The Arab Spring, Syrian and the Western Intervention

Syria was a peaceful and marvelous country until democracy arrived under the banner of the Arab Spring. No doubt, the Arab Spring was the product of the Creative Chaos, the term originated back to the United States minister of state Condoleezza Rice. The Arabs must be overwhelmed by ethnic, religious and sectarian to prevent them from being united or conduct any collective action. The purpose of the Arab Spring is to divide the Middle East into ethnic and sectarian territories. Bernard Lewis and other Western political elites didn't hide their intentions and planes that tailored to service the best of Western powers interests not of the people.

The promises of prosperity and economic growth under the banner of American creative chaos was a pile of rubbish and can be countered by the fact on the ground. In every country American democracy knocked on its doors, the situation got worse: Tunisia is on the brink of bankruptcy, billions of dollars were lost in Egypt as the economy went in a free fall, Libyan Sovereign wealth fund and foreign investments evaporated. In Syria, the situation was the worst: infrastructure destroyed, cities leveled to the ground, population displaced and hundreds of thousand neither dead, wounded or missing.

The game in Syria started with the claimed peaceful protesters and ended with Moderate Opposition. The media used these terms in cheap propaganda; however, they don't exist in reality. In the United States, proclaimed as democracy, an unlicensed demonstration is banned by law. Moreover, taking over a building neither public or private is considered a criminal offence. Gene Sharp in his book, "How Non-Violent Struggle works," classified take overbuilding is an act non-violent which is nonsense. The application of Gene Sharp theories come with dual standard. In Syria, occupy public building is an act of freedom but in Britain or France, it's a criminal act.

Why the French president doesn't step down after nine innocent peaceful yellow vest protesters killed, hundreds arrested and wounded? Is this against democracy or not? How many victims must fall in France before United Nation conscious wake-up? France was advising the Syrian president non-stop to leave his position. Furthermore, the French media was broadcasting false reports regarding the crisis in Syria. Who gave the American, French, British and other governments to intervene in Syria to force their views down the throats of the Syrian people?

The Syrian people have the right to decide the shape of the political system of their country. Let's not forget what had happened in Gaza Palestine, the election that was described by the international community as democratic and transparent. Was the situation in Gaza got any better? Hamas, the Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood won the election and used strict view of Islam to oppress their opponents. Libya is another clear example of Western intervention creating worst situation than the precedent one. The western philosophy of intervention in the quest for an idealistic political regime in Libya destroyed the country, and release the genie from the bottle. The American ambassador in Libya was killed by the same group Western intervention support to overthrow Muammar Gaddafi, and now, his son Saif al-Islam Gaddafi is the only hope to restore peace to a country torn down by a civil war.

End

 

All the Muslims etthnics in these countries are getting too many weapons, with which they can practice their religion.
They, the minorities repressed by the various regimes are revolting, and trying to conquer.

We need to stay out and let then do their Muslim thing.
Total warfare until one emerges victorious.

 

Syria is a secular country with a Secular system of government. Western powers play a very negative role in the Syrian crises, they supply weapons to the Syrian opposition and provide them with political support. The Syrian opposition from the beginning follows the ethnic and sectarian path, not the regime. I agree with you in the part that Western powers should stay out and don't intervene; however, they are doing just the opposite.

 

There are no facts in the article.. NONE.

 

Easy claim when you don't agree with the opinions expressed in the thread

 

Arabs are the Only cause for Other Arab's suffer !

 

I totally disagree with you

 

Briefly put, the Islamic Middle East survived the Ottoman Occupation and was relatively peaceful until the Colonial Powers started drawing lines in the sand and giving away Muslim homelands to foreign Zionists.
Continued Western exploitation, micro managing & meddling have proven profitable for a few but dismal for the many.

 

Well said BS.
There are 21 Large Muslim homelands.
The tiny Israel belongs to the Jews.
While Pro Islamo Arabo moan all day, those who live there just send a small shuttle to the moon.
Turn your Waze off .. It's Israeli made.

 

You are right

 

You need to be more convincing promoting cheap propaganda like that

 

Thank you.

It's also a misconception that there's always been fighting between the Jews & the Muslims in Palestine as the following article illustrates that it was the invasion of militant & grasping foreign Zionist Terrorist Gangs that initiated most of the fighting.

Top Ten Myths about the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict”
http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2010/06/17/top-ten-myths-about-the-israeli-palestinian-conflict/


EXCERPT "Myth #1 – Jews and Arabs have always been in conflict in the region.

Although Arabs were a majority in Palestine prior to the creation of the state of Israel, there had always been a Jewish population, as well. For the most part, Jewish Palestinians got along with their Arab neighbors. This began to change with the onset of the Zionist movement, because the Zionists rejected the right of the Palestinians to self-determination and wanted Palestine for their own, to create a “Jewish State” in a region where Arabs were the majority and owned most of the land.

The British Hope-Simpson report of 1930 similarly noted that Jewish residents of non-Zionist communities in Palestine enjoyed friendship with their Arab neighbors. “It is quite a common sight to see an Arab sitting in the verandah of a Jewish house”, the report noted. “The position is entirely different in the Zionist colonies."CONTINUED

 

The Qur'an and sunnah has always promoted war between the Jews and Muslims.
Generally the only times there was peace,
was
when the Jews were the military superiors, or
when the Jews were dhimmies, and paid a tax, to live.

There were times when the Jews and the Muslims joined sides to fight the Christians.
But there were also times when the Sunni and Shia did the same.

 

What about the Bible, OT and NT? Do they promote any wars with others?

 

Good reply
Thanks

 

Not really.

The OT speaks of wars past, but not future ones.
Talk of future wars is to vague, and probably symbolic.

Islam specifically points to wars and the victims.

 

Any fighting or slavery would have to fall in line with the Qur'an and sunnah.
They did not re-write the religion.

There would be no fighting when the Jews were the military superior.
Or when they were dhiminies.

 

Arabs are the Only cause for Other Arab's suffer !

 

My point was that there was very little fighting between Jews & Muslims in Palestine until the arrival of grasping, foreign Zionist terrorist gangs whose descendants who continue to massacre Palestine's native residents & steal their land.

"400 years of peace: Palestine under Ottoman rule"
https://www.dailysabah.com/feature/2018/05/18/400-years-of-peace-palestine-under-ottoman-rule

Meanwhile, there has been nothing but fighting since the ruthless & brutal Zionist Occupation.

By

, I assume you mean dhimmis which means "protected person" and under Ottoman rule, Jews, Muslims & Christians all lived in relative peace:

EXCERPT "The word literally means "protected person",[3] referring to the state's obligation undersharia to protect the individual's life, property, and freedom of religion, in exchange for loyalty to the state and payment of the jizya tax, which complemented the zakat, or obligatory alms, paid by the Muslim subjects.[4] Dhimmis were exempt from certain duties assigned specifically to Muslims, and did not enjoy certain privileges and freedoms reserved for Muslims, but were otherwise equal under the laws of property, contract, and obligation"CONTINUED (1)






(1) "Dhimmi"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhimmi

 

so you aren't familiar with dhimines.
A Dhimmine is a non-Muslim living on Muslim land.
They have no rights and they pay a tax to be allowed to live.
The Jizya tax. This is regulated by the government.
(IE, even ISIS demanded the Jizya)

Quran (9:29) - "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued." Hadith and Sira

The people are then protected by the Government.
The money they bring in is important.

For a while, in some places conversions were not allowed, because the government counted on the Jizya money


And very little information came out of the Ottoman empire,
Just what they wanted. there was no CNN, No internet, no cameras.
Just a desert that was easier to circumnavigate than go through.

 

Yes, I am familiar with the word, dhimmi.

There is no such thing as a "Dhimmine" unless it's an alternate spelling.

At any rate, a dhimmi living under Ottoman rule was accorded many of the same rights as the Muslims and, like the Muslims, had to pay taxes.

 

Sounds like you're making excuses already.
They did not re-write the religion just for certain times in history.
A Dhimmi is the same thing as it always was.
A dhimmi had few rights.
A dhimmi paid the Jizya tax, different from the Zakat tax the Muslims paid.

The Dhimmi is the Arabic term that refers to its non-Islamic embracing population that has the ignominious dishonor of living in Islamic conquered lands. In a similar manner to the Jewish reference to a non-Jew as being a goy, so too the term dhimmi refers to non-Muslims. However unlike the Jewish term, goy, and much more important, the dhimmi is a distinctly subjugated second class non-citizen almost slave who is subjected to dictatorial deprivation of any legal and human rights since he is a non-Muslim permanent resident in a Muslim state.

Here is one dhimmi treaty with Christians:

1. We shall not build, in our cities or in their neighborhood, new monasteries, churches, convents, or monks’ cells, nor shall we repair, by day or by night, such of them as fall in ruins or are situated in the quarters of the Muslims.
2. We shall keep our gates wide open for passersby and travelers. We shall give board and lodging to all Muslims who pass our way for three days.
3. We shall not give shelter in our churches or in our dwellings to any spy, nor hide him from the Muslims.
4. We shall not teach the Koran to our children.
5. We shall not manifest our religion publicly nor convert anyone to it. We shall not prevent any of our kin from entering Islam if they wish it.
6. We shall show respect toward the Muslims, and we shall rise from our seats when they wish to sit.
7. We shall not seek to resemble the Muslims by imitating any of their garments.
8. We shall not mount on saddles, nor shall we gird swords nor bear any kind of arms nor carry them on our persons.
9. We shall not engrave Arabic inscriptions on our seals.
10. We shall not sell fermented drinks.
11. We shall clip the fronts of our heads. [An Arabic sign of shame, a beaten man] 12. We shall always dress in the same way wherever we may be, and we shall bind the zunar round our waists.
13. We shall not display our crosses or our books in the roads or markets of the Muslims. We shall use only clappers in our churches very softly. We shall not raise our voices when following our dead. We shall not take slaves who have been allotted to Muslims.
14. We shall not build houses higher than the houses of the Muslims.

Whoever strikes a Muslim with deliberate intent shall forfeit the protection of this pact.
(from Al-Turtushi, Siraj al-Muluk, pp. 229-230)


In a different example I read, that if a Muslim is hitting you,
You cannot hit him back.
All you can do is ask him to stop.

 

Here is a selection of books on the subject


https://www.bing.com/search?q=book+...BAEBA14833BE2B6520B60ACA1B&first=11&FORM=PERE

 

The ways and the degree to which Islam figures into the lives of everyday Muslims varies from person to person as well as their location in the entire Islamic world.
I spent my time in the Islamic Middle East in 1973-74 and by then, there was no Jizya imposed on Christians, Jews or other non Muslims.
To the best of my knowledge, dhimmi status was also extinct throughout the Islamic world so I'm not sure what your point is since the precepts in the example of Dhimmi treaty with Christians sounds tame compared to the outright hostility inherent in the Talmud.

 

I've heard otherwise, and there are books written about it since then.
It is flexable, controlled by the government,
I'm sure it depends where you are, and if you were in tourist spots,
73/74 was a different world entirely. I'm sure you wouldn't see it.
It's unlikely they re- wrote the religion just for you.
Even in 73/74, there are places you are not allowed to go,
Even ISIS demanded it just recently.