Will the Alawis rebel against their one time hero Assad?

a reply to: enlightenedservant


I think you are confusing Wahhabis with the Muslim Brotherhood.

They pretty much control all those groups, Wahhabis stay in S.A. mostly.

And that is who they effect, Saudis and the rest of the peninsula. When not busy appearing on FOX NEWS.

You sound like you get your information from Christian fanatical fundamentalists who don't know water from wine.

I have deduced that your complaint is my statement about Wahhabis which I even may have said before are with Salafis they still aren't the same sect, just have common goals.

So Salafis don't count as Wahhabis.

And you would have said this because I said Russia would be the problem in taking out Assad and that Wahhabis would not be, also true.

originally posted by: Disturbinatti
a reply to: enlightenedservant

All I want is peace in Syria.

My thread is saying that the Mid East needs to set aside religous differences and unite against the despotic western puppet masters.

And that I would forgive the Alawi if they turn on Assad.

What's not true about that?

If you want the Middle East to set aside religious differences why do you want one of the last secular leaders removed from power?

The US and their NATO allies have systematically destroyed secularism in the middle east. Removing Al-Assad is the final nail in the coffin.

a reply to: Disturbinatti

LOL I'm not confusing Wahhabis and the Muslim Brotherhood. I'm an actual Muslim and my Dad's an Imam who has many Salafi associates. In fact, the mosque that I celebrated last Eid al-Fitr at had probably 50% or more Wahhabis in attendance, and that was right here in America! (Usually I go to a different mosque that has a much more diverse congregation of Muslims). So I think you might be barking up the wrong tree here, especially with the "Wahhabis stay in Saudi Arabia" bit. ETA: Not to mention, Qatar is also Wahhabi-controlled but I guess you never read up on that, even though you're acting like you're an expert on it.

And for the record, Wahhabis consider themselves Salafis but not all Salafis consider themselves Wahhabis. That's why I typed "Wahhabi-Salafis" to make sure I was talking about the Wahhabi-versions.

Oh & I notice you ignored everything I said about Syria's new 2012 constitution & Assad being democratically elected in 2014. Why? Why won't you simply acknowledge that Assad is the legitimate leader of Syria, literally chosen by the Syrian people, and that the "rebels" don't care one bit about the will of the Syrian people? They want to scrap the Syrian constitution that was voted on by the Syrian people and depose the president who was elected by the Syrian people.

As an actual Muslim, I'm tired of all of the fighting and killing over there. They should be able to talk it out and figure out a solution that way. Encouraging more fighting right before Ramadan starts is effin ridiculous!

a reply to: Ohanka

Exactly. Our "interventions" have been constantly getting rid of the secular govts not helping them, but I guess we're supposed to ignore that.

a reply to: Ohanka

What is so great about secularism or Assad?

He has killed hundreds of thousands of people since 2011, your secular hero.

Secularism doesn't equal peace in the Middle East my very disturbed friend, and tyrants need to be taken out.

Especially puppet dictators who don't value human life.

originally posted by: Disturbinatti
a reply to: Ohanka

What is so great about secularism or Assad?

Well what's so bad about secularism and Al-Assad?

a reply to: Disturbinatti

Secularism allows every religious group to exist equally. Once a government favors a specific religion as a source of its laws, it creates opportunities for religious oppression and discrimination. And even then, it still must decide which interpretation of that religion to favor, which only creates even more opportunities for religious oppression and discrimination.

Will the theocratic Saudis allow Shiites to control their religious laws? Why or why not? Will theocratic Catholics allow Protestants to control their religious based laws? Why or why not?

originally posted by: Ohanka

originally posted by: Disturbinatti
a reply to: Ohanka

What is so great about secularism or Assad?

Well what's so bad about secularism and Al-Assad?

I responded late, see my last comment and others before it to know what I think about secularism.

It causes intolerance, in the Middle East and elsewhere.

You think it means religous freedom but it just opens doors for tyrannical persecution of religion.


Which is in Muslim countries, Muslims, as well as Christians and many diverse sects that have existed for a long time.

It's not necessary or good for the Middle East, you think it is because you don't have a clue.

a reply to: Ohanka


Islam before westernization and colonization was a tolerant culture, despite the lies you have been fed.

It was the Ottoman Empire who took in the survivers of the Spanish genocide of 1492, mostly Jews but Muslims too.

It was Islam that protected Judaism from Christian persecution, giving them 1400 years of sanctuary in a land where even Christians didn't hate them.

You just don't know.

Not like I would expect a supporter of a man who has killed hundreds of thousands of people since 2011 to understand...anything.

a reply to: Disturbinatti

Has he though? You know there is a war on you know. Is he supposed to just hand over his country to the Islamic State? I don't think that would be great for the people of Syria. Especially not the Christians, Shi'ites, Alawis, Kurds, Druze, the majority of Sunnis who support the government...

Al-Assad is the democratically elected leader and enjoys widespread support. If the people of Syria did not support him he would be gone by now. No man of sound mind would willingly surrender his country & people to the foreign mercenaries and radical terrorists that comprise the "moderate" opposition.

a reply to: Ohanka


Assad killed hundreds of thousands of people since 2011.

Do I need to repeat that?

His father was leader before him, that's not democracy and if you believe it is, hilarious.

a reply to: Ohanka

If you can find an excuse for that I pity you.

That's what secularism looks like in a country that isn't secular, it's religous for thousands of years and Muslim for 1400.

Changing cultures to suit the style of your own is a form of tyranny. Unless they want it. They want change, but not your version.

a reply to: Disturbinatti

And once again you completely ignore the new 2012 constitution which made presidential elections in Syria democratic. And you also completely ignore the 2014 election where Assad was reelected.

Tell us this, what type of govt will the "rebels" implement in Syria if they win? And how will the Syrian citizens have a say in that process?

a reply to: Disturbinatti

Yes people die in a war. What else?

Indeed his father was leader. He had his fair share of trouble with terrorists as well. The Muslim Brotherhood didn't have too much success back then.

The Syrian Parliament instituted constitutional reforms in 2012 (complying with the original demands of the "protesters"), the opposition terror campaign continued because they didn't want constitutional reform at all, they simply want a theocracy, and Al-Assad went on to be elected in 2014.

Hell it's Russia who supports Assad.

America is supposed to be fighting him.

Someone is really confused or Russian.

Do many Russians use ATS?

a reply to: Ohanka

That's how you feel about death, huh?

He's a war criminal.

Not a hero. Do you know anything?

a reply to: Disturbinatti

Are the Russians not supposed to help their allies in their time of need?

What exactly does America gain through confrontation with the Russians?

a reply to: Ohanka


Not if there allies are war criminals, no.

Helping them makes them guilty buy association and accessories after the fact, ethically if not legally speaking.

a reply to: Ohanka


And I never suggested America confront Russia so why are you asking about it like I did?

originally posted by: Disturbinatti
a reply to: Ohanka


Not if there allies are war criminals, no.

Do you have any examples of war crimes committed by the Syrians that can be verified by a non-biased, independent source?

Of course i'm sure there are one or two, no side is clean in war. But I suspect what you have is either exaggerated or lies. Like the "last hospital in Aleppo" or the ridiculously nonsensical "chemical attacks" they would have us believe.

Incidentally I can provide you with literally countless examples of evidence of war crimes committed by the moderate opposition. They're not very nice people after all.

I've never seen a single example of Syrian soldiers raping little girls and beheading children. How many slave markets does the Syrian Arab Republic operate?