Another Nasrallah Speech
Every speech by Hezbollah chief Hassan Nasrallah is a political event which is widely discussed in Lebanon and the Middle East in general. Saudi and Qatari media ignore the event but marshal his opponents quickly after the speech to offer a rebuttal and denunciations of the points made by Nasrallah. Often such rebuttals include vulgarities, obscenities, and insults. This was the case when Tariq Humayyid – editor in chief of the mouthpiece of Prince Salman, Ash-Sharq Al-Awsat – referred to Nasrallah as a Shabbih (armed thug). Such are political debates in the media of the House of Saud.
Only a smaller number of TV stations now carry the speech. Most of these stations are based out of Lebanon, including, Al-Manar, NBN, Orange TV, and New TV. For the mass base of Hezbollah, those events are eagerly awaited spectacles where leaders and members compete to get good seats in front of a giant TV screen in the southern suburbs of Beirut.
The latest speech by Nasrallah, aired last week, was probably more aimed at the base. In that respect it seemed to work. It galvanized the base and even triggered wide approval all over Facebook and Twitter by the larger audience that supports Nasrallah. The first part of the speech was delicate and the speaker was clearly uncomfortable in delivering it. It was addressed (without any references to Sunnis or Shias because the party is very keen in avoiding specific references to Sunnis and Shias) to the Islamists around the Arab world.
Nasrallah was of course referring to Sunni Islamists and he kept pointing out that the issue of Palestine is crucial and that it should remain in the forefront of the agenda of Islamist movements. The point he was making was very delicate because not only was he directing it at the new Ikhwan rulers in Tunisia and Egypt, but also toward Hamas.
Hamas and Hezbollah keep their relationship secret for obvious reasons but there are signs of tensions. Saudi Arabia and Qatar are mounting a campaign against the Syrian regime which has supported and armed Hamas and Hezbollah. Hamas leaders have been shuttling from one Gulf country to another.
Saudi Arabia reportedly refused to invite Khaled Meshal and Ismail Haniyeh, despite efforts by both leaders. Saudi Arabia made it clear that Hamas leaders are not welcome in the kingdom unless the organization severs all ties with Iran.
But Nasrallah was also making a point that furthered Hezbollah’s stance. He was reminding the Arab audience that by the criterion of anti-Israeli struggle (militarily and politically), Hezbollah remains ahead of the other Islamist (Sunni) organizations which have recently been flirting with both the US and Israel.
He then addressed the Syrian situation and, again, refused to give an inch to the Syrian opposition – or any of its stands. He unconditionally supported the Syrian regime and called for its support.
Nasrallah focused on the general international campaign to unseat Syrian President Bashar Assad. He only would refer to “mistakes” by the regime. Many Syrians would rightly take offense. The killing of thousands of Syrians amounts to much more than a mistake, as would the many decades of repressive rule. And the notion that the regime itself “admitted” its mistakes – as Nasrallah put it – makes the argument worse because the regime does not even admit its long record of repression and oppression and cruelty.
In the second section of the speech, Nasrallah’s demeanor changed and he became more relaxed and humorous. He was very effective in undermining the arguments of March 14 one by one. He effectively mocked the popular notion – popular only in Lebanon – that the Hariri uprising in Lebanon triggered the “Arab Spring” (Najib Mikati claimed that Saudi peace initiative triggered the “Arab Spring”). He reminded the audience that March 14 figures used to perform regular pilgrimages to Cairo to coordinate their moves with Egyptian regime (Umar Sulayman was the contact person for those leaders).
Nasrallah also compared the words of March 14 about Bahrain with their words on Syria. The audience loved that needling especially when he referred to the Lebanese Forces’ history of massacres. Nasrallah also talked about the ability of Hezbollah to face its enemies and he brought back his memories of the Israeli war on Lebanon in 2006. He was not reluctant here to invoke the experience of Hussein, which must have tickled the sectarian audience.
RedditRelated Articles
- The Golden Era of Arab Atheism? | May 21 2013
- BDS and Its Agenda | May 14 2013
- Israel Bombs Syria, Again | May 05 2013
- Conflicting Messages on Syria: Obama’s Red Lines | May 02 2013
Blog Listing
Special Blogs
Comments
"Iran helped NATO in the Invasion of Afghanistan and the USA in Iraq."
No, Iran did not "help" NATO in anything. Please try to get past the PGCC / wahhabi propaganda. It's starting to get rather old and lame.
"You managed to use shias as agents of iranian geo political Interest."
If you are familiar with the Iranian Revolution, you'll know that Iran's geopolitical interest as defined by the Islamic Republic lie in the complete ouster of NATO and zionist occupation forces from the region. Period. Tehran has been working to that end since 1979, and is still doing so, including in Afghanistan (while in Iraq, Iran's allies beautifully managed to kick the Americans out, all praise to them).
"Iran is for NATO when it serves it`s Interest. But hypocritically play the anti-imperialist card when it comes to syria."
Wrong. Iran is NOT for NATO in Iraq, actually Iran was the only country to support and pressure Maliki's government resisting US demands for permanent military bases. Also, Iran's ally Muqtada al-Sadr gave US forces a taste of what would await them if they staid in Iraq.
Naturally Iran is against NATO presence in Afghanistan too, local Iranian allies are calling for the end of the NATO occupation every day.
It is not in Iran's interest to be surrounded by NATO bases, as we all know the US and Israel's ultimate target, their final goal, the great prize for them, is to destroy Iran and the Islamic Revolution. That's what the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan were all about, that's why the US is threatening Iran with military aggression 24/7.
I'd recommend to study the Islamic Revolution from independent academic publications, instead of misrepresenting Iran's objectives based on just two or three decontextualized anecdotes picked up from anti-Iranian, Saudi- and / or wahhabi-financed propaganda sources on the internet.
"Ever heard of the Iran/Contra affair where iran bought weapons from the US in the Iraq/Iran war."
Beyond reading that such an affair exists, have you asked yourself what exactly Iran got in that deal, at what price, how many of the purchased anti-tank missiles were even working, and how that compares to the huge quantity of weapons Saddam received from not only the Soviet Union but also the west, not in one single, limited black market deal like Iran, but officially and permanently over 8 years?
And the Iran-Contra deal does not mean Iran and the US were coooperating in foreign or defense policy, nor that they had any interests in common: Washington's objective remained unchanged, namely to break the back of the Islamic Revolution and to take revenge for the Tehran US embassy hostage crisis. There was no geostrategic alignment whatsoever between the Reagan administration and Islamic Iran. Just few months after the Iran-Contra affair, the US Navy attacked Iranian forces in the Persian Gulf and criminally downed a civilian Iranian passenger jet in an infamous terrorist attack.
It was an uninmportant one-time overpriced weapons sale, which the US knew would not affect the balance of power between Iran and Iran in the least (contrary the the French fighter jets, chemical weapons, Brazilian APCs, Russian tanks and other equipment) Saddam received for free, since the American stooges of the PGCC were paying the bill. For the US, the main reason to send Iran a small amount of largely malfunctioning missiles, was not to assist Iran against Saddam, but to find a covert source of financing for US arms shipments to the Nicaraguan Contras.
Apart from this insignificant episode, Iran was under total arms embargo during the whole Imposed War, while the aggressor Saddam received everything he wanted, when he wanted, including banned WMD, while the US vetoed (!) a UNSC resolution against his use of WMD.
"As i can't blame the few syrians that call for NATO help. I´m not a purist. "
So you are seriously going to compare the non-existing US "assistance" to Iran during the Imposed War - when the US Navy launched an aggression on Iran ("Operation Praying Mantis") in the Persian Gulf, when the US was giving Saddam live satellite data to help gas Iranians in massive WMD attacks, and when a US destroyer shot down an Iranian civilian passenger plane in a cowardly terrorist attack - you seriously want to compare all that with the Syrian opposition's official, organic links with the west? The same Syrian opposition which is getting vocal backing from all western capitals, unlimited (in time and quantity) flow of weapons and communication equipment, UNSC resolutions in its favor, intelligence aid, and much, much more? The same Syrian opposition which is based in the west and which promised to recognize Israel and send mercenaries to fight Hezbollah and Iran? The same Syrian opposition which operates out of NATO bases in Turkey, where British MI6, French Légion, German BND and US CIA are training them in mass beheadings similar to John Negroponte's programs during the Cold War in the Americas?
The Islamic Republic has steadily been confronting US and zionist imperialism ever since the Islamic Revolution of 1979 and there are many more examples of this confrontation between Iran and the west. Whereas the foreign mercenaries shipped into Syria are a pure emanation, a creation of western imperialism and NATO. There is not a single indication that they oppose the west, they have not done anything against the west. When they start occupying US embassies like revolutionary Muslim Iranian students did in 1979, then we can "compare" the resistance credentials of the two.
Don't let ethnic preferences or dislike of non-Arab Iranians blur your judgment, my friend.
"The hypocrisy of Iran gets even uglier when it plays the islamic umma card while willfully ignoring the Chechen killing Russians and the Uigur killing Chinese that have ripped of the oil field of the sunni Uigurs. Not to mention all the russian puppets like in Uzbekistan."
Come on, to what extent have you researched Iran's policies towards Chechnya? Do you know how the conflict affected Iran-Russia relations? Do you know Iran cancelled major deals with Russia over Chechnya? Do you know Iran sent NGOs to Chechnya to assist Chechnyan civilians caught in the war? If you expected Iran not only to support the Chechnyan people, but also to side with the head-cutting takfiri "jihadi" faction (CIA mercenaries) there, then tough luck.
"You want to tell me that the US occupy Iraq for ten Years without making a backdoor deal with Iran?."
After the invasion, there were negotiations between Iran and the US to prevent the proxy war they fought in Iraq to degenerate into a full fledged conflict, and to try to stabilize the domestic situation in Iraq. That's all. There was no "secret deal" between Iran and the US before the illegal invasion, nor afterwrads, no matter what fantasy stories prince Bandar Ben Sultan-Bush would try peddle to Asharq al-Awsat or al-Arabiya in order to demonize Islamic Iran, to deflect the public's attention from domestic issues, and to prevent the Islamic Revolution from reaching the Arabian Peninsula (which sooner or later will be inevitable).
Deny it all you want as even top Iranian officials confirm that they and their allies collaborated with the Americans in the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq, so who do we believe them or a sectarian like yourself who refuses to see this bitter reality:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-16152064
http://www.defense.gov/home/photoessays/2005-04/p20050412c2.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNQhMUOy__s
and these Sunni countries were confronted for their treachery by thousands of Sunnis while not a single Hezbollah official has condemned the treachery and collaboration of their allies in Afghanistan and Iraq.
There was neither "treachery" nor collaboration, the Iraqi people fought Saddam's regime to the end, and then went on to kick the Americans out of Iraq. Iran's Iraqi allies were not brought to power by the US, but by popular vote. The Iraqi people chose them, not Washington. And not one of Iran's allies in Iraq is pro-American.
The US invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan were triggered by CIA-wahhabi Bin Laden's attacks, they were solely meant as a prelude to the invasion of Iran, and all logistics and bases were provided by the usual wahhabi PGCC stooges. Iran had nothing to do with it at all.
The BBC, US regime websites, and a former "reformist" Iranian vice-president trying to pander to the western journalist who interviews him, while neither being privy to strategic decision-making in the defence area (not a prerogative of the government, but of the Supreme Leader (ha)), nor being in a position to comment on these things, do not constitute proof in my books.
So, what in the world should Iran and Hezbollah "excuse" themselves for?
As for the western stooge regimes having been "confronted" by the people, we are yet to see the results of that confrontation, since the only countries who wield actual sovereignty in the region and who have freed themselves from the clutches of global empire are Islamic Iran, Syria and Iraq (to a large degree).
Imam Khomeini (ra) used to say, whenever the US regime praises you, know that you are doing something wrong; and whenever they lash out at you and demonize you, you know you are on the right path. When has Islamic Iran ever been praised by the global arrogance and its ringleaders? What about the so-called Syrian "opposition"?
Allaho akbar, Khamenei (ha) rahbar!
Lidia, don't put words in my mouth. Iran and Hezbollah might be anti-Zionist, but they have major hypocrisies in their so-called "mumana'a" and they are totally silent on their allies who rode American tanks to power in Afghanistan and Iraq and who tooks billions from the West. These allies were never described as "thuwar Nato" by the so-called "mumana'a". And I don't support the NATO intervening in Syria nor the traitors of the Gulf but support allowing the anti-regime Syrians to defend themselves, and we don't need lessons in confronting the traitors of the Sunni Arab regimes from Hezbollah, when these regimes were confronted by their fellow Sunnis for their treachery. Has a single Hezbollah official condemned the treachery of their allies or have they hosted the likes of Chalabi, Ammar al-Hakim and Al-Ja'fari?
Hezbeleb, nice non-reply to Karim who exposed your hypocrisy. Hezbollah and the so-called "mumana'a" camp are totally silent on the treachery of their allies in Afghanistan and Iraq who collaborated with the Americans in the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq and rode to power on American tanks and tooks billions from the Americans. It's that simple and the chickens of the "mumana'a" camp can't respond. Yes, Saddam, who was a butcher, was a stooge for the Americans in the 80's and yet he turned against them and Iran also bought weapons from the Americans and Israel during the Iran-Iraq war.
Exposed my hpocrisy? You've just exposed two things: Your buffoonery and your deep-seated hatred to make such wild claims about Hez and Iran collaborating with none other than the Americans in their invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan. How do you even hallucinate such a thing. Is it because Iran supported the afgan opponents of the Taliban in the mid 90's. That makes them collaborators with the Americans? I wonder what is a mind that produces such a thought capable of doing if anything at all? Let's see your mumana'a if you're ever capable of creating one. The MB in Egypt have already accepted to honor the camp david agreement. The only countries that have diplomatic relations with the zionist usurping entity are Egypt, Jordan, Turkey, Saudi (covert),Qatar(covert), Bahrain (covert thanks to wikileaks). Tell me what is the common denominator among these countries. If you answered they're all sunnis, that's because you're sectarian. I had something else in mind. Salam 3alaykom my dear brother.
OK, Iran and Hezbollah are NOT good enough anti-Zionists and anti-imperialists for Abu Umar (and for kh they are bad because they are Shia, by the way), So, Abu Umar fully supports kh in his calls for NATO/GCC for help. I got it. NATO/GCC are REAL friends of Syria and real foes of Zionism, NATO and GCC, unlike Iran and Hezbollah I got it.
"But let me re-iterate. In a nutshell, the countries vying to remove Assad are major "Israel" supporters you see. And given that the biggest thorn in the side of "Israel" is Hezbollah which receives major military support from them, it's easy to envisage that the party of Allah lead by the Sayyed Nasrallah (Allah ye7mee) are in the crosshairs of the American/zionists and their poodle arab regimes like Saudi/Qatar/Jordan and so on."
Saddam fired scud rockets on the zionist unlike Iran and Hezbollah that suspiciously never cross the red line and I don`t count hot air in form of fury speeches as an attack. He is the only one who invaded a gulf Bordello Arab states, namely kuwait as you know full well. But nevertheless Iran insisted on the destruction of the Baath party and the iraqi Army knowing full well the overall consequences of it as you can see in Iraq right now. But you insisted on it since you have predicted the final results: A sectarian poodle of Iran that praises the bahrain uprising while helping to crush the syrian uprising. Even the growing sectarianism as a result of the civil war played in the hands of Iran in the long run. It´s also suspicious how Nasrallah tried to disenfranchise himself from the palestinians shortly before the arab uprising. You can read it on the Angry Arab Blog.
You whole lecture is full of this false purity that I have learned to hate. What do you want to tell me. That Iran is the innocent honest good guy here. Are you kidding me. Iran helped NATO in the Invasion of Afghanistan and the USA in Iraq. You managed to use shias as agents of iranian geo political Interest. So you see. Iran is for NATO when it serves it`s Interest. But hypocritically play the anti-imperialist card when it comes to syria. Ever heard of the Iran/Contra affair where iran bought weapons from the US in the Iraq/Iran war. But I don`t blame them for that. Iran wanted to survive. As i can't blame the few syrians that call for NATO help. I´m not a purist.
The hypocrisy of Iran gets even uglier when it plays the islamic umma card while willfully ignoring the Chechen killing Russians and the Uigur killing Chinese that have ripped of the oil field of the sunni Uigurs. Not to mention all the russian puppets like in Uzbekistan.You want to tell me that the US occupy Iraq for ten Years without making a backdoor deal with Iran?. Thats impossible. All the great iraqi oil fields are in the hands of americans and iran will not interfere in that regard. In exchange for that deal Americans ignore the political sectarianism and will not play the sunni card in breaking the country in 3 pieces. That was the deal made.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eIq4n7-jQsM
Ps: This shia sunni BS becomes quite comical when you live on neutral ground in Germany and see how Iraqi shia and sunni intermarry. A sunni father is much happier when his doughtier marry a shia Iraqi husband instead of lets say a moroccan sunni husband.
Read Vali Nasr and his book the rise of the shia crescent. A better title would be: The rise of Persia on the dead bodies of Arabs.
Wallah ya Karrim, I keep telling you, if it weren't for the graveness of the situation I'd actually find you entertaining, but alas, is no time to laugh.
So tell me, what have the scuds lobbed over by a Tyrant under distress from his former allies achieved? See back then 3ammak Saddam felt betrayed after it was they the Americans his former ally that gave him the green light to invade the "Bordello Arab state", as you so eloquently put it (but watch out now, this bordello state is leading the pact in disinformation against the Persians, so you might wanna cut them some slack and their bordello ways).
So when Iran insisted on the destruction of the Baa'th party and the Iraqi army, do you remember who was arming your most-revered tyrant. I can't seem to remember well. Was it France or was it the US or was it both? I don't know anymore, you're so convincing with your arguments which you repeat over and over that you're starting to make me doubt that Iran is innocent. And especially that they didn't declare Jihad against Russia and China. But don't be sonconcerned about that, I am sure Saudi Arabia and the gulf countries will get to it at one point. Why do you sound so frustrated when the fate of the "Islamic Ummah" is in the hands of King Abdullah. That should be a very comforting feeling.
And finally Karim, I feel your pain my dear brother. I can't believe that Sunnis and Shias intermarry. Horrible indeed.
By the way, are you Moroccan? :)
"so when Iran insisted on the destruction of the Baa'th party and the Iraqi army, do you remember who was arming your most-revered tyrant". malikis government used ex iraqi soldiers to fight against al qaida. After they finished the Job successfully, maliki put them in Jail and charged them with Terrorism. This is what happened.
"And especially that they didn't declare Jihad against Russia and China".
They can start by declaring Jihad on the zionist entity instead of using the palestinians to widen it`s dominance. Norman Finkelstein said that Iran said on an OIC meeting, that it can live with the zionist entity in the 67 Border. So who are you kidding. The lousy arab Armies at least tried to liberate palestine. By doing that several times, they have lost land, money and risked the well-being of there own countries instead of firing Hot Air. Even the Bordello states used an oil embargo against the west that then have send it`s economic Hit man to kill Faisal.
Why Hizbollah did n`t fire rockets in the last onslaught in operation cast led on Tel Aviv. Why?. Because it`s not an arab liberation movement at all. It`s an iranian guerrilla Army fighting on behalf of Iran. And do you know what. I`m ok with it. But stop pretending that you are an arab liberation movement. You will fire rockets on the zionist entity when it strikes against Iran only. And rightly so. What about the iraqi palestinians that were slaughtered by the mahdi army? What about them. Just stop interfering in arab affairs. Stop helping the saddam of syria.
Why you call Saddam a Tyrant btw. He was just fighting islamic fanatics or armed gangs sponsored by Iran. he crushed them in the nineteens also after they made a deal with the US to help them with arms. The US than backtracked.The Saddam regime was more progressive, better for christians and secularists, had an excellent education and health system. You see you can play the Bashar al Assad Argumentation game with Saddam`s regime too. You can even compare easily Queen Youtube with the "desert Rose" Asma al Assad:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/lostinshowbiz/2012/feb/23/brad-pi...
"Why do you sound so frustrated when the fate of the "Islamic Ummah" is in the hands of King Abdullah"
The fate of the Ummah is neither in the hands of al Sauds nor in the hand of Iran. It`s in the Hand of all Arabs and Muslims.
P.s: I´m not sectarian. You must understand my so called sectarianism in the context of As` sad Abu Khalil that never miss an opportunity to mock sunni Islam, while at the same Time refusing to do the same with shias at least not with he same dedication. I know that there are more than enough crazies in all Muslim sects. But he only bashes sunni Muslim clerics or imply that salafist are representative of all sunni Islamists. He say to not trust rachid Ghanouchi and the Turks. never trust Turks but Iran?. On the other hand he hates the Muslim Brothers. Is there any genuine sunni Islamist group in the eyes of As`sad Abu Khalil? For example has Qaradawi Blood on his hands because he dismissed the bahrain uprisings. And he has. On the other Hand Iran`s Khaminay , this sunni official cleric in damascus and the syrian christian Patriarch has Blood on his Hands too. What is this double standard?.
Let`s play the As` sad game for the shia muslim sect so that you can understand me better.How do you like this manipulative comparison in Iraq?
Iraq under Saddam:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_jL6mpGr44
And than Iraq`s future
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5lWKORqnQU
how do you like. It hurts right?. But As`ad making this Kind of analogy all the time with sunnis in his Blog.
Karim is angered by As'ad About Khalil's, criticism of the Sunni clerics ( Shaikhs and Muftis) . He wants As'ad to criticize the Shi'a clerics as well. He seems to ignore the fact that As'ad does criticize the Shi'a clerics . In fact he is not religious at all and he proudly admits it. However it must be admitted that, when a religious party dedicates itself and the blood of its people to the liberation of the al-Wattan, while a Sunni mufti like Jouzou dedicates his life to raving against the Shi'a in obedience and subservience to the dictates of his reactionary, obscurantist Saudis masters , then anybody who has any moral integrity ( like Norman Finkelstein who is a Jew) would praise the Hizb and condemn the venom of the Sunni Jouzou. So do not be hypersensitive or protective if muftis like Jouzou ( and they are many) who should be not only critcised but severely condemned. The criterion we must use to evaluate Muftis and clerics must not be based on whether they are Sunnis or Shi'a but on whether they are ready to die for liberating themselves their people , and their land from the Zionist occupier of Arab land. Instead of fighting Israel, the Qarathawis of Qatar and the Muftis of the House Saud are preaching the message dictated to them by their kings and Amirs. If you do not know this it is tragic. If you do not want to know this it is even more tragic.
sunnis fundamentalist are all reactionary while shias are enlightened. Thats your massage?
WHY kh rants about horrors of Sunnis and Shias intermarry remind me so strong of Zionist rants against "good Jewish girls" having fun with non-Jews (Palestinians)? It could be because they both are friends of such great friends of Arabs as USA and GCC. A nice company of racist bigots.
To the dear illuminated writer of this article, the experience of Imam Hussein isn't there to "tickle" the audience, nor was the Sayed's intention to "tickle" the audience, nor was the audience "tickled". And for you to go further and narrowing down the "tickling" to a certain sect, shows your purposely ignorant and foolish attitude. Anyone who is good in this world, will admire the story of Hussein because of what it represents. It doesn't merely represent the story of a great man like Imam Hussein, it represents a symbol. A symbol against oppression, evil, greed, cowardice. Something that many of our beloved Arab brothers refuse to comprehend because of their disgusting evil nature. It is people like these that bend down to evil everyday,and like your very respectful self , they would use this story and categorize it with a certain sect, in order to serve the American/Zionist/Satanist agenda of "Dividing and Conquering". If its not Christian/Muslims, its Sunnis/Shias, if its not Sunnis/Shias, its Arabs/The West. What all foolish Arabs fail to see is that power comes in UNITY.
As for our Syrian brothers, what exactly do you mean by he refused to give an "inch" to the Syrian opposition ? How many countless times has he said that both should solve their problems through dialogue? And what exactly do you mean Syrian opposition? Do you mean the masked thugs killing their fellow brothers everyday and causing havoc and are sponsored by none other than Israel/US/West and its lapdogs Turkey,Qatar,Saudi Arabia? or do you mean those that genuinely want reforms and protest peacefully on the streets? If the issue was just about "reforms", how many hundreds of new laws have been signed by Bashar Al Assad that achieve just that? If I was a Syrian citizen that wanted reforms and knew that the majority of my fellow Syrians (Yes Majority Ghas min 3an el kil) were supporting the Leader of my country, would I take a gun and kill people and soldiers? or protest peacefully? Well if I was given money (and lots of it), support (and lots of it), and the resources needed, I would take arms and start shooting and killing people of which many were civilians. But what does that make me? Does that make me an opposition? or a "Terrorist/Traitor/Dog"? This is exactly what is going in Syria, and the military is trying its best to limit civilian casualties, but they are not fighting thugs that are in an open battlefield, they are fighting thugs that cower behind civilian homes, areas, and bodies. And this is why (unfortunately) collateral damage is happening. Are our dear, lovely, beautiful Arabs caring so much and not sleeping at night with tears in their eyes, unable to eat, because they care so much about the civilian deaths in Syria? I wonder, why is that warm heart-breaking compassion not shared in Bahrain? or is it because the only purpose of Bashar being removed will allow the miserable coward dogs to cut off support to Hizbullah, remove an Anti-Israeli friend, serve the Zionist agenda of dominating the Middle East, remove a key ally to Iran and Russia, and come a step closer to protecting and securing the Zionist presence? Who does the removal of Bashar Al Assad serve? It only serves the Zionist agenda.
P.S. Instead of giving this article the title "Another Nasrallah Speech", call it "Another honorable enlightening Nasrallah Speech" and while typing that make sure you bow down.
It is quite a joke to consider bringing the example of Imam Al-Hussain's jihad as a sectarian stimulator!!!. The writer wants to denounce and reject people's right to be inspired by their religious leaders, while he never leaves an opportunity to glorify Marx and other communists!!!
I agree. Leftists, particularly Arab ones, are just as dogmatic as the "religious reactionaries" they claim to oppose
@ Karim Hari
Muslim Brotherhood in Syria is worse than Qaida. Read about what they did prior to 1982. Don't use religion as a means to convince people to vote for you. The Brotherhood used religion to justify massacres as well. The Regime may be bad, but at least there is no ta2ifiya in Syria, unlike the rest of the Middle East. You want a religious government, go to Saudi Arabia.
according to whom?
WHY kh is willing to ask NATO/GCC for help? Because kh is a sectarian one, he is willing to ask the best friends of Zionism for help against Assad because Assad is NOT a Sunni. What a sectarianism could bring is clear - the spokesperson of so-called SNC has OPENLY professed her undying love for Zionists! The good company for kh, for sure, but he has only himself to blame.
"The killing of thousands of Syrians amounts to much more than a mistake"
1) we do NOT know how many were killed (London clients of GCC "numbers" notwithstanding)
2) surely, some of killed were NOT killed by the regime, and some of killed were armed sectarian murderers (and not even Syrians)
3) of course, Syrian regime commited a lot of sins, so to speak, but it is under attack from NATO/GCC NOT because it killed Syrians. Nasrallah is right here.
4) I am NOT a supporter of Syrian regime, but the imperialist aggression is NOT against the regime - it is against Syria and Iran, and Hezbollah, and so on. It is even against Russia and China. To be against ANY imperialist aggression is a right thing to do.
if my love for Imam Hussein (AS) makes me sectarian then I want to be the biggest sectarian in the world. Mni7 heik.
This youtube clip shows the former leader of the syrian MB give a funeral speech in a Mosque in Aachen Germany where his wife got killed by the syrian secret service in 1982 Mr. Nasrallah.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hRikFYcJd_4&feature=related
Can you tell us please why you protect this secularist saddam of syria.
Allow me to answer your inquiry my dear and inquisitive brother. In almost every speech the Sayyed gave, he clearly outlined the reasons for which he's not turning on the saddam of Syria. But let me re-iterate. In a nutshell, the countries vying to remove Assad are major "Israel" supporters you see. And given that the biggest thorn in the side of "Israel" is Hezbollah which receives major military support from them, it's easy to envisage that the party of Allah lead by the Sayyed Nasrallah (Allah ye7mee) are in the crosshairs of the American/zionists and their poodle arab regimes like Saudi/Qatar/Jordan and so on. I hope this cleared up any confusion you might have had. But please don't hesitate to ask again. Much, much respect.
Post new comment