Already Syrias „moderate“ rebels work with al-Nusra and are almost aligning with IS

It speaks volumes:
Obama, Kerry and their willing central European co-warmongers still claim there are moderate Syrian rebels. Then they display either total ignorance or naivety by further claiming that these hardly identifiable moderates deserve to get (more) American weapons because they are supposed to do the ground fighting against the „Islamic State“.
The more interesting then that these rebels already are announcing openly that they are signing truces („non-aggression“ pacts) with IS in order to focus on their common agenda: „the Nussayri regime“ (Nussayri is a perjorative term for the Syrian Alawites. Calling the government „Nussayri“ not only proves the sectarianism of the rebels including the „moderates“ but also shows that they ignore that major parts of the government and the armed forces are in fact Sunnis).

Once again it is proven that alleged moderates (like the Syrian Revolutionary Front) closely work with the Al-Nusra Front, while the latter openly cooperates with IS on several fronts, e.g. Lebanon.

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

Bombings in Lebanon and the hypocrisy of western media

Whenever a bomb detonates in a Shia area of Lebanon western press is quick to call the place an „Hezbollah stronghold“ and explain/justify the perpetartors malicious action by stating that this was a reaction to Hezbollah fighting alongside the Syrian army.

Thus an indiscriminate act of terror by entirely sectarian motivated perpetrators is almost whitewashed as just an exotic version of the war against (alleged) Iranian terror since Hezbollah is affiliated with the Iranian regime.

In the most recent case the bombers detonated their deadly cargo near to an orphanage and hurt Children:
http://english.al-akhbar.com/content/beirut-orphanage-latest-victim-suicide-bombings

…but maybe these victims are also Assads „Shabiha“ and targetting them just another chapter in the very creative art of „freedom fighting“

 

 

The Takfiris are leading the Middle East into a disaster

„Just as after Hariri’s killing, the calculated recriminations of the March 14 coalition, led by the Future Movement, came fast and furious. Blame was laid squarely at the feet of Hezbollah…As with all political upheavals in Lebanon, the question that must be asked is, “who benefits?” Does Hezbollah? Although Shatah was a stalwart March 14 operative who decried Hezbollah’s role in Syria, he was nevertheless regarded as a relative moderate…Just as in Iraq, moderate Sunni politicians have been singled out for assassination by takfiris who seek to exploit their spilled blood, provoke co-religionists into committing crimes against civilians and stir a simmering sectarian pot. Who are the likely perpetrators behind Mohammed Shatah’s assassination and the dahiyeh bombing? The very same ones the U.S. and Saudi-backed March 14 coalition have emboldened.“

http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/01/03/who-benefits-from-the-shatah-assassination/

The biggest threat to the world of Islam are EXTREMIST (Takfiri) Sunnis

The statements in this article are not relating to or directed against mainstream Sunnis, be they  „moderate/secular“ or conservatively pious.
I am specifically speaking of the „Takfeeris“, those who declare other muslims, especially non-Sunni muslims or nonconforming moderate Sunni muslims Unbelievers (Kuffar). The next step which the Takfeeris call for and actively work on – be it through arming and funding Jihadis or going to „Jihad“ themselves – is the extermination of the „Unbelievers“.

The broad majority of Takfeeris belong to the Wahhabi/Salafi school of thought , which itself is a part of the minority school of Hanbalis within Sunni Islam. The problem, however, is that this radical ideology is widespread among both private and political circles of the Arab monarchies of the southern Persian Gulf, which the West cannot really afford to antagnoize and punish because
a) they are (among) the most important global suppliers of petroleum and natural gas
b) they are harbouring US military forces
c) they are (especially Saudi Arabia) very important buyers of western weapons
d) they have bought themselves into western companies and economies
e) they are hostile to Iran
f) they have deposited hundreds of billions of USD in american banks, which if transferred elsewhere could cause a massive economic crash for the US.

The article below written by awarded expert journalist Patrick Cockburn highlights the irresponsible behaviour of the Gulf monarchies and the dangers that are threatening the Shia people:

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/sunni-monarchs-back-youtube-hate-preachers-antishia-propaganda-threatens-a-sectarian-civil-war-which-will-engulf-the-entire-muslim-world-9028538.html

Homs: The massacre that did NOT take place

Sarkozy once pressed for an intervention in Syria when „Assads army“ was pounding the rebel-held Baba Amr district. Sarkozy warned that unless the „international community“ intervenes (militarily) Assad would commit a massacre just as Gaddafi would have done in Benghazi if Nato had not attacked his forces.
Now, warning of a massacre by pointing to a massacre that never occurred is itself ridiculous, but those who have followed the utterances of the likes of Bush, Blair, Sarkozy and co. since the Iraq war (2003) at latest are used to brazen lies and bizarre comparisons.

Now, it seems that the Syrian Arab Army (SAA), Syrias regular army – which contrary to incorrect mainstream media reports – is predominantly Sunni (including many high ranking commanders such as the defense minister) is „making  key gains in Homs“:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23483717

Homs was given the title „Heart of the revolution“. It is Syrias 3rd largest city with a population between 600.000 and 1,2 million people, predominantly Sunni.
Taking into account these facts and assuming as a „fact“ the rebels claim that they represent the (will of the) majority of (especially Sunni) Syrians, one could (and should) expect two things to happen:
a) (almost) the whole population should rise up in support of the rebels and push back the army, if not even inflict heavy casualties on it
b) the allegedly sectarian SAA will commit against the „civilian population“ the massacre it did NOT commit in February 2012 when it retook Baba Amr

Instead rebel spokesmen are lamenting the purported participation of Hezbollah fighters on the side of the SAA as a major reason for the latters strength. Why and how should a few hundred to few thousand Hezbollah fighters matter when the rebels not only themselves are relying (increasingly) on all kind of arab and non-arab „foreign combatants“ but also supposedly enjoy the backing of Homs´Sunni majority?