BBC article about bombing of Christians avoids blaming the rebels

This article about the killing of christian Syrians in Damascus does everything to not denounce the rebels:

Look at this:
First it says „Rebel sources confirmed the number of dead, but said the attack was caused by a mortar bomb.“
Then: „No-one has claimed responsibility for the attack.“

So, what does this article want to tell us? That their are any serious doubts about the rebels being responsible for this killing? That the regime „staged“ this?

Nowhere in the report a syrian government is quoted. Neither is a Christian is quoted while one could assume that any Christian being interviewed would have very probably blamed the western-backed rebels.

It gets „better“: „There have been consistent but unverified reports of violence directed against Christians in Syria..“
The word „unverified“ is used to put doubt on any reports of anti-christian violence. Plus, the text deliberately avoids to associate this violence to the rebels, creating the impression that the government could have been behind the reported cases of anti-christian violence as well.

The last text passageis the highlight: „They were at first reluctant to take sides in the rebellion against President Bashar al-Assad but have gradually been drawn into the conflict on both sides.“
So, one could assume the rebels have no more committed violence against the Christians than the government, which is of course utter nonsense since the mostly better-off Christians had little reason to side with Islamists trying to topple a secular arab government.



Salafis slaughtering Shias and moderate Sunnis

All over the middle East militant Salafis affiliated with the Wahhabi „branch“ of Sunni Islam, which is a radical minority interpretation within Sunni Islam, are killing Shias but also moderate Sunnis whom they accuse of tolerating or supporting Shias.

The rise of these clearly sectarian killings is a direct result of more and more disturbing anti-Shia and anti-Iran fatwas by radical Sunni clerics in Egypt, Qatar, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, among them some high profile people like Yusuf al-Qaradawi.

The incitement towards hatred and violence against Shias is happening with full knowledge and approval of western supported arab monarchies of the Persian Gulf. Hardly any criticism is coming from western politicians, let alone any sanctions. Instead the very same hatemongering jihadist supporting countries are appeased and „rewarded“ with more and more western weapons contracts.

16 lebanese soldiers killed:
This is not the first time armed loyalists of Salafi lebanese cleric al-Assir have killed lebanese soldiers claiming that they are neutral towards Hezbollah:

Egypt mob attack kills four Shia Muslims near Cairo

Attack on Iraq Shia mosque near Baghdad kills 14
Suicide bomb attack on Pakistan Shia mosque ‚kills 14‘

Western and (gulf) arab attempts to explain or even justify the growing anti-Shia/anti-Iranian violence by pointing towards the role of Hezbollah in Syria and complaining about Irans alleged or real interference are embarassing and invalid considering the fact that the slaughtering of Shia civilians in Pakistan and the continuing deliberate killings of Shia civilians in Iraqi mosques, restaurants, market places and even funeral ceremonies started long before the syrian conflict. In Syria Hezbollah entered the scene long after thousands of salafi or otherwise radical Jihadists had flocked into the country to fight the Syrian army and loyal civilians on purely sectarian grounds.

Below article may help to understand the role of Hezbollah in Syria:


Kurze Analyse der „Freunde Syriens“

USA, UK, Frankreich…Saudi Arabien, Qatar.

Wenn man sich diese „Freunde“ anschaut stellt man fest, dass diese

  • Ex-Kolonialisten sind, die vor noch nicht allzu langer Zeit Araber bzw. Muslime zu Hunderttausenden ausgebeutet und getötet haben (Frankreich und UK)
  • der „Koalition der Willigen“ angehören, die bei 2 Kriegen und 12 Sanktionsjahren in Syriens Nachbarland Irak Millionen in den Tod, Armut und Flucht trieben und einen tödlichen Bürgerkrieg auslösten, in dem weiterhin monatlich Hunderte Menschen sterben (USA, UK, Frankreich)
  • Länder sind, die a) bei sich selbst demokratische Willensbildung nicht zulassen, seit Jahrzehnten von Familienclans beherrscht werden, entweder eigene Minderheiten unterdrücken oder sogar in Nachbarländer einmarschieren, um dort sogar die Mehrheit zu unterdrücken (Saudi Arabien und Qatar)
  • Mitleid für die Sunniten Syriens vorheucheln (Saudi Arabien und Qatar), während ihr Mitleid mit den Sunniten Palästinas nie so weit ging, dass sie ihren Einfluss geltend machen, die USA und die Europäer dazu zu bringen, Druck auf Israel auszuüben, damit der Nahostfriedensprozess endlich mehr wird als eine Dauerfarce


Syria: How western governments ignore their peoples will

Polls in the US ( and UK ( show that the broad majority of the public is against an intervention in Syria. Now it turns out that this also applies to the majority of Turks:

So, whom are the democratically elected leaders Obama, Cameron and Erdogan representing when they push for an attack on Syria?

Have they degraded themselves to be the „foreign secretaries“ of Saudi Arabia and Qatar?

Here is what the public of Syrias arab neighbours think:

Who promoted sectarianism in the syrian civil war?

It is both irresponsible and factually wrong to claim that the Shia lebanese Hezbollah introduced sectarianism into Syrias civil war by taking side with the regime and later entering the battlefield.

In order to prove why the sectarian claims of the syrian rebels and their arab and euro.american backers are utter nonsense its important to keep the following facts in mind.
For a long time (long before any Hezbollah fighter entered Syria), the rebels – motivated by takfiri ideology and paid and instigated by wahhabi/Salafi backers from the Persian Gulf monarchies – were regularly involved in:

– sectarian anti-Shia slogans

– kidnapping non-syrian Shia pilgrims on several occasions

– besieging and attacking shiite villages in Syria (e.g. Nubbul and Zahra)

– kidnapping and killing (often beheading or otherwise executing) Shia civilians by alleging that they are Shabiha or even worse simply „accusing“ them of rejectionism (Rafidha) and „apostasy“ (Irtidaad)

– targeted destruction of Shia mosques and shrines, vandalization of Shia graves

More and more radical Sunni clerics, among them top-notch influential preachers such as Yousef al Qaradawi started to openly attack the Shia as a faith and community. This is of course the same fascist, anti-human polemic talk that the Nazis used against Jews, but the west prefers to ignore this. While this kind of hate speech has already led to the killings (by the rebels) of Sunni clerics because of their good relations with the Assad regime or with Hezbollah, the rebels western supporters seem to not care for this as long as „arch enemy“ Irans ally Syria is the target and is getting weakened.

On the other side not a single Shia statesman or top-level Shia cleric (in Iran, Iraq or Lebanon) has attacked the rebels for being Sunnis or has used the term „Sunni“ in connection with denouncing the rebels faith. „Sunni“ has not been used as insult or otherwise derogatory against the rebels or the states supporting them. Hezbollah leader Nasrallah clearly used the word „Takfiri“ to attack the rebels and in the same speech said that when he says „Muslims“ he is addressing not only Shias, but also Sunnis, Alawis and others, thus making crystal clear that he is not attacking Sunnis or doubting their islamic belief and loyalty.

Even while reporting a „massacre“ on 60 Shiite villagers in eastern Syria by the rebels, the same BBC article mentions the increased desire of France to arm the rebels. The underlying „logic“ (which is an insult to this words real meaning) is to make the syrian conflict more „balanced“, pointing out that the syrian army has an airforce which the rebels don´t have.

Maybe the rest of the world should use the same flawed logic to arm the Islamists in Mali. After all the French special troops are much better armed. Or „we“ should consider arming the Taliban to make the war in Afghanistan more „balanced“ and „fair“, since the Taliban have no drones. This is of course a fiction scenario but the grotesque analogy should open the eyes of those people who prefer to strengthen the syrian rebels by further (and better) arming them instead of putting them under pressure to enter serious peace talks with the syrian government without demanding brazen preconditions which are solely aimed at sabotaging any negotiations.

Syria – The assassination of pro-regime Sunni clerics by the rebels

„Damascus, Feb 16 (Prensa Latina) Gunmen assassinated Sheikh Mohammad Ahmad Ouf Sadeq, an imam at the mosque Anas bin Malek“

„Terrorist in Syria killed Sheikh Abdullah al-Saleh“

„The funeral has been held for the son of the grand mufti of Syria, shot dead along with a history professor on Sunday near the city of Aleppo.“

„Pro-Assad Cleric Killed in Blast in Damascus“

„rebels captured a pro-government Sunni Muslim cleric in the fighting, killed him and then paraded his body through the neighborhood.“

A response to Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawis latest hate speech against Iran

1. The Sheikh says that Iran and Hezbollah want „to exterminate Sunnis“. About Hassan Nasrallah, Hezbollahs leader he says: „The leader of the Party of Satan comes to fight the Sunnis… Now we know what the Iranians want… They want continued massacres to kill Sunnis,“

a) 60% of the Syrian Army are Sunnis. If they would consider Hezbollahs motivation as „extermination of Sunnis“ they would either join the rebels or leave the battlefield
b) Hezbollah has never been a sectarian anti-Sunni movement in Lebanon and has always had coalition and political alliances with different Sunni lebanese factions
c) If Hezbollah was interested in „exterminating“ Sunnis, they would not go to Qusair and lose dozens of men. Instead they would attack Lebanons Sunni civilian population
d) Neither is Iran interested in „exterminating“ the Sunnis. If so, Iran would attack its own Sunni population in Iranian Kurdistan, Khorasan or Baluchestan
e) Not a single Iranian or Hezbollah official has ever attacked the syrian rebels for being Sunnis. Never were the rebels called „Sunni unbelievers“, „Sunni apostates“ or „Sunni traitors“
f) For many years Iran (and Assads Syria) supported the Sunni Hamas. Iran also supported the mainly Sunni afghan Northern Alliance of General Massoud against the Taliban
g) In the syrian civil war, the rebels and their wahhabi gulf-arab sponsors have clearly been the side that has acted and spoken sectarian anti-Alawi and anti-Shia. Assad and the syrian regime not once used the word „Sunni“ to characterize or „denounce“ the rebels
h) Unlike the prostitute-like character of the Hamas who turned the back on Assad after being hosted and protected by his regime for many years, Hezbollah has proven to be loyal to the syrian regime. Hezbollahs motivation to fight in Syria is not to „exterminate Sunnis“ but to secure their own supply lines from Syria to Lebanon AND to help the only arab regime that shares a border with Lebanon and supports Hezbollah.

2. The Sheikh asks „How could 100 million Shiites (worldwide) defeat 1.7 billion (Sunnis)?“

a) Only in the Sheikhs twisted phantasy the worlds Shia are fighting (and defeating!) the wordls Sunnis. The broad majority of Shias and Sunnis have either no contact or live peaceful together
b) Where there are continuous sectarian killings it is either totally one-sided against the Shia like in Pakistan or it is the Shia who have lost much more people through attacks on pilgrims or bombings of market places, mosques and even funerals in Iraq where they even constitute the majority of the people

3. The Sheikh called Alawites „more infidel than Christians and Jews“

Now this statement is really bewildering and embarassing for the Sheikh. Since when are Christians and Jews considered „Infidels“ in Islam? The Quran calls these communities „People of the book“ and considers them in general as „believers“