Erdogan says Turkey interested in improving relations with Israel

[Beast]

Nope, i said Israel and China have no real beef/issue together, reason Israel has no reason to be hostile to China. The thing is China is unlike the U.S and Soviet Union( now Russia). Unlike these two powers China has a policy of non interference in other countries internal affairs, which is why China has no military presence or even political interference in any middle eastern country unlike U.S /Russia/UK/France etc. This means that China can remain neutral on issues between Middle eastern countries and still trade/do business/forge ties and cooperation with all sides. This is exactly what China has been doing for decades now. They don't interfere in the affairs of countries in this region much less the messy Israel-Palestinian issue. Which is why i was surprised by your use of terms like the Zionists regime and negative talk of Israel , something i have never seen coming from the CCP or even your nationalistic media. If anything from me experience they have a neutral/favourable view of them.
Israel and China are so far apart from each other that the last country Israel sees/consider as a threat among the major powers is China and rightly so. There is ZERO enmity between both countries and no reason why there should be, reason even with US reluctance Israel has kept it's ties with China cordial and carried on cooperation and trade with them.

See how u try to avoid talking about Iran issue. You mean China buys Iran oil and foil their plan to sanction or isolate Iran, doesnt bother Israel? You are deluding yourself. Obviously, China wouldn't care a crap for Israel.

 

[mike2000 is back]

You admit we r investing in Israel high tech sector but talk as it some investment benefit Israel only? We get access to Israel high tech that helps us to further in homegrown high tech. It is a investment benefit China more than Israel.

Of course you invest there because you see something to gain(technology/know how), Israel also accepts because they have something to gain(much needed capital and a huge market in China to sell their product thus growing their customer base). So its a win-win for both sides, and they both go home happy. That's how business works and rightly so. You are not the only one benefiting from that dude, Israel does as well. So why are you chastising Pakistan from doing the same? that was my question. I never said China is wrong to invest and cooperate with Israelis companies , my apprehension was the fact that you made it seem like China is justified to profit from cooperation with Israel but Pakistan shouldn't dare think of such a thing. lol
To clarify things, i admire the way your government does business, they don't care about political affiliations or hostilities between countries, as far as they know it can benefit China and there is something to gain they will go for it(Like Deng Xiaoping said: It doesn't matter whether the cat is black or white as long as it catches the mouse) i agree with him 100%, Unlike some religiously ruled countries who are less pragmatic.

 

[Nasr]

Hindustan is A Matured Nation and We are becoming more matured by Chopping the Traitors of Hindu Rashtra !!!



Precious Stones do have Unique Capabilities but that is Innovation of India, Do you want even that Innovation Transfer of Technology !!!

Sarkar e Hindustan gave things by thinking good can happen but Sarkar e Hindustan will not give the Faith in the Supreme Creator !!! Hindustanis are afraid of Shree OM/Allah Rabbul Alameen !!! You don't know Bhagwanam or Rasulun !!!


Ottaman Empire was Independent Empire With strong relations with Arabs & Arya's !!!

What is the fella talking about??? Does anyone have any idea?

 

[mike2000 is back]

China and Israel is purely on business level but our foreign policy are vastly different. Israel r pro US while China policy r mainly a 180 degrees turn of what US wants.

You seem to see things from a zero sum perspective. So according to you because Israel is a US ally China should not have any ties/cooperation with Israel? lol If the CCP was thinking like you, then China will still be as poor as they were in the 1950s-1980s. Politics is not always a zero sum game dude. China and Japan are sworn enemies, but look at the amount of trade/investment and cooperation going on between their countries/companies. It's as large as any other country baring the US. It's for this reason East Asian countries are more prosperous/developed compared to middle eastern and even South Asian countries who are more emotional/religious/ and even childish in the way they forge their foreign policies/trade.
The way you are saying things is opposite to what your country seems to be doing.

 

[Muhammed45]

that was with technology transfer and gave us the ability to do more.. if that is a bad thing than begin to demonize the people who buy israeli products.. demonize them and takfiri them like always for people who buy products wich have israeli jew share or are owned by jews.. as if doing trade is forbidden



they didnt work for us and anka is jewish tb2 is jewish aksungur is jewish or akinci is jewish too



its not like mullahs sweetheart abu lulu that people are making tawwaf around you know.. having business is not forbidden we are not supporting their religion we dont sell religious stuff for them or buy haram stuff as if the prophet himself did not make trade with the jews, he sold and buyed fromt hem


Sahih Al-Bukhari Hadith 3.453 Narrated by Aisha

Allah's Messenger (saws) bought some foodstuff (barley) from a Jew on credit and mortgaged his iron armor to him.


Sahih Al-Bukhari Hadith 4.165 Narrated by Aisha

Allah's Messenger (saws) died while his (iron) armor was mortgaged to a Jew for thirty Sas of barley.

shure you dont take aisha as relyable .. but there are more excamples even if you buy sheep from mushrikeen you are at war with.. (yes he could buy weapons with it)
but things may be different for non sunni sources or a mullah says different..

here we have just people making rules out of their butts.. and than just being butthurt not more.. if this would be a common thing than why are people buying american stuff americans are responsible for the death of 500thausand children only in iraq and they say "it was worth it" and than people do hold russians as their nearest friends and helper while the russians are the ones who genocided more than 10% of the muslim population of chechnya whare are these people? are they real or just only BIG hypocrites?

also why should people buy arab stuff? did't arabs be against the ottoman khalifa? why should we buy iranian stuff didnt iranians killed and displaced millions of sunni muslims through their long arm terror puppets? didnt they go havoc in iraq with killer squadrones? still people buy iranian stuff whats going on? or why are iranians buying turkish stuff when turkey works with israel? you can extend this till you come to a point that you will not even buy pakistani products because your pakistani neighboor said that your cat is stupid..

again easy talk or is it more like fashion? you know people taking some clothes some talking stle, some words that are only used by them.. and here you have your own style.. its cool... yes some other may only go on board because they were told to but this seems to be more like fashion like a agenda like an idea..

Thanks at all. I just wanted an evidence and here it is. The point of this QUOTE is, Muslims should fight amongst themselves and Turkey is free to trade with the ones massacring Palestinians stealing Jerusalem from its true owners. The reason is Iran-Turkey trade. This is what I was talking about. Turkey is spearhead of NATO in the Heart of Muslims and your lame attempt to whitewash that betrayal is failed already.

If spreading religious hatred suits your ego then spear me please, not interested. AlQaeda fate is in the front of your eyes, try to Learn from the mistakes that others made.

 

[SalarHaqq]

You do not understand how this Satanic order works

I have spent time researching the topic, so I would argue otherwise.

and you take things at face value. As I told you before, there is nothing gonna stop you from falling for the Dajjal if you take things at face value and don't understand their greater agenda.

It does not suffice to state this. On its own, it might even turn out be a dangerous argument, because it would imply that whomever looks righteous could in fact be legitimately considered an agent of evil. I mean, just because the devil resorts to deception, it does not mean that the genuinely righteous ones are not going to come accross as righteous nor reflect their rightousness externally.

So the decisive point is not to remind that wicked leaders will try to appear virtuous, for that is a given indeed. What matters are the concrete reasons and arguments put forward in support of one's judgement about specific figures.

Now let's take a look at the proposed arguments, or rather, the linked paper containing them.

First thing I notice is the nature of the website hosting the article. Obviously this is a sectarianist site directed against Shia Islam, with titles such as:

"Shia converts to Islam" - implying that Shia are not Muslims.
"Taqiya"
"Fallacy of Shiism"
"Exposing Shia's Beliefs"
"Shiism & Hatred"
"Shia & Monotheism" - calling into question the monotheistic nature of Shia Islam.
"Mut'a"

Sorry to say, but this here is the very definition of sectarianism. ^

How can one expect a source with an obvious shiaphobic, sectarianist bias to be objective about Imam Khomeini?

Secondly, I notice the perfunctory quality of the website and the lack of information about its authors - not really giving an impression of seriousness or quality.

On to the article itself. Unfortunately, we're dealing with a probable copy-pasting of material that is reminiscent of papers circulated in various forms among supporters of the defunct Iranian monarchy since the 1980's. And here we have a website under the banner of Islam whose source on Imam Khomeini consists of material which was essentially spread by supporters of the zionist-supporting, Bahai-dominated shah regime...

To be frank, the article is really a subpar propaganda piece consisting of outlandish, counterfactual and unsubstantiated claims as well as faulty logic from start to finish. Its peculiar allegations are either entirely unsourced, or basing themselves on purported but unreferenced sources.

Let us pick some examples, beginning with the final paragraphs:

When Khomeini took over the U.S. Embassy in Teheran, arms sales by the United States, which had begun with the Shah, were not discontinued...

After 1984, Khomeini’s liberal attitude toward opium had increased the number of addicts to 2 million, according to United Nations and World Health Organization statistics.

Both President Carter and his successor, Ronald Reagan, willingly and with full knowledge of what was at stake, went on supplying arms to Iran even while American hostages languished in captivity...

The arms trade with Iran was sealed at a meeting between Cyrus Vance... and Dr. Hashemi, which resulted in the U.S. Air Force beginning an immediate airlift of arms to Iran, carried on even at the height of the hostage crisis the arms came from U.S. Army stockpiles in Germany and some were even flown directly from the United States with re-fuelling stops at the Azores.

Every bit of this is complete and utter nonsense.

1) There were no "arms shipments" from the US to Iran "at the height of the hostage crisis". It is extremely preposterous to even make such a claim. Iran's military equipment was very well accounted for by a variety of sources.

It is a fact that the US imposed an arms embargo on Iran right after the Revolution. It is also a fact that before leaving Iran, the American military advisers who had been invited over by the shah regime, sabotaged any and all American-made military industrial equipment they could sabotage. User @aryobarzan actually witnessed this first hand I believe.

Likewise, it is an established fact that Iranian engineers had to fix and produce spare parts for the American equipment the shah had bought, because the US would naturally not deliver anything to Iran after 1979.

2) To claim that Iran was practicing a "liberal" drug policy in the 1980's is again entirely outlandish. In fact, Iran's drug policy and laws became much harsher, and capital punishment was handed more often to drug offenders.

Here is what Amnesty International writes on the issue:

The death penalty was first introduced for drug trafficking in Iran in 1959. Hundreds of people were executed for this offence under the administration of the former Shah, according to Amnesty International’s estimates. The number of executions generally and for drugs offences specifically rose sharply after the Islamic Revolution of 1979. According to Iranian officials, around 18,000 individuals were held in connection with drugs offences in 1979, and hundreds may have been executed between 1979 and 1980.

https://www.amnesty.org/download/Documents/32000/mde130902011en.pdf

The article starts out with another misrepresentation:

With all bets off, the Iranian reformers have now struck at the heart of the revolution and are insisting on an inquiry into the disappearance of Imam (Ayatollah) Musa Sadr, some 25-years ago, during a visit to Libya. The Iranian-born leader of the Lebanese Shia, Imam Musa Sadr, was revered and respected above all others in the Shia world. He refused to accept Khomeini as an Ayatollah. With the influence Imam Musa Sadr enjoyed, he became an insurmountable obstacle to Khomeini’s political plans, and of those who supported the overthrow of the Shah and needed a despot like Khomeini to be their cat’s paw.

First of all, there never was any actual dispute between Imam Musa Sadr and Imam Khomeini.

Secondly, one fails to see how Imam Musa Sadr "became" an "obstacle" to Imam Khomeini. He disappeared in August 1978, whereas the Iranian revolution had begun in January 1978. During the entire period between these two dates, Imam Musa Sadr never came out to challenge Imam Khomeini's leadership role in the Revolution. And, Imam Musa Sadr himself played no prominent or significant role in said Revolution. So how exactly was he supposed to have "challenged" Imam Khomeini?

Thirdly, the article is trying to suggest that calls for inquiries into Imam Musa Sadr's disappearance have somehow been exclusive to the reformist political factions in Iran - the same reformists who tend to be western-apologetic, compared to their revolutionary or conservative rivals (ironic, once again, how a website publishing under the Islamic banner, would reproduce a paper which appears to favor the least anti-American factions in Iran). Now this suggestion is simply wrong.

In reality, decades ago Imam Khomeini himself repeatedly called for such investigations to be conducted about Imam Musa Sadr's whereabouts.

Imam pursued fate of Musa Sadr

The founder of the Islamic Revolution wrote several letters to international leaders to know about the fate of Shia cleric Imam Musa Sadr.

Imam Khomeini has always been pursuing the case of Sadr, who was kidnapped nearly four decades ago in Libya. Imam was doing follow ups before and after the victory of the Islamic Revolution.

Imam Khomeini - Imam pursued fate of Musa Sadr

The founder of the Islamic Revolution wrote several letters to international leaders to know about the fate of Shia cleric Imam Musa Sadr.

en.imam-khomeini.ir

Here is the full text of a letter by Imam Khomeini to Muammar al-Gaddafi, which the Imam dispatched to the Libyan leader prior to his return to Iran, and where he requests clarification about the fate of ayatollah Musa Sadr:

زمان: 26 مهر 1357 / 15 ذی القعده 1398
مکان: پاریس، نوفل لوشاتو
موضوع: مفقود شدن امام موسی صدر
مخاطب: معمر، قذافی (رئیس جمهوری لیبی)
بسم الله الرحمن الرحیم​

حضرت رئیس جمهور لیبی
پس از اهدای سلام و تحیت؛ قضیه جناب حجت الاسلام آقای صدر به شکل معمایی مرموز درآمده است. بستگان ایشان پس از بررسی می‌گویند در لیبی هستند. چون جناب ایشان مورد احترام و محبت روحانیون و دیگر جناحها هستند و این امر موجب نگرانی آنهاست مقتضی است در آن اهتمام نمایید. و از دولت خودتان بخواهید ما را از سلامت ایشان و محل اقامتشان مطلع نموده نگرانیها را رفع کنند. والسلام علیکم.

ذی القعده 98
روح الله الموسوی الخمینی

نامه به معمر قذافی درباره مفقود شدن امام موسی صدر | روح‌الله

farsi.rouhollah.ir

Comprehensive article about this letter, from the Iranian Political Studies and Research Institute:

ضرورت حل معمای امام موسی صدر از نگاه امام خمینی (س)-مؤسسه مطالعات و پژوهش‌های سیاسی

: جÙا٠تشÛع 14 Ùر٠پس از Ø´Ùادت اÙا٠Ùخست Ø®ÙÛØ´Ø ØضÙر ÙÙزÙا٠د٠شخصÛت گراÙÙدر را تجرب٠کرد ÛÚ©Û Ø¯Ø± ÙبÙا٠٠دÛÚ¯Ø±Û Ø¯Ø± اÛرا٠ک٠Ùر د٠بزرگÙار ب٠"اÙاÙ" ÙعرÙÙ Ù Ø®ÙاÙد٠شدÙد. اÙدÛش٠٠عÙÙکرد اÙا٠خÙÛÙÛ (س) ٠اÙاÙ...

psri.ir

Then, to mention another, more recent example: only few days ago, the Iranian Parliament Speaker's Special Aide for International Affairs, Amir Abdollahian, met with Imam Musa Sadr's daughter Hoora in Tehran, and expressed hope that light would be shed on his fate at last.

Now those familiar with Iranian politics know perfectly well and will confirm that Amir Abdollahian is anything but a reformist. On the contrary, he is at the straight opposite end of the political spectrum.

2020-December-24 13:41
Iranian Speaker's Aide Hopes for Clarification of Imam Musa Sadr's Fate

TEHRAN (FNA)- Iranian Parliament Speaker's Special Aide for International Affairs Hossein Amir Abdollahian expressed the hope that the fate of kidnapped Shiite Cleric Imam Musa al-Sadr would be clear as soon as possible.

Amir Abdollahian made the remarks in a meeting with Hoora Sadr, the daughter of Imam Musa Sadr, in Tehran on Wednesday.

He underlined the key role of Imam Musa Sadr in raising awareness of contemporary Lebanese Shiites, and reiterated that Sadr gave meaning to the motto of unity and amity of the Islamic Ummah.

With his political behavior, Imam Musa Sadr led the followers of different religions to peaceful coexistence and played a prominent role in this regard, Amir Abdollahian added.

As a founder of the basic core of anti-Zionism resistance in Lebanon, Imam Musa Sadr is the most active leader of the Lebanese Shias, an innovator and a real pioneer of the fight against the Zionist regime and also against ignorance, he stressed.

Amir Abdollahian expressed the hope that fate of Imam Musa Sadr would be determined, and that “we would witness his return among the Islamic Ummah”.

Fars | فارس

Fars

www.farsnews.ir

So clearly, the article under discussion is making erroneous insinuations.

The article goes on:

One of the first actions which Khomeini took, within hours of his return to Iran after the Shah left, was to execute two prominent men who were living proof of his origin and also of his false Ayatollah status. One of these was Gen. Hassan Pakravan, Head of SAVAK, the Imperial Iranian national intelligence and security organization.

Hair-raising, fictitious and random story telling.

Dignitaries of the former regime executed in the immediate aftermath of the Revolution, were all trialed and condemned by revolutionary courts, not on orders from Imam Khomeini. This applied to general Pakravan as well. Sure, the trials were sometimes expeditive, but this is an absolutely common trait of all revolutions, from Cuba to Russia and Iraq.

Neither was general Pakravan among the first two officials to be executed. In fact, 15 were purged before him, including 6 former officers of the Imperial Army. General Pakravan's sentence was executed on April, 11.

See:

In the first couple of months, over 200 of the Shah's senior civilian officials were killed as punishment and to eliminate the danger of coup d'état.[15] The first death sentences were approved by the Tehran court on four of the shah's generals in February 1979.[16] They were Mehdi Rahimi, the military commander of Tehran, Reza Naji, the military governor of Isfahan, Nematollah Nassiri, the head of SAVAK, and Manuchehr Khosrodad, an air force general. All four generals were executed by firing squad on the roof of the then Ayatollah Khomeini's headquarters on 15 February.[16]

On 7 April 1979, Amir-Abbas Hoveyda, former prime minister of Iran, was executed.[16] Two days later on 9 April ten senior officials of the Shah, including two generals and a cabinet member, were executed in Tehran.[17] Those killed included commander-in-chief of the air force, Amir Hossein Rabi'i.[17] On 11 April, former foreign minister, Abbas Ali Khalatbari, and 10 more officials were executed in Tehran.[18] On 8 May, a total of 21 former Iranian officials, including three former high-level politicians, were executed. They were Javad Saeed, former Majlis speaker, Gholam Reza Kianpor, former information minister, and Mohammad Reza Ameli Tehrani, former education minister.[19] On 9 May, eight men, including the prominent Jewish executive Habib Elghanian, and former information minister, Abdul Hassan Saadatmand, were executed, raising the number of the executed people 119 since February 1979.[20]

Casualties of the Iranian revolution - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

So, the mere fact that Pakravan was executed does not enable us to deduce that this was done in order to prevent him from "revealing" anything. In reality, he was one of 200 former regime officials who met that fate. Considering his rank and functions under the shah regime, his inclusion in the list of those executed comes as no surprise.

Furthermore he immediately tried to assassinate the highly-respected Ayatollah Shariatmadari, who, with Ayatollah Golpayegani, had in 1964 granted Khomeini the false title. They had agreed to allow Khomeini, then literally awaiting death on charges of treason, to be called an Ayatollah to save his life: it was forbidden to execute an Ayatollah. This took place in 1964 at the urging of the British Ambassador to Iran and Gen. Pakravan, when a face-saving legal reason had to be found not to hang Khomeini for treason. It is known that Pakravan had fought hard to avoid Khomeinis execution at that time.

Later, when the 1979 assassination attempt failed against Shariatmadari, Shariatmadari, far higher in the religious hierarchy than Khomeini, was placed, incommunicado and under house arrest, without the right to preach or receive visitors other than a handful of close relatives, whose anti-Khomeini statements could be easily impugned as biased.[/quote]

Now as for grand ayatollah Shariatmadari:

1) Where is the author's evidence that Imam Khomeini "ordered" to assassinate the ayatollah right after the Revolution? It's just a gratuitious claim, nothing more.

2) The recognition of Imam Khomeini as a marja by the hawza of Qom was no secret. Neither was it a secret to anyone that ayatollah Shariatmadari used to be one of the heads of the seminary back then. So what exactly is Imam Khomeini supposed to have wanted to "cover up" here?

3) The reasons for ayatollah Shariatmadari's house arrest and demotion are evident, suffice to read up on the history of the Islamic Revolution. Of course the author of the article will stay silent on those key events in order to be able to peddle silly theories to unsuspecting readers.

In reality, ayatollah Shariatmadari came to oppose the direction taken by the Islamic Revolution. While the majority of revolutionaries supported the establishment of the Velayate Faqih system by which Supreme Leadership would be exerciced by a high ranking 'alim, grand ayatollah Shariatmadari and his supporters began actively opposing it and advocating a liberal form of governance instead, including through repeated demonstrations in Tabriz.

Shariatmadari then criticized the take over of the US embassy, and even the popular referendum which founded the Islamic Republic. In short, he went against the will of the majority. Hence why he was condemned to house arrest.

Later in 1982, Sadegh Ghotbzadeh, who was arrested on charges of espionage and of attempting to bomb Imam Khomeini's home in order to carry out a coup against the Islamic Republic, implicated Shariatmadari in the plot by declaring that the latter had given him his blessing.

Few contest that Khomeini’s mother was a Kashmiri Indian, but even fewer Iranians or otherwise know his fathers origins or his real name. The late Iranian Senator Moussavi, who represented Khuzestan Province in Southern Iran, at the time of the monarchy, knew Khomeini’s father and his four sons well, looked after their needs, used his influence to obtain their Iranian identity cards with fictitious dates and places of birth to avoid military service. Sen. Moussavi died for this help, on Khomeini's personal orders, immediately on Khomaini return from France after the 1979 coup.

The author of the article is referring to the 1979 popular Revolution, which saw hundreds of thousands demonstrate in the streets of all major cities of Iran and confront the shah's armed-to-the-teeth military, initially with bare hands, and which took over a year to succeed, as a "coup". No historian, no academic, no researcher, no serious source no matter their political leanings, qualifies the 1979 Islamic Revolution as a "coup". This alone should be enough to demonstrate the preposterous nature of the present article.

It claims one senator Musavi was executed after 1979 because "he knew" Imam Khomeini's family. Again, 200 former officials were executed in the first few months after February 1979 - had they all "known" the Imam's family? And once more, the paper alleges that the execution was carried out on Imam Khomeini's orders, yet there is zero proof for this. As opposed to the readily available evidence, including video recordings, of revolutionary courts in which those sentenced after 1979 were trialed.

Here is an example:

Then we have the baseless claim that "few contest that Khomeini’s mother was a Kashmiri Indian". Well no, on the contrary, this is the very first time I have heard this contention. In fact nobody is alleging such a thing in Iran.

The ill-informed author then purports that general Pakravan was "taken on the roof of" Imam Khomeini's "house" and shot to death. In reality, this only betrays the authors sloppy research work and a habit of aligning gratuitious statements. Because there was indeed a "roof" story, but it actually did not relate to general Pakravan nor to Imam Khomeini's "house"; rather, it concerned former generals Reza Naji, Mehdi Rahimi, Nematollah Nasiri and Manouchehr Khosrodad, who were executed on the roof not of the Imam's "house", but of his headquarters.

See:

The first death sentences were approved by the Tehran court on four of the shah's generals in February 1979.[16] They were Mehdi Rahimi, the military commander of Tehran, Reza Naji, the military governor of Isfahan, Nematollah Nassiri, the head of SAVAK, and Manuchehr Khosrodad, an air force general. All four generals were executed by firing squad on the roof of the then Ayatollah Khomeini's headquarters on 15 February.[16]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iranian_Revolution

SAVAK chief Gen. Pakravan, the man who saved Khomeini's life in 1964, was taken that same night onto the roof of his house and shot to death for having compiled a complete background file on Khomeini. The SAVAK background file still exists, as a senior SAVAK official, who defected and joined SAVAMA (the clerics equivalent of the SAVAK) took possession of it. This same man was reportedly head of SAVAMA in the US for quite some time, and sources indicate that he has kept the file for a rainy day.

The article now tosses in a crazy story about a senior former SAVAK official supposed to have defected and joined the newly established Ministry of Intelligence, as "head of SAVAMA in the US" - it is not clear what the author means by that last phrase.

Either the author implies the man was acting undercover and heading Iranian spy networks in America, in which case this begs the question who the author is to be in possession of such classified information about Iranian agents on US soil working against the Washington regime? Or, the author intends to suggest that there was no conflict between Iran and the US after the Islamic Revolution, that the take over of the US embassy in Tehran never happened, that Operation Eagle Claw was an illusion, and so on. In both cases, the contention would be ludicrous.

Oh, and once again - no name, no details, no evidence, no reference is provided for an outlandish, gratuitious claim which no credible source ever mentioned.

Why did Khomeini return to Iran with such a bloodthirsty mind set? It seems clear that it was to exact the revenge which he said he would have. Prior to his return to Iran in 1979, Khomeini openly stated that he would kill as many Iranians. He considered everyone in Iran guilty in advance as there were hairs on the head of his son, killed in a car accident, but in his mind killed by Iranian authorities.

This paragraph contains a made up claim as well as a grotesque interpretation.

First downright disinformation: no, Imam Khomeini never stated prior to his return to Iran in 1979, that he would "kill as many Iranians" (whatever that sentence is exactly supposed to mean... "as many" as what, exactly?). This is simply put, concocted untruth, no more and no less. Of course, we no longer expect the paper to provide any sources for its absurd allegations.

Then follows a laughable reasoning: according to the author, Imam Khomeini considered "everyone in Iran", read 34 million people at that time, as "responsible" for the demise of his son Mostafa in a car accident in Iraq in 1977... Not that the author would deem it necessary to provide some evidence to substantiate the low tier psychoanalysis, to at least feign a measure of credibility - no, they expect their readers to be gullible enough to take such cheap talk at face value, it would seem.

Unable to provide an acceptable paternal background for Khomeini, a story was concocted to link his paternal heritage to that of his Kashmiri Indian mother and introduced an Indian-born father (also from Kashmir) but of Iranian heritage. In fact, no such person existed. But someone with similar and misleading characteristics certainly did, which could lend credence to this fiction of an Indian father.

Khomeini’s real father, William Richard Williamson, was born in Bristol, England, in 1872 of British parents and lineage. This detail is based on first-hand evidence from a former Iranian employee of the Anglo- Iranian Oil Company (later known as British Petroleum- BP), who worked with and met the key players of this saga. This fact was supported by the lack of a denial in 1979 by Col. Archie Chisholm, a BP political officer and former editor at The Financial Times, when interviewed on the subject at his home in County Cork, Ireland, by a British newspaper.

Oh really? Unfortunately for the author, Imam Khomeini's father, Seyyed Ahmad Musavi, is a very genuine person whose life is well documented.

Below are only a few works by recognized academic scholars which attest to Imam Khomeini's paternal background. And by the way, none of these sources claims that Seyyed Ahmad Musavi married a Kashmiri Indian mother.

The author wants to appear as if he is debunking the official, established version but was obviously too lazy to look up what those established findings even say...! Because established findings do not suggest that Imam Khomeini's father, Seyyed Ahmad Musavi, had a Kashmiri wife from India. No, it is reported that Seyyed Ahmad Musavi had married three wives by 1841: Shirin Khanum, Bibi Khanum, and Sakineh (his friend Yusuf Khan Kamarei's sister), all from Khomeyn i. e. all Iranian.

Sources:

Hamid Algar (2010). "A short biography". In Koya, Abdar Rahman (ed.). Imam Khomeini: Life, Thought and Legacy. Islamic Book Trust. p. 19. ISBN 978-9675062254​

​

Juan Ricardo Cole (2002). Sacred Space and Holy War: The Politics, Culture and History of Shi'ite Islam​

​

Ahsan Jan Qaisar, Som Prakash Verma, Mohammad Habib (1996). Art and Culture: Endeavours in Interpretation​

​

"From Khomein, A biography of the Ayatollah", 14 June 1999, The Iranian​

​

Baqer Moin (1999). Khomeini: life of the Ayatollah. St. Martin's Press.​

​

Hamid Algar. Imam Khomeini: A Short Brief Biography.​

​

Edmund Burke III, Ervand Abrahamian (1988). Islam, Politics, and Social Movements​

​

Olivier Roy, Antoine Sfeir (2002). The Columbia World Dictionary of Islamism​

In conclusion, we have amply demonstrated the lack of seriousness, the non-existent scientific and logical value as well as the outright disinforming nature of the paper. Honestly, it will not strengthen your credibility if you endorse such unsophisticated pieces of propaganda, at least after having read the clarifications I took the time to share. So please, friends and brothers, use your logic in combination with the documented facts provided above, and see how this paper and similar ones aren't worthy of your trust.


@mohsen @raptor22 @Hack-Hook @Raghfarm007

 

[Cliftonite]

that the last country Israel sees/consider as a threat among the major powers is China and rightly so.

I wouldn't be so sure of that. Israeli right-wing media has been taking an anti CCP tilt lately.

 

[Trench Broom]

Looks like the mad dog of Turkey has suddenly noticed he has no middle eastern friends or friends in Europe or even USA. Turkey is alone with a terrible economy.

15 years of his embarrassing aggressive rhetoric towards everyone, now he wants to make friends.

I'm sure Israel will make friends with Turkey.............after the dictator has gone and their support for Hamas terrorists has ended.

 

[WebMaster]

It is best for Israel to have good relations with its neighbors after giving Palestinians their rights and lands.

 

[Cherub786]

Turkey must reconcile with Israel ASAP. There is no logic to this chill. Erdogan is an intelligent man though he may learn slowly, he now realizes there is no point antagonizing Israel. Turkey has finally woken up and realized the menace of Iran, which was backing Armenia all this time during the recent war. Turkey has also woken up to the double crossing nature of Putin's Russia.

 

[SalarHaqq]

Iran, which was backing Armenia all this time during the recent war.

No, Iran wasn't backing Armenia during the recent war. Any claim to the contrary is disinformation (or a consequence of having been disinformed).

Iran staid neutral despite reports that the regime in Baku has allowed its territory to be used as a staging ground for anti-Iran operations by Mossad. The same regime is also hosting pan-Turkist elements trying to promote separatism among Azari Iranians.

The Republic of Azarbaijan's president Heydar Aliyev, for his part, declared in English in an interview with French newspaper Le Figaro, that Iran sold weapons to Baku. As can be seen here for example:

Aliyev calls Russia major weapon supplier for Azerbaijan

Most weapons for the Azerbaijani army come from Russia, said Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev.

news.ru

Aliyev calls Russia major weapon supplier for Azerbaijan
14:06, 24 October 2020

Most weapons for the Azerbaijani army come from Russia, said Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev.
He stressed that his country has the opportunity to purchase modern weapons to restore territorial integrity. He also noted that Armenia receives weapons from Russia free of charge, while Azerbaijan pays for supplies.

We buy weapons from many countries. But most of them come not from Turkey or Israel, but from Russia. <...> We also buy weapons from Iran, Ukraine and Belarus, Aliyev said in an interview with French Le Figaro.

Open clashes resumed in Nagorno Karabakh on September 27. In his televised address, President of Azerbaijan Ilham Aliyev accused Yerevan of shelling residential settlements and the Azerbaijani army’s positions in various directions. He added that Armenian provocations recently became regular.

The current stage of the conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan has been ongoing for three decades. As a result of the Karabakh war of 1992-1994, nearly 20% of Azerbaijani territory is under occupation and controlled by the self-proclaimed Nagorno-Karabakh republic. Armenian soldiers are present there on a rotational basis. Yerevan neither admit it officially nor conceal it.

The international community recognizes these lands as part of Azerbaijan and supports the negotiation process’s continuation while opposing any attempts to resolve the territorial dispute through force. Baku and Yerevan repeatedly stated readiness for a compromised solution, but many fundamental disagreements keep the conflict frozen.