Posted on 02/18/2012 7:56:40 AM PST by Zhang Fei
Iran has been more Persian than Islamic since the 8th century. Some have argued that low Mosque attendance results from politicization of prayers post-Revolution. The historic record, however, shows low attendance and lower levels of religiosity going back many centuries. Also Iran is uniquely tolerant of minority religions among Islamic-dominated nations, as you helped me discover. Does this mean that the Islamic hotheads in power are treading on thin ice? They are certainly capitalizing on Persian paranoia about foreign manipulation steming from the British to Kermit Roosevelt to Mossad. They are using it to further their religious ends. This appears to mean that the door is open to diplomacy to anyone but the U.S., Britain and their perceived client, Israel. This gives China and India an opportunity. The nuclear bomb is a project that appeals only to the Islamists. It does not square with Iran's rational self-interest. Nor does sending a million men to their deaths fighting Saddam Hussein. Reza Pahlavi never attacked his neighbours. So what should Israel do? Wait and hope that reason will prevail eventually, or compound Persia's paranoia exponentially by attacking it? The mullahs likely want Israel to attack in order to consolidate their power/increase mosque attendance. Russia could deter them, but won't. I don't understand Russia's support of the Mullahs. They certainly don't need Iran's petroleum. One would think that Russia would not want a irrational nuclear Muslim state next door. Obama's lack of credibility has made all of this worse. A strong Republican President could persuade Russia and the Saudis to convince the Persians to act in their self interest. China will continue to feed the problem by using Iran to spread our military thin while they enjoy the petroleum source and stuff the mullah's with petrodollars.
Since there is nothing that we can do personally but pray, then PRAY WE MUST!
Since there is nothing that we can do personally but pray, then PRAY WE MUST!
The civil war in Syria is the ultimate case of Evil Fighting Evil... Let them fight until they destroy each others...
One evil always wins out, and thereby becomes stronger. Our foreign policy should be to support the lesser of two evils, from the standpoint of our national interests. This is why we supported the Soviets against the Nazis during WWII, and various Third World dictators against their communist insurgencies during the Cold War. In Syria's case, the lesser of two evils happens to be Assad. The media is on the side of the Sunni Arabs, most of whom would like to see nothing more than the wholesale extermination of the non-Muslim world. As far as I'm concerned, any enemy of Sunnis in general, and of Sunni Arabs in particular, is someone we shouldn't obstruct if he is dealing with a problem from that quarter. After all, between 9/11 and the campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan, Sunnis have killed 10,000 Americans and maimed tens of thousands more.
To summarize the Assad regime is not the lesser to two evils, he is an equal evil to Sunni terrorism, so let them fight each other and let them destroy each others.
Doesn't change the fact that 100% of the terrorists that killed our people were Sunni. Assad failed to stop them from entering Iraq, but here's the thing - Assad's is a minority regime that's part of a sect viewed by Sunnis and Shiites as apostates and heretics. How's it look if he actively prevents Sunni holy warriors from heading into Iraq to fight the infidel? The Shiites running the Iraqi government understand this, which is why they're supporting Assad rather than trying to undermine him. A lot of what Assad is doing is trying to placate his Sunni base and raise funding from Iran to keep his government standing.
In Syria, the alternative to Assad is a Sunni Muslim Brotherhood government that actively seeks to kill the Alawite, Christian and Druze population to the last man, woman and child, as well as provides a base for al Qaeda to stage attacks against us, and prepares to conquer the entire Middle East along with its fraternal movements in Egypt, Libya and Tunisia. The Brotherhood's predecessor in Saudi Arabia was defeated in battle by the Saud family, despite having helped the Sauds come to power, just after the turn of the 20th century, because it set its sights on conquering the world, and brought no end of foreign trouble to the Sauds, after its raids into British-held Kuwait, Iraq and Jordan. The original Brethren were, of course, Muhammad and his Companions, who set out to conquer the world. Again, the point is not that Assad isn't evil, but that he's the lesser of two evils. Assad isn't going to try to conquer the world, whereas for the Muslim Brethren anything less would be un-Islamic.
S.Lebanon=hezbollah=Iran. Iran supports Assad.
So, it’s not weird at all.
btw - I wouldn’t say Assad is pro-Syrian Christian....he’s just more anti-sunni and joining with the christians raises his numbers against the sunnis.
“Assad isn’t going to try to conquer the world...”
He supports and enables the Iranians who want to do that. IOW - he’s an accessory. What’s the difference?
“To summarize the Assad regime is not the lesser to two evils, he is an equal evil “
Yes, he is.
“The civil war in Syria is the ultimate case of Evil Fighting Evil... Let them fight until they destroy each others...”
Unfortunately, Iran & Russia are both backing Assad and both are sending in guns & equipment. (Iran also has men there). As long as outside support continues, Assad will prevail, if he isn’t killed.
Its Al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood vs. an Iranian Proxy. We should encourage both sides to fight to the last round of ammo and the last drop of blood.
And keep supplying them ammo...
I think the relationship is reversed. The Iranians support him, if the word "support" is used in a practical as opposed to verbal sense. Hezbollah gets its weaponry from Lebanese ports. If we're going to talk about accessories, Sunnis are directly responsible for the deaths of 10,000 Americans whereas Shiites are responsible for 240 Marines in Beirut and perhaps 19 in Dhahran. Note also that Shiites are 10% of the world's Muslims and Sunnis are 90%. Iran can't conquer the Sunni part of the ummah, never mind the world. Do you really think Pakistan would stand aside as its neighbor, Iran, overruns the gulf states? This would be Pakistan, which has 2.5 times Iran's population, and is in the process of killing off its Shiite minority?
So Assad, with the 25m Syrians he controls, is as powerful as that other evil, Sunni Islam, with its 1b population?
Sorry, but the one billion population is not all muslim brotherhood. As much as you’d like to characterize them all as terrorists and islamists, they aren’t.
Also, Assad isn’t on his own. He is backed by the Iranian regime and is an accessory to terrorism worldwide.
Are you saying Assad isn’t an accessory? If you agre he is, that makes him just as evil.
You really need to study up more on the IRI and it’s terrorist, murdering regime.
Two obvious huge omissions from your list of deaths (& I add injuries) perpetrated and/or aided by the Iranians...1) thousands of injured and dead U.S. & ally soldiers from Iranian IED’s; 2) Sept 11th.
There are more and will be more as long as the IRI is allowed to exist
We're in the realm of serious speculation here. Saddam is alleged to have more dumb munitions stockpiled than we did. And as to the Iranian link to 9/11, that's in the realm of unicorns and Nostradamus.
Let's say all the things you say are correct. Do you accept that the extermination of 6m Alawites, Druze and Christians in Syria by its majority Sunni population is an acceptable price to pay in exchange for Assad's fall? Do you believe we need another country run by Sunnis - the same ones that see the extermination of non-Muslims as the road to Islamic paradise?
“And as to the Iranian link to 9/11, that’s in the realm of unicorns and Nostradamus.”
No, it’s a fact. As I said, you need to study more.
Aside from their own terrorist acts and proxy terrorism thru other groups, the IRI has been aiding and abetting alqaeda since the 1990’s.
Do I think having a gov’t run by the MB is a bad thing? Of course. Do I think keeping Assad in power is a bad thing? Of course. Is one worse than the other? That’s the point. I see little difference.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
