Orient
Hassan Nasrallah affirmed that resistance will win the war in this region, adding that Palestine will return to be the real conflict axis in it. Talking about Syria, he condemned the latest terrorist explosions in Tartous and Jableh, affirming that the end of the bloody and brutal ISIS terrorist organization began to approach.
Those who are not familiar with the situation in this region will be fascinated by Mr. Nasrallah speech; no one can deny that the man is an orator who possesses good rhetoric that can influence many of his Shia followers and those with split vision.
Being Iran’s offspring, what resistance is Nasrallah talking about? Does Iran care about the Arab peoples? Its history proves the aggressive attitude it has held deep in history.
In his attempt to be convincing, the Orator was not successful this time while talking about Palestine as he said that it will ‘return’ to be the real conflict axis meaning an implicit confession that it no longer is, if one assumes that it ever was.
What did Nasrallah do to either Palestine or Lebanon other than bringing more wars, destructions and more killings for nothing but to prove the fake argument that he is an axis of resistance?
For Nasrallah, the more explosions and the more destruction in Syria, the chances for Assad to stay in power increase. The explosions in Tartous and Jableh, although claimed by ISIS, bear the signatures of Assad and his militias. In addition, ISIS and Assad are the same risk and cannot be separated. Both aim at destroying Syria and muzzling Syrians.
Does not Nasrallh realize that if ISIS is gone, the first one to follow will be its creator? Had Assad not facilitated its presence and struck different kinds of deals with it, ISIS would have vanished long time ago. He has been its actual lifeline.
Just to remind Nasrallah of the fact that ISIS existed in the first place to give Assad a legitimate pretext to kill Syrians.
Real resistance does not kill civilians and does not aim at winning a brutal war a dictator started against his own people.
Not in defense of ISIS as it is Assad’s other side, but if ISIS is described as brutal and bloody, what lexes can be used to describe Assad? Language will be in a real trouble in such an attempt!
Nasrallah apocalyptic rhetoric can no longer deceive anybody. He is totally exposed as he is in originally to protect Israel’s northern border. He is assigned another mission now; it is to kill Syrians along with a dictator that happened to be the heir of the Syrian ‘throne’.