America Stands with the Sunnis against the Shiites
All evidence convincingly suggests that the U.S. administration always sides with the Sunni Muslims against the Shiites. Even though the Shiites are a minority in comparison to the total number of Sunnis, the American bias favors the Sunnis. This bias, while present in all contexts, most strongly influences the political side of things, leading to the establishment of governments and the subsequent support and protection thereof, even when they are dictatorships.
As the year 1980 approached, there was not a single Shiite government in the world, even though Shiites comprised the majority of the population in Bahrain and Iraq. When the Iranian Revolution succeeded under the leadership of the Imam Khomeini — may God sanctify his secret — America was the first to oppose the world’s first Shiite government. All of the Arab countries soon joined the U.S. in its opposition, with the exception of Syria — not because Syria is a Shiite country, but because Syria found something in the Iranian Revolution worth supporting with respect to its own nationalist interests, despite the differences between Arab and Persian nationalism.
Without exception, every Arab government is Sunni, and their political structures all depend upon dictatorship. And yet the United States, despite their sloganeering about freedom and democracy, is the principal supporter of these Sunni Arab dictatorships. Meanwhile, America refused to accept the Shiite government in Iran, even though it held free elections for each of its official positions, hereby demonstrating America’s preference for the majority Sunni. For the first time, America supported the majority against the minority in a third-world country.
The U.S. position with respect to the Iranian Revolution did not come as a shock, as this policy emerged clearly from the American backing of Saddam Hussein’s government against the Shiites in Iraq. Despite Saddam’s pogroms and massacres of Shiites, the Americans presented him with all possible means of staying in power. The Americans’ absolute support for the Sunnis is further made explicit by their having stood alongside the Kurds, who are Sunni, through their own painful ordeal with Saddam Hussein. They offered the Kurds a kind of support they never gave to the Shiites.
Today the American support for Sunnis, previously something of a secret, has become blatantly obvious. It is unmistakably visible in Lebanon and Bahrain. In Lebanon, the U.S. has taken up the responsibility of countering the Lebanese Shiite opposition movement, achieving certain gains which the Sunni armies were unable to achieve themselves despite the Shiites’ general powerlessness. And when the shattering of the Shiite community failed to transpire, they assassinated Rafic Hariri in order to accuse the Shiites of the crime. The majority of Lebanese Sunnis, suspiciously and surprisingly, stood with the Americans against their Shiite brothers and compatriots. What we see now from the antics of Hariri’s propaganda artists, who resemble a drumming corps in support of him, is solid proof that the majority of Sunnis have pawned themselves off to the Americans. It is a cooperative and mutually beneficial political relationship akin to prostitution. Many take pride in it, though it has been described as shameful and even treasonous.
Today, in face of Shiite pride and victories both material and incorporeal, we witness — due to America’s stance concerning the people of Bahrain — the collapse of the American administration’s phony mottos of democracy and freedom. We see this administration stand firmly beside the Sunnis in Syria, despite their use of violence, murder and the mutilation of corpses; and yet they take an indifferent position regarding the peaceful and nonviolent campaign of the Bahraini people. The reason for this — the only reason — is that the Bahraini people are Shiites and their ruling government is Sunni by affiliation.
What do you suppose the Americans see in the Sunnis and not in the Shiites? And why do they stand so firmly behind Sunni movements and so firmly against Shiite movements? What is the secret reason for their absolute support of the Gulf State rulers who inherit power despite the foolishness of these ruling families who work hard to strike down and eliminate the Shiite?
Certainly there are reasons for this behavior; they are not invisible to those who observe and are able to see with their own eyes that the Americans, who always stand behind minorities in other countries, flagrantly antagonize the Shiites, who are a minority in the Islamic world. Is it because America sees that the Shiites will not sell off their homeland or sacrifice their own interests over those of America? Do you truly suppose the Islamic Dawa Party was a terrorist organization back in the 1960s, ‘70s and ‘80s; should they have permitted Saddam Hussein to use extreme measures in attempting to annihilate them? And do you suppose those belonging to the Shiite opposition movement in Lebanon, who defend their homeland, Sunnis, Christians and others as well, are honestly terrorists; did they truly assassinate Rafic Hariri? And do the Bahraini people not deserve to live the way most other people already live; do they not deserve to obtain their rights; and should they remain marginalized, having to deal with their government along sectarian lines?
What do you suppose the Americans found in the Sunnis to merit this sort of support? And what did they find in the Shiites to inspire this sort of treatment?
What do you suppose the U.S. would do if the terrorist organization al-Qaida were Shiite? And what if the Shiites committed the magnitude of crimes committed by the Sunni Wahhabis in America, Europe and various Arab countries? This is a question directed toward the Sunni brothers for them to respond to.
As the year 1980 approached, there was not a single Shiite government in the world, even though Shiites comprised the majority of the population in Bahrain and Iraq. When the Iranian Revolution succeeded under the leadership of the Imam Khomeini — may God sanctify his secret — America was the first to oppose the world’s first Shiite government. All of the Arab countries soon joined the U.S. in its opposition, with the exception of Syria — not because Syria is a Shiite country, but because Syria found something in the Iranian Revolution worth supporting with respect to its own nationalist interests, despite the differences between Arab and Persian nationalism.
Without exception, every Arab government is Sunni, and their political structures all depend upon dictatorship. And yet the United States, despite their sloganeering about freedom and democracy, is the principal supporter of these Sunni Arab dictatorships. Meanwhile, America refused to accept the Shiite government in Iran, even though it held free elections for each of its official positions, hereby demonstrating America’s preference for the majority Sunni. For the first time, America supported the majority against the minority in a third-world country.
The U.S. position with respect to the Iranian Revolution did not come as a shock, as this policy emerged clearly from the American backing of Saddam Hussein’s government against the Shiites in Iraq. Despite Saddam’s pogroms and massacres of Shiites, the Americans presented him with all possible means of staying in power. The Americans’ absolute support for the Sunnis is further made explicit by their having stood alongside the Kurds, who are Sunni, through their own painful ordeal with Saddam Hussein. They offered the Kurds a kind of support they never gave to the Shiites.
Today the American support for Sunnis, previously something of a secret, has become blatantly obvious. It is unmistakably visible in Lebanon and Bahrain. In Lebanon, the U.S. has taken up the responsibility of countering the Lebanese Shiite opposition movement, achieving certain gains which the Sunni armies were unable to achieve themselves despite the Shiites’ general powerlessness. And when the shattering of the Shiite community failed to transpire, they assassinated Rafic Hariri in order to accuse the Shiites of the crime. The majority of Lebanese Sunnis, suspiciously and surprisingly, stood with the Americans against their Shiite brothers and compatriots. What we see now from the antics of Hariri’s propaganda artists, who resemble a drumming corps in support of him, is solid proof that the majority of Sunnis have pawned themselves off to the Americans. It is a cooperative and mutually beneficial political relationship akin to prostitution. Many take pride in it, though it has been described as shameful and even treasonous.
Today, in face of Shiite pride and victories both material and incorporeal, we witness — due to America’s stance concerning the people of Bahrain — the collapse of the American administration’s phony mottos of democracy and freedom. We see this administration stand firmly beside the Sunnis in Syria, despite their use of violence, murder and the mutilation of corpses; and yet they take an indifferent position regarding the peaceful and nonviolent campaign of the Bahraini people. The reason for this — the only reason — is that the Bahraini people are Shiites and their ruling government is Sunni by affiliation.
What do you suppose the Americans see in the Sunnis and not in the Shiites? And why do they stand so firmly behind Sunni movements and so firmly against Shiite movements? What is the secret reason for their absolute support of the Gulf State rulers who inherit power despite the foolishness of these ruling families who work hard to strike down and eliminate the Shiite?
Certainly there are reasons for this behavior; they are not invisible to those who observe and are able to see with their own eyes that the Americans, who always stand behind minorities in other countries, flagrantly antagonize the Shiites, who are a minority in the Islamic world. Is it because America sees that the Shiites will not sell off their homeland or sacrifice their own interests over those of America? Do you truly suppose the Islamic Dawa Party was a terrorist organization back in the 1960s, ‘70s and ‘80s; should they have permitted Saddam Hussein to use extreme measures in attempting to annihilate them? And do you suppose those belonging to the Shiite opposition movement in Lebanon, who defend their homeland, Sunnis, Christians and others as well, are honestly terrorists; did they truly assassinate Rafic Hariri? And do the Bahraini people not deserve to live the way most other people already live; do they not deserve to obtain their rights; and should they remain marginalized, having to deal with their government along sectarian lines?
What do you suppose the Americans found in the Sunnis to merit this sort of support? And what did they find in the Shiites to inspire this sort of treatment?
What do you suppose the U.S. would do if the terrorist organization al-Qaida were Shiite? And what if the Shiites committed the magnitude of crimes committed by the Sunni Wahhabis in America, Europe and various Arab countries? This is a question directed toward the Sunni brothers for them to respond to.