Sure, Syria under the Assads was no paradise of human rights, but which other arab country in that region is better?
At least Syria is a secular government. Sunni, Alawi, Druze, Christians, women and men, all can and are pilots, teachers, doctors, Generals, foot soldiers, ministers. Can you say that about Saudi Arabia?
Plus, Syria kept a 40 year peace with Israel until today and has not attacked any country.
So, what the hell is the problem the Nato countries have with Syria? Did Assad torture their people?
If the „lack of legitimacy“ is an issue, what about Qatar? Has anyone there elected the ruler democratically?
If they say it is nepotism and family rulership, what about Kuwait? Is it not the same family ruling there for decades?
If it is the suppression of human rights and freedom of press, what about Bahrain? There a minority not only rules but also sidelines the majority totally, visible through the fact that Shia are absent from ministerial posts, the army and the security services. Instead the monarchy naturalizes Pakistani, Jordanian and other Sunnis to tip the demographic situation to the disadvantage of the indigenous Shia.
Despite having not a fraction of the petrodollars of the Gulf States Syria hosted hundreds of thousands of mostly Sunni Palestinian refugees for decades. How many Palestinian refugees live in Qatar and Saudi Arabia?
The „vetted, moderate rebels“ of the Free Syrian Army – Who and where are they?
You have probably heard that the US is (once again) considering to boost the support for the „moderate“ rebels in Syria. These rebels are supposed to fight at once the Syrian Army and its affiliate forces (the NDF, the lebanese Hezbollah) and the „Islamic State“ militia.
Very often when the phrase „moderate rebels“ is used by western politicians and media it occurs in verbal connection with the „Free Syrian Army“, but what/who exactly is this moderate „Army“?
If one bothers to read through battlefield news all over Syria it becomes clear that the major anti-government forces are all radical sectarian Islamists, mostly Salafis. At best you can distinguish between Pro Saudi and „less Pro Saudi“ Salafis, but what does this have to do with „moderate“?
In particular the major rebel forces are:
The „Islamic State“ (former ISIS or ISIL)
The al Qaeda affiliate Nusra Front or „Jabhat al Nusra“ (JAN), designated as terrorist organization by the US
The „Islamic Front“ (IF)
The IF is an umbrella group featuring as its major factions the „Ahrar al Sham“ (which just lost its entire leadership), the „Liwa al Tauheed“ (whose leader was killed a few months ago) and Jaish al Islam (Army of Islam).
Another umbrella organization is the „Syrian Revolutionary Front“ (SRF) headed by (another) Saudi favourite called Jamal Maarouf. In addition to Maarouf being labeled „highway robber“ by some other rebel factions, he openly declares support for and coordination with the Salafis of JAN, so again there is no way to view the SRF as „moderate“.
But never underestimate the „creativity“ of Syrias rebels and their US- and (mostly Wahhabi) GCC-Backers: In order to confuse the international audience and create the impression that there are indeed rebels other than the above mentioned three which were exposed as clearly non-moderate, yet more rebel organization names were created.
One which was meant to give itself the pretense of being Syrian nationalist, liberal and non-sectarian is the „Southern Front“. The Southern Front is said to consist of 49 different factions and 30.000 fighters. At the second look however it becomes clear that the two major factions of this Front are the above mentioned SRF of Jamal Maarouf who praises the Nusra Front and the Yarmouk Brigade that took Unifil peacekeepers as hostages. Plus, the Yarmouk brigade strongly cooperates with JAN:
http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2014/03/zoubi-yarmouk-brigade-qaeda-saudi-southern-front.html
Interestingly the Southern Front was sidelined by the Nusra and many of its fighters joined the latter:
http://100wordz.wordpress.com/2014/06/10/was-not-the-southern-front-supposed-to-be-dominated-by-moderate-pro-western-rebels/
This is finally how Aron Lund comments the „honesty“ behind the Southern Fronts non-extremism/non-sectarianism:
„Rather than an initiative from the rebels themselves, word is that it was foreign officials that called on rebel commanders to sign a statement declaring their opposition to extremism, saying it was a precondition for getting more guns and money. Since beggars can’t be choosers, the commanders then collectively shrugged their shoulders and signed—but not so much to declare a new alliance as to help U.S. officials tick all the right boxes in their reports back home, hoping that this would unlock another crate of guns.“
http://carnegieendowment.org/syriaincrisis/?fa=55054
Finally, the newest „unified“ rebel umbrella organization is the „Revolutionary Command Council„, featuring 18 rebel factions, but it suffices to read the names of SRF and „Jaish al Islam“ (Army of Islam) to know that outright Salafis and those who proudly declare to cooperate with them are definitely not qualified to be called moderates.
Summarizing, we see that there are six major rebel „joint ventures“: ISIS, JAN, Islamic Front, SRF, Southern Front and the Revolutionary Command Council. And we see that none of them is moderate. So, what exactly is the „Free Syrian Army“? Who are it´s leading commanders?
It seems the FSA has ceased to exist if it ever really existed as a clearly defined army with commando structure and clear battlefield agenda.
There was for instance General Salim Idriss, the former head of the allegedly moderate FSA, but it came out his „good“ rebels were involved in the massacre of pro-government villagers in Lattakia.
Then there was top ranking FSA Commander al-Okaidi who thanked ISIS and JAN for their crucial role in capturing Syrias Mennagh airbase.
It´s time to stop fooling ourselves, fabricate fairy tales and spread them dishonestly. A moderate FSA does not exist. Full stop. Many of those rebels deemed reliable and moderate by US, UK and France and trained and armed in Turkey and Jordan have either defected to ISIS and co. or sold/handed over their US and Saudi/Qatari supplied weapons to ISIS and Nusra. Here is a good document of shame for Obama and McCain who continue to speak about the moderates who should be further armed:
http://www.infowars.com/obama-plans-to-fight-isis-by-arming-isis/
And here another one:
„Of most interest was the capture of two M-79 rockets that were identical to a batch of such weapons supplied by Saudi Arabia to rebels in southern Syria in January 2013. “
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/08/isis-jihadis-using-arms-troop-carriers-supplied-by-us-saudi-arabia
Obama wants to attack IS in Syria without a UN mandate and without the approval of the Syrian government. One major reason is the recent beheading of journalist Steven Sotloff. Obama wants to support the moderate rebels against IS (and Assad), but how „funny“ that – according to Sotloffs family – it were the MODERATE REBELS who sold him to ISIS:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/08/steven-sotloff-sold-to-isis_n_5788312.html
Finally I like to quote Rand Paul, son of former US presidential candidate Ron Paul:
“They say there are some pro-Western people and we’re going to vet them. Well, apparently we’ve got a senator over there who got his picture taken with some kidnappers, so I don’t know how good a job we’re going to do vetting those who are going to get the arms.”
Syria: looking back at 2011 and the eruption of violence
I came along and excellent article about Syria, which exposes the role of the mass media and western policymakers by shedding light on truths that were suppressed during the early stage of the Syrian conflict:
http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/09/03/more-nato-aggression-against-syria/
From the onset most western and arab media invented and persistently promoted one major narrative in order to demonize the Syrian government:
They claimed that the protests were entirely peaceful for a very long time. Some went so far to say that in the entire first year or at least in the first 6 months of the „revolution“ the „opposition“ stuck to peaceful means.
Only after suffering continuously indiscriminate and disproportionate violence at the hands of the security forces, the allegedly secular/liberal/moderate opposition turned to violence as a means of self defense.
The myth of the peaceful unarmed opposition does not withstand if scrutinized without bias. „When mass protests began in Syria they included violent attacks and murders of police from the beginning„:
„…up to 60 Syrian security forces were killed that day in a massacre that has been hidden by both the Syrian government and residents of Daraa.
One Daraa native explains: “At that time, the government did not want to show they are weak and the opposition did not want to show they are armed.”
Beyond that, the details are sketchy. Nizar Nayouf, a longtime Syria dissident and blogger who wrote about the killings, says the massacre took place in the final week of March 2011.“
…
„on April 25, 2011, nineteen Syrian soldiers were gunned down in Daraa by unknown assailants. „
…
„April 10 was also the day when we learned of the first massacre of Syrian soldiers – in Banyas, Tartous – when nine troops were ambushed and gunned down on a passing bus. The BBC, Al Jazeera and the Guardian all initially quoted witnesses claiming the dead soldiers were “defectors” shot by the Syrian army for refusing to fire on civilians.
That narrative was debunked later, but the story that soldiers were being killed by their own commanders stuck hard throughout 2011 – and gave the media an excuse to ignore stories that security forces were being targeted by armed groups.
The SOHR’s Rami Abdul Rahman says of the “defector” storyline: “This game of saying the army is killing defectors for leaving – I never accepted this because it is propaganda.”„
…
„on April 23, seven soldiers were slaughtered in Nawa, a town near Daraa. Those killings did not make the headlines like the one in Banyas. Notably, the incident took place right after the Syrian government tried to defuse tensions by abolishing the state security courts, lifting the state of emergency, granting general amnesties and recognizing the right to peaceful protest. „
…
„Instead, all we ever heard was about the mass killing of civilians by security forces: “The dictator slaughtering his own people.” But three years into the Syrian crisis, can we say that things may have taken a different turn if we had access to more information? Or if media had simply provided equal air-time to the different, contesting testimonies that were available to us? „
…
„Syrian-based Father Frans van der Lugt was the Dutch priest murdered by a gunman in Homs just a few weeks ago. His involvement in reconciliation and peace activities never stopped him from lobbing criticisms at both sides in this conflict. But in the first year of the crisis, he penned some remarkable observations about the violence – this one in January 2012:
“From the start the protest movements were not purely peaceful. From the start I saw armed demonstrators marching along in the protests, who began to shoot at the police first. Very often the violence of the security forces has been a reaction to the brutal violence of the armed rebels.”
In September 2011 he wrote: “From the start there has been the problem of the armed groups, which are also part of the opposition…The opposition of the street is much stronger than any other opposition. And this opposition is armed and frequently employs brutality and violence, only in order then to blame the government.”„
http://rt.com/op-edge/157412-syria-hidden-massacre-2011/
Then there is the myth of the „moderate opposition“. To this date major parts of euro-american mass media continue to uphold the bizarr claim that the armed Syrian opposition or at least the major bulk of the fighters, the so called „Free Syrian Army“ are moderates.
„It is often suggested the “moderate opposition” is popular, democratic and secular. President Obama has recently proposed giving $500 million to the “moderate opposition”.
Patrick Cockburn sums up the reality in the newly released book “The Jihadis Return: ISIS and the New Sunni Uprising”:
“It is here that self-deception reigns, because the Syrian military opposition is dominated by ISIS and by Jabhat Al Nusra, the official Al Qaeda representative, in addition to other extreme jihadi groups. In reality there is no dividing wall between them and America’s supposedly moderate opposition allies.”
This situation is not new. A NY Times article in summer 2012 discussed the hidden presence of Al Qaeda within the “Free Syrian Army” „
In another article Patrick Cockburn writes: „Jihadi groups ideologically close to al-Qa‘ida have been relabeled as moderate if their actions are deemed supportive of U.S. policy aims. In Syria, the Americans backed a plan by Saudi Arabia to build up a “Southern Front” based in Jordan that would be hostile to the Assad government in Damascus, and simultaneously hostile to al-Qa‘ida-type rebels in the north and east. The powerful but supposedly moderate Yarmouk Brigade, reportedly the planned recipient of anti-aircraft missiles from Saudi Arabia, was intended to be the leading element in this new formation. But numerous videos show that the Yarmouk Brigade has frequently fought in collaboration with JAN, the official al-Qa‘ida affiliate. Since it was likely that, in the midst of battle, these two groups would share their munitions, Washington was effectively allowing advanced weaponry to be handed over to its deadliest enemy. Iraqi officials confirm that they have captured sophisticated arms from ISIS fighters in Iraq that were originally supplied by outside powers to forces considered to be anti-al-Qa‘ida in Syria.“
http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/08/21/why-washingtons-war-on-terror-failed/
“In the East of Syria, there is no Free Syrian Army any longer. All Free Syrian Army people [there] have joined the Islamic State,” says Abu Yusaf, a high-level security commander of the Islamic State, whom The Washington Post’s Anthony Faiola wrote about last week…“
„some of the people the U.S. and their allies had trained to fight for ‘democracy’ in Libya and Syria had a jihadist agenda — already or later, [when they] joined al Nusra or the Islamic State,” a senior Arab intelligence official said in a recent interview…“
„For a long time, Western and Arab states supported the Free Syrian Army not only with training but also with weapons and other materiel. The Islamic State commander, Abu Yusaf, added that members of the Free Syrian Army who had received training — from the United States, Turkey and Arab military officers at an American base in Southern Turkey — have now joined the Islamic State. “Now many of the FSA people who the West has trained are actually joining us,” he said, smiling.“
http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/08/18/the-terrorists-fighting-us-now-we-just-finished-training-them/
To this day many western mainstream media still stick to two fairy tales:
a) That there is a single entity called „Free Syrian Army“ and that it is the biggest rebel faction
b) That the FSA, unlike ISIS or Jabhat al Nusra (JAN) is „moderate“
Just a single example that clearly demonstrates how moderate and respectable the FSA is (IRONY):
„Contacted by telephone, Adnan al-Assadi, Iraq’s deputy interior minister, said Iraqi border guards had witnessed the Free Syrian Army take control of a border outpost, detain a Syrian army lieutenant colonel, and then cut off his arms and legs.
„Then they executed 22 Syrian soldiers in front of the eyes of Iraqi soldiers,“ Assadi said.“
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2012/07/201271919353589773.html
For more detailed information about the non-existence of a „moderate“ Free Syrian Army, look here:
https://radioyaran.com/2013/12/19/syria-it-is-insane-that-the-west-still-considers-supporting-islamists/
https://radioyaran.com/2013/10/11/syrian-rebel-massacre-in-lattakia-and-the-moderate-fsas-involvement/
http://100wordz.wordpress.com/2014/06/10/was-not-the-southern-front-supposed-to-be-dominated-by-moderate-pro-western-rebels/
„Islamic State“ (ISIS) beheads, crucifies and mutilates enemies, but is this allowed in Islam?
The terror group ISIS (which calls itself „islamic State“ now) „proudly“ uploads video clips of it´s fighters beheading captured or killed enemy soldiers. Since this group considers itself Salafi and thus „true Muslims“ (something they claim ALL Shias and many Sunnis are not) one should make a fact-check regarding their actions.
There is no clear reference to the act of beheading in the Quran, however, there is a single verse that protagonists of beheading point to in order to justify this barbaric act:
„If you encounter (in war) those who disbelieve, you may strike the necks. If you take them as captives you may set them free or ransom them, until the war ends. “ 47:4
In my opinion „strike the necks“ in battle is not the same as beheading disarmed and subdued prisoners of war in a way that sheep are slaughtered. In times when the major short distance weapon of war were swords striking the neck – as brutal as it appears today – was the most effective way of killing enemies that usually had body armor. At any rate it was not more brutal, painful or inhuman than stabbing into the enemies torso.
Looking at the second sentence of the verse it becomes clear that neither the „believers“ were strictly commanded to kill the enemies nor was any beheading of the prisoners as punishment allowed. The verse explicitly allows for taking captives and even recommends to set them free or ransom them.
ISIS is not fighting against its opponents in close range hand-to-hand combat. Besides, there is no legitimate way to interpret the above verse as approval to behead unarmed and handcuffed prisoners who pose no danger.
Beheading enemies, especially cutting off the heads of dead enemies is an act of mutilation.
What is the position of the Ahadith (prophetic traditions) on this?
(1) Al-Hayyaj ibn Imran reported: A servant boy of Imran had ran away and he vowed by Allah that if he caught him, he would cut off his hand. Then he sent me to ask about that, so I came to Samurah ibn Jundab and I asked him. He said, “The Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, encouraged us to give in charity and he forbade us from mutilation.” So I went to Imran ibn Hussein and I asked him. He said, “The Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, encouraged us to give in charity and he forbade us from mutilation.”
Source: Sunan Abu Dawud 2667
(2)The people of knowledge hate mutilation.
Source: Sunan At-Tirmidhi 1408
The „Islamic State“ also applies the punishment of crucification and considers itself to be on the right „islamic“ path, but again this terror group displays sheer ignorance and lack of basic quranic knowledge. Crucification is an evil and inhumane act which the Quran attributes to evil men, to those who „exceed the limits“. Here some quotes:
Pharaoh said: I will surely cut off your hands and feet on opposite sides and will crucify you altogether!
Surah Al-A’raf 7:124, Surah Ash-Shu’ara 26:49
Pharaoh said: I will surely cut off your hands and feet on opposite sides and I will crucify you to the trunk of a palm tree; then you will know which of us is the most severe and lasting in punishment!
Surah TaHa 20:71
It is obvious that the „caliphate“ and its „caliph“ are walking in the footsteps of the Pharaoh. Their actions do not resemble those of just and God fearing men.
ISIS, Maliki and the Sunnis
Two popular mistakes should be identified and avoided:
1. It is not merely ISIS against the Iraqi army. ISIS is the spearhead and the combat wise most experienced and effective single group of a variety of Sunni militias that are fighting the Iraqi armed forces. Not all of these 7 or 8 groups are radical islamists and sectarian. Many are tribal fighters disaffected with the central government which they accuse of having sidelined, oppressed and marginalized Sunnis for years. Others are former Baathists, thus more or less secular minded or nationalists, among them the Naqshbandy army.
2. Though it is true that especially the Maliki government is highly corrupt and has acted in sectarian ways, this is not merely because Malikis regime is backed by Iran or simply hates Sunnis. While ISIS as the name of a specific organization only exists since a couple of years, the hatred ideology of takfiri salafism in post-Saddam Iraq is not that new. As early as in 2003 systematic and wide scale deadly attacks against Shia police, army recruits and especially ordinary civilians began to occur at least on a weekly basis. Suicide bombers and car bombs killed hundreds of Shia every month, targeting them in mosques, at market places, in Cafes and restaurants and even at funerals. Many Shia clerics were assassinated few months after the US invasion in 2003, e.g. Ayatollah Hakim:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Baqir_al-Hakim#Assassination
Not all but many instances of power abuse at the hands of Shia militias and Iraqi armed forces were a reaction to the relentless and high casualty bombings of Shia areas. Neither Iran nor the Iraqi Shia clergy brought sectarianism to Iraq. It was the „achievement“ – and not an incidental one – of Wahhabi/Salafi ideologues from the GCC countries awash in money and relying on arabic mass media in shape of several satellite channels broadcasting anti-Shia and anti-Iranian hate mongering all around the clock.
It is wrong to declare Sunni opposition to the Iraqi regime as „terrorism“ and not every Sunni insurgent fighting the Iraqi army is a takfiri. The Sunni opposition is legitimate but it suffers from being associated with ISIS and similar minded sectarian jihadists.
„Liberated“ Libya: female human rights activist Salwa Bughaighis killed
This is Libya, a(nother) place „liberated“ by NATOs airforce and qatari paid and armed islamist militias:
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-28031537
More about the disaster produced in Libya as a result of „humanitarian intervention“ and „responsibility to protect“ (R2P):
https://100wordz.wordpress.com/category/libya/
„Peaceful“ (and of course democratic) Israel once again attacked Syria
Has anyone noticed that Israel recently – once again – attacked Syrian army positions, killed ten soldiers and destroyed some tanks and other vehicles?
http://news.antiwar.com/2014/06/23/israeli-airstrikes-kill-10-syrian-soldiers/
As usual (and as usual undisputed by the pro-Israeli euro-American governments and media outlets) Israel was quick to „justify and explain“ the attack and its allegedly underlying reasons:
An attack from Syrian soil had killed an Israeli settler. Interestingly one going by the not very settler typical name of „Muhammad“. Now, its no secret that the Syrian Israeli border area along the Golan heights is mostly in the hands of various Syrian rebel groups and factually out of Syrian government control.
To prove the nature of the culprit and (attempt to) make clear that this can only have been the Syrian army and NOT the rebels the Israelis said that the victims vehicle was hit by a (wireguided) Kornet anti-tank missile, which they claimed only the Syrian army possesses.
This is complete nonsense, as there are dozens of video clips showing Syrian rebels destroying Syrian tanks in the same area.
What a hypocrisy that the Israeli attack which pretends to be retaliation for the killing of a single Muslim Arab happened just at a time when the Israeli army has left a trail of blood in the Palestinian West Bank by killing several people during the search for three allegedly kidnapped Israeli teenagers.
It is a shame and disgusting that „western“ politicians and international institutions such as the UN do not bother to condemn Israels repeated aggressions or even criticize them.
Iraq will be doomed if Sunnis should gather behind ISIS
For one, it is clear that ISIS alone surely did not capture Mossul and Tikrit within few days. Local Sunni tribal fighters as well as former Baath party officers had also their share, with the latter being behind a long term planning of the events.
At the same time nobody should have doubts that ISIS is the „muscle“ of what many disgruntled Iraqi Sunnis consider a „Sunni revolution“. Trying to play down ISIS´ role as the primary and most lethal fighting force would be a repetition of similar illusory claims regarding the Al-Nusra front in Syria, which western powers and Arab countries behind the Syrian opposition for a very long time tried to detract from.
In Syria the so called „Free Syrian Army“ had tens of thousands of fighters and was even „assisted“ by the already mentioned hardcore Salafi fighters of the Al-Nusra, but still ISIS managed to fight and rout these groups in eastern Syria and inflict heavy casualties on them elsewhere in that country.
There is little reason to assume that ISIS will „perform“ weaker in Iraq. Other Sunni groups including the more regionally interested tribal fighters as well as the more nationalist and secular minded former Baath party forces are welcome to cooperate with ISIS and contribute but ISIS will demand and enforce to have the final say and call the shots.
Should the Sunnis decide to „enjoy“ ISIS and tolerate the leadership of the „islamic state“, this will be the end of Iraq as a sovereign state as ISIS openly and proudly announces it´s firm will to fight the Shia majority of the country. ISIS is not a mere (and legitimate) resistance movement against an unjust, Shia led government but a vehemently sectarian, supremacist and violent movement, which considers all Shia as infidels who deserve death. But Iraq is not Pakistan where the Shia are basically defenseless. In Iraq the Shia make up a majority of 70-75% among the Arab population and have tens – if not hundreds – of thousands of battle-experienced fighters willing to die when existentially threatened.
Sectarian language and threats seems to exclusively come from radical Sunnis
It is interesting that in Iraq Sunnis and Shias are BOTH accused of sectarian language and threats, but I don´t remember a single powerful or influential Shia leader insult and threat the entire Sunni community. Sure, the Shia leaders use the word Takfiri but this applies only to a small extremely radical portion of the Sunnis. When the (radical) Sunnis, however, speak of the „Rafidha“, again they intentionally target and incriminate ALL Shias.
Even the so called „radical“ or „firebrand“ Shia cleric and leader of the Mahdi army at no time spoke in even a remotely sectarian way as one of the ISIS leaders does here:
http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/06/13/why-the-new-iraq-war-could-be-more-savage-than-the-last/
„the Lord alone who overpowers the Shia. Praise be the Lord who brings terror to their hearts.”“
„Do not concede territory gained to the Shia unless they walk over your dead bodies to retrieve it. March towards Baghdad. Do not let them [the Shia] breath.”
„The Shia are a disgraced people,” he says, accusing them of being polytheists “who worship the dead and stone.”
Interestingly such radicals, call them Salafi or Wahhabi or whatever, consider themselves to be the real, the authentic muslims and to be perfectly familiar with the religion of Islam, but they commit the grave sin of „takfir“ (calling others „unbelievers“) on entirely erroneous grounds.
The Shia „worship“ the dead just as much as football fans „worship“ Lionel Messi or Ronaldo, namely not at all.
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:
http://www.amazon.com/The-Occupation-War-Resistance-Iraq/dp/184467164X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1402684132&sr=8-1&keywords=cockburn+occupation
radioyaran 