Monday, 15 April 2013

The Hypocrisy of the Iraqi Shia political parties.

     First of all and before anyone who reads the headline accuses me with all the sectarian accusations and call me all sorts of names, which are always ready to confront whoever wants to say the truth, and loathe sectarianism, I would like to say that I’m originally Half Sunni and half Shia. Or as I jokingly respond when I'm asked about my sect I say that I'm ( Sushi). Just like many of Iraqis and even tribes who refused to recognize the sectarian divisions and defragmentation, which only became obvious when those who  call Shia ( our shia brothers) , and those who call Sunnies ( our Sunni brothers) arrived , and it turned up that their brotherhood was  like Able and Cane’s.
    What was really interesting lately is the flagrant hypocrisy, the multiple personality and unethical standards, which materialized today in the Iraqi political and public arena which is about to storm Iraq and drag it into a new phase of despicable sectarian fighting. By this I mean what is happening in Syria and how it is being greatly reflected on the situation in Iraq.
     Let us review what is going on in Syria today and the position of the ruling Shia parties and the Shia public which listens to those parties propaganda and follow their policies. shia parties struggled and fought against Saddam Hussein’s Ba’thist regime, which relied on its sect and its small clan to dominate, control and oppress the overwhelming majority of his people of various sects and ethnicities , and considered whoever rise  against his regime as armed terrorist groups and agents to foreign countries. Now, isn't it hypocritical that those same parties and politicians support another Ba’thist , which practices exactly the same thing that the old Ba’thist regime, which they used to fight , used to do? Just because he is oppressing and brutally killing the other sect and they also consider them terrorist groups, agents to other countries?!

   The Shia politicians and community criticized, actually attacked, the Arab countries accusing them of supporting Saddam Hussein and keeping silent over his crimes that he committed against his people, the majority of whom are shia in Iraq. Here we got to ask again, isn’t it hypocritical from the side of the politicians and the leaders at the Shia party to do exactly what they have criticized the Arab leaders and countries of doing? And even more, facilitating the transfer of weapons and fighters to Syria to oppress the Syrian people? And furthermore, publicly celebrating the Iraqi Shia fighters who return from Syria in coffins after being killed in a struggle that they have nothing to do with?

Here we must ask, isn't that Ba’thist regime is the same one who facilitated the crossing of terrorists into Iraq , as it was accused by those same politicians who are now supporting this regime? Isn't that the same regime which was sending the car bombs to Iraq? Isn't that same regime which was glorifying the insurgency and the former Iraqi regime elements? What can we call the support of the Iraqi government today to this inevitably falling regime, other than absolute hypocrisy, and empowerment of the despicable sectarianism, which this Government has adopted?

Is it in the best interest of the Iraqi people to win the animosity of a neighboring Arab country , just to serve the sectarian interests of a regional states, which is spreading sectarianism and hatred and destabilizes the whole region for its own purposes?
These are questions that every Iraqi, shia in particular, should address and ask it to their politicians, and they should confront themselves with and to elevate beyond the despicable sectarianism and think about the best interests for them and their future. And what is ethical position that they take today and let them remember that one day they suffered from the same injustice and oppression that the Syrian people are going through today. And after all that, here comes the Iraqi PM and writes and Op-ed in the Washington Post titled (The U.S. has a foreign-policy partner in Iraq)

   While he defends Iran’s policies in the region and defends his relation with Iran and describes the rebels I Syria and those who sympathize with them in  Iraq as “terrorists”.


Anonymous said...

What's up colleagues, its fantastic post on the topic of tutoringand entirely defined, keep it up all the time.

my website - herbal male

Anonymous said...

Thanks , I've just been searching for information about this topic for ages and yours is the greatest I've found out till now.

But, what concerning the conclusion? Are you certain about the source?

my web-site galaxy s4

Anonymous said...

google law firm

Ankur said...


Thanks for your greatful informations, working in, ASIAN AFFAIRS MAGAZINE.

Try to post best informations like this always

Middle East : Israel and Hamas shy away from peace talks

Qposter said...

Great article posting. Thanks for sharing. Please keep it up to date.

Anonymous said...

Seo Go Serp
Point Serp
Gue Seo
Backlink Credit
Seo In Web Id
Seo In Gue
Seo Nego
Seo In aku
Pesan Gue
Token Backlink

Anonymous said...

A new book on 9/11 is out. The author knew the Mossad agent who organised the events of that day.

Dimitri Khalezov has spent 10 years researching and writing this book. Download links:

Or read at:

In a 2010 interview, Khalezov explained that you can't build a skyscraper in NYC without an approved demolition plan. On 9/11, the World Trade Center's demolition plan was put into action to demolish the complex.

Khalezov learned of this demolition plan from his job in the Soviet Union. He had worked in the nuclear intelligence unit and under an agreement between the Soviet Union and the USA, each country was obliged to inform the other of peaceful uses of nuclear explosions. The WTC was built with 3 thermo-nuclear charges in its foundations.

Note: underground nuclear explosions do not produce mushroom clouds. This is only ever seen when the explosion takes place above ground. On 9/11, the explosions were deep underground.

More info:

You can watch the 2010 interview at:
Video # 4 - WTC's demolition plan
Video # 14 - WTC 7 (which fell ½ hour AFTER the BBC announced its collapse).
Videos # 24/25 - chronic radiation sickness of WTC responders (their cancers are not due to asbestos poisoning)

Khalezov was interviewed on 4 Sept 2013:

Here is a recent article mentioning Khalezov:

I know it is preposterous to claim that the WTC was brought down by nukes. But note that the place where the WTC once stood is called 'Ground Zero'. If you look up the meaning of 'ground zero' in the old dictionaries you have at home, you'll find that there would only be one definition. It is what you call a place that has been nuked.

After 9/11, the US government sent people out to switch all the dictionaries in the public domain. The replacements differed only in the meaning of 'ground zero'. They show extra definitions for that term, to obfuscate the original single meaning.

For example, if you have a genuine old Merriam-Webster dictionary, you would see this:
ground zero n (1946) : the point directly above, below, or at which a nuclear explosion occurs.

The replacement books (even of old editions) show two extra definitions and this is what you'll see:
ground zero n (1946) 1 : the point directly above, below, or at which a nuclear explosion occurs. 2: the center or origin of rapid, intense, or violent activity or change 3: the very beginning : SQUARE ONE

Have a look at this video:
At 6:05 mins, he shows the old and new definitions of 'ground zero'.

Emily Ratajkowski said...

Wonder Post, I highly appreciate those people who share some good information, because I like those people who actually share :).
Dry Cleaners Richmond

Uouo Uo said...

جزاكم الله خيرا"

شركه تنظيف

Rabica said...

Realy Like this Post, I highly appreciate those people who share some good information, because I like those people who actually share :).

Lowongan Kerja said...

Cari Kerja? klik:

Mas Rudi said...

Internet dan Game Online!!