• Flying Squid@lemmy.worldM
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    40
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    16 days ago

    I should have seen that coming. It makes sense considering Iran was supporting the Assad regime.

    Interesting too considering Iran is a fundamentalist Islamic state and Assad’s Ba’ath party is secular. Blatantly so.

    I guess religion is less important than playing games with political near neighbors.

    • Aqarius@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      15 days ago

      Religion isn’t religion isn’t religion. Iran is Shia, “moderate rebels” are by and large Sunni.

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldM
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        15 days ago

        Again, the Ba’ath party is 100% secular. Secularism is a cornerstone of their party. It has nothing to do with Sunni and Shi’a here, it has to do with a theocratic regime in a partnership with exactly the opposite.

        • Aqarius@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          15 days ago

          …Yes, the Ba’ath party is 100% secular, and Tehran would rather deal with secularists than with heretics.

            • Aqarius@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              15 days ago

              No, secularists are nonbelievers, possibly apostates. A heretic believes in the same religion as you do, just the wrong kind of it.

                  • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldM
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    15 days ago

                    Where is the contradiction? Do you think a belief contrary to religious doctrine has to be religious?

                • Aqarius@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  6
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  15 days ago

                  On the contrary, from Wikipedia:

                  Heresy is any belief or theory that is strongly at variance with established beliefs or customs, particularly the accepted beliefs or religious law of a religious organization.[1][2] A heretic is a proponent of heresy.[1]

                  Heresy is distinct from apostasy, which is the explicit renunciation of one’s religion, principles, or cause;

                  Atheism is not heresy. A heretic is a type of believer. You can argue you meant the colloquial usage as “divergent thought”, but that’s not the usage I used.

                  Either way, the point stands: not all Islam is the same thing, and the Tehran regime quite clearly has an easier time stomaching cooperation with secularists than with Sunnis.

                  • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldM
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    15 days ago

                    Stop what… breathing? I will in four years. And you and all the other people who hate me can get together and throw a big party.

                  • Amanduh@lemm.ee
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    5
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    15 days ago

                    Haha he removed it lmao

                    Also I don’t think it’s uncivil to point out how you like to argue with people and then remove their comments and ban people

    • TempermentalAnomaly@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      14 days ago

      The roots of the relationship goes back several decades.

      By the late 1970s, the state apparatus of the Baath regime under Assad had consolidated into an anti-Sunni orientation. Official propaganda incited Alawite farmers against rich Sunni landowners and regularly disseminated stereotypes of Sunni merchants and industrialists, casting them as enemies of nationalisation and socialist revolution. Bitterness towards the Assadist regime and the Alawite elite in the Baath and armed forces became widespread amongst the Sunni majority, laying the beginnings of an Islamic resistance. Prominent leaders of Muslim Brotherhood like Issam al-Attar were imprisoned and exiled. A coalition of the traditional Syrian Sunni ulema, Muslim Brotherhood revolutionaries and Islamist activists formed the Syrian Islamic Front in 1980 with objective of overthrowing Assad through Jihad and establishing an Islamic state. In the same year, Hafez officially supported Iran in its war with Iraq and controversially began importing Iranian fighters and terror groups into Lebanon and Syria. This led to rising social tensions within the country which eventually became a full-fledged rebellion in 1982; led by the Islamic Front. The regime responded by slaughtering the Sunni inhabitants in Hama and Aleppo and bombarding numerous mosques, killing around 20,000–40,000 civilians. The uprising was brutally crushed and Assad regarded the Muslim Brethren as demolished.

      You’d expect party unity between Syrian Ba’ath and Iraqi Ba’ath, but Saadam was labeled a fascist and the Syrian regional branch recognized Khomeni rather early on. Survival and having regional friends were more important than playing games.