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
rebels
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.
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…
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:
Syrian Rebel Car Bomb Kills 14 Outside Homs Alawite Mosque
According to some Salafi (and other hardline) muslims the Alawites are no „real“ muslims and do not or „can not“ pray. Apparently they have mosques, in this particular case one named after the first muezzin of Islam, Balal al Habashi, who is respected by both Sunnis and Shias:
„Syrian Rebel Car Bomb Kills 14 Outside Homs Alawite Mosque“
http://news.antiwar.com/2014/04/18/syrian-rebel-car-bomb-kills-14-outside-homs-alawite-mosque/
Once again one has to wonder about both the insanity and bizarreness of bombing mosques and killing worshippers in the name of Islam. Again, shame on all western and arab countries who continue to support such terrorists and their well known backers.
Why Israels claim of capturing Iranian weapons for Gaza is nonsense
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-26516704
„the Israeli military unveiled what it alleged was a cache of Syrian-made weapons being sent by Iran to militants in the Gaza Strip.“
Here some reasons why this story is an Israeli fabrication to torpedo the US talks with Iran and another desperate attempt to mislead the international community:
a) For one thing, Syria is not at all in the position to „export“ weapons to anywhere, let alone to Iran, a country with decades of experience in development and production of various short range rockets
b) The Syrian army needs every single bullet right now. Why does not Iran export own rockets to Hamas and instead reduces Syrias bitterly needed arsenal?
c) Syrias relationship with Hamas is at an all time low. Why should they help arm Hamas right now?
d) The Persian Gulf is full of american warships:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Naval_Forces_Central_Command
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Fifth_Fleet
Why should rockets be flown from Syria to Bandar Abbas and then all the way back to Iraq, risking to be intercepted by the US navy:
e) How was the alleged Iranian weapons shipment supposed to break through the Israeli maritime blockade of Gazas coast when even aid flotillas are not passed through?
f) Iran currently has not a good relationship with Hamas and has met with PLO officials in Teheran just recently. One of the main reason is that Hamas took an anti-government position in the Syrian civil war and supports the rebel side
g) Hamas is also in tensions with the new Egyptian government so it would be no good idea to move Hamas bound weapons through the Suez canal
h) What should be the advantage of allegedy hiding the rockets below cement bags when Israel does not allow cement to enter Gaza either? Israel says it could be used to build bunkers or tunnels
i) Why are the cement bags labelled „Made in I.R. Iran“ in English letters but without any Farsi/Arabic script? Is Iran now a proud exporter of cement to non-middle-eastern countries?
The „moderate“ FSAs cooperation with Al Qaeda in Syria
Not only has the allegedly moderate, non-sectarian, pro-western and Israeli tolerated FSA been using the lethal combat efficiency of the Al Qaeda affiliated Nusra Front (JN), but they have also sold advanced anti-aircraft and anti-tank weapons to the even more radical Salafi Al Qaeda branch Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISUS/ISIL):
„He didn’t want to be filmed. But he told us: if we wanted to cut the supply lines it is easier for us to take the warehouses of the FSA. Anyhow we are buying weapons from the FSA. we bought 200 anti-aircraft missiles and Koncourse anti tank weapons. We have good relations with our brothers in the FSA. For us, the infidels are those who cooperate with the West to fight Islam. “
http://blogs.aljazeera.com/blog/middle-east/meeting-al-qaeda-syria
As usual Obama, Kerry and co. ignore or play down such embarrassing facts when they openly speak about funding and facilitating (through Saudi Arabia) the further arming of the FSA.
Iran 2009 vs. Syria 2011
The mass demonstrations and protests in Iran after the allegedly forged presidential elections of June 2009 were on a much bigger scale than what happened in Syria after Macrh 2011.
Despite the participation of up to 3 Million people on some days in Tehran alone and despite the disproportional use of lethal violence by the security forces the „green revolution“ ebbed away after a few weeks.
There are several reasons why the protests did not turn into an armed rebellion but the main factors differentiating Irans „green revolution“ from the Syrian version of the „arab spring“ were the following:
– The protesters were not armed and nobody armed them in the process either. There were few casualties among the riot police and the Bassij militia but not as a result of systematic guerilla like violence
– The protesters were not instigated by outside powers to fight against an autocratic regime that was tyrannizing and killing them on sectarian (or ethnic) grounds
– There is a persian saying „The knife has not reached the bone (yet)“ which basically means that despite many social injustices, reprisals, persecutions, economic inequalities and mismanagement and the governments constant interference in peoples private life…still daily life was very much on an acceptable level
In Syria, however, from early on there were deadly ambushes on army and police leaving to the deaths of dozens of security personell in the very first weeks. It is factually completely untrue that the protests were nothing but peaceful for months.
The protests were „contaminated“ quite early with anti-regime accusations and complaints on religious grounds. The state was accused of applying injustice and violence against its opponents because of the latters religious affiliation.
This was by and large utter nonsense but it was meant to serve a well-planned purpose, namely to defame a secular (although autocratic) government as sectarian. Not only there are many Sunnis in the highest political, economic and military ranks of Syrias elite, Bashar al Assad and his brother are married to Sunni women and their paternal grandmother was also Sunni. Now, one could check how many Saudi, Bahraini, Qatari or other „Gulf“ princes and „notables“ are married to Shia women…
The intention behind Syrias portrayal as an allegedly anti-Sunni regime was clearly to incite sectarian sentiment and play the majority card:
a) „Alawite“ Syria is between Sunni countries or border areas with high Sunni presence (Turkey, Jordan, Lebanon, western Iraq). This itself makes it totally inconceivable to accuse the Assad regime of having made the conflict sectarian
b) The western-friendly Arab petrodollar monarchies of the Persian Gulf are all ruled by Sunni Kings and Princes. They control the two most influential media networks of the Arab world: Al-Jazeera and l-Arabiyya
c) Hundreds of Millions of North African Arabs are Sunni allowing for a recruiting potential of tens of thousands of „Jihadists“ from among vast numbers of unemployed or socially weak youth. In fact it has turned out that the Jihad idea has attracted even central asian and european Sunnis
The question is whether there was a movement aiming at more reforms, freedoms, human rights and democracy that was hijacked quite quickly or whether this short-lived „secular“ revolution was on a too small scale to be considered a mass movement.
At any rate the power driving the Syrian insurgency is clearly militant Salafi islamism. The forces fighting are not even distantly moderate, academic or technocratic. Their motivation is establishing a (probably sectarian) religious state, not a civil democracy adhering to human rights:
„In fact, the only rebel factions still strong enough to resist and fight the regime on the latest fronts are the radical Islamists. The town of Azizeh, just outside the Marjeh area in the east, the strategically vital Sheikh Najjar industrial zone, the old city and Aleppo’s central prison are all defended by al-Qaeda’s affiliate, Jabhat al-Nusra, as well as Salafist militants Ahrar al-Sham, a member of the Islamic Front.“
http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2014/02/barrel-bombing-syria-aleppo-rebels-regime-war.html
Of course, the US, UK and France along with their Arab „partners“, Israel and Turkey still want to stick to the now grotesque narrative that Syrias war is between a hated, russian/iranian-held, sectarian minority regime and the majority of „it´s“ reform demanding, peaceful, secular, moderate, pro western, democracy minded…people.
So, no matter how much it turns that the „bad guys“ are not only ISIS and JN, but also the other Salafi Islamists who
– are either openly hailing Al Qaeda and its principles
– or closely cooperating with JN (and sometimes even ISIS) as Al Qaedas Syrian branch:
http://www.thenational.ae/the-syrian-rebels-who-have-no-problem-fighting-alongside-al-qaeda
See also: http://100wordz.wordpress.com/2014/01/24/islamic-front-no-answer-for-syria-conflict/
Macabre dynamics in „liberated“ Syria
„The Nusra Front has given ISIS until Saturday to accept mediation or face being expelled from Syria.“
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-26390351
So, one group of sectarian Salafi beheader extremists is threatening to expel a slightly worse sister organization within Al Qaeda in Syria.
The BBC article leaves a bad taste as it comes along as a subtle advertisement in favor of the Al Nusra Front that demands that ISIS „accept arbitration within five days“.
The correct and not too far fetched interpretation is that Al Nusra hardly has any ideological-political issue with ISIS: „He demanded that ISIS halt all military operations against other rebels“.
This means that ISIS is welcome to remain on Syrian soil as long as they blow up Syrian army checkpoints and kill Alawites instead of „killing of an al-Qaeda emissary, Abu Khaled al-Suri“
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.