Supported by no evidence „The Telegraph“ revives the Assad-ISIL cooperation myth
Below some ridiculous and hollow claims that anyone can easily refute:

„the rise of the jihadist movement [ISIL] has served Mr Assad’s interests by allowing him to pose as an essential bulwark against Islamist terrorism.“
Wrong: Before and parallel to ISIL there were and are jihadist movement that are hardly less sectarian and radical: The Nusra Front, The Islamic Front…

„Isil fighters captured the oilfields of eastern Syria in 2013. Since then, the regime is believed to have funded the jihadists by purchasing oil from Isil.“
Ah…so, the author and his sources do not KNOW anything, they just speculate.

„the regime is understood to be running some oil and gas installations jointly with the terrorist movement.“
Really? Then, why is the „regime“ vehemently fighting ISIL at the Jadal gas fields in eastern Homs province? And more important: Why is ISIL attacking it´s „customer“ and „oil and gas provider“ if they are maintaining a „joint venture“?

„Philip Hammond, the Foreign Secretary…added: „…yet another indication that Assad’s ‚war‘ on Isil is a sham and that he supports them financially.““
The Syrian Army suffered some of its highest casualties in major battles against ISIL:

a) at the Tabqa military airport in Raqqa province
For months Tabqa was besieged and under continuous attacks by ISIL:
In addition to the hundreds of soldiers killed in battle, another 200 army soldiers were taken captive and executed:
„Following the capture of Tabqa air base a number of images and videos have been posted online showing around 200+ men, reportedly captured soldiers, being marched out into the desert and executed.“

b) at the Jadal or „Al Shaer“ gas fields:
„The victorious Islamic State summarily executed an estimated 300 captured regime soldiers and civilian employees“

c) at the Division 17 and Brigade 93 in Raqqa province:
„Hundreds of Syrian army soldiers scattered to the safety of nearby villages still opposed to the Islamic State, or fled to the Syrian army’s 93rd Brigade, roughly 45km northwest of Division 17. An estimated 50 caught inside Division 17 were quickly killed, their heads removed and rammed on metal pikes lining the streets and parks of A-Raqqa city. More than 85 Syrian army soldiers died during the Islamic State’s final operation to capture Division 17“

d) at Regiment 121 in al Hasakah province:
„in Al-Hasakah province, the Islamic State commander Umar Al-Shishani led a near simultaneous assault against Regiment 121..The Islamic State claims to have killed more than 100 soldiers at Regiment 121“

As a matter of fact and for many months the Syrian Army has deployed two of its most experienced commanders to fight ISIL: In Eastern Homs it was until recently Colonel Suhayl al Hassan, the commander of the special forces unit „The Tiger forces“. During the most crucial operations he was assisted by another special forces unit called the „Desert Falcons“.
In Deir al Zour the government forces are led by nobody less than Major General Issam Zhahreddine.
Despite the above mentioned setbacks the Syrian Army has inflicted heavy losses on ISIL, among them:
„On 28 August, Syrian fighter jets launched a precise attack on an IS HQ in the city of Mohasan, during a meeting between military leaders and sharia judges. The attack resulted in the death of most leaders inside (numbering six), while others were wounded.[20][50] Another airstrike occurred the same day against an IS camp near Baath Dam, killing and wounding dozens of insurgents“

And just today the following was reported:
„In Hama province, meanwhile, government forces conducted air strikes on an IS convoy, killing 26 jihadists, including a senior local commander, the Syrian Observatory for Human rights said.“

So, the only „sham“ and the true shame, Mr. Hammond, is your alarming lack of knowledge with regards to an army that – contrary to yours, the UKs – is fighting the real war on terror, while paying a high price in human blood.


Ruling a country as member of a minority

For a long time western media has been highlighting that the Syrian government is „Allawi-led“. Even if this were true: So, what?
Since when and according to which logic should a country be ruled by members of its ethnic or religious majority? Even in truly democratic countries the president or parliament are not elected along ethnic or religious lines. To illustrate the ridiculousness of such thinking we could add two other parameters that describe or define a persons character and personality:
– sexual orientation
– support for football teams
Now, should – according to the „majority logic“ (which is in fact a fallacy) – the German chancellor be lesbian if the majority in Germany were lesbian women?
Or should the British premier be a member or a fan of Manchester United if that team is the most popular football team in England?

The election or appointment of politicians and authorities should be according to competency and skills and not a matter of that persons ethnic or religious background.
So, theoretically the parliament of a country with 90% Shia Arabs could consist of the 10% Sunni Kurds, if the latter are the „best people“ for their various departments and tasks. This is neither undemocratic nor unjust.

The argumentation along ethnic/religious (or other) majorities becomes only relevant under particular circumstances: If namely the minority leadership tries to suppress and discriminate the majority in a systematic way.
An example: Considering the „public share“ (ethnic/religious affiliation) aspect alone, I don´t have a problem with the minority Sunni al Khalifa family ruling Bahrain where the Shia constitute the majority. The issue becomes however an apparent matter of injustice and sectarianism when the Bahraini monarchy naturalizes Sunni Pakistani, Jordanians and others in order to change the demographic balance, integrates these new „Bahrainis“ into the security forces and let them go against the regular Bahrainis who are totally absent from government and army and police.

Should the Shia now get angry and suicide bomb Sunnis?

Particularly over the course of the last year the western press has maintained a campaign of indirect justification of anti-Shia violence at the hand of radically sectarian – mainly Salafi – Sunnis.
After each act of beheading, mass executing or suicide bombing Shias in Iraq – predominantly ordinary Shia civilians – the western media coverage never failed to mention and reiterate that the Sunnis feel sidelined and discriminated by the corrupt and sectarian Shia dominated regime. Emphasizing the „anger“ of Sunnis was and is a major feature of almost every article that reports of yet another bombing of a Shia market place. By doing this the media not only insulted the (mostly Shia) victims but also – to a certain degree – explained and even partly legitimized the crime and it´s perpetrators.
It is scandalous to apply such a fallacy that white-washes sectarian motivated hate crimes by giving them the pretense of being an act of reactionary desperation. There is no logic in detonating a bomb that kills family fathers, women, children and elderly in a poor suburb of Baghdad on the grounds that one feels one has been treated unjustly by the Shia dominated government.

In Bahrain the Shia are the majority and their best known activists such as the Khwaja family are entirely peaceful. Today, once again Zainab al Khwaja has been arrested:

In Saudi Arabia Sheikh Nimr, a leader of the Shia community who is not known for violence is sentenced to death:

I have two questions:
1. Is Barack Obama not ashamed of his coalition that includes Saudi Arabia and Bahrain and gives these two countries the undeserved appearance of being something superior?

2. Considering these obviously extreme anti-Shia policies of the GCC countries would western press „explain“ and understand suicide bombings of the „angry“ Shia population?

The distortive and misleading western narrative of the „ISIS crisis“

Major parts of the western media are serving their audience „facts“ which are non or at best half-truths when it comes to the current crisis in Iraq involving ISIS and the Iraqi armed forces.
Here some corrections:
1. ISIS is no real representative of the Iraqi and/or Sunni community. As a matter of fact they have not only massacred many thousands of Shia civilians (but also police and soldiers) in Iraq, they have also killed in total thousands of Sunni arab fighters in Syria and hundreds of Sunnis in Iraq including members of the „Sahwa“, tribal chiefs, politicians and ordinary civilians.
2. For some of the reasons given above ISIS is not waging a „holy war“ against the Shias whom they consider „infidels“ but against the Iraqi state.
3. The Iraqi government and armed forces are definitely Shia dominated and there has been systematic and wide scale discrimination against Sunnis, but it is totally untrue that Sunnis are prohibited from being part of the government or army and police. This is nonsense. The Iraqi system is despite all of it´s corruption and power abuse still definitely less sectarian than the Bahraini government where the Shia majority is totally absent in the security forces.
4. The volunteers who want to fight against ISIS are not entirely Shias and when Shia cleric Sistani urged Iraqis to resist ISIS he did not single out the Shia by explicitly calling on them.
5. Much is said about Maliki and his devastating political mistakes, mainly his marginalization but the violence of the more radical militant elements of Iraqs Sunni community is not merely a reaction to Malikis policies. Deadly large scale attacks on Shia mosques, pilgrims, funeral processions, markets, Cafes…started as early as 2003 short after Saddams loss of power. There were high casualty suicide and car bombings against Shia civilians as well as their religious notables by the hands of Zarqawi and his followers even long before the official start of the 2006/7 civil war.
A good book about those events is this one:

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:


Bahrains King and his „government“ are criminal

Bahrain is really ridiculous, and even more ridiculous is that you will never hear about sanctions against Bahrain or at least serious criticism coming from western countries.
To start with, Bahrain is a tiny country with 70% of the population being muslims. Of these 65-70%, the majority, are Shia.
The Shia however play almost no role in Bahrains political and military landscape:
– The country is ruled by a Sunni monarchy
– All relevant ministers and ruling politicians are Sunni
– The Shia majority is not represented in the military and the police

Now, there should be no „automatism“ that a countrys majority must also constitute the majority in the government and in all official institutions, but it is laughable and discriminatory to sideline the majority in such an obvious way as it happens in Bahrain.

Now, 50 members of the so called „Youth movement“, all of them Shia have been sentenced to up to 15 years of prison for the „crime“ of organizing protests online:

Nobody demands that Bahrain is bombed by anyone or that the Shia create a „Free Bahrain army“ that gets money and weapons from Iran and Iraq, but the allegedly human rights concerned western governments could at least threaten Bahrains King with sanctions and economic punishment.

For more about Bahrain:



Bahrain: The „international communities“ silence or why suppressing Shia muslims is OK

I don´t think that it is automatically wrong or illegitimate if a country is governed by a person belonging to the minority religious community, because religion itself should not be the benchmark for qualification.

The truth in Bahrain unlike all the lies told about and against Syria is that not only the Shia majority does not rule the country, it does not play a role at all in the higher political ranks, in the military and security services and the judiciary.

The US and UK should be ashamed for their silence on Bahrain: