Some 700 people were slaughtered in Al-Bayda in three days, almost the entire population of the village. Some newspapers have described this as a massacre of Sunnis. In their eyes, this was an example of the Alawite Syrian regime's genocide against Sunnis. Is that really so, however? For a long time, nobody was able to say what was really happening in Syria. The Sunni-Shia conflict was widespread in Muslim lands. It was an internal conflict and one of no particular concern to the Western world. Moreover, an internally divided Syria was in the West's interests. Divide and rule was not a policy only directed against countries that were a legacy from the collapse of the Ottoman Empire: today's opportunists needed divided and weakened communities for instability. So nobody laid a finger on Syria. NATO, the UN and even the Socialist International made do with verbal condemnations. Everyone condemned Bashar Al-Assad with one voice. Holding a single dictator to blame was an excellent strategy for those who knew what was really going on behind the scenes. In that way, those secret forces would not be harmed and would be able to carry on with business as usual, and that is just what happened. Of course, there were countries that supported Assad: Russia, China, Venezuela, Bolivia and North Korea. What did they all have in common? That was easy to see: communism. We need to understand that the conflict in Syria is not essentially one between Shias and Sunnis. That is pulling the wool over people's eyes. There is no division between Shias and Sunnis were communism exists — only one between believers and atheists. There is now an uprising against communism in the country and the communist regime is trying to suppress that uprising with a policy of savagery: violence, terror, murder; children being slaughtered in raids on villages; men, women, young and old being rounded up and burned alive, and the Syrian troops who perpetrate these atrocities describe this with an emotionless pride. That is almost a textbook description of communism. Hafez Al-Assad was a Marxist. People inquired into the ruthless killings he perpetrated for years. What lay behind Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot's killings also lay behind those of Hafez Al-Assad. So what kind of party was the Baath Party he represented in Syria? Baath means “return to life”, but its history is one of coups, executions and bloodshed. The party was founded by three people from different faiths and ethnicities: Michel Eflak, Salah Bitar and Zeki Arsuzi. The common element uniting these people was communism. The reason why Michel Eflak set up the Baath Party was to bring communism to the Middle East. Eflak had been an influential member of the French Communist Party until a conflict of ideas with Stalin. He thought that the most effective way of bringing communism to power in the Middle East was to construct it on a foundation of nationalism. This gave birth to the concept of pan-Arabism and socialist systems came to Arab countries under Baathist influence. Beneath a concept of moderate socialism lay a savage Marxism. Indeed, according to Bitar, one of the founders of the Baath Party, said: “It was impossible to build a national socialist revolution without Marxist principles in economic planning.”
A NATIONAL SOCIALIST REVOLUTION: “Revolutions” are an indispensable part of communism, and the first precondition for communist revolution is the inclusion of Marxist principles in the economy. When the economy is based on Marxist principles, when scarcity, famine, taxes and exploitation enter the equation, when the people are impoverished and when all these things take place under a dictatorship that seeks bloodshed, terror and violence, then communism reigns in that country. Arab countries may not have undergone a Chinese communist model, but they nonetheless fully experienced the dictatorship, savagery, terror, ruthlessness and exploitation of communism. Some are continuing to experience them. A Marxist country requires a dictator at the front and a communist secret state behind him. Syria is for all intents and purposes a Marxist country ruled by a Marxist Baathist regime. There is a communist deep state behind the dictatorship running it and those communist countries that support it. In these times, it is not at all surprising that communist Bolivia should say, “Our closest allies since the revolution have been Cuba, Venezuela and Syria.” We have to admit the possibility that Bashar Al-Assad is under the command of the deep state in question. We need to understand what we are dealing with — not with a single individual, but with a huge communist system. Looked at rationally, it is clear how important it is for Russian President Putin in particular to be reassured on this subject. Russia's primary concern is the survival of Al-Assad. Putin wants reassurances so that the final outcome should not resemble the murder of Gaddafi in Libya or his being sentenced to death in Syrian courts: an understandable wish. Indeed, if Al-Assad is in power on the instructions of secret forces, and if his hands are tied, then of course such reassurances need to be given. The situation of the opposition is the second cause of unease. The danger here is radicalism. Various radical groups backing the opposition are regarded — and rightly so — as a threat by Russia, Israel and the West. Yet those same powers are reluctant to see the fact that the Al-Assad regime is openly supported by Hizbullah, an Iranian proxy. In many of my writings, I have discussed the importance of establishing a force that can unite the countries of the region against radicalism. That is essential. We have a duty as Muslims to bring this about. The only solution to radicalism is education. We have to be strong to make ourselves heard by the radicals. A power consisting of Turkey, Egypt and Jordan in particular has to emerge. A powerful union taking decisions in concert — but also explicitly setting out its opposition to Marxist savagery and the radical mindset — will be a guarantee for Russia. Russia will inevitably back such a union. The main idea here is to understand the true nature of the civil war in Syria. Syria is combating two great historical scourges: Marxism and radicalism. Both are deeply ingrained mindsets, and only a brand new mindset can neutralise them. It is impossible to beat those ideas without education, and “more weaponry” is absolutely not an answer. What other countries need to do is to see the problem as a mindset and that the solution is scientific activity and unity.
The writer is a commentator and religious and political analyst on Turkish TV and a peace activist.
