McCain picking sides in Syria

Most Americans have little idea of which and where different countries are in the Middle East. Most know that many people in the Middle East are Muslims; but think that they are a minority in the world and can be changed to Christians with a little gunpowder.


McCain seems not to mind pushing war. After a few decades, he can't help knowing that Sunni and Shi'a are willing to fight forever. VP Biden suggested allowing Iraq to split apart into separate governments of Sunni (60%) and Shi'a (40%). Iraq's present bombings are a continuation of that old fight. McCain was against splitting them; it's an old tactic of GB and Russia to join difference ethnics and religions to keep them destabilized.


Iran is Shi'a.

The Syrian government is Alawi (12%) and works with Shi'a (13%)

Lebanese Heszbollah is Shi'a.


Syria is 74% Sunni who are the rebels.

Saudi Arabia is Wahabi Sunni.

Turkey is Sunni.


There lies the split between Sunni and Shi'a. and Mc Cain knows it. He's willing to get the US into a war by aligning with Saudi, Turkey, and Syrian rebel Sunni against Iranian, Syrian, and Lebanese Shi'a.


Russia defends Iran and Syria governments to destabilize the region while attracting Iran and much of Iraq. It will makes waves in Cairo with the new President Morsi, and can spread further.


There's a great possiblity of making business for international arms corporations and skim for international bankers on all sides while Muslims do most of the fighting for centuries. The decision to be made is how much of US infrastructure can be devoted to blowing things up halfway around the world instead of fixing US infrastructure and caring for US citizens. The possibility is to starve out and neglect US poor while enhancing the income of upper income recipients.



"The crisis in Syria, observers here said, has become a kind of proxy war in the Sunni-Shia divide.

It was clear at the two-day summit of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) that Iran’s Shiite theocracy is unwavering in its support of the regime of Syrian President Bashar al Assad. Led by an Alawite minority that is considered an offshoot of Shiite Islam, Assad’s regime stepped up its pounding of the opposition, even as the delegates of the 52-nation regional organization were convening.

Meanwhile, the predominantly Sunni nations of Turkey, Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states that attended the summit made it clear they were putting their regional clout and their petro dollars behind the still ill-defined Syrian rebel forces, which are suffering enormous casualties in a war that has already claimed 60,000 lives."

To leave a comment, please sign in with
or or

Comments (1)

  1. Neighsayer

    Thank you for that! Is Egypt among the . . . Sunnis, then?

    May 29, 2013
  2. livelonger

    Morsi won praise from ultra-conservative Sunnis in Egypt who are his key allies and who only days earlier were loudly denouncing his trip to Shiite-majority Iran. For the first time in modern Egyptian history, an Egyptian president hit notes that were music to Salafi ears. Morsi kicked off his address with a salute to Abu Bakr and Omar, the Companions of the Prophet Mohammad and his first successors. Ultra-conservative Salafis despise Shia as heretics. Mentioning these two successors was seen as an implicit snub to Iran: Sunnis revere them, but Shia hate them because they are seen as cheating the man they see as Mohammad’s rightful successor, Ali.

    Historically, as the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt has downplayed religious differences between Shia and Sunni, they have argued that Twelver Shiism should be recognized as an acceptably orthodox school of Islamic jurisprudence. Thus, the Brotherhood effectively serves as a counterbalance to the Wahhabi/Salafi-led campaign to vilify Shiism. In this way, the Brotherhood’s ecumenical approach has helped make Sunni society increasingly more open to Shiite religious proselytizing.

    Still, Morsi’s declarations make it very clear to the Egyptian Shiite community “that change is not around the corner.” Morsi, as his predecessors before him, has adopted a confrontational policy toward the Shiite minority and he (as his predecessors) will not tolerate any affiliation with Iran.

    May 29, 2013
  3. Neighsayer

    right . . . thanks again . . .

    May 29, 2013
  4. livelonger

    A little bit of understanding about the Ba’ath party that started in Syria with thought in Egypt and Iraq. Some might remember that Sadaam Hussain was a member of the Ba’ath Party in Iraq. The party, like the Muslim Brotherhood, wanted to unite both Sunni and Shi’a into pan-Muslim government.
    McCain might or might not understand the difference between Soviet and Ba’ath Socialism; but the word is enough to gain the support of Russia and the resistance of the US. to the Assad regime. Both nations can resist Arab unity in the interest to reduce Muslim power, so supply both sides against the middle. Resistance to Arab unity brings control of oil by arms supplying nations.
    “The party espoused Ba’athism (from البعث Al-Ba’ath or Ba’ath meaning “renaissance” or “resurrection”), which is an ideology mixing Arab nationalist, pan-Arabism, Arab socialist and anti-imperialist interests. Ba’athism calls for unification of the Arab world into a single state. Its motto, “Unity, Liberty, Socialism”, refers to Arab unity, and freedom from non-Arab control and interference."
    “Arab socialism represents a political trend in the Arab world. The intellectual and political influence of Arab socialism peaked during the 1950s and 60s, when it constituted the ideological basis of the Arab Socialist Ba’ath Party, of the Arab Nationalist Movement and, to a lesser extent, of the Nasserist movement.

    For its adherents, Arab socialism was a necessary consequence of the quest for Arab unity and freedom, as only a socialist system of property and development would overcome the social and economic legacy of imperialism and colonialism. At the same time, Arab socialism widely differs from the Eastern Europe and Eastern Asian socialist movements, which were atheist. Unlike their Chinese counterparts, the basis of Arab nationalism is not ostensibly doctrinal, but cultural and spiritual. Thus, the “anti-spiritual” socialism of Eastern Europe and Eastern Asia was considered ill-adapted to the Arab World. As with socialist ideologies across the world, there has historically been a strong internationalist tendency in the Arab socialism; however, it was based primarily on anti-imperialism, and non-alignment, particularly during the Cold War.

    the ownership of the means of production was to be nationalized, but only within the constraints of traditional values such as private property, and inheritance.

    Arguably, the most notable economic manifestations of Arab socialism were the land reforms in Egypt (1952), Syria (1963), and Iraq (1970), and the nationalization of major industries and the banking systems in those countries. In Egypt and Syria, many of these policies were later reversed to some degree from the 1970s onwards. They were more successful in Iraq, possibly due to the country’s oil wealth, until the beginning of the Iran–Iraq War in 1980.
    “According to Volker Perthes, the Ba’ath Party was transformed under Assad; Perthes wrote, “It was further inflated such as to neutralise those who had supported the overthrown leftist leadership, it was de-ideologised; and it was restructured so as to fit into the authoritarian format of Assad’s system, lose its avant-garde character and became an instrument for generating mass support and political control. It was also to become the regime’s main patronage network.”3

    Since 1970, membership of the Ba’ath Party in Syria expanded dramatically. In 1971, the party had 65,938 members; ten years later it stood at 374,332 and by mid-1992 it was 1,008,243. By mid-1992, over 14 percent of Syrians aged over 14 were members of the party. In 2003, the party membership stood at 1.8 million people, which is 18 percent of the population.4 The increase in membership was not smooth. In 1985 a party organisational report stated that thousand of members had been expelled before the 7th Regional Congress held in 1980 because of indiscipline. The report also mentioned the increased tendency of opportunism among party members.4 Between 1980 and 1984, 133,850 supporter-members and 3,242 full members were expelled from the party.5
    The increase in members has led official propaganda, and leading members of the party and state, to say that the people and the party are inseparable. Michel Kilo, a Syrian dissident, said, “The Ba’ath does not recognize society. It consider itself [to be] society.”5 This idea led to Ba’athist slogans and tenets being included in the Syrian constitution. In 1979, the Ba’ath Party’s position was further strengthened when dual party membership became a criminal offence."

    May 29, 2013
  5. jillsthoughts

    Interesting thread, Livelonger. Thanks for the good read.

    May 29, 2013
  6. livelonger

    Some might view continuing the work of eliminating Sadaam Hussain as a plan to:
    eliminate the Ba’ath Party in Syria. Some see it as the elimination of a party that would
    (a) unite Muslims and
    (b) prevent takeover by western international bankers and western international corporate oil barons.

    May 29, 2013
  7. GoldenPig2012

    Yes, he does. He’s a hawk, period. It doesn’t matter the religious or political affiliation of any of the combatants, he’ll pick a side and go with it. Rattling the American sabre is ingrained in the republicans, unfortunately, more and more Americans pay attention to what is going on and are not blindly willing to sacrifice their sons and daughters just ANY cause the government deems “war-worthy”, not anymore.

    May 30, 2013