage a sectarian war on the Shia? Are the Shia going to just say “no fitna” and not call things by their proper name? Look at Bahrain – for all the pious talk about that not being a sectarian conflict, it appears to be that while the opposition is not sectarian, the regime clearly *is*. So this “no fitna” business is very risky unless BOTH sides decide to live by it, don’t you think?
As far as I know, in Iraq the Shia DID strike back at the Sunnis, pretty hard, with many atrocities committed on both sides. So Sistani or no Sistani – the Shia did fight a sectarian fitna in Iraq, did they not? Now, let me ask you this: where they wrong to do so? Or, even more pertinently, did they really have an option? They were faced with the usual unholy alliance of Baathists, Salafists and US forces, all fighting each other but all ALSO fighting the Shia.
In Iraq the Shia fought what was in essence a sectarian fitna and won. In Bahrain, the Shia were crushed in a sectarian bloodbath but they chose to downplay the sectarian nature of what happened.
And now Hezbollah is tight-lipped about the so-called death of OBL, the Imperial war on Libya and the events in Syria. SHN makes speeches about Ali Khamenei instead.
I don’t know about you Joe, but I am getting a sense of loss of focus, of a lack of clear vision of what the Resistance’s stance and objectives are.
But maybe I am wrong…
Cheers!
Saker,
You are absolutely right, but TIMING is everything in Lebanon… The sectarian make-up of Lebanon is different from Iraq… it is a fifty fifty equation and SHN does not want the TIMING not to be on his side and HE would like to TIME what he wants to do…
Just wait and watch…plans are in the works… :)
Joe
@Joe: .plans are in the works… :)
insha’ Allah!!
Yes, fleeing from our basic situation of existential incompleteness and uncertainty into the maze of absurd fantasies and holy books denotes great courage indeed.
I used to regard the believers in God as deluded until I learnt some philosophy at universtiy. The whole “Enligthenment” scientism and atheism that people like Richard Dawkins espouse fails to understand that science of itself does not, and never can, establish a particular view of the ultimate nature of reality. To many working scientists, science seems very obviously to suggest an ultimate explanation, namely a materialist one, but a materialist view of total reality is a metaphysics not a scientific theory. Science is compatible with metaphysical outlooks of widely differing
and mutually incompattible kinds. Some of the most path breaking of 20C scientists including Einstein appear to have believed in God. The founder of quantum mechanics, Schrodinger, was attracted by Buddhism. For the individual there is not and never has been a conflict between fully accepting the claims of science and holding non materialist beliefs.
@EVERYBODY: we are going way off topic here, but hey, why not?!
I would like to recommend to all those who are interested by the topic of religion versus militant secularism the following article: “The dog delusion” by Archbishop Chrysostomos. You can find it here:
http://www.synodinresistance.org/Publications_en/OT_3_2007.pdf
(The article itself begins on page 2 of the volume)
His Eminence does an excellent job of explaining both the vacuity and the toxicity of the kind found in Dawkins’ famous “The God Delusion”.
Good stuff, check it out.
Cheers!
Saker,
wrt Hezbollah, i don’t see any problem with their positions.
Libya
They initially voiced support for the Libyan resistance and have fallen silent since the NATO intervention. They certainly have not endorsed NAT. It’s not their place to tell the Libyan’s what to do. I’m quite sure they figure whatever happens between Libya and NATO that they can work to ensure a similar end result as Iraq or Lebanon.
Syria
Nasrallah has said that Syria is essential to the resistance, which is true. He has also said that the difference between Assad and other regional leaders is that Assad does truly want reform. I don’t know if that’s true, but I haven’t caught the man lying yet. I hear the Syrian MB, which is dominating the protests insurgencies. Is very close to the Saudis, and essentially Syrias version of the Chechen wahhabists(which, it must be said are no more brutal than the Allawite police state). As has been mentioned Nasrallah never even openly criticizes the house of Saud or its Lebanese tools’ complicity with Israel has been thoroughly documented. It would be out of character for Hezbollah to criticize Assad just as it has not said a word about Bahrain or Yemen or Saudi itself. Whether it will be seen in the short term as being ‘soft on Assad’ is irrelevant.
wrt the wider Muslim world: silence and subservience is nothing new. Most of the regimes that supported the US policies in Serbia and the Wahabists in Chechnia did so because they are US clients. They are still mostly US clients.
Their are very few regimes that are can’t be strictly charecterized as such: for Iraq, Syria and Lebanon, the reason is they are themselves in a state of chaos and likely don’t have coherent policies outside their own immediate areas.
For Iran, I suspect the reasons are that
a) It has to think carefully about the extent it gets publicly involved in something Russia considers a domestic issue
b) Russia’s failure and a growing rift between traditional Sufi Chechen leaders and the Wahabists bring a measure of schadenfreude to Iran.
c) Silence is Iran’s natural element in these ungovernable regions of the world.
The top Muslim leader who has disappointed me(aside from Bahar and his clan) is Erdogan. MK Bhadrakumar puts things into perspective:
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/MF09Ak01.html
http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/2011/bhadrakumar150611.html
Masoud
And one more thing:
What exactly is there to say about the death of OBL in an official communiqe? Do you want them to endorse it? Denounce it?
Or do you want them to say that “wait a minute, something smells fishy…”(no pun intended),which is excruciatingly obvious to everyone on the planet.
I just can’t think of anything constructive or necessary to say on the matter.
Masoud
PS
Suggestion for future post: back story of what you did for NATO experience in working within that organization. That is if you aren’t just another ‘Gay Girl In Damascus’…
Masoud: Suggestion for future post: back story of what you did for NATO experience in working within that organization. That is if you aren’t just another ‘Gay Girl In Damascus’…
I never worked for NATO. I worked for a European military as an analyst and I worked at the United Nation during the war in Bosnia and that gave me access to UNPROFOR information, but not NATO documents. These are the elements of my bio which I mentioned before, but they are not really relevant to this blog since I want this blog to be about ideas, not persons. I make no other claim, and each person can decide to believe me or not. After all, maybe I AM a lesbian in Damasus after all! How would I prove that I am (or am not) this or that? Seriously, I use this rather silly handle of “The Saker” precisely because I do NOT pretend to be anything.
Anonymous blogging is an absolutely essential part of the free nature of the Internet and I think that it is wrong – morally and practically – to ask some blogger for proof about who he/she really is.
Riverbend was for real.
The lesbian in Damascus was not.
But BOTH were making claims about their location and direct access to events.
I do not.
In fact, I make no secret that I sit in sunny Florida, away from any kind of “action”.
Judge for yourself :-)
Cheers!
The Saker
Saker,
That last part of my first comment was meant to be tongue in cheek.
The reason I asked you about your experiences is not because I am questioning your claims. It is because i think it would be illuminating. I am genuinely fascinated in what goes on inside the heads of these ‘middle management of the empire’ types.
Masoud
@Masoud:That last part of my first comment was meant to be tongue in cheek
Ooops! Sorry Masoud, I totally misread you here. I guess I am turning into a grumpy
old man, LOL!
I guess this business with two guys in Edinburgh pretending to be a “Lesbian in Damascus” pissed me off and I felt like it made all anonymous bloggers look bad.
Cheers!