Iranian embassy stormed in Damascus (www.reuters.com)
from Sine_Fine_Belli@lemmy.world to world@lemmy.world on 08 Dec 14:18
https://lemmy.world/post/22907708

#world

threaded - newest

FlyingSquid@lemmy.world on 08 Dec 14:50 next collapse

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.

PugJesus@lemmy.world on 08 Dec 23:24 next collapse

Authoritarians support authoritarians.

Aqarius@lemmy.world on 09 Dec 03:39 next collapse

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

FlyingSquid@lemmy.world on 09 Dec 03:44 collapse

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 on 09 Dec 05:33 collapse

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

FlyingSquid@lemmy.world on 09 Dec 11:42 collapse

Secularists are heretics to theocrats. I have no idea what you think a heretic is.

Aqarius@lemmy.world on 09 Dec 12:18 collapse

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

FlyingSquid@lemmy.world on 09 Dec 12:27 next collapse

That’s simply false.

<img alt="" src="https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/1b9dc52c-b3ea-462a-90c4-6aa322783007.png">

There’s a reason why atheists are tarred with the ‘heretic’ label.

Aqarius@lemmy.world on 09 Dec 14:10 next collapse

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.

bungalowtill@lemmy.dbzer0.com on 09 Dec 14:45 next collapse

oh, rarely really seen somebody contradict themselves so blatantly with their source. how come?

FlyingSquid@lemmy.world on 10 Dec 01:21 collapse

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

bungalowtill@lemmy.dbzer0.com on 10 Dec 01:42 collapse

Yes, cause that’s what the dictionary means: belief contrary to the doctrine of the religious system the belief is embedded in.

FlyingSquid@lemmy.world on 10 Dec 01:43 collapse

Like the doctrine that a god exists?

bungalowtill@lemmy.dbzer0.com on 10 Dec 12:21 collapse

Of course you can come up with your own definition of words.

FlyingSquid@lemmy.world on 10 Dec 12:23 collapse

What definition am I coming up with here?

Are you saying the existence of a god is not part of the doctrine of any theistic religion?

bungalowtill@lemmy.dbzer0.com on 10 Dec 12:37 collapse

using the word heretic to describe an atheist. It’s just not what it’s about. You’re not part of a theistic religion if you don’t believe in God. And if you’re not part of it, you won’t be a heretic.

FlyingSquid@lemmy.world on 10 Dec 13:06 collapse

Again, what definition am I coming up with here?

Atheism is contrary to theistic religious doctrine- namely, the doctrine that a god or gods exist. That’s literally the definition of heresy as I provided.

What did I invent?

bungalowtill@lemmy.dbzer0.com on 10 Dec 13:29 collapse

ok man, I tried, the dictionary was of no help, maybe consult wikipedia or turn to a priest. He will also tell you that an atheist is not considered a heretic. And if you go on like this with him, he’ll might make you a heretic. But only! if you are a follower of his religion already. Otherwise he just won’t give a flying fuck.

FlyingSquid@lemmy.world on 10 Dec 13:40 collapse

I literally provided a link to a Christian website talking about how atheists are heretics.

And “atheist” and “heretic” are literally the same word in Arabic, which means that, at minimum, 2 in 8 people believe that atheists are heretics.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulhid

chloroken@lemmy.ml on 09 Dec 17:01 collapse

Stop.

FlyingSquid@lemmy.world on 10 Dec 01:21 collapse

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.

[deleted] on 09 Dec 12:45 collapse
.
TempermentalAnomaly@lemmy.world on 10 Dec 06:24 collapse

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.

Buffalox@lemmy.world on 08 Dec 15:17 next collapse

Of course by international law they shouldn’t be doing that.
But can you really blame them? Where is the international law that protects the people from a dictator? And prevent outside interference to keep that dictator in power?
If international law doesn’t protect the people against oppression, then the people has little use for international law. And they definitely don’t need an outside influence that support their oppressor.

For the same reason USA shouldn’t have held such a grudge against Iran for their attack of the US embassy during the rebellion in Iran.

Unfortunately the ship has sailed on that one. And Iran is now a Russian ally.

partial_accumen@lemmy.world on 08 Dec 22:41 next collapse

Of course by international law they shouldn’t be doing that.

International law is a product of, and supported by, nation states. If the previously ruling government has fallen, it effectively doesn’t have a nation that respects the binding of international law. When a new government forms, that government will most likely take up the mantle of support for international law in exchange for international recognition. Right now on the ground its a bit of a free-for-all, I’d imagine.

Buffalox@lemmy.world on 08 Dec 22:45 collapse

That’s a good point, and I think that was kind of valid in Iran in 1981 too? USA has held a grudge against Iran for more than 40 years for that!

partial_accumen@lemmy.world on 08 Dec 23:37 collapse

The USA grudge against Iran wasn’t because of the storming of the embassy. It was holding Americans diplomatic staff hostage for 444 days and threatening to “put them on trial” if Iran didn’t get what it wanted from the USA.

I haven’t heard any reports of Syrians holding Iranian diplomatic staff hostages yet.

rc__buggy@sh.itjust.works on 09 Dec 02:22 collapse

Iran says they are all out, so that’s good.

SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca on 09 Dec 03:57 collapse

For the same reason USA shouldn’t have held such a grudge against Iran for their attack of the US embassy during the rebellion in Iran.

Isn’t it odd how the US doesn’t trust a country that encourages people to chant “death to America”?

Buffalox@lemmy.world on 09 Dec 10:40 collapse

To be fair USA did sabotage Iranian democracy until it collapsed under American lies and Propaganda designed specifically for that, and then they instated a dictator.
But Iran has clearly gotten worse which was to be expected with a theocracy.

technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com on 08 Dec 16:08 collapse

But not the USA embassy? How curious…

FlyingSquid@lemmy.world on 08 Dec 21:09 next collapse

Maybe because the U.S. has been aiding the rebels and Iran has been aiding Assad? And you don’t tend to storm the embassy of your ally.

AmidFuror@fedia.io on 08 Dec 22:22 next collapse

It's fitting. Maybe they will hold some diplomats hostage for 444 days.

theacharnian@lemmy.ca on 09 Dec 13:11 next collapse

Tell me you have no concept of centering Syrians in an analysis of the situation in Syria without telling me you have no concept of centering Syrians in an analysis of the situation in Syria.

TempermentalAnomaly@lemmy.world on 10 Dec 06:33 collapse

The US embassy has been shuttered since 2012 when Syria severed relations. Limited services are provided out of the Czech embassy for the US.