Sunni and Alawite clash in Lebanon

[hellheaven1987]

One soldier and a civilian were killed in the Lebanese city of Tripoli as clashes erupted between Sunni Muslims and members of the Alawite minority.

The violence began overnight as armed groups from an Alawite enclave clashed with Sunni fighters.

Tensions in the northern port city have mounted since the uprising in neighbouring Syria began last March.

Similar recent clashes have highlighted how tensions can spill over to Lebanon. Syria's president is an Alawite.

In February at least two people were killed in Tripoli as supporters and opponents of Syria's President Bashar al-Assad clashed.

But the city's Alawite minority has fought with its Sunni neighbours on several occasions since the 1975-1990 Lebanese civil war.

In the latest incident two rocket-propelled grenades fell on Tripoli's Bab Tabbaneh neighbourhood and reports say explosions were heard across the city.

Despite the deployment of Lebanese Army units between the rival neighbourhoods, exchanges of gunfire continued well into the morning.

Tripoli is dominated by Sunni Muslims, who support the anti-Assad uprising in Syria.

Mr Assad is an Alawite, and members of the minority sect - an offshoot of Shia Islam - occupy key positions in the Syrian government and security forces.

Syria's majority Sunni community has been at the forefront of the revolt against the president and borne the brunt of the state's crackdown.

The BBC's Jonathan Head in Istanbul says that community leaders in Lebanon have repeatedly warned of the possibility that the violence in Syria would spill over the border. Lebanon is already hosting thousands of Syrian refugees.

In recent years the fear of renewed civil war has helped persuade the various Lebanese factions to put aside their historic disagreements, but Syria is proving a very tough test for a country with so many sectarian divisions of its own, our correspondent says.

Source

I find this event serves a good example why Assad does not want to hand out the power - afterall, a defeat of Assad government means the death of Alawite group under the persecution of Sunni Syrians. It also brings the question when would Muslims stop playing this 17th Century religious violence again and again so the international community can trust them.

[Menelik_I]

Send in Raymond III, Count of Tripoli, to restore order

[Poet]

Source

I find this event serves a good example why Assad does not want to hand out the power - afterall, a defeat of Assad government means the death of Alawite group under the persecution of Sunni Syrians. It also brings the question when would Muslims stop playing this 17th Century religious violence again and again so the international community can trust them.

Sickening Shia-Sunni friction. Sometimes I think we Muslims deserve this type of beating be it Mongols or America.

Send in Raymond III, Count of Tripoli, to restore order

We couldn't, after the war of Hattin his own mind is not in order.

[Babur]

Sickening Shia-Sunni friction. Sometimes I think we Muslims deserve this type of beating be it Mongols or America.

did you just equate America with the Mongols ?

Sensible guy Most people of course view it as a black and white, good vs evil situation but anyone with half a brain cell will understand both sides are bad and its just the western media thats more favourable to the FSA.

yes exactly, the Saudi and Qatari media have also done their bit to push this view

[Burnum]

Source

I find this event serves a good example why Assad does not want to hand out the power - afterall, a defeat of Assad government means the death of Alawite group under the persecution of Sunni Syrians. It also brings the question when would Muslims stop playing this 17th Century religious violence again and again so the international community can trust them.

Poor example. The feud between the Alawites and the Sunnis in Tripoli go back ages.

The Alawites are hardly victims either, with the Tripoli Alawites having extremely close ties to the Syrian government. In the civil war the Alawite militias were led by Assad's brother.

edit: Fyi, according to Lebanon Now, the Alawites allegedly started it by throwing a grenade.

[panzer 4]

lol, I actually have family members who live in Tibena (where the fighting is) and from what they know, it was the Aliwiite which started this... and just to give you a better idea, this stuff is not new. This has happened hundreds of time, anyone who lives in Lebanon would know this place. As for muslims playing 17th century violence (you would do good to research what the Muslim world was like back in the 17th century.... you come off as a bit ignorant)? I sincerely hope you know it is the Aliwite which deliberately target civilians and military alike, they are renegades within the country, and can not be touched as Syria would no doubt use it as an excuse to get in the war.

I just can't believe people honestly think that the Aliwiite are the victims in the middle east... guess people just like to shout down one side without researching the history...

[Babur]

I sincerely hope you know it is the Aliwite which deliberately target civilians and military alike, they are renegades within the country, and can not be touched as Syria would no doubt use it as an excuse to get in the war.

Sounds rather sectarian, so they are all "renegades"?

[Tureuki]

(you would do good to research what the Muslim world was like back in the 17th century.... you come off as a bit ignorant)

Well Ottoman Sunni-Qizilbash Alevi clashes, which is hugely damaged the Alevi society, most of the Alevis either fleed to Iran, expelled to Balkans, spread to every part of anatolia with small seperated groups, killed or forced to change their sect.

[Blaze86420]

Well Ottoman Sunni-Qizilbash Alevi clashes, which is hugely damaged the Alevi society, most of the Alevis either fleed to Iran, expelled to Balkans, spread to every part of anatolia with small seperated groups, killed or forced to change their sect.

That's because they fought on behalf of the Safavids who were hostile towards the Ottomans.

[Tureuki]

That's because they fought on behalf of the Safavids who were hostile towards the Ottomans.

Political reasons is another matter, both sides had rightful reasons for themselves, but Ottomans clearly acted too harsh, religious mens declared Alevi blood halal, there is many horrible stories about the massacres, they're always insulted by Ottomans doesn't matter if they have anything with Safavids(simple Turkish nomads or villagers become insult targets generally with those clashes because a huge part of them were Alevis, may ve even majority , who knows.).

But whatever, point was muslim world was not peaceful at all in those times.

[Blaze86420]

I find this event serves a good example why Assad does not want to hand out the power - afterall, a defeat of Assad government means the death of Alawite group under the persecution of Sunni Syrians. It also brings the question when would Muslims stop playing this 17th Century religious violence again and again so the international community can trust them.

Oh look another hellheaven thread. Those are always good.

Westerners will always feel sympathetic towards religious minorities in the middle east no matter who's in the right, its mostly because of ignorance and sometimes bigotry towards the Sunnis. They will always assume that the Sunni majority is intolerant even when the exact opposite is taking place. This happened in Lebanon during the civil war when the Maronites and their fascist militias (nothing against the Maronites, but the SLA and the Kateab suck) held their nation-building project of a country with an iron grip. And now it's happening in Syria, with another Fascist and brutal regime this time made up of Alawite oligarchs who still somehow receive sympathy and support as they butcher their way through the country. This is why people like Babur will cover their ears and yell "SECTARIANISM!" if you even mention the Alawites. I have nothing against Maronites, Alawites, Assyrians etc. I'm sure the majority of these people are decent pious people who would not find the regime's actions acceptable, they only believe that that they are safest under this state no matter how inaccurate this notion is.

[Babur]

This is why people like Babur will cover their ears and yell "SECTARIANISM!" if you even mention the Alawites. I have nothing against Maronites, Alawites, Assyrians etc. I'm sure the majority of these people are decent pious people who would not find the regime's actions acceptable, they only believe that that they are safest under this state no matter how inaccurate this notion is.

The Alawites may be drawn to support the regime due to violence such as this, so it works both ways

[Blaze86420]

The Alawites may be drawn to support the regime due to violence such as this, so it works both ways

Ambiguous and ultimately a useless statement. Alawites did not flock into the embrace of the Baathist party because of the rest of society was persecuting them, no, it's simply because the new Baathist order, which became predominately Alawite after the intra-party tensions in the 60's that ended with the coup in 1970, looked for effective ways to maintain it's monopoly on power. And what better way to that by invoking tribal loyalty and affiliation, which in this case came in the form of sectarianism. A similar strategy was used in Iraq and Libya, religious, tribal, and familial loyalties are much stronger than ideological ones and authoritarian regimes in the middle east know exactly how to abuse them. I don't blame you though; your posts betray profound ignorance and like I said, that's the main reason behind the foolish amount of support this regime finds here.

Political reasons is another matter, both sides had rightful reasons for themselves.

If we are to apply the same logic you do when it comes to the Armenian genocide your viewpoint would be considerably different. We have pretty similar scenarios; both the Armenians and Alevis lived within Ottoman borders and for one reason or another decided to collaborate with the state's enemies. Now you can choose to decide that the actions of the state were unjustified (I do) but you have to say the same about both the Armenian and Alevi massacres, otherwise you'll be called a hypocrite.

[Babur]

Ambiguous and ultimately a useless statement. Alawites did not flock into the embrace of the Baathist party because of the rest of society was persecuting them, no, it's simply because the new Baathist order, which became predominately Alawite after the intra-party tensions in the 60's that ended with the coup in 1970, looked for effective ways to maintain it's monopoly on power. And what better way to that by invoking tribal loyalty and affiliation, which in this case came in the form of sectarianism. A similar strategy was used in Iraq and Libya, religious, tribal, and familial loyalties are much stronger than ideological ones and authoritarian regimes in the middle east know exactly how to abuse them. I don't blame you though; your posts betray profound ignorance and like I said, that's the main reason behind the foolish amount of support this regime finds here.

Skepticism about blaming the Alawites=/=Supporting Assad

I support neither the FSA or Assad

[Blaze86420]

Skepticism about blaming the Alawites=/=Supporting Assad

I support neither the FSA or Assad

Blame is put where it's deserved regardless of religion; the Baathists have plenty of Sunni supporters and they are equally guilty of the crimes of the regime. If you do not support the FSA then you're standing idly and silently as the regime massacres people, unarmed or not. If you choose to remain neutral in a conflict between a side that risks it all defending unarmed civilians and fighting tyranny and another that has shown plenty of times that it has no respect for human dignity and innocent life, then you're supporting the regime because you're doing nothing.

[Burnum]

Skepticism about blaming the Alawites=/=Supporting Assad

I support neither the FSA or Assad

Then you support Assad. There isn't any neutrality in this conflict, neutrality is de facto supporting Assad.

the insurgents are massacring people as well, so they can hardly claim to be defending civilians. So no matter what side you support, you are not supporting the people.

Tell me who are they massacring, what massacres did they perpetrate?

[Their Law]

If people stop caring about what sect of the great noodle monster they worship then such tribalistic justifications for violence would go away.

[ivan_the_terrible]

If people stop caring about what sect of the great noodle monster they worship then such tribalistic justifications for violence would go away.

Are you sure religion is at the root of this; maybe Lebanese, Syrians, etc, would still find a reason to butcher each other without religion, ceteris paribus?

[Their Law]

Are you sure religion is at the root of this; maybe Lebanese, Syrians, etc, would still find a reason to butcher each other without religion, ceteris paribus?

I didn't say it was the root of it. But it's clearly one of the driving forces at present. Remove it or at least reduce it's role as an 'identifying' factor and you remove another arbitrary dividing line for people to exploit.

People will undoubtedly find another reason to kill each other, usually ethnicity. And when that happens my comment will be:

"If people stop caring about the difference in each other's culinary traditions then such tribalistic justifications for violence would go away."

[Kitsunegari]

The Alawites are a pretty small minority in Lebanon, the northern coastal area around Trablous is overwhelmingly Sunni. The thing they have going for them is that they are well-armed since the other militias were forced to disarm during Syrian occupation.