Autor: radioyaran
Is „ISIS“ the Taliban of this decade?
It might be a coincident that the „Islamic State of Iraq and Syria“ (ISIS) attacked and took over Iraqs second biggest city Mosul – http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-27778112 – just as the Pakistani Taliban attacked the airport of Karachi, http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-27777449
There is more than one parallel between both groups/organizations if one knows the story of the Taliban.
Back in the mid 90s, apart from a very short while when Afghan people thought that the new „students“ movement would bring peace, security and even freedom for their country, disillusion dawned upon the broad majority of Afghans of all ethnicities.
The Talibans adherence to a hitherto unknown extreme understanding of the islamic law, their total lack of familiarity with Afghan history and customs, their unlimited intolerance and hostility towards religious and ethnic minorities alienated and intimidated the population, especially outside of the so called Pushtun belt.
It can be highly recommended to read Ahmed Rashids book about the Taliban movement:
http://www.amazon.com/Taliban-Militant-Fundamentalism-Central-Second/dp/0300163681/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1402425017&sr=1-1&keywords=ahmed+rashid+taliban
The Taliban were not interested in gaining anyone’s sympathy, nor where they seriously interested in coalitions, power sharing or any kind of compromise. While they were clearly sectarian (means anti-Shia/anti-Iran) their biggest enemy was the mainly Sunni „Northern Alliance“, led by Commander Ahmad Shah Massoud. They massacred thousands of Shia civilians but also Sunni Uzbek POWs, just as they poisoned the wells and destroyed the livestock of the mostly Sunni Tajik inhabitants of the Shamali plain.
They simply did not care about anyone.
ISIS appear to be similar. While the majority of their ruthlessly killed victims are Shias (the majority civilians) they do not hesitate to suicide bomb Sunni clan chiefs, „Sahwa“ militias and civilians.
The Taliban fielded thousands of Pakistanis and hundreds of Arabs, Chechens, Uzbeks, Uighurs and others. ISIS fighters also consist of North African and Gulf Arabs, Pakistanis, Chechens and even European Salafis.
Just as the Taliban shocked the world in the 90s, ISIS does very much the same in recent years. They by far exceed the extremism of other islamist organization, among them even such that themselves are militant Salafis. As a consequence ISIS succesfully and simultaneously fights completely different forces: The predominantly Shia army of Iraq, the mostly Sunni extremist rebels in Syria, the Kurdish militias in North Eastern Syria and at times the Syrian Arab Army.
Both the Taliban and ISIS have their ideological roots and a major portion of their financial backing in Saudi Arabia and to a smaller extent in other Wahhabi dominated Arab countries in the Persian Gulf. The official line of the Saudi government is to declare and regard ISIS an enemy, but the government is at best unable and at worst unwilling to prevent „private donors“ from funding the salaries, the training, the arming and the logistics of ISIS:
https://100wordz.wordpress.com/2013/12/28/al-qaeda-in-syria-and-the-private-donors-from-the-gulf-monarchies/
It was the same with the Taliban. It were the Saudis who bankrolled their offensives by supplying hundreds of gun-mounted Datsun pickup trucks over and over again, while Pakistani Madrassas – often funded by Saudis and preaching Wahhabism – provided the man power.
While the Saudi approach might appear irrational at first sight, it is indeed very rational at least in the short and midterm run:
1. The takfiri Jihadis are identified
2. They are kept away from Saudi Arabia (and the Gulf) by being constantly involved in „Jihad“ from Libya over Syria to Iraq
3. They are inflicting heavy damage and casualties on Shias and their allies
As a side effect but definitely all but incidentally Israel and the US are (at least in secret) very happy that Syria, Hezbollah and also Iran are bleeding and getting damage.
Still, it is puzzling how a seemingly small militia without airpower and heavy weapons has been able to humiliate Iraqs at least 500.000 men strong armed forces.
Kuwait: Western ally, supposedly moderate and progressive
It´s always the same:
– Employ slave workers and make them die in dozens in Qatar. It´s fine as long as you are a friend of the West.
– Beat south-asian maids to death and imprison people for „witchcraft“ in Saudi Arabia. It´s OK…
– Crush the uprising of the suppressed Shia majority and import Jordanians, Pakistanis and Saudis to attack your own citizens in Bahrain. It´s OK…and a British Royal will call that place even an island of democracy
– And now Kuwait, where former MPs are sentenced for „insulting the emir“. The „insult“ that brought about the punishment was nothing but criticism of Kuwait’s new electoral law:
http://english.al-akhbar.com/content/former-kuwaiti-mps-receive-suspended-sentences-insulting-emir
„The West“ and it´s arrogance in promoting and deriding elections elsewhere
„The West“, a phrase by which mainly The US and its western European NATO allies are meant considers itself and only itself entitled and qualified to determine who deserves to be voted, boycotted and overthrown in any country.
The rules of the game are quite easy:
If the ruler is pro-Russian or his country predominantly in the Russian geopolitical hemisphere he is almost by definition illegitimate. So, if any political, religious or ethnic group raises in opposition to such a country’s government, the oppositions autonomy and separatism oriented demands are legitimate. The ruler has to give in to the alleged will of „the people“ and relinquish power. If a part of such a pro-Russian state holds a referendum and demands autonomy, western politicians will be the first to support secessionist ideas and apply pressure to the central government.
Examples are ex-Yugoslavia and Syria.
If absolutely democratic elections are held and the outcome – thus the majority will of the people – does not please „the West“, the elected government will be shunned at best and isolated and sanctioned at worst. The voters will be punished for making the „wrong“ decision. So democracy and free elections do not protect anyone from the wrath of the West, and at the same time the West does not see any violation of its otherwise proudly propagated values such as freedom of choice.
Examples are the elections of Hamas in Palestine and Mohammad Morsi in Egypt.
If you are the man of the West or at least the enemy of the West´s enemy you can forcefully remove a democratically elected government, e.g. through a military coup, and win dubious elections, sometimes with 93% of the votes and afterwards be praised by the West as legitimate winner.
Examples are the Egyptian and Ukrainian elections
So, while Assads 88% are brushed off as „farce“ or „parody of the democracy“, Sisis 93% are supposed to be regarded as serious and respectable outcome.
BBC (unintentionally) exposes the sheer stupidity of some anti-Assad Syrians
„This election is a mockery,“ said another widow, Fatma Fahal. „It shouldn’t happen. My husband and his three brothers didn’t martyr themselves for God and country just for people to go out and vote for Bashar.“
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-27687018
It seems noone told Fatma Fahal that the election was indeed a good platform to display opposition and discontent by voting one of the other candidates and thus AGAINST Assad. This exactly is the dilemma of Syrias opposition: They reject and (try to) sabotage referendums, negotiations and elections but offer no alternative and hence play a major role in extending the suffering of the very people they claim to represent and to protect.
Another totally shameful and ridicuolous aspect of this BBC article is the attempt to portray the Salafist and Saudi funded/supported „Islamic Front“ (IF) as a nationalist, „moderate islamist“ and purely Syrian movement. Whoever knows the composition of the IF with Ahrar al Sham and Jaish al Islam being its biggest factions is aware of the groups sectarian and radical character. Their attempt to distance themselves from the even more radical ISIS can only deceive naive readers who are not familiar with the IFs regular joint ventures with the beheaders and prisoner executers of the Jabhat al Nusra (JAN). It was during one of the joint endeavours of the IF and JAN in Adraa where loyalist civilians were thrown into ovens and slaughtered.
Also interesting:
„In Deir ez-Zor, another city in the east, JAN militants from the local Sharia court beat and detained women who were not wearing full Islamic dress and who had listened to music at a wedding party in a private house.“
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/syria-fighting-a-civil-war-through-the-ballot-box-9449213.html
JAN is the single most important effective fighting force on the rebel side. They fight as a leading force on all relevant Syrian battlefronts. Hardly any rebel success is unrelated to JAN. For this reason the „good islamists“ of the IF, as the BBC and other pro-rebel anti-Assad sources try to whitewash them, cooperate with JAN. And when for a brief period the rebels of the so called „moderate“ and Jordan/CIA-trained „Southern Front“ achieved some successes in Deraa and Quneitra it were mostly the JAN fighters who were behind it.
Beware of the „breaking news“ regarding Syria on June 2nd or 3rd
On Tuesday the Syrian presidential election is supposed to take place.
There is a good chance that „by incident“ tomorrow or the day after „activists“ will report a chemical attack or another large scale atrocity in Syria.
This article is good:
http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/05/30/why-are-they-afraid-of-the-syrian-elections/
„Why are Kerry and the “Friends” so upset and fearful of Syrian elections? If they are such a farce, then much of the public will not participate in them. If the vote is seen by the public as meaningless, then voter turnout will be very low such as in Egypt this week.
As to the issue of holding an election during a time of conflict, this was done right here in the USA. The 1864 election which re-elected Abraham Lincoln was held during the midst of the extremely bloody US civil war.“
When the US´ favorite gets 93% of the votes, the west won´t call elections a farce
Look at this BBC article about Egypts Sisis landslide (93%) win of the presidential elections:
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-27614776
Though the article mentions that turnout was low and the powerful Muslim Brotherhood was banned, it does not quote a single western (almost always an american president or foreign secretary or their british-french counterparts) calling the elections a farce, or a fraud or a „parody of democracy“ as UKs William Hague already did with regards to the upcoming Syrian elections.
Imagine Assad would get 93%. Western press and politicians would tear apart the event and ridicule the Syrian regime.
Not however in Egypt where the darling of the US (and Saudi Arabia) has won.
Watch out for the reports coming after Assads electoral victory in a couple of days:
You will read about „irregularities“ and manipulation, reported by „activists“. You will read that each and every Syrian was bullied and observed by a Mukhabarat thug or the notorious „Shabiha“ to intimidate him towards voting for Assad. Local „activists“ will report about having witnessed how the same Alawites travelled from one village to the neighbouring one to vote for Assad multiple times while Sunnis were prevented from voting (against Assad) by pro-Assad militiamen. You will read about Assad having allegedly received 100% of votes even from rebel strongholds. All these „facts“ that will rain down on you from various – of course – totally reliable sources inside Syria will be intended to prove to you that – unlike the elections in Ukraine or Egypt – the Syrian election was a „joke“, an insult to „millions of Syrians“ who hate Assad and love the rebels and and and…
What? Syrian refugees want to vote FOR Bashar???
After 2-3 years of constantly hearing and reading biased and polemic anti-Assad reporting and comments in the media of their host countries you could expect the broad majority of Syrian refugees to either abstain from voting or use the event to express their opposition to Assad by explicitly voting for another candidate.
Instead it seems that quite a many refuguees appeared at the voting stations to vote for Assad:
„The massive turnout for the expatriate Syrian vote at the embassy above Beirut produced scenes rarely observed at any embassy or polling station in the world.
At times it turned into a rowdy support rally for the incumbent Bashar al-Assad, with none of the normal election decorum…
The strength and assertiveness of the vote may have reflected an underlying feeling among many Syrians abroad that the tide is running in the regime’s favour, and it is time to climb aboard. “
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-27599868
Did Bashar forget to „wipe Homs from the map“?
Back in early 2012 Nicolas Sarkozy was pressing for military intervention in Syria to prevent Bashar al Assad from massacring the people of Homs like Ghaddafi wanted to massacre the people of Benghazi. The following article is reminiscent of Sarkozys „warning“ back then:
„Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, said Sarkozy, “wants to wipe Homs from the map like Qaddafi wanted to wipe Benghazi from the map.”“
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/paul-pillar/wiping-out-6832
This was obviously quite a bizarre analogy referring to something (wiping off Benghazi) that actually never happened.
2 years after the allegedly imminent massacre of civilians or as Sarkozy said the wiping off the map of Homs, the Syrian Army drove out the rebels and retook control of the „capital of the revolution“, but interestingly two things occured of which one actually DID NOT happen despite predictions to the contrary:
1. The government forces did NOT massacre the people
2. Instead of fleeing to the „safety“ of „liberated“ rebel-held areas many of Homs´ inhabitants who had fled the city earlier started returning to Homs
Now a flashback to the original siege of Baba Amr in 2011/12:
The entire western news coverage of the siege of Homs´ Baba Amr district was deceptive and polemic serving merely the purpose of demonizing one side of the conflict.
Baseless claims were made to the effect that the Syrian Army was besieging and indiscriminately shelling entire Homs, Syrias 3rd biggest city. BBC ran a report quoting a rebel (or pro-rebel civilian) that in entire Homs only two bakeries were intact.
Taking a look at this map it becomes clear that Baba Amr is a peripheral district of Homs and putting it under siege is by far not tantamount to besieging entire Homs:
Syria and the idiocy of western reporting and policies
Analyzing todays BBC report http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-27535380 of a deadly attack on (mainly) civilian Syrian government supporters during an election rally is quite insightful and yet another chapter in the series of shamelessly biased western reporting.
While the report almost entirely quotes two clearly anti-government and pro rebel sources, namely the „SOHR“ and „activists“, who are both supporters of the attacks perpetrators, not a single government official or pro-government civilian is allowed to speak and condemn the attacks, something that the BBC neither does directly nor indirectly (e.g. by explicitly avoiding to call the attack an act of terrorism or provide pictures).
One might contract this with reports of government shelling of rebel areas, in which cases at least one rebel or rebel sympathizer is quoted either accusing Assad of killing his own people or calling for western countries to supply (even more) weapons to the rebels. Plus, almost certainly such a report would feature a photo series showing debris, bloodied civilians, crying mothers and heroic rebels carrying the wounded.
Coming back to the BBC report, the most brazen aspect is that the BBC abuses the report to ridicule Assad and hence the victims with insulting comments about the Syrian elections: „UK Foreign Secretary William Hague called the elections a „parody of democracy“ and repeated its call for Bashar Assad to stand down.“
radioyaran 
„Susan Rice, Obama’s national security adviser, said the US would „ramp up“ its support to the moderate Syrian opposition, Isis’s ostensible rivals for control of the Syrian resistance to Bashar Assad.“
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/11/mosul-isis-gunmen-middle-east-states?CMP=EMCNEWEML6619I2
This shows the unending idiocy of a senior member of the US administration. Still, her only silly and unsubstantiated approach towards the ISIS or „radical islamist“ dilemma is to attempt to boost the laughable and tiny Syrian non-islamist opposition. An opposition with a phantom, „ghost“ character, hardly playing any role in reality.
The US admin fails to understand that any „ramp up“ of Syrias allegedly „moderates“ has almost definitely one of the following consequences:
a) The moderates sell or forward the weapons to the radicals who are the more battle-hardened and experienced fighters, willing to die (and kill ruthlessly)
b) The radicals which are not only ISIS, but also „Nusra Front“, „Islamic Front“ or „Syrian revolutionary front“ (and thus according to Israeli sources 80% of the rebels) simply overcome the CIA-vetted „moderates“ and take their weapons
c) Many formerly „moderates“ discover that their companions are opportunists merely interested in building themselves a power base (just like the afghan militias in the 90s) and decide to join the „real mujahedeen“
After 13 years of „anti-terror“ war, „enduring freedom“, „mission accomplished“ and other garbage, Al Qaeda and affiliates are stronger than ever, while the oh so bad Bashar al Assad and his Iranian and Russian backers have been the best powers to fight Al Qaeda.