by Ghassan Kadi
As the world citizens watch with horror the escalation between the USA and Russia on one hand and with China on the other hand, and as they fear the worst; a nuclear holocaust, citizens of the Muslim World watch the escalation between Saudi Arabia and Iran and fear the “regional worst”, and that is an all-out Sunni Shiite strife.
It must be remembered that even though Muslim Sunnis and Shiite never really liked each other, they had been living together in peace, though uncomfortably, for many centuries. The last recorded battle between the two was the battle of Karbala, in which Imam Hussein, son of Ali (founder of Shiite Islam) and grandson of Prophet Mohamed was killed. But that was in 680 AD.
It wasn’t till towards the end of the 20th Century that the feud between the two major Islamic sects resurfaced. The rise of Imam Khomeini to power in Iran spelt bad news for his Sunni Saudi rivals, and the presence of the oil wealth in the region has only helped lubricate the crisis.
That feud was restricted to exchanges of words and accusations, and blood was not spilt until after the infamous “Coalition of the Willing” invaded Iraq and toppled Saddam. The biggest battlefield, thus far, has definitely been in Syria, in which tens of thousands of Sunni Jihadis flooded in to kill the Alawite (Shiite sect) “infidels”. Even though they killed many Sunnis, Christians and others along the way, their prime objective was to stamp out anyone who stood against their fundamentalist version of Sunni Islam.
With all the atrocities committed thus far, the “big one” hasn’t happened. In the scale of things, they have been mere skirmishes that will either lead to an all-out war between Sunni states and Shiite states, or die out.
The Muslim World has been living this nightmare for centuries, and never before has it seemed to be so close, possible and even tangilbe. And after the Saudi attack on Shiite Houthis in Yemen and the support of Iran to the Houthis, Iran and Saudi Arabia grew a step closer towards a direct confrontation.
With the current escalation between Saudi Arabia and Qatar, the Muslim World has moved yet another notch towards an Iranian-Saudi war; especially that Qatar is allegedly seen to be, or at least accused of flirting with Iran.
However, as we wake up almost every morning to unfathomable news reports, some we would not expect to hear in our wildest of imaginations, we must brace and prepare ourselves for more to come, in the most unexpected manner, when least anticipated and predicted, and events unfolding quicker than we ever thought.
The Middle East is undergoing a huge and rapid change that even the world of the Internet and its social media is finding hard to keep up with. Once the dust settles, when it does, the political map of that part of the world will never be the same as it was back in 2011.
It has already changed. Libya is now at least two Libyas, or may be three. Not officially and internationally recognized, they remain to be factual and real.
In Syria and Iraq, as the territory of ISIS is shrinking, no one is to know yet what will be the final border lines between what is left of ISIS. What is clear about Syria and Iraq however, is that the new dividing lines, ie borders between them and any other implant state that the USA is trying so hard to create, is not going to be a sectarian divide. If the USA succeeds in creating further subdivisions to Greater Syria, this time the division will be drawn on ethnic grounds; not sectarian.
The creation of a Kurdish state, God forbid, would be a devastating blow for Syria, but its ramifications and repercussions will not go as far as Jakarta and Nouakchott as a Sunni-Shiite war can.
In between the mess and mental rubble however, there seems to be a faint glimmer of light. To this effect, it seems that we are about to witness a significant politico-strategic change in the Middle East. Old lines of defence and alliance seem to be beginning to fade away and become redundant, all the while new ones are just beginning to push their noses out of the water and emerge.
Even though the last few years leading up to this particular moment in time have given the premonition that the new dividing line was going to be a Muslim sectarian Sunni/Shiite divide, one that could bring out a massive blood bath that the Muslim World has not seen the likes of at all, in a twist of fate, events of the last week are possibly pointing at a change in direction; and this could mean good news down the track.
In his recent infamous visit to Saudi Arabia and clinching a third of a trillion dollar arms deal with Saudi Arabia, a deal that is aimed at extorting the most possible out of Al-Saud and pouring oil on fire, American President Trump has in fact dug the first nail in the coffin of the Sunni-NATO-to-be before its inception.
Ironically, as the Sunni-NATO is meant to be placed into the incubator, NATO itself seems to be on its way to the intensive care unit.
With the EU leaders steadfastly defiant to Trump’s attempts for extortion, there is enough reason to foresee what can come next. But let us stay in the Middle East and leave the USA/EU relationships alone, or can we?
Turkey, both a NATO member and a Middle Eastern nation, is a Sunni Muslim nation, a major regional power, and no regional deal is going to pass without its endorsement or at least tacit support. At the present time however, Turkey, embodied by its hardline Islamist nationalist “sultan” Erdogan, does not know if its relationship with NATO is coming or going. Judging by his actions, Erdogan seems to be prepared to accept that it is “going”, and he is making all the provisions, lining up his troops and options, and preparing himself and Turkey for a divorce from NATO, should he see this necessary. To this effect, Erdogan and his current NATO partners all know that unlike the time when Turkey joined NATO out of need, NATO now needs Turkey more than Turkey needs NATO and the decision for Turkey to be in NATO or to leave is one that is Turkish.
The once joint American-EU-Turkish-Israeli-Saudi-Qatari plot against Syria has failed as a result of the resolve of the Syrian Army, Syrian leadership, and friends of Syria; mainly Russia and Iran. Erdogan, who once aimed to pray at the Omayad Mosque in Damascus now sees himself getting bullied into accepting a Kurdish state south of his border; courtesy of his former anti-Syrian Allies, and existing NATO partners.
To deaf Obama ears, and more deaf Trump ears, Turkey has screamed loud that America has to choose between its partnership with Turkey and the Kurds, but to no avail.
It is not by accident therefore that Turkey has decided to send troops to Qatar. Erdogan is trying to present a new redline for the USA (his partner) and the Saudis (his friends) after his first Kurdish redline has been breached, or almost.
But there is more to Erdogan’s move towards Qatar. He is replacing Iran as a supporter for the now besieged Principality that exports gas and imports everything else; including water. In doing this, he (the Sunni) is absolving Iran (the Shiite) from coming to Qatar’s (Sunni) aid with its conflict against (Sunni) Saudi Arabia.
Is this the beginning towards a new direction of a religious-political Middle Eastern paradigm in which alliances take precedence over sectarianism? Does this mean that the worst dreaded of all Middle Eastern all-out Sunni/Shiite wars is going to be put to bed and that the potentially warring members are now going to see reality from a new pragmatic and rational vantage point?
If we are indeed witnessing the birth of a new wave of political alliances in the Middle East, we must brace ourselves to expect what was yesterday the least expected.
The way events are shaping up now, and this can change before this article gets published or even before its proverbial ink dries, in the not too distant future, new alliances are beginning to take form, and if they do, we are likely to end up with the following ideologically and strategically united teams:
1. Team One: America/NATO, Israel, Saudi Arabia, UAE and perhaps Egypt.
2. Team Two: Russia, Syria, Iran, Hezbollah, Turkey, Qatar and perhaps Egypt.
The emergence of such alliances is wrought with danger and potential conflict, but nothing could be worse for the Muslim world than an open ended sectarian war and a license for Sunnis and Shiites to exterminate each other.
Egypt is likely to be the wild card that can go either way. The biggest shock in all of this will be, if it happens, a Turkish rapprochement in terms of finding the right balance in between being a regional power and former colonial, a Sunni regional major power, a defiant party in accepting the establishment of a Kurdish state (or two) to the south of its borders, a NATO member, a Muslim Brotherhood supporter, a friend of Saudi Arabia, a good neighbour and trading partner of Iran, a friend of Russia, a prime mover in the “War on Syria” in many more ways than one, and a sovereign state. These are too many balls to juggle. Is maverick Erdogan up to the task?
Erdogan is a very stubborn man, but he will soon need to realise that his long-term interests are in coming down from his ivory tower and making peace with Assad, if Assad accepts him.
In reality, Erdogan deserves to be left out in the cold, just like Qatar, and Assad perhaps should not accept any of the leaders coming back for redemption even if they come back on their knees and pleading. But sometimes, political pragmatism may dictate otherwise.
If Erdogan and some Muslim Arab leaders are indeed waking up to the need of abandoning their sectarian associations, there is little evidence that they are replacing them with rationality and an intention to reform their own minds and the minds of the masses who follow them. However, any step away from sectarian divisions and a sectarian bloodbath is a move in the right direction.
Irrespective of the intentions of Arab and Muslim leaders, in the confusion they are creating, the mess and contradictions, they are inadvertently presenting to their followers and the world the invalidity and danger of their argument. They are giving the message for those who have minds to think among their flocks that the sectarian rhetoric has failed. Such a revelation should be most revealing for members of the masses who never were able to think outside that sectarian square that was impregnated in their minds by their leaders and the preachers that their leaders appointed and paid handsomely to brainwash them.
At the end of the day, what seems to be an impending Sunni-Shiite holocaust is not necessarily an unavoidable future fact. It can be avoided, and even Sunni fundamentalists like Erdogan are beginning to see that his interests are not necessarily aligned with his “Sunni brothers”.
Will Muslims take heed and learn from the religious wars of Europe? Are we seeing he early signs of an awakening? Within and around the trouble-stirring state of Qatar, that was quick to send its air-force to ravage Libya and to herald the failed Arab Spring, will the current events be fated to instigate a “real” Muslim spring? Time will tell.
Great article Ghassan – I hope you’re right about a new ME – its common sense –
And I like the sentence about the juggling Erdogan – I hope he’s up to the task – he’s created it –
its true that Turkey is all those things – but has a dark shadow that perhaps could be lifted somehow – then it would be true 21st century peacekeeper –
Thank you Ghassan for a most interesting analysis.
And who benefits the most in this confrontation? Certainly not the Muslim world – they are the biggest victims. I am sure that many in the Muslim world realize that some of their “friends” are not interested in their well-being. The US and Israel come to mind. We all know that these two exploit the sectarian divisions, play one nation against another and profit from all this in the meantime. The Muslim world (and the Christian world as well) should unite and truly expose the evil that is manipulating them. Pax Americana is coming to an end and Pax Judaïca is manifesting itself.
That is surely why the USA was so eager to bring down secular governments.
US writers make a point of labeling Assad as a member of the Alawite minority, as though this means something a priori, namely the terms are put in place for the reader to complete the proposition: Minority oppressing majority.
The sectarian meme is employed everywhere in the West while the selfsame people find pretexts to destroy secular governments, wielding sectarian passions as weapons.
In Syria, the ancient Christian community has become “collateral damage” to the religious fanatics’ crusade or do they call it a Crescade?
When will the Muslims get wise to this dynamic?????
Their national and communal aspirations are best served by separating mosque and state.
The problem with Erdogan is that he has always sought to reinsert religion into the governance of Turkey after it was eliminated by Ataturk. Hopefully he will ease back on that throttle.
Katherine
Yes, the “sectarian meme” is a pillar of globalist Zionism. The narrative of “a powerless, oppressed minority” being persecuted within a legitimate nationstate (Kosovars, Kurds) is a key tool of their neocolonial wars.
Thanks for your insights on these topics. Yes, the impending Sunni-Shiite “holocaust” certainly can be avoided, along with another monster that many folks (at least in the US) appear to be anticipating, the “battle of Armageddon”. For one word that occurs in one verse, in one chapter, in one book of the bible, I am absolutely amazed at how many radically different interpretations have been conjured up out of “Armageddon” (and the entire book of Revelation, for that matter) ! God is not the author of confusion. Consider this: If “Armageddon” did not happen, if the hard work of diplomacy and common sense triumphed over an age-old twisting of “prophecy”, would people be disappointed? Currently, I’m working my way through the Controversy of Zion by Douglas Reed, available on-line. WOW……I know that holy people all around the world are praying for a lasting peace. There is incredible power in prayer.
Hi,
Douglas Reed’s book starts out good, basically an indictment on Talmudism, but then seems to apologetic for it.
If you want a great revealing book, read ‘The New History of the Jews’ by the great Eustace Mullins.
Mr. Reed entirely overlooked a major factor about todays Talmud persuaded adherents. That they basically come from the north Caucus Mountains in southern Russia. They had a kingdom at one point called Khazaria. They were a barbarous, treacherous, nefarious people who in essence worshiped the phallus until their king for whatever reason adopted the Jewish religion and everyone followed suite. Problem is, these meatheads chose the rantings and sick and crazy rantings of demented Levite rabbi’s found in the Talmud, to supercede the laws of Moses.
These said Khazar bandits later became todays Russian Jews, Ashkanzi and also the overwhelming majority of the west’s Jews. Judiasm for most of these folks is just a name, when in actuality, many reverted back to their old practices. Many Jews in the west are actually atheist. And Zionism, a recent manifestation and a bastard of Talmudic thinking, sprung its ugly head on the world. 90% of Jews worldwide are not semitic, but anti-Semitic, by the way they treat their fellow human semites, the Arabs. Twisted isn’t it. But the Quran says that there will come a day when everything is turned upside down. Truth is falsehood,vice versa, a pious man is a scoundrel,vice versa etc.
Slavic and Islamic historical chronicles speak and detail the Khazar people and their animalistic, bloodlusting and diabolical traits. Islamic armies were frequently sent to deal with this menace, and the Russ fought bitterly against them. Maybe that’s the reason they want to bring down Russia so bad. Perhaps they want a greater Israel, and their old Kingdom back.
Anyways, happy reading.
I find it interesting that you say this about Douglas Reed’s book. I had my eyes opened more to what Jews were doing in the world than any other. I have read more of his books and the same theme runs through them. Political Jews are a problem wherever they go.
“That feud was restricted to exchanges of words and accusations, and blood was not spilt until after the infamous “Coalition of the Willing” invaded Iraq and toppled Saddam…”
And what of the 8 years of war imposed on Iran (1980-1988) by Saddam Hussein?
That war – Iranians refer to it as The Sacred Defence – which claimed the lives of at least 1M on either side was very much a Sunni -Shia confrontation, and Saddam Hussein flushed with Gulf money pursued that war along those lines.
So I dont think we can just discount that event and jump to one that came after to find the first modern instance of Sunni-Shia violence.
As a matter of fact, Saddam Hussein to some extent, invaded Kuwait because he felt that the Sunni Gulf countries were somewhat ungrateful about what Iraq had done on their behalf in confronting a seemingly expansionist Shia Iran.
Lebanon’s Civil War (1975-1990) was also fought along sectarian lines, its just that it was not confined to just Sunni and Shia because several others like the Maronite Christians and the Druzes were also involved in the conflict.
The author did signal the end of the nonviolent period as happening “towards the end of the 20th century.”
Whoever runs SA didn’t do well in Syria and Jemen and turns on a small och weak country. Something is wrong at the top in SA.
Qatar gets food from Iran and consults Russia about food shipments. That doesn’t look like a victory for SA.
Qatar is being blamed for what SA has been doing and many Muslims understand that. Another loss for SA. How long will the prince be allowed to rule in the background? There have been power fights in the past.
I thought Kurdistan was supposed to give birth to Greater Syria through federalization, not tear it apart? I read that right here on this site from that author last year. What changed?
http://thesaker.is/kurdish-autonomy-partition-or-master-plan/
“At the end of the day, what seems to be an impending Sunni-Shiite holocaust is not necessarily an unavoidable future fact.”
You are reading too much Zionist fake news, Ghassan. This stuff is neurotoxic and blurs your vision. It has to be handled like radioactive material – the less direct exposure, the better.
How could there be a Sunni-Shite Holocaust?
Holocaust (Shoah) is by definition a very kosher affair. Even if Sunnis and Shias would kill each other to the insane degree Zion’s schemers have planned for – and they won’t – it would amount to nothing more than a silly, bloody, genocidal massacre, but never could it be exalted to the high eschatological status of a holy Holocaust. How said George Carlin? “It is a big club, and you ain’t in it.”
Please let us stop calling these zionist/satanist killers “jihadists” they’re not. They are “jahanamists” or hellbound. The real jihadists who are fighting to save humanity from satanic hegemony are the russians and the iranians.This is from a sunni mslm
Nice analysis,mr. Kadi. Thank you for that.
However, I don’t see a Sunni-Shia war happening, though certain actors in that area might want that. Iran is not interested in invading, though I think they would wipe away the Saudi’s in weeks. But remember that Saudi Arabia is fully militarily protected by the USA (as part of the ‘deal of the century’ that created the petrodollar).
In the reverse, an attack on Iran by Sunni forces, combined with the US forces, might not be that good an idea either. The Saker has written a long analysis about that.
My guess is that the Kurdish awakening, combined with the Turkish ambitions and a sometimes unpredictable Erdogan (the ‘sultan of swing’) are more of concern.
Best greetings, Rob
What about the many Ottoman-Savafid wars? I suppose one might downplay the importance of sectarianism in causing those, but it was surely a factor (at least in justifying the wars to the respective polities).
Exactly. Thanks. Ghassan Kadi. Time for the house of Usher, oops, Saud to fall and for voices who speak for the true needs of the umma to be heard.
I’m a Sunni Muslim, and I have no problem with my Shiite co-religionists. Nor do I know of any Sunni Muslim who does.
I think this article is a bit exaggerating. There wont be some kind of open war on a broad scale between the Sunni’s and Shiite’s . Maybe Saudi Arabia and Iran disagree politically, but the ‘thing’ between Sunni’s and Shiite’s is really political issue within both houses of Islam. Its a disagreement about the ascendency after Prophet Muhammed passed. The overwhelming majority of Muslims could care less, as long as we have our 5 pillars of faith and the holy Quran, which we both share. It isn’t necessarily a difference in theology, but maybe some differences in jurisprudence of the Sunni and Shiite branches.
The common Muslim , unless they are Wahabbi or hard-core Salafi, sees beyond the issue, which is really irrelevant today.
Shiite’s and Sunni’s in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan have been inter-marrying one another for centuries. Together living in harmony.
Saudi Arabia and the Wahabbi’s feel threatened by a rising pivot, a regional power, Iran. But the overwhelming majority of ‘traditional’ Muslims don’t.
Saudi Arabia does not have a wide following and is not popular with Muslims as far as the House of Saud, their Wahabbi ideology and backwards customs and culture go. In other words, the ‘Muslim Street’ is not going to hop on board the Saudi agenda against the Shiite. The opposite is true, since Saud’s
frolicking with the Zionist entity(Israel) is coming to full light for the whole world to see.
There might be some proxy conflicts between Iran and the House of Saud, but neither are in a position to openly go to full war. Its just not going to happen.
Btw, the one hundred year agreement (strategic alliance) between the House of Saud and the U.S. , in which Saudi Arabia is to provide cheap oil for protection of the royal throne has just about ended. Now with Trump in Saudia Arabia recently , both he and the House of Saud signed off on another ‘strategic alliance’ , only this time around, it has been , and will continue to be a pricey proposition for Saudi Arabia. Only God knows if the new agreement is for another one hundred years.
Salam
Another reason the Muslim worlds Shiite and Sunni’s , the average regular people that is, wont go to war is this.
During the Iraq war, from 2003 onwards there have been massive terrorist bomb attacks on both the communities of the Shiite and Sunnis’ in Iraq, Baghdad in particular. Savage explosions which seemed tit for tat. Instead of all out war on the streets of Iraq, both Sunni and Shiite clergy led massive marches in solidarity against division and discord. Regular folks, whether Sunni or Shiite could care less about the war of words between the governments of Saudi Arabia and Iran.
As for those car bombs that were going off regularly in Iraq, designed to set of a cataclysmic civil-religious war, I would wager my best camel it was the work of the CIA and Mossad.
The first thing a crime investigator asks, is ‘who benefits the most’. Well, of course Israel. The Mossads own motto is : ‘By Way Of Deception, Thou Shalt Make War’. Right from the horses mouth. What else do we need to be convinced the Zionists are behind, and /or are trying to force discord between Shiite’s and Sunni Muslims. It didn’t work, and wont work now.
Also, months ago, I stopped by a car dealership, and one of the salesmen was from Iraq. We got to talking and I asked him non-chalantly if he was Shiite or Sunni, he replied that whats most important is we are Muslim, not this or that, based on an issue raised 1400 years ago. I shook his hand again and told him ‘ Thank you, well said’.
@BM
While I like the article, I do not think that an average Muslim, whatever the creed may be wants to fight each other. Syria before 2011 is an example. All the problems are created by the outside forces.
As for those car bombs that were going off regularly in Iraq, designed to set of a cataclysmic civil-religious war, I would wager my best camel it was the work of the CIA and Mossad.
I do remember reading a convincing and seemingly authoritative piece a few years back documenting pretty much exactly what you say.
No, I didn’t save a link – but filed in my “who would do that”? skeptic world view……. But now realise yes, there are indeed “agencies” that do exactly this.
Gladio B
how many false flags?
I read an account just recently of the 1993 “Russian spring” _ with witnesses attesting to snipers atop the American Embassy “taking out” people from both sides.
This strategy is used again and again and again. _ Maiden_ Damascus _ anywhere civil unrest serves the purpose….
I think Qatar has just been bullied by the big boys in the neighborhood. They’ve tried to please everyone by supporting the big boys’ pet projects around the region, hoping to stay safe. They’ve now been forced to take sides. That’s what this is all about. There’s a plethora of sides to this, but the former top dog and big bully is of course the house of Saud. The King is dead, the ruler is senile and his prince is a hothead warmonger.. All the deals were made with the elders, as long as they lived the deals could be relied on. It’s all about a man’s word. Those deals were made man to man. If the one you made the deal with is no longer alive, there’s no deal anymore.
“Will Muslims take heed and learn from the religious wars of Europe? ”
The short answer is, no. The long answer is much more complicated. It took Europe several centuries of Protestant-Catholic wars before a “more or less” co-existence came about. I think there have been more “wars” than the author acknowledges between Sunni and Shia. The Ottoman-Safavid wars were mostly based on the Sunni-Shia divide. The Ottomans even massacred thousands of Shia tribesmen inside their territory for fear of them siding with the Safavid Shia Persian rulers.And likewise the Safavid slaughtered those in Persian territory (Iran) that were Sunni to enforce their rule. Then we saw the Wahhabi Saudis in the 18th Century butcher Shia in attacks in Iraq. Merely because they were Shia. Throughout the Muslim World every so often terrorists attack the Shia. Blowing up Shia gathering and Mosques countless times.And now the Wahhabi dominated jihadis attack any Shia they can find.There seems in today’s World much fewer attacks against Sunni in Shia states.
The biggest problem (as I see it) in Muslim countries is a “lack of nationalism”,as strange as that might seem to say. In the “old” Christian World (up until probably the 15th Century) a person’s religion placed them in a society. Starting in that period and onward. A person’s language and ethnicity started to replace religion as determining a “nation”. So that in the most divided region of Europe,the German lands.People were able to be accepted as “German” whether they were Catholic or Protestant.That came to be true in the Netherlands,Britain,France,Hungary,as well.Only in countries not able to overcome the religious divide did/do we see problems. The biggest example would be old Yugoslavia.
In the Muslim World they have yet to fully embrace that change.In the past all Muslims were considered as one. Which is way the struggle to decide “which Muslim sect” was “really Muslim” was so important. There “has” been some progress,but not nearly enough. In Syria (Greater Syria) progressive groups before independence realized that problem.And some of the founders of the Baath movement,and the PLO embraced all religious groups as their fellow citizens.In fact some of founding figures in those groups were “Christian Arabs”. Iran (Persia),and Turkey also seem to have moved further along. In that Iranians and Turks aren’t Arab. And so have been able to define more of a “national” identity than in Arab and Arabized countries.
Until and unless Muslims in Arab states are able to accept all fellow Arabs,Sunni,Shia,Christian,Druze,etc,as their own people and equal citizens.Then we won’t see peace between those peoples.They aren’t there yet.In a few states,most especially Syria and Palestine,they are far along.But in the others it will take a lot more. To begin with the Sunni need to publicly acknowledge Shiaism as a equal form of Islam. That alone would stop a lot of the inner religious warfare. The Shia already acknowledge Sunnism as Islamic,so that doesn’t need to be done. I’m not saying the two groups will suddenly “love and respect” each other. They don’t have to do that (even Christians don’t do that among their sects). But they “do” have to tolerant the free practice of different forms of Islam.That is a “litmus test” for a society in the 21st Century to be considered as legitimate.
What about catholic engineered genocide against.ortodox Christians in.Europe? 1941 and as recent as 1990. Or that perhaps doesn’t count?
I see you are interested in making trouble. And I have no time for your BS. If you knew anything about me you’d know that only historical facts am I interested in. I mentioned Yugoslavia as one country that never was able to overcome their religious divide and form an ethnic non-religious society. That ended up destroying them.They are an example of what “not” to do. But that is all that needs to be said about that by me.
Back when it was happening, the website “Polyconomics.com” exposed information about how the IMF (International Monetary Fund) and the World Bank were deliberately driving the Yugoslav “market socialism” economy into the ground in an “economic hit man” operation. At the time, the late Jude Wanniski, owner of the polyconomics.com website, blamed a western aversion to something with “socialism” in the name, thus driving people who were otherwise willing to tolerate each other for the sake of economic co-operation into ethnic and religious conflict as they were ground down into poverty. Actually, it has been subsequently shown that western lust for getting a hold of the Gold and mineral wealth of Kosovo played a large part.
Finding out about this at the time was one of my first “red pills” in beginning to learn of the corruption and control of the Western Elites and Deep State.
Yes,that is correct. The West played off the division in the country,and made it much worse. My point was that the non-acceptance of religious sides by the other side was what gave the West the ability to sow that division. Among the Croats,Bosnians ,and Serbs almost the only division was religious. They all come from similar ethnic peoples. Their dialects are even closer to each other than Rus ones are to each other. But the religious issue was what made a Serb a Serb,a Croat a Croat,and a Bosniak a Bosniak. Hundreds of years ago places like Dubrovnik and all Southern Dalmatia was considered to be inhabited by Serb tribes. But once the religious schism divided the Christian Balkans. Those Roman Catholic Slavs started to class themselves as Croats. Something similar happened in Bosnia. Religion divided the Slavs there into different peoples,based not on ethnicity,but on religion.Unlike in most of Western Europe that after centuries was able to accept religious differences within the same “nationality”. The Yugoslavs inability to union into one people was the wedge the West needed to divide them.
What do you mean by I am interested in making trouble? It is a genuine question! This is no BS my friend. Yougoslavia was communist and therefore non-religious as you put it. It was great, I grew up there. You are not interested in historical facts. If you are you would know that what took place was a genocide agains Christian ortodox (Serbian) people between 1941 and 1945 and most recently the ethnic cleansing of the same and that to remedy anything there would have to be an acknowledgment of that fact. In a very communist fashion it is easier for you to apportion the blame, little bit here, little bit there. Didums , if only those pesky Yugoslavs would come to there senses and be good to each other. Think about the fact that an ignoramus is like yourself provides a handy cover for the real perpetrators of the tragedy.
Yugoslavia was “officially” non-religious as a communist state. But everyone there knew exactly what they were in the religious sphere. Serbs knew they were Orthodox,Croats Catholic,and Bosniaks Muslim. And that counted far more than being “Yugoslav” citizens. So that at the fall of communism they retook their old identities without any trouble at all. And the old religious feuds were rekindled. I really hate debating the Balkans.The closed mindedness is horrible. Everyone only thinks of their own group,without a thought of the other (except to hate them that is). And anyone that disagrees “has to be ignorant”. No matter how much they’ve studied the region. If they disagree with one group or the other they “have to be ignorant”.I think I know why you broke apart now. It had to only be “me,me”,and never “us”.
Oh, you mean that cleansing…….executed by general Mladic, Slobodan Milosevic, Radovan Karadzic, Biljana Plavsic, Dobrica Cosic and other anti-serbian extremists and traitors and butchers of entire Balkans….
Yeah, thank you for the official CNN & BBC narrative. How informative.
Reply to Z:
I think I got your gist, even though you didn’t spell it out, being that the Vatican itself was actively pushing for expulsion and genocide of the nominally Orthodox Christian Serbs. I don’t want to go all Ian Paisley on the British readership, but the Vatican pretty much got off scott free from having any light shone on its role in the Balkans.
It is relevant to this site, to the extent that to understand the world today, we have to recognise those dynamics and agendas which are still very much alive and kicking, even if polite company considers it inappropriate to touch certain themes.
Sorry, but your comment ….. ad hominem statement removed … please note we are here to discuss events and ideas … mod-hs
It plays right into what some outside nefarious forces are trying to precisely design. I firmly believe that the vast overwhelming majority of Muslims don’t discriminate along sectarian lines like the author and you would have us believe.
Yes, there have been clashes in the past, but that goes for all religions and creeds and ethnicities. I would be more worried about a Hindu-Muslim conflict breaking out in large scale in India, than I would about a present day conflict between the Shiite and Sunni.
Btw, Al-Azhar University in Cairo has acknowledged Shiitism as a legitament branch of Islam, just like Sufi’s for example.
There is no Shiite – Sunni ideological and/or sectarian conflict nor will there ever be one, no matter how hard Tel-Aviv-London-Washington-Saudi try to push for one.
You are right that the Muslim-Hindu risk of strife in India is very concerning (as is the Muslim oppression in Myanmar). But this article and my comment wasn’t about India’s Hindu-Muslim strife. It was about the Sunni-Shia dispute. And you are correct that probably the majority of Sunni and Shia aren’t involved in this strife. But that isn’t the problem.Its the leaderships and jihadi groups that push this strife. The constant strife we see today is not something in the past. Its a problem today in 2017. I don’t see Protestant sects bombing Catholic gatherings and Churches. And I don’t see Catholics slaughtering Protestants for being Protestant. So I see nothing from the “past” from the strife between Protestants and Catholics being played out today in our World.Before someone brings up Ireland,the dispute there is more about “nationality” than it is religious.Many people on the IRA side are secular. And in Irish anti-British history some of the leaders on the Irish side were actually Protestants.So there is little to compare that situation with the Sunni-Shia strife.Only in the Balkans can there be any comparison. And I’ve already named that area as having the same kind of inability to solve their national identity outside of their religious identity. You say that Al Azhar has acknowledged Shiaism. That is good of course. But the Iranian government itself has talked about the need for the Shia faith to be acknowledged in the Sunni majority states.So I don’t think they believe that statement by Al Azhar was enough.
In the Western Christian world there is only coexistence because Anglo protestants were successful in balkanizing the Spanish Catholic empire as well as the fact that France(another Latin Catholic country) was very much influenced by English liberalism. The Bourbon dynasty spread this type of thinking to Spain and from there to Spanish America. Anyway that coexistence in place among Western Europeans is virtually meaningless when most of those southern euro countries are clearly at a disadvantage in relation to the north. If Spain and Spanish America were to create their own economic and political sphere then it would destabilize Europe even more then it already is(EU project will fail to bad those Germans pay little attention to Bismarck who said “Europe is a geographic expression”). In order to have a more multipolar world, Europe must go back to meaning what it always meant 1) a Phoenician princess 2) a huge Eurasian peninsula. Europe as a concept must be destroyed.
In particular the states of ,Syria,Iraq,Iran,and most especially Turkey need to wake up. The biggest danger to their existence is not ISIS and their like (though they are a big problem). The biggest danger is the US/Israeli plot to remake the Middle East. They want to dismember all of those states.And create a stooge Kurdish state out of sections of all 4 states. They also want a “Sunnistan” out of Eastern Syria and Western Iraq.
Some might say why would I think that? Well,because the US has admitted it themselves. They published a map of the Middle East they “want to see”.And that map has been used in US regime supported colleges studying the Middle East. How anyone in those countries that oppose those changes can’t understand the danger they face leaves me shocked. Turkey in particular should be terrified.That their “supposed” NATO ally plots to dismember their nation.That should leave them horrified,at the very least. (And the Saudis should look at their fate as well).
http://orientalreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/new-map.jpg
Uncle Bob is a Genius….
But Seriously….he got it all right….
He seems like he only adult in the room here……
It is “fraught” with danger, not “wrought with danger”. Wrought is a strong imperfect of work, but is never used except poetically or in expressions. Fraught means filled, as a ship full of cargo [‘vracht’].
Here, this about sums it up.
http://en.farsnews.com/newstext.aspx?nn=13960323001591
It’s encouraging to me that the Muslim posters in this thread seem to reject the idea of large-scale Shia-Sunni conflict. We constantly hear that “Shia and Sunnis have been killing each other for 400 years (or other large number)”. Thus war is meant to be perceived as inevitable and to paint the Muslim world as essentially crazed savages that cannot be reasoned with.
Regarding the Iran-Iraq war as being a Shia-Sunni conflict, I don’t recall this to be the case. It seems to me that the conflict was motivated by territorial acquisition (or recapture) from the Iraq side (Shatt al-Arab). From the Iran side, I recall the objection was a personal enmity towards Saddam Hussein seen as a Baath secularist on the part of the Ayatollah Khomeini.
Sunni shia strife was caysed and pkotted by none other than the english nation of englNd.
All plots were made by the english and saudi is their vassal anyway.
As a Sunni Muslim, if you ask me which one current world leader I hate the most and love the most, I would say I hate the Saudi Leadership, especially King Salman with a passion and I would spit on his treacherous face. He is way above the Bushes, the Obamas, the blairs, the Clintons and other fraudsters and “leaders” of the western world since Salman and his cabal are hyprocites to the core. Only Ron Paul is one leader with Integrity in the west. And there are many many Sunnis like myself who hate these hypocritical bas***** like the Saudi “leaders” and their other oil rich “friends” to the curb
And no current world leader today is more dear to me (and I believe to so many people with Integrity around the world) than Vladimir Putin. May God help him, may he keep him safe, may he give him more insight and courage. And may he the hand of God to save the world from tyranny and oppression that is raging through the world destroying so many nations, peoples explicitly and implicitly, the kind of which the world has never seen before since the real actors are all behind the scenes. Amen