Massive anti-Trump rally erupts in Iran, protesters chant ‘death to America’

So, Trump must be doing something right, he's making the Worst of the Worst really mad!

BUT! Remember what nationality and Islamic Sect the Majority of 911 attackers came from...

(Wahhabi Doctrine Sunni Saudi Arabia!)

And ISIS is nominally Sunni, though there is evidence some the most extreme, stage-show mass executions by "ISIS", were actually ordered by Iranian Covert Ops agents who subverted control of sub-groups of ISIS, and is using them to try to win over world / Western sympathies for Iran being given guardianship of the Middle East... to paint the Shia as the rational Muslims.

I pity the common Iranian People, and hope their suffering in this is small.

So, do we, America, side with Saudi Arabia in this coming war, and support the Sunni-Wahhabi Muslims... or just sit this one out?

Are there any "Good, Rational, Modern Muslims" nation states in the Middle East we can work with?

-
 
I think allying our nation to the lesser of two great evils, is still just chosing to aid a great evil.

Perhaps we should look further afield in the ME.

Putin chose to back the Syrian Alawites, and while they sometimes act like American Street Drug Gangs, they appear to be the most rational of the three.


Perhaps we should just stand back and let the Alawites/Russia handle it?

-
 
If I had good answers to the "MESS" I would have presented them in the OP.

IMHO the only people with any degree of "Good Nature" in the whole region are the now mostly dead Coptic Christians.

I am not normally a big fan of Huffpo, but, here is an interesting write up about the conflict:

You Can't Understand ISIS If You Don't Know the History of Wahhabism in Saudi Arabia | The Huffington Post

You Can’t Understand ISIS If You Don’t Know the History of Wahhabism in Saudi Arabia

08/27/2014 11:56 am ET | Updated Jun 03, 2016

Alastair Crooke Fmr. MI-6 agent; Author, ‘Resistance: The Essence of Islamic Revolution’

BEIRUT — The dramatic arrival of Da’ish (ISIS) on the stage of Iraq has shocked many in the West. Many have been perplexed — and horrified — by its violence and its evident magnetism for Sunni youth. But more than this, they find Saudi Arabia’s ambivalence in the face of this manifestation both troubling and inexplicable, wondering, “Don’t the Saudis understand that ISIS threatens them, too?”

It appears — even now — that Saudi Arabia’s ruling elite is divided. Some applaud that ISIS is fighting Iranian Shiite “fire” with Sunni “fire”; that a new Sunni state is taking shape at the very heart of what they regard as a historical Sunni patrimony; and they are drawn by Da’ish’s strict Salafist ideology.

Other Saudis are more fearful, and recall the history of the revolt against Abd-al Aziz by the Wahhabist Ikhwan (Disclaimer: this Ikhwan has nothing to do with the Muslim Brotherhood Ikhwan — please note, all further references hereafter are to the Wahhabist Ikhwan, and not to the Muslim Brotherhood Ikhwan), but which nearly imploded Wahhabism and the al-Saud in the late 1920s.

Many Saudis are deeply disturbed by the radical doctrines of Da’ish (ISIS) — and are beginning to question some aspects of Saudi Arabia’s direction and discourse.

THE SAUDI DUALITY

Saudi Arabia’s internal discord and tensions over ISIS can only be understood by grasping the inherent (and persisting) duality that lies at the core of the Kingdom’s doctrinal makeup and its historical origins.

One dominant strand to the Saudi identity pertains directly to Muhammad ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhab (the founder of Wahhabism), and the use to which his radical, exclusionist puritanism was put by Ibn Saud. (The latter was then no more than a minor leader — amongst many — of continually sparring and raiding Bedouin tribes in the baking and desperately poor deserts of the Nejd.)

The second strand to this perplexing duality, relates precisely to King Abd-al Aziz’s subsequent shift towards statehood in the 1920s: his curbing of Ikhwani violence (in order to have diplomatic standing as a nation-state with Britain and America); his institutionalization of the original Wahhabist impulse — and the subsequent seizing of the opportunely surging petrodollar spigot in the 1970s, to channel the volatile Ikhwani current away from home towards export — by diffusing a cultural revolution, rather than violent revolution throughout the Muslim world.

But this “cultural revolution” was no docile reformism. It was a revolution based on Abd al-Wahhab’s Jacobin-like hatred for the putrescence and deviationism that he perceived all about him — hence his call to purge Islam of all its heresies and idolatries.

MUSLIM IMPOSTORS

The American author and journalist, Steven Coll, has written how this austere and censorious disciple of the 14th century scholar Ibn Taymiyyah, Abd al-Wahhab, despised “the decorous, arty, tobacco smoking, hashish imbibing, drum pounding Egyptian and Ottoman nobility who travelled across Arabia to pray at Mecca.”

In Abd al-Wahhab’s view, these were not Muslims; they were imposters masquerading as Muslims. Nor, indeed, did he find the behavior of local Bedouin Arabs much better. They aggravated Abd al-Wahhab by their honoring of saints, by their erecting of tombstones, and their “superstition” (e.g. revering graves or places that were deemed particularly imbued with the divine).

All this behavior, Abd al-Wahhab denounced as bida — forbidden by God.

Like Taymiyyah before him, Abd al-Wahhab believed that the period of the Prophet Muhammad’s stay in Medina was the ideal of Muslim society (the “best of times”), to which all Muslims should aspire to emulate (this, essentially, is Salafism).

Taymiyyah had declared war on Shi’ism, Sufism and Greek philosophy. He spoke out, too against visiting the grave of the prophet and the celebration of his birthday, declaring that all such behavior represented mere imitation of the Christian worship of Jesus as God (i.e. idolatry). Abd al-Wahhab assimilated all this earlier teaching, stating that “any doubt or hesitation” on the part of a believer in respect to his or her acknowledging this particular interpretation of Islam should “deprive a man of immunity of his property and his life.”

One of the main tenets of Abd al-Wahhab’s doctrine has become the key idea of takfir. Under the takfiri doctrine, Abd al-Wahhab and his followers could deem fellow Muslims infidels should they engage in activities that in any way could be said to encroach on the sovereignty of the absolute Authority (that is, the King). Abd al-Wahhab denounced all Muslims who honored the dead, saints, or angels. He held that such sentiments detracted from the complete subservience one must feel towards God, and only God. Wahhabi Islam thus bans any prayer to saints and dead loved ones, pilgrimages to tombs and special mosques, religious festivals celebrating saints, the honoring of the Muslim Prophet Muhammad’s birthday, and even prohibits the use of gravestones when ...

I think it is worth the read.

-
 
Don't lean towards any one side in the fight between Iran and Saudi Arabia, balance them against one another. America's mistake has been leaning to one side.
 
Don't lean towards any one side in the fight between Iran and Saudi Arabia, balance them against one another. America's mistake has been leaning to one side.
sound advice..except the Iranian revolution will not be televised..the revolution will not be compromised..
the Great Satan must die.
 
Back
Top