From al-Arabiya:
A senior leader of the Iranian army has mocked Gulf Arab states for their disappointment in Syria and threatened that after the victory in Aleppo it would be the turn of places such as Bahrain, Yemen and Iraq’s Mosul.
“The people of Bahrain will get their wish, the people of Yemen will be happy and the residents of Mosul will taste victory,” the deputy commander of the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps, General, Hossein Salami, told his country’s IRNA news agency. “All of this is God’s promise.”
In announcing the retaking of Aleppo, by Assad’s Alawites, with considerable help from Iran and from the Lebanese Hizballah, as well as from much smaller contingents of Shi’a from Afghanistan and Pakistan (two countries where the Shi’a have long been the object of murderous attacks by the majority Sunnis), the Iranian commander General Hossein Salami made clear that the victory in Syria would embolden Iran everywhere in the Middle East to further “conquests.”
In Bahrain, the Shi’a are 70% of the population, and have been engaged for several years in a low-level revolt against the rule of the Sunni Al Khalifa family. The Ruler of Bahrain, Hamad bin Isa al Khalifa, has managed so far to suppress his Shi’a subjects by relying mainly on Saudi financial support and on Pakistani mercenaries. But if Salami’s prediction that “the people of Bahrain will get their wish” was meant to signal that Iranian intervention could be expected, then a real war, between Iranian soldiers supported by the local Shi’a population of Bahrain and the Sunni ruler with his Pakistani Sunni troops, could erupt.
Bahrain is geopolitically important. It is connected by a 16-mile causeway to the Eastern Province of Saudi Arabia, where almost all of that country’s Shi’a are to be found. Shi’a are 10% of the total Saudi population, but 33% of the population in the Eastern Province. And, also important, almost all the Saudi oil comes from that Eastern Province. The Shi’a in that province have long been oppressed by the Wahhabis, discriminated against in education, in employment, in the religious practices they are permitted to publicly engage in. In every area of Saudi life, there is a glass ceiling for the Shi’a. And most disturbing of all for them, according to Freedom House, is that Saudi textbooks “promote an ideology of hatred toward people, including Muslims, who do not subscribe to the Wahhabi sect of Islam,” with Shi’a Muslims presented as not real Muslims at all. It was the Shi’a cleric Nimr al-Nimr who in 2009 suggested that the Eastern Province should secede if the Saudi government did not cease to oppress and discriminate against its Shi’a. Taking no chances, the Saudi government executed Nimr al-Nimr in January 2016. Were Iranian forces, their appetites whetted by the part they played in the victory in Syria, to land on Bahrain for a similar “conquest” which, with Iran just across the Gulf, would not be impossible logistically, Saudi anxiety would go sky-high, not just at the loss of Bahrain itself, but also from the fear that a takeover of Bahrain by Iranian troops would embolden the Saudi Shi’a. Riots, or even an open revolt, by the Shi’a in the oil-rich Eastern Province, is always a worry, or rather, is the Saudis’ worst nightmare.
Yet here is Brigadier General Hossein Salami, claiming that after the retaking of Aleppo, the “people of Bahrain will get their wish.” So far, Iran has made good on its threats, intervening in both Iraq and Syria on the side of Shi’a. And as we all know, it recently pocketed a deal made with the Obama Administration that did nothing to dissuade it from its aggressive behavior. Is Salami’s prediction of more Shi’a victories merely the bravado of a braggart warrior, or a real threat? The Gulf Arab countries have reacted swiftly and angrily; they aren’t treating the threat as idle.
Let’s suppose that Salami means it, and Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards were to invade Bahrain, on the pretext of rescuing the largely Shi’a population from an oppressive Sunni ruler. The Saudis would have to respond, and one assumes the deep-pocketed Saudi government would hire as many Pakistani (Sunni) mercenaries as Pakistan’s army can spare, sending them to Bahrain to counter the Iranians. And other Saudi forces could reinforce security in the Eastern Province of Saudi Arabia. The Iranians, whose anger at the Saudis has been steadily building (last year the Iranian government refused to allow Iranian pilgrims to make the hajj as a sign of their displeasure with Saudi Arabia as Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques), now have troops recently battle-hardened from fighting in both Syria and Iraq, and flush with victory in Aleppo, will not allow themselves to be defeated and humiliated by those who are paid by the hated Wahhabis, the very ones who regard the Shi’a as “the worst kind of Infidels.” Compromise is not possible, given the depth of hatred; with parties so evenly matched, the struggle over Bahrain could go on for a very long time.
Hossein Salami also threatened to strengthen the Shi’a campaign in Yemen. Yemen is almost evenly divided between the Sunnis, who are 55%, and the Shi’a, who are 45%, of the population. Largely unnoticed by the great world, the Shi’a Houthis have steadily managed to conquer much of Yemen, despite a Saudi-led coalition of Sunni troops, and constant indiscriminate bombardment by the Saudi Air Force, of Houthi soldiers and civilians. The fighting continues, with Iran having delivered weaponry to the Houthis by sea, but not yet sending troops. Salami’s statement suggests that men, as well as materiel, may be sent. As with Bahrain, the Saudis simply cannot afford to have their southern flank in the hands of Shi’a supported by Iran. This means that the Saudis will likely keep raising their force level in Yemen in response to Iran’s sending of soldiers (the threat implied by Hossein Salami when he announced that “the people of Yemen will be happy”). And a low-level military conflict will become steadily ever bigger, with both sides stuck to this Tarbaby Yemen, and neither side wanting to, or being able to, arrive at a compromise.
In the world of Islam, you end up as Victor or Vanquished. Iran has now publicly stated its intentions and signaled its determination to win further victories for the Shi’a in Bahrain, Yemen, and Iraq (Mosul). Saudi Arabia has not only used its own airmen (a first for the Saudis) for an extensive bombing campaign in Yemen, but has organized support for Yemen’s Sunnis from a coalition of Sunni powers, including Egypt, Jordan, Sudan, Bahrain, and the United Arab Emirates. Neither Iran nor Saudi Arabia is in a mood to back down or to let the Yemenis themselves decide their fate. The conflict has taken on a life of its own.
As for the Houthis, having won so much territory in Yemen, with very little outside support (the Iranians have sent supplies by sea, and one abortive attempt by air, but no Iranian troops appear to have yet fought in Yemen), they see no reason at this point to compromise. They’ve remained steadfast under the relentless Saudi-led bombing campaign (enduring many civilian casualties) and whatever else local Sunnis, and that coalition of eight Sunni countries, has managed to throw at them. And now, with Hossein Salami’s triumphalist remark, one assumes that direct Iranian support — including soldiers — will be extended to Yemen. The Houthis can now expect not just more weaponry but also Iranian soldiers, and possibly members of Hizballah, too, both flush with their victories in Syria. Having tried, in the past, to persuade Sunnis to treat them as full-fledged orthodox Muslims, and failed, and then having had to endure their excommunication from Islam by Sunni takfirs, the Iranians appear ready to establish that Shi’ite “crescent” that has been a deep Sunni worry for years and now, at last, appears being much closer to achievement. But Iran’s position could blow up if, for example, Egypt were to send soldiers to Yemen, as a way of winning Saudi favor and money. After all, it has happened before; Nasser sent troops to Yemen for several years in the 1960s. At that time they were fighting against the Saudis. This is, after all, the Muslim Middle East.
What should the West, what should the United States do, in such circumstances? It should do absolutely nothing, but pull up a chair, and watch the spectacle unfold, and secretly wish that it might go on forever. Iran’s threat to the U.S. is real, but attacking the U.S. is not first on Tehran’s To-Do List, despite all the chants of “Death-To-America.” First is countering the threat to Shi’a in lands dominated by Sunnis. Let the Iranians go on the offensive, and expend men, money and materiel pari passu with what the Saudis, and their coalition of lesser Sunni powers, are throwing into the fight to keep the Shi’a down in near Bahrain and far Yemen. Let those fights continue, as they will, without any need for Western involvement or encouragement. If the Saudis and other Arabs want to take the fight to Iran itself, there is always the southern Iranian province of Khuzistan to target, where 90% of Iran’s oil is produced, a province peopled mainly by ethnic Arabs, who have been suffering from discrimination by the Iranian government, and rose in revolt, swiftly put down, in 1979. Thus it’s a place where the possibility of outside Arab intervention must fill the Iranians with the same kind of anxiety as they’ve been giving the Saudis over the Shi’a in the Eastern Province of Saudi Arabia. Both Iran and Saudi Arabia have large and restive minorities (Arabs among Persians in Khuzistan, Shi’a among Sunnis in the Eastern Province) in their respective oil-producing regions. Right now, it appears that the Iranian threat to Saudi Arabia is greater than that of Saudi Arabia to Iran. Because of the retaking of Aleppo, Iran is in a triumphalist phase, and sounding particularly aggressive, which is fine, as long as the target of that aggression remains Sunni Arabs.
The important thing for the American government is not whether the Shi’a win over here, or the Sunnis prevail over there. It is, rather, that it is highly desirable that both sides keep fighting each other, with no end in sight, and with each side continuing to pour greater assets of all kinds into the fight. We want Muslim enemies to become stuck in the waste of war, to endure what the European powers endured in the endless trench warfare of World War I. The Iran-Iraq War used up the aggressive energies of both Khomeini’s Iran and Saddam Hussein’s Iraq for eight full years (1980-1988); it was a war that, from the viewpoint of Infidels, should have gone on much longer. Now the Sunni-Shi’a conflicts in Yemen and Bahrain, in eastern Syria and western Iraq (both with swathes of territory even now under the control of Islamic State takfiris, anathematizing the Shi’a who make up the majority of the population in both countries), can have the same effect as the Iran-Iraq War did, consuming the men, money, and materiel of Iran and Saudi Arabia, the two Muslim powers that are now, in different ways, most dangerous to the West.
We should be able to recognize that if we leave the Muslim states of the Middle East to their own wretched devices, and do nothing to discourage (nor to too obviously encourage) their internecine conflicts, the civilized world can only benefit. The Sunni-Shi’a conflict has no logical endpoint, and though the Shi’a are only 10-13% of the world’s Muslim population, in the Middle East itself the two sects are much more evenly matched, with Shi’a comprising 95% of Iranians and 60-65% of Iraqis and 45% of Yemenis, making it possible that the war between Sunni and Shi’a in that region will go on for a long time — if not exactly forever, then for a reasonable facsimile thereof. And a war that uses up Muslim assets and Muslim energies and Muslim attention on both sides is a Good Thing. We don’t have a dog in their fight. Our dog is their fight.

Guest says
“the civilized world can only benefit” Unless we keep Merkel-type refugee policies.
f c king says
Very good point. The muslims must stay in their muslim countries, and continue their fighting there, not bring their dark ages jihad mentality to the west.
Hugh Fitzgerald says
Not even Merfkel will be able to keep to her previous “refugee” policies.
1357911 says
Interesting, Hugh.
This is a poem that I wrote a couple of years ago, when I was in Tripoli…
Showdown at the Sirte Corral
They’ve all gone off to Sirte
To make the Ansar Boys eat dirt.
So off for me tomorrow,
Was nice to know you for awhile,
But truth be told – not soon enough
For the Showdown at the Sirte Corral.
Good luck with freedom now,
As guns start blazin’ and religion gets hazy,
Down at the Sirte Corral.
It’s Wyatt and Ringo all over again,
With all their quick-draw Islamo friends.
Beards in the way – the gun’s gonna’ jam,
But down with the man and down in the dirt,
Down to the corral for the Showdown in Sirte.
linnte says
Very good!
gravenimage says
Good work. Why were you in Tripoli?
1357911 says
GI:
“Good work. Why were you in Tripoli?”
____________________________
Have you forgotten so soon, my dear E?
______________________________
Shame on you.
I thought you were a better friend.
Didn’t you read everything I sent to you?
Panda says
One can only hope. “Our dog is their fight.” Best line of a superb article. Paraphrase of #2 — We (Americans) need to do NOTHING. I’d suggest that prodding both sides might be helpful, except that we’d probably mess it up.
Mr. Fitz, one of your best, and they’re ALL good.
gravenimage says
I hope you are right, Hugh.
davej says
Since both sides of this schism have long ago submitted to Allah doesn’t this throw into doubt the whole idea of peace after submission?
I suggest we do everything possible to encourage this internecine bloodshed.
With a little luck they will tear themselves apart in the competition for “most devout”.
Jack Diamond says
There has never been peace after submission. Here is a fine depiction of Islamic cannibalism, in theory and action, since the beginnings of Islam, by Abul Kasem:
http://www.islam-watch.org/AbulKasem/cannibalizing_islam.htm
{From the article}
Volume 3, Book 40, Number 4744
‘Arfajah told that he heard the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) as saying: Various corruptions will arise in my community, so strike with sword the one who tries to cause separation in the matter of Muslims when they are united, whoever he be.
On a note (foot note 4153), the English translator of Sunaan Dawud, Professor Ahmad Hasan admits that it is permissible to ‘cannibalize’ dissident Islamic group/s. He writes: ‘The Prophet (may peace be upon him) did not tolerate disunity and schism among Muslims. Therefore, he ordered that, instead of causing separation and disagreement in the community, it is better to kill the person who causes disunity.’
Yet another hadis from the same source asks to murder those Muslims who are insincere in their faith. This hadis even tells that Allah loves the Muslims who kill those insincere Muslims, a la Islamic cannibalism style.
Cannibalism is nothing new in Islam. Islamic history is profusely replete with many such savage anecdotes of cannibalization.
During the last few decades we have witnessed much such Islamic cannibalism. The most recent event was the Iran-Iraq war, in which millions of Muslims were killed, not by the infidels (kafirs) but by Muslims. Undoubtedly, in not-too-distant a future, we are bound to witness many such events of Islamic cannibalism…
Every time we switch on television and watch those gory, despicable, horrific, gruesome and frightening scenes in Iraq, Egypt, Sudan, Algeria, Darfur perpetrated by the Islamist jihadists, we are actually witnessing the playback of the past of Islamic cannibalism. Every time we see those horrible scenes we are, in fact watching re-enactment of the incidence of Uthaman’s murder and its aftermath. Grasping this truth will enhance our perception of Islamic terrorism, its depth, width and extent of savagery and why this barbarism is not going to go away so soon. Do remember, the victims of these mayhems are not infidels. They are truly Muslims, being cannibalized by truer Muslims. One day we shall surely watch how these truer Muslims would be cannibalized by the truest Muslims. It is just a matter of time before this cycle repeats itself, if we were to learn any lessons from the episodes of Islamic cannibalisms I illustrated from the earliest Islamic period.
Conclusion:
Islamic cannibalism is a non-stop musical chair which continues forever, or at least until Islam is extinguished completely in the manner postulated by none other than Muhammad (see above for the ahadith) himself. The concept of a single Islamic Ummah is simply a myth. When the killing of infidels becomes difficult, Islam kills itself. Isn’t this a little piece of good news for humanity?”
David A says
Yes, a fatal and violent fault. All attempts to reform Islam made by Muslims end in the same death fatwas. Will they ever weary of the unending death parade?
john spielman says
this proves once again that islam is NOT of God, since islam is a ” house divided – Sunni Shia and others, Jesus said “a house divide against itself cannot stand!”
islam is DOOMED!
gravenimage says
True, Dave and Jack–there is no peace after submission. 100% Muslim countries like Afghanistan, Yemen, and Somalia are the most violent hell holes on earth. When Muslims run out of Infidels to murder, they all turn on each other.
isabella van der westhuizen says
What a religion
davej says
NOT a religion, just the frosted trappings of one to cover for their bloodthirsty supremacist political ideology. Yet a very useful subterfuge to demand respect and all the financial, legal and sentimental advantages that flow from this claim, particularly in the West.
Benedict says
A religion, that through its diabolic genesis and design is destined to implode and destroy itself, while a chorus of Muslims are screaming “Allahu Akbar”. That’s the ironic judgment on this anti-Christian replacement heresy called Islam.
Benedict says
PS: It’s called intelligent design.
Benedict says
– and what a stupid “prophet” who couldn’t foresee the conflict arising from his forgetfulness to appoint his successor.
Chris says
Did Muhammad bin Abdullah even care about what happened after he died? He was in it for himself, making up the Koran as he went along, to suit his needs of the moment, pretending to receive divine revelations, in order to gain respect, power, wealth, and sexual privileges for himself. When his child bride Aisha grew up, she commented to him, “Your lord always hastens to do your bidding.” She later testified that Muhammad did not die before he had made all women lawful for himself. The cunning, self-serving fraud tricked, deceived, and swindled his followers, promising them 72 eternal virgins in Paradise if they died in battle for him, so as to turn them into the fearless, obedient fighters that every military leader wants.
Benedict says
Right! Pure self serving expediency. Dangling an imaginary carrot in front of the eyes of easily deceived, superstitious, gullible, tribalistic disciples, prodded by their own wishful thinking, pride and self-aggrandizement – that was the genesis of Islam.
Don McKellar says
My 6 point plan. Been around a long time and has been posted a few times over the years on Jihad Watch.
1) Quarantine.
2) Block all “refugees” and deport any existing players (even suspected — this is WAR)
3) Secure the borders.
4) Be the arms sellers or brokers to both parties. No prejudice to either side.
5) Let ever single new-found devout moslem amongst us return to the Middle East and strip them of citizenship and any ability whatsoever of returning.
6) Reap the rewards of national safety and the return to the secure times of old in the modern, advanced, civilized world.
Cynthia in California says
Dear Mr. McKellar: I personally would alter your six-point plan to a five-point plan. That is, I would remove your “4) Be the arms sellers or brokers to both parties. No prejudice to either side.”
We do NOT want to be in a position for either side to accuse us of “favoring” the opposite side. Best to stay out of it in every conceivable way, IMHO.
But otherwise–Excellent! 🙂
Don McKellar says
Who gives a damn of either side saying ANYTHING if the other 5 points are observed??? Moslems will buy arms to murder each other in such a hothouse environment from whomever supplies. WHO CARES who they accuse of “favoring”??? And they are not going to boycott the supplier of the best arms just because they sold the same to the other side. Never have, never will. All of history shows this. There is no reason not to profit from the boiling cauldron of jihad. The American Industrial Complex and American gun manufacturers have never shown any guilt or real remorse for what they make and sell, and nor should they. It is only a product put to use or as a deterrent as the buyers see fit. In fact, moslems use planes and trucks to murder as readily as they use guns and bombs as we have all seen, so no guilt is warranted. It is either America or it will be Putin or GB or France or China or any number of other players who will sell. It should be America who profits. Trump’s superteam of world class players would cut some great deals for America.
vicki says
I hate it when they turn our weapons against us.
Anne Smith says
When speaking of the Germans during World War II Sir Winston Churchill said “the more who kill each other the better”.
gravenimage says
The only reason I wouldn’t arm them is so they can’t use our own weapons against us.
Don McKellar says
Thank you for your positive feedback on the rest!
Oliver says
Perhaps the Saudis or the Gulf States can convince ISIS supporters in the US and other western nations to go to Iraq and Lebanon amd attack and kill Hezbollah members and the Revolutionary Guard. A few hundred thousand Iranians also for good measure
And the ISIS terrorists can also get killed. And al queida can join in
. that would be nice
linnte says
Mr. Fitzgerald, I wholly agree! LET them bump each other off one by one. The more Pakistanis involved, the merrier. In fact, let them blast the whole Middle East off the map. But can they please start with Mecca?
bernie says
Apparently many of the isis members DO want to destroy Mecca because they believe it’s a place of idolatry,believe it or not.
Mirren10 says
I hope they pick the time of the Haj.
No Fear says
Brigadier Salami obviously has a small dick.
eur says
In case of war it is evident from the Muslim logic that the fault would be the Westerners. We would have Saudi princes Saudis or ayatollahs asking for asylum in Europe and the following year demanding Sharia and planning attacks.
Westman says
Could there be any doubt of eventual warfare between Iran and KSA over control of Mecca? Iran has three likely choices under the current regime: Institutionalize an alternative Hajj outside the KSA, wait for Saudi acceptance, or, go to war for control of Mecca.
don vito says
itace, what say you? B Hoff what say you? Mazo what say you?
gravenimage says
I’d like to hear from rape enthusiast Mubarak, as well. No doubt he’d tell us that the only “Christian” thing to do is to let millions of Jihadists from both side of the Sunni/Shia flood into the West…
Aton says
Is Obama Sunni or Shia? I can never work him out, he seems to support both sides. Or is he so remote from the realities, that he does not know the difference?
Aton
ibrahim itace muhammed says
hugh fitzgerald, i want educate you a little that wahhabists are not sunni;they are khawarijis the killers.abdulwahhab(may allah curse him),a jew ,revived khawariji deadly ideology to cause frictions among muslims to serve the interest of christian west and his brothers the evil jews.the saudi royal family,being the descendants of jew called modakhai, adopted this obnoxious wahhabi interpretation of islam and use incomes from oil to export it worldwide. so, the fight against isis in syria and iraq is not a war between shia and sunni.isis terrorists belong to wahhabism which saudi royal family support.note,a very tiny percentage of saudi arabian population are wahhabists.wahhabi ideology is for ruling family and very few among elites.so, the question of sunnis from other countries like pakistan to side wahhabists in case there is all out war between shia and wahhabists will not arise.note, i am a sunni muslim, but i dont like deadly wahhabi ideology which consider all other muslims to be apostates and shall be killed.the christian west and jews will be happy to see all out wars between real sunni and shia to serve the interests of wicked zionist state of israhell.it will not happene.thus, mr fitzgerald got it wrong.
1357911 says
Mohammedist Inbred:
“…note,a very tiny percentage of (sic) saudi arabian population are (sic) wahhabists.wahhabi (sic) ideology is for ruling family (sic) and very few among (sic) elites.”
________________________________________________
Rubbish. Complete rubbish.
You’ve never been to and lived in SA. I have.
They are demonstrably Wahabbists. The only exception is in the eastern province, where there is a sizable Shia population.
You don’t know what you are talking about, and/or, you’re spewing “tribal taqiyya”, in order to further your psycho, Wahabbist dreams.
girlgirl says
i highly doubt the saudi family is wahhabis … there might be few wahabbis among them but there are also their relatives who are allowed to have a “westernized life”, like one who had several meetings with western musicians/singers and the famous saudi princess who dresses modesty for our standards but she would be assaulted in her country .
in my opinion the saudi royal family doesnt have so much power as people claim they have, they’re stuck with the wahhabis because they keep their power more stable.
Jack Diamond says
The biggest problem Muslims ever seem to have with ISIS or al Qaeda is not that they target and kill the “kuffar” but that they call other Muslims apostates and target them.
This isn’t something invented by wahhabis (who follow Hanbali jurisprudence). Muhammad himself said Muslims would divide into 73 sects, only one of which would see Paradise. Muhammad himself had a rival mosque burned down for causing “mischief.” His best buddy, Abu Bakr, launched the Ridda (Apostasy) Wars. Muhammad himself made a Muslim turning “renegade” from Islam (apostasy) a crime punishable by death, not the wahhabis; and “hypocrite” Muslims are called out in the Qur’an: “O Prophet (Muhammad)! Strive hard against the disbelievers and the hypocrites, and be harsh against them, their abode is Hell (9:73)”.
Who defines who are the hypocrites and renegades and mischief-makers?
Volume 3, Book 40, Number 4580 Sunaan Abu Dawud:
Abu ‘Amir al-Hawdhani said: Mu’awiyah b. Abi Sufyan stood among us and said: Beware! The apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) stood among us and said: Beware! The people of the Book were split up into seventy-two sects, and this community will be split up into seventy-three: seventy-two of them will go to Hell and one of them will go to Paradise, and it is the majority group.
Volume 3, Book 40, Number 4744
‘Arfajah told that he heard the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) as saying: Various corruptions will arise in my community, so strike with sword the one who tries to cause separation in the matter of Muslims when they are united, whoever he be.
>>>> Strike with the sword those who cause separation; 72 false sects causing disunity. What is this but a call to violence from the source? Pious Muslims have been killing other pious Muslims for 14 centuries. Pious Muslims murdered (viciously) the early Caliphs. Al-Wahhab was only born in 1703.
As a footnote, for anyone who cares, the Islamic State does have a refutation of the idea that they are khawariji: https://ansarukhilafah.wordpress.com/2015/07/15/are-the-islamic-state-khawarij/
gravenimage says
Jack Diamond wrote:
The biggest problem Muslims ever seem to have with ISIS or al Qaeda is not that they target and kill the “kuffar” but that they call other Muslims apostates and target them.
………………………….
Spot on, Jack.
don vito says
itace what would keep a kufr’s life and his children’s life, and kufr property safe from your prophet’s filthy hands?
gravenimage says
Ridiculous Taqiyya artist ibrahim itace muhammed wrote:
hugh (sic) fitzgerald (sic), i (sic) want educate (sic) you a little that wahhabists (sic) are not sunni;they (sic) are khawarijis the killers.abdulwahhab(may (sic) allah (sic) curse him),a jew ,revived (sic) khawariji deadly ideology to cause frictions among muslims (sic) to serve the interest of christian (sic) west and his brothers the evil jews (sic).
…………………………………..
Note that muhammed has never said why a Jew would be an especially devout Muslim. It is also notable that the West had no presence at all in Arabia during Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab’s time–any more than any Jews did.
Also, he himself has given the lie that Muslims only declared Takfir on each other during Ali’s time and then only again in the mid 18th century. He recently cited some pious Muslims targeting Ahmad ibn Hanbal, the founder of Hanbali school–even though this was long after the death of Ali, and much before the rise of Wahabbism.
But then, who expects reason and consistency from Mohammedans?
More:
the (sic) saudi (sic) royal family,being (sic) the descendants of jew (sic) called modakhai, (sic) adopted this obnoxious wahhabi (sic) interpretation of islam (sic) and use incomes from oil to export it worldwide.
…………………………………..
What, precisely, does muhammed consider obnoxious about Wahhabism? It is perfectly orthodox Islam.
More:
so, (sic) the fight against isis (sic) in syria (sic) and iraq (sic) is not a war between shia (sic) and sunni.isis (sic) terrorists belong to wahhabism (sic) which saudi (sic) royal family support.
…………………………………..
Notice muhammed does not say what, exactly, is un-Islamic about the Islamic State. And how could he? It follows the barbarism of Shari’ah perfectly.
More:
note,a (sic) very tiny percentage of saudi (sic) arabian (sic) population are wahhabists.wahhabi (sic) ideology is for ruling family and very few among elites.
…………………………………..
When is the last time Saudis protested floggings? Amputations? Beheadings? Most of them seem to be fine with this savagery. And why not? It is perfectly Islamic.
More:
so, (sic) the question of sunnis (sic) from other countries like pakistan (sic) to side wahhabists (sic) in case there is all out war between shia (sic) and wahhabists (sic) will not arise.
…………………………………..
What ideological differences do Pakistani Sunnis have with Saudi Wahabbists? Damn few.
Also, the implication that Pakistanis are not persecuting Shi’ites is just false. Violence against them there is rife:
“Shia persecution continues to spiral in Pakistan as the state acquiesces to genocidal violence”
http://nation.com.pk/blogs/22-Feb-2016/shia-persecution-continues-to-spiral-in-pakistan-as-the-state-acquiesces-to-genocidal-violence
But then, who expect honesty from this Mohammedan?
More:
note (sic), i (sic) am a sunni (sic) muslim (sic), but i (sic) dont (sic) like deadly wahhabi (sic) ideology which consider all other muslims (sic) to be apostates and shall be killed.
…………………………………..
Do you have any problem with their oppressing, raping, and murdering Christians and other Infidels? I thought not…
More:
the (sic) christian (sic) west and jews (sic) will be happy to see all out wars between real sunni (sic) and shia (sic) to serve the interests of wicked zionist (sic) state of israhell.it (sic) will not happene.thus, (sic) mr (sic) fitzgerald (sic) got it wrong.
…………………………………..
Christians and Jews have nothing to do with Muslims slaughtering each other on grounds of insufficient ideological purity.
And saying “it will not happene” is absurd–Sunnis and Shia have been slaughtering each other for 1400 years now–since long before the Wahhabists came along.
Dave says
Muslim infidels
It has a nice ring to it !
I’m sure that they will continue to do what they do best, murder, rape, slavery, pediphelia …
Dov Berrol says
The only pieces missing from this are Russia and Israel who are neighbours to this eternal Muslim civil war. Israel is going to have to keep defending itself from spillover, and may never be able to give up the West Bank as it is a necessary buffer zone in a very dangerous neighbourhood. That is why Israel may only be able to accept a demilitarized Palestine next to it – with Israel in control of the Jordan Valley.
How to keep Russia from getting involved, I don’t know. Its strategic alliances with Iran and Assad and its problems with Chechens and its complicated relationship with Turkey clouds any clear understanding of how the eternal Muslim Civil war could be contained in its own Middle Eastern box.
Oliver says
Regarding Russoaw. I think its relationship with Iran is one of convience for Russia. And no love . but keeps some Muslims at bay and at home. My view.
Oliver says
Russia. Line one. Sorry for typos
Ciudadano says
I think in the scenario of a war between Saudi Arabia and Iran, it is not realistic to expect that usa or russia aret going to get involved.
Iran could single handly defeat SA. As usual USA would intervene to save Its beloved ally’s ass. URRS will intervene to support IRan side. This can quickly escalate into a regional war between USA and URRS.
Benedict says
“We should be able to recognize that if we leave the Muslim states of the Middle East to their own wretched devices, and do nothing to discourage (nor to too obviously encourage) their internecine conflicts, the civilized world can only benefit.” –
With the amount of Muslims in the West such a conflict would spark a conflagration here also, since Muslim mentality always appoints scapegoats outside their ranks.
– Don’t you think that could be a plausible outcome, Mr. Fitzgerald?
gravenimage says
Yes–we’ve already seen some internecine Muslim ugliness in the West–and we are bound to see more, with innocent Infidels getting caught in the crossfire.
Benedict says
“We should be able to recognize that if we leave the Muslim states of the Middle East to their own wretched devices, and do nothing to discourage (nor to too obviously encourage) their internecine conflicts, the civilized world can only benefit.” –
With the amount of Muslims in the West such a conflict would spark a conflagration here also, since the Muslim mentality always appoints scapegoats outside their ranks.
– Don’t you think that could be a plausible outcome, Mr. Fitzgerald?
Benedict says
PS: Anyhow; leaving out the full stop between O and K in the headline is pretty witty.
concerned canadian says
WHO CARES.
I cant stand any of them.
Mirren10 says
”What should the West, what should the United States do, in such circumstances? It should do absolutely nothing, but pull up a chair, and watch the spectacle unfold, and secretly wish that it might go on forever.”
Yep. Pass the popcorn.
My only proviso would be to reinforce and enhance our support of **Israel**.
gravenimage says
Agreed, Mirren.
Mirren10 says
Well said, dda.
A Merry Christmas, and a Happy New Year, to you and yours !
Mirren10 says
Merry Christmas, and a Happy New Year, to you and yours, graven !
By the way, I sent you an email with some stupendously exciting news (well, to me, anyway 🙂 ) re: Israel.
dumbledoresarmy says
Agreed.
And of course, STOP letting in any Muslims at all, from anywhere; and remove all those already here who don’t have citizenship, and then start figuring out how to ‘de-citzen’ the rest, because realistically, the Muslim ‘community’ is the sea within which the jihadis swim and from which they incessantly emerge.
Keep the mohammedans out, turf the mohammedans out, quarantine them, and then fortify and vigorously defend the borders of the Lands of the Free Infidels.
Israel would have to be assisted with the eviction of all mohammedans from within their gates… and that would include the vital military high ground, Judea and Samaria and Yerushalayim/ Mount Zion, which Israel *must* hold, absolutely, as sovereign Israeli territory, for its survival.
jewdog says
I worry that ISIS has made itself so obnoxious that attempts to obliterate it will tilt the balance of power decisively to Iran in Syria and Iraq.
August West says
A very good article.
One aspect of the story that I find to be very important is that if the Shi’ite axis is able to pull off “Shi’a Spring” like events in Bahrain and Saudi Arabia, then this could easily put vast oil reserves into Iranian control.
This is where we will see the true results of the Russian/Iranian alliance: a significant increase in the market price of oil. Which they can engineer by limiting the supply from Bahrain and Saudi.
Rex Tillerson (Secretary of State designee) is in a position to understand this reality very clearly. It is more important than ever that the US move forward with energy independence.
Angemon says
Yup, that’s Obama’s gimmick.
ElderlyZionist says
Bahrain is having a hot day:
http://cincinnatibell.net/news/read/category/Middle%20East%20News/article/the_associated_press-clashes_erupt_in_bahrain_town_thats_home_to_shiite-ap
Surak says
Well said. I see that there are a lot of clever (in their own eyes) geopolitical strategists, urging us to support this side or that (Saudi or Iran). The latest movement is the Russophile contingent, which is begging us to ally with Russia-Syria-Iran against ISIS (Saudi-Qatar). No. They both sponsor terrorism against us in the West because of Qur’an 9:5. I won’t let my hatred for ISIS become love for Iran.
Aussietrev says
Let all the moslimes wage all out war on each other and when it is over, nuke the winner. All good with the world then.
gravenimage says
Hugh Fitzgerald: Sunnis and Shi’a at the OK Corral
……………………
Going strong for 1400 years now…
BC says
The two main branches of Islam have been at each others’ throats for centuries. The Sunni think the Shia are apostates, the Shia think they should be the leading branch. How can this be a ‘religion of peace’?
If it was they would have solved this dichotomy along time ago.
BTW they also think other branches are apostates too and this means they can be murdered to do god’s will.
Do not bother telling about the RCs and the Protestants. That is a different issue . The division was caused by a protest against the corruption of the RC church.