just to be clear, Syrian President Bashar Al Assad was not brutal to his "political opponents", not in the generally accepted view of politics. Ever since the Allawites took over the Syrian government and fashioned a Bathist, secular government, Syria has been under attack from extreme Islam, notably the Muslim Brotherhood. We know today that Islamists are often as not in the pay of the West, France, Britain, or the US, I can only assume that the Brotherhood were also foreign supported. Regardless, these are not nice people and the Syrian government had to defend itself from those who would destroy it and murder its people. The sad fact is that the Islamists won and now proceed to practice the atrocities that the Assad government fought against.
The nuance goes deeper than that: Bashar certainly held authentic reformist credentials unable at the end of the day to override the hardline positions of conservative Old Guard circles from his father's heyday, but to say he lacked brutality is a stretch -- the entire reason Assad despite all his flaws and reaped misgivings was a legitimate and respectable leader is because he governed as a leader preserving societal order and cracking down on mob-oriented thuggish threats to Syria. Undoubtedly there were excesses, and ultimately that was in the context of the doubled-edged sword of "traditional Herodian tyranny" ruthlessly smashing far greater, neofascistic-syncretistic-hyper-populist currents which time and time again prove to destroy a country from within when not contained. Ditto especially more so in the cases of Saddam and Gaddafi, if I understand correctly.
I agree. Also, Gaddafi was very good to the vast majority of Libyans, and we all saw how Iraq fell apart without Saddam, both economically and socially (politically).
Definitely -- there is a shared theme that in spite of all their earthly shortcomings, those Arab nationalist "tyrants" -- Saddam, Gaddafi, Assad -- preserved a form of Promethean-esque people-elevating socialism under a banner of pluralism fundamentally protecting the peaceful and upright civilians in the long run by making sure to quash the Muslim Brotherhood from ever abusing the banner of "democratic representation" to drive sectarian disunion.
The world order we live in relies on the reinforcement of fake dualities in the form of self-fulfilling prophecies to brainwash masses a la "we were never at war with Eastasia" type of bogus. So long as those secular Arab nationalists were in power, the different factions of the world order all found themselves in an "uncomfortable" expediently driven and publicly naked unity conspiring against them, and once they were deposed those factions claim "we always hated each other." I don't know so much about Libya, but after a basic dig it looks like that was what happened in Iraq, to the same extent as if not more so than in Syria recently: the Anglo-American-Zionists, Iranian Shi'a Khomeinists, AND Sunni salafi-jihadist Muslim Brotherhood/al-Qaeda factions (yes, all three) aspired the toppling of Saddam in order to set up an order out of chaos (literally, "ordo ab chao") -- when the arch tower keeping the fragile unity together was removed, there was no pluralistic Ba'athist government to fully prevent religious groupings from migrating into vertical sectarian collaborationist movements as the Shi'ite majority migrated to Iranian-funded Badr and Kata'ib Hezbollah (not to be confused with the Lebanese Hezbollah) massacring Sunni civilians, driving rank-and-file ex-Ba'athist Sunnis barred from economic opportunities in the wake of Iranian-supported American de-Ba'athification orders increasingly into Sunni jihadist movements co-opting their grievances as Al-Qaeda in Iraq's rankings absorbed ex-Ba'athist Sunnis by the thousands.
All enabled by America, Britain, and Nazi "Israel." There's a larger question here of how Al-Qaeda in Iraq despite only having some few hundred "feeble" members in the immediate aftermath of post-Saddam upheaval managed to pay the salaries of thousands and tens of thousands of ex-Ba'athist Sunnis who joined their fold. I'm guessing it ties back to Al-Qaeda's origins in CIA conduits arming the Afghan mujahideen, but haven't done nearly enough research on this as of typing on top of too much to keep up with already.
Good point, although I tend to credit Shi Islam with much more genuine religious practice than their more violent Sunni neighbors. After all, Sunni Bathist Iraq attacked Shia Iran, and a vendetta against Saddam seems wrong. After all, the Americans concocted their reasons to eliminate him.
But you are right that somehow thousands of ex-Bathist military men did join in the resistance that ultimately drove out the invader. But, did they need to be paid to fight? No one likes invaders as the Americans found out in Afghanistan.
Yes, I think I see where you're coming from, as some months ago I held a highly similar if not exact framework in viewing the Islamic dimension in the wake of Syria's upheaval callously supported by what seems to be an overwhelming Sunni majority content with watching the Levant fall into the hands of al-Qaeda salafists.
That said, from the standpoint of dissecting past self-fulfilling pseudo-"prophetic" deception, I think the larger picture here is that any illusion of the dualist chasm as any form of literalized "Sunni vs. Shi'a" framework is actually the fake duality that the empire wants us to be duped into swallowing hook, line and sinker. The reality all along was that Nasser, Saddam, and Gaddafi consolidated Sunni Islamic piety into a relatively pluralistic and socialist framework rejecting Muslim Brotherhood/Wahhabi/Qutbist co-optation of Islamism for sectarian purposes. Unlike the MB-Wahhabi-Salafist-Qutbist version of "Sunni" "Islam"-ism that create a "vertical" collaborationist conservative hierarchical reactionary construct treating rank-and-file adherents as cheap cannon fodder whose human social needs were unattended, the Nasserite, Ba'athist, and Gaddafist mottos constrained Sunni zeal -- at least from what I've picked up, and do correct me if I'm mistaken -- away from sectarian destabilization and instead towards multilaterally innovative societal, cultural, and/or industrial edification.
Saddam Hussein also initially didn't seek a bloody war with Iran, if I recall reading correctly. It was Khomeini -- whose catapulted ascension to power was abetted by MI6 -- who rabble-roused sectarianism advocating Iraqi Shi'ite Muslims to overthrow Saddam in the descent into the bloody Iran-Iraq War where Nazi Israel supplied arms to Khomeini to fight off Saddam, the Zionists viewing Saddamist Arab nationalist as the real threat whereas Khomeini's militant anti-Zionism was largely -- if not all -- empty posturing.
While Hafez al-Assad was stridently aligned with Khomeini against Saddam Hussein in the Iran-Iraq War, Bashar deviated from the Syrian Old Guard position by expanding an already-growing rapprochement with Iraq in Saddam's final years: the 2000-03 Syro-Iraqi relationship proved that the real revolt against Anglo-Zionist empire came not from Tehran, but the reunification of the Mesopotamian and Levantine Ba'athist brothers even if it was too late and Saddam was destined to fall: https://adversusbabylon.substack.com/p/resistance-epitomized
Well, the ex-Ba'athists were marshaled into controlled opposition, not austere resistance. Whatever early Ba'athist ties were retained in the insurgency, over time AQI/ISI salafist terrorists hunted down remaining Ba'athist ideological loyalists and made sure the scattered pool of economically desperate recruits were ideologically herded in conformance with the ideology of al-Qaeda, which at the end of the day is an Anglo-American creation down to its core used to absorb fractured Sunnis behind false sectarian hopes and prevent the Nasserite/Ba'athist/Gaddafist influences from ever again mustering up a formidable political footing capable of countering Western divide-and-conquer balkanization hegemony.
FYI - several days ago (7/3) I found an extraordinary podcast by the invaluable Mike Benz ("The Secret Backstory of Russia-gate Fraud") -- on the 25+ year origin of Russia-gate fraud and hatred of Putin to this day. I believe it is impossible to overstate the importance and brilliance of this episode – extension of now forbidden Alex Kreiner’s book “Grand Deception”.
The Secret Backstory Of "Russia-gate" Fever: How Putin's 2003 Arrest Of The Blob's Top Oligarch Asset Inside Russia Sparked The Foreign Policy Flame War Trump Inherited -- Mike Benz @MikeBenzCyber -- July 3, 2025
Ukraine was just a repeat, by same people, of what was happening in Russia before Putin stopped it.
Once again, it is simply not possible to overstate the importance of this timely analysis…
Another item -- Mike is pushing boundaries of video podcasting - by using novel and entertaining approach to a very complex subject and uses past and present since the repulsive players are still the same.
Well, Putin's far from innocent -- the "Russia-Ukraine War" is a dual strategy of tension manipulation proxy game masterminded by both Russia and the United States: each side relies on nakedly abhorrent "signaled" provocations by the other to justify their own aggression, always using advance-knowledge Machiavellian-Faustian maneuvers (a.k.a. false flags and "milder" equivalents, i.e. intentionally allowing enemy terrorist attacks to rally nationalistic collaborationist banners) to perpetually justify whatever empirical power grab they believe is deemed OK because "the end justifies the means."
Look at Syria: the salafi-takfiri rebels were directly abetted by Ukraine, and Russia turned an intentional blind eye for years allowing HTS to muster up a salafist "coalition" strength (as a syncretistic "diversity-friendly" Bismarckian rebrand from al-Nusra in coordination with almost certainly the same FSA factions Putin already funded since 2015), ordering the Syrian Army to stand down in powerlessness as the "lightning blitz" culminated in the coup d'etat of Dec. 8, 2024, toppling Damascus.
Yes, you read that right, Boris: Russia and Ukraine were on the same side with Nazi Israel and the salafi jihadists facilitating the overthrow of Assad.
Putin -- former KGB official and FSB (look at its logo -- it's the Maltese cross) head-- is nothing more than a lackey of the same Knights of Malta bosses simultaneously directing scripts for CIA and MI6.
Cannot emphasize enough just how many words you took right out of my mouth. When I saw the news of Mango Caesar lifting the anti-Syria sanctions, I came to the exact instinctive conclusion -- that it was all gamed for geopolitical leverage using innocent human civilians as pawns and disposable sacrifices. I believe this is connected also to this rebranded al-Qaeda "HTS" regime's neoliberal policies treasonously allowing the type of flagrant international corporatist-cartel monopolistic resource-plundering domination Assad was for the most part a bulwark against.
As a marginal gloss: most "anti-Trumpers" are even worse than Orange Bolshevists in that the majority of TDS-infected liberals never criticize Tangerine Troglodyte for the right reasons while faking moral piety -- they join anti-Trump protests because their *own* American privileged lifestyles face unpleasant limitations ("oh no, my Social Security is being cut! this is the worst atrocity ever!"), never out of heartfelt sympathy for the innocent civilians destroyed by his CIA-aligned regime-changing foreign policy. (at least not unless they're white Europeans, but even then those Ukrainian civilians are treated as nothing more than sacrificial goats to be mindlessly slaughtered as drafted cannon fodder)
just to be clear, Syrian President Bashar Al Assad was not brutal to his "political opponents", not in the generally accepted view of politics. Ever since the Allawites took over the Syrian government and fashioned a Bathist, secular government, Syria has been under attack from extreme Islam, notably the Muslim Brotherhood. We know today that Islamists are often as not in the pay of the West, France, Britain, or the US, I can only assume that the Brotherhood were also foreign supported. Regardless, these are not nice people and the Syrian government had to defend itself from those who would destroy it and murder its people. The sad fact is that the Islamists won and now proceed to practice the atrocities that the Assad government fought against.
The nuance goes deeper than that: Bashar certainly held authentic reformist credentials unable at the end of the day to override the hardline positions of conservative Old Guard circles from his father's heyday, but to say he lacked brutality is a stretch -- the entire reason Assad despite all his flaws and reaped misgivings was a legitimate and respectable leader is because he governed as a leader preserving societal order and cracking down on mob-oriented thuggish threats to Syria. Undoubtedly there were excesses, and ultimately that was in the context of the doubled-edged sword of "traditional Herodian tyranny" ruthlessly smashing far greater, neofascistic-syncretistic-hyper-populist currents which time and time again prove to destroy a country from within when not contained. Ditto especially more so in the cases of Saddam and Gaddafi, if I understand correctly.
I agree. Also, Gaddafi was very good to the vast majority of Libyans, and we all saw how Iraq fell apart without Saddam, both economically and socially (politically).
Definitely -- there is a shared theme that in spite of all their earthly shortcomings, those Arab nationalist "tyrants" -- Saddam, Gaddafi, Assad -- preserved a form of Promethean-esque people-elevating socialism under a banner of pluralism fundamentally protecting the peaceful and upright civilians in the long run by making sure to quash the Muslim Brotherhood from ever abusing the banner of "democratic representation" to drive sectarian disunion.
The world order we live in relies on the reinforcement of fake dualities in the form of self-fulfilling prophecies to brainwash masses a la "we were never at war with Eastasia" type of bogus. So long as those secular Arab nationalists were in power, the different factions of the world order all found themselves in an "uncomfortable" expediently driven and publicly naked unity conspiring against them, and once they were deposed those factions claim "we always hated each other." I don't know so much about Libya, but after a basic dig it looks like that was what happened in Iraq, to the same extent as if not more so than in Syria recently: the Anglo-American-Zionists, Iranian Shi'a Khomeinists, AND Sunni salafi-jihadist Muslim Brotherhood/al-Qaeda factions (yes, all three) aspired the toppling of Saddam in order to set up an order out of chaos (literally, "ordo ab chao") -- when the arch tower keeping the fragile unity together was removed, there was no pluralistic Ba'athist government to fully prevent religious groupings from migrating into vertical sectarian collaborationist movements as the Shi'ite majority migrated to Iranian-funded Badr and Kata'ib Hezbollah (not to be confused with the Lebanese Hezbollah) massacring Sunni civilians, driving rank-and-file ex-Ba'athist Sunnis barred from economic opportunities in the wake of Iranian-supported American de-Ba'athification orders increasingly into Sunni jihadist movements co-opting their grievances as Al-Qaeda in Iraq's rankings absorbed ex-Ba'athist Sunnis by the thousands.
All enabled by America, Britain, and Nazi "Israel." There's a larger question here of how Al-Qaeda in Iraq despite only having some few hundred "feeble" members in the immediate aftermath of post-Saddam upheaval managed to pay the salaries of thousands and tens of thousands of ex-Ba'athist Sunnis who joined their fold. I'm guessing it ties back to Al-Qaeda's origins in CIA conduits arming the Afghan mujahideen, but haven't done nearly enough research on this as of typing on top of too much to keep up with already.
Good point, although I tend to credit Shi Islam with much more genuine religious practice than their more violent Sunni neighbors. After all, Sunni Bathist Iraq attacked Shia Iran, and a vendetta against Saddam seems wrong. After all, the Americans concocted their reasons to eliminate him.
But you are right that somehow thousands of ex-Bathist military men did join in the resistance that ultimately drove out the invader. But, did they need to be paid to fight? No one likes invaders as the Americans found out in Afghanistan.
Yes, I think I see where you're coming from, as some months ago I held a highly similar if not exact framework in viewing the Islamic dimension in the wake of Syria's upheaval callously supported by what seems to be an overwhelming Sunni majority content with watching the Levant fall into the hands of al-Qaeda salafists.
That said, from the standpoint of dissecting past self-fulfilling pseudo-"prophetic" deception, I think the larger picture here is that any illusion of the dualist chasm as any form of literalized "Sunni vs. Shi'a" framework is actually the fake duality that the empire wants us to be duped into swallowing hook, line and sinker. The reality all along was that Nasser, Saddam, and Gaddafi consolidated Sunni Islamic piety into a relatively pluralistic and socialist framework rejecting Muslim Brotherhood/Wahhabi/Qutbist co-optation of Islamism for sectarian purposes. Unlike the MB-Wahhabi-Salafist-Qutbist version of "Sunni" "Islam"-ism that create a "vertical" collaborationist conservative hierarchical reactionary construct treating rank-and-file adherents as cheap cannon fodder whose human social needs were unattended, the Nasserite, Ba'athist, and Gaddafist mottos constrained Sunni zeal -- at least from what I've picked up, and do correct me if I'm mistaken -- away from sectarian destabilization and instead towards multilaterally innovative societal, cultural, and/or industrial edification.
Saddam Hussein also initially didn't seek a bloody war with Iran, if I recall reading correctly. It was Khomeini -- whose catapulted ascension to power was abetted by MI6 -- who rabble-roused sectarianism advocating Iraqi Shi'ite Muslims to overthrow Saddam in the descent into the bloody Iran-Iraq War where Nazi Israel supplied arms to Khomeini to fight off Saddam, the Zionists viewing Saddamist Arab nationalist as the real threat whereas Khomeini's militant anti-Zionism was largely -- if not all -- empty posturing.
While Hafez al-Assad was stridently aligned with Khomeini against Saddam Hussein in the Iran-Iraq War, Bashar deviated from the Syrian Old Guard position by expanding an already-growing rapprochement with Iraq in Saddam's final years: the 2000-03 Syro-Iraqi relationship proved that the real revolt against Anglo-Zionist empire came not from Tehran, but the reunification of the Mesopotamian and Levantine Ba'athist brothers even if it was too late and Saddam was destined to fall: https://adversusbabylon.substack.com/p/resistance-epitomized
Well, the ex-Ba'athists were marshaled into controlled opposition, not austere resistance. Whatever early Ba'athist ties were retained in the insurgency, over time AQI/ISI salafist terrorists hunted down remaining Ba'athist ideological loyalists and made sure the scattered pool of economically desperate recruits were ideologically herded in conformance with the ideology of al-Qaeda, which at the end of the day is an Anglo-American creation down to its core used to absorb fractured Sunnis behind false sectarian hopes and prevent the Nasserite/Ba'athist/Gaddafist influences from ever again mustering up a formidable political footing capable of countering Western divide-and-conquer balkanization hegemony.
FYI - several days ago (7/3) I found an extraordinary podcast by the invaluable Mike Benz ("The Secret Backstory of Russia-gate Fraud") -- on the 25+ year origin of Russia-gate fraud and hatred of Putin to this day. I believe it is impossible to overstate the importance and brilliance of this episode – extension of now forbidden Alex Kreiner’s book “Grand Deception”.
The Secret Backstory Of "Russia-gate" Fever: How Putin's 2003 Arrest Of The Blob's Top Oligarch Asset Inside Russia Sparked The Foreign Policy Flame War Trump Inherited -- Mike Benz @MikeBenzCyber -- July 3, 2025
https://x.com/MikeBenzCyber/status/1940703252062122326
Ukraine was just a repeat, by same people, of what was happening in Russia before Putin stopped it.
Once again, it is simply not possible to overstate the importance of this timely analysis…
Another item -- Mike is pushing boundaries of video podcasting - by using novel and entertaining approach to a very complex subject and uses past and present since the repulsive players are still the same.
Well, Putin's far from innocent -- the "Russia-Ukraine War" is a dual strategy of tension manipulation proxy game masterminded by both Russia and the United States: each side relies on nakedly abhorrent "signaled" provocations by the other to justify their own aggression, always using advance-knowledge Machiavellian-Faustian maneuvers (a.k.a. false flags and "milder" equivalents, i.e. intentionally allowing enemy terrorist attacks to rally nationalistic collaborationist banners) to perpetually justify whatever empirical power grab they believe is deemed OK because "the end justifies the means."
Look at Syria: the salafi-takfiri rebels were directly abetted by Ukraine, and Russia turned an intentional blind eye for years allowing HTS to muster up a salafist "coalition" strength (as a syncretistic "diversity-friendly" Bismarckian rebrand from al-Nusra in coordination with almost certainly the same FSA factions Putin already funded since 2015), ordering the Syrian Army to stand down in powerlessness as the "lightning blitz" culminated in the coup d'etat of Dec. 8, 2024, toppling Damascus.
Yes, you read that right, Boris: Russia and Ukraine were on the same side with Nazi Israel and the salafi jihadists facilitating the overthrow of Assad.
Putin -- former KGB official and FSB (look at its logo -- it's the Maltese cross) head-- is nothing more than a lackey of the same Knights of Malta bosses simultaneously directing scripts for CIA and MI6.
Sure 😂😂🤡🤡
Cannot emphasize enough just how many words you took right out of my mouth. When I saw the news of Mango Caesar lifting the anti-Syria sanctions, I came to the exact instinctive conclusion -- that it was all gamed for geopolitical leverage using innocent human civilians as pawns and disposable sacrifices. I believe this is connected also to this rebranded al-Qaeda "HTS" regime's neoliberal policies treasonously allowing the type of flagrant international corporatist-cartel monopolistic resource-plundering domination Assad was for the most part a bulwark against.
As a marginal gloss: most "anti-Trumpers" are even worse than Orange Bolshevists in that the majority of TDS-infected liberals never criticize Tangerine Troglodyte for the right reasons while faking moral piety -- they join anti-Trump protests because their *own* American privileged lifestyles face unpleasant limitations ("oh no, my Social Security is being cut! this is the worst atrocity ever!"), never out of heartfelt sympathy for the innocent civilians destroyed by his CIA-aligned regime-changing foreign policy. (at least not unless they're white Europeans, but even then those Ukrainian civilians are treated as nothing more than sacrificial goats to be mindlessly slaughtered as drafted cannon fodder)
By using nuclear energy to mine Bitcoin Iran has a revenue stream which cannot be sanctioned.
https://francesleader.substack.com/p/bombing-of-iran-sabotaged-their-bitcoin