What's new

JUST IN - U.S. is "ready for other options" if diplomacy with Iran does not work, Biden says after meeting with Israel's PM Bennett.

Ironically though, your supreme leader you idolize was prepared by France for rule of Iran and landed in French plane to begin his 'revolution'(And needed US Coalition and Russian intervention for his revolution to survive in Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan)
some one ask how long he was in Iraq and how long in France and more importantly when he started his movement
Immediately started attacking Saudi Muslims, Iraqi Muslims, Kuwaiti Muslims, aiding US in Afghanistan in the 90's via Northern Alliance and Hazara massacre of 7,000 Taliban prisoners. Which Taliban will never forget.
let not start me on who helped USA in Afghanistan and Iraq. I have the complete list of the countries who helped USA in how they help , I can post it AGAIN
 
Kuffar of Ahlu Ketab.

Christians that believe in 3 God.
you still doing it your own firejumper way, arent you? I pose one question and you keep coming up with answers but not exactly what I asked. I'll wait and see if any of those mods whom I tagged deem me worthy to respond.

judging from their past behavior they won't reply and instead wait until I am driven into saying something harsh then 1 or 2 will come to lecture me about all sorts.
 
In 1983, when pro-Iranian fighters in Lebanon attacked the US Marine barracks in Beirut, killing 241 US troops at once (one of the heaviest death tolls, if not the heaviest death toll suffered by the US military in a single operation since the end of the Vietnam war).
there is no proof that it was done by Iranian backed group , in fact even today not much is known about the group that did it.
 
Exactly , the guy was exiled in France , came off plane, executed some Iranians.

Was exiled in Iraq for many years, which expelled him. Then spent less than four months in France.

Of course major zionist and US collaborators will get executed after a revolution. Compared to other revolutions though, the Iranian one led to far fewer executions.

Then immediately began arming militants and inciting uprisings in Iraq which led to war between Iran and Iraq.

Nonsense. Iran did not arm any Iraqi militants in the immediate aftermath of the Islamic Revolution.

Much rather, it was Saddam who tried to reactivate "ethno"-separatist grouplets in Iran's Khuzestan province after a four year break consecutive to the 1975 Algiers Agreement he had signed with the shah. Prior to this agreement, the shah had been supporting Kurdish guerillas in northern Iraq. It was not until way after the beginning of the Iran-Iraq war, that Iraqi POWs opposed to Saddam joined Iranian forces, which gave birth to the Badr Brigade in 1982, ie no earlier than two years after the Iraqi invasion of Iran.

What the Islamic Republic did immediately after the victory of the 1979 Revolution though, was to execute Habib Elghanian, the main zionist ringleader in Iran and head of the Zeytoun network, an elaborate and powerful Isra"el"i influence operation in Iran.


What Iran also did right away, was to invite Yasser Arafat to Tehran and replace the zionist diplomatic mission by a Palestinian one.


What led to war between Iran and Iraq was Saddam's belief that Iran being caught in revolutionary turmoil presented him with an unprecedented opportunity to grab oil-rich Iranian lands of Khuzestan. This was an openly stated objective.

And immediately did stampede in Mecca and almost triggered war with Saudi Arabia.

What? There was no "stampede" in Mecca in 1979 or 1980, the stampede happened in 2015 and most of its victims were Iranian pilgrims. Other more limited ones occurred in 1990, 1994 and 1998, again years after the Imam's demise.

Also, no "war" was triggered with Saudi Arabia. The latter, however, decided to bankroll Saddam's illegal invasion of Iran.

And aided northern alliance and facilitated northern alliance in cooperation with US during which thousands of Taliban prisoners were massacred by the Hazaras.

The Northern Alliance took shape in 1996. In other words, 8 years after the demise of Imam Khomeini (rahmatAllah alayha).

When where "thousands of Taliban prisoners massacred by the Hazaras"? More freestyle fabrication on the go by someone who obviously does not master the topics they are commenting on.

Also, one cannot talk of "the Hazaras" as a monolithic political organization. Hazaras are a so-called ethnic community. Only racists incriminate ethnic, national or racial communities as a whole and without distinction. Which, needless to say, stands in stark contrast to Islamic principles.

All while Iran was a weak state and indeed was ill equipped and unable to sustain war let alone real war by US to create regime change. Iran is allowed to develop ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons program without military consequences. Any other Arab nation that tried that would get attacked.

No Arab country tried, because no Arab country came to adopt the asymmetric thinking developed by Iran after 1979. And more importantly, most Arab countries are US allies. Hence the quoted point is totally moot.

The few Arab states which did in fact continue to oppose the US after the collapse of the USSR, namely Iraq, Syria and Libya, did not follow an Iranian-style defensive doctrine but a regular conventional one, which facilitates the task for American aggressors.

Moroever, none of them is endowed with certain assets Iran enjoys. Such as:

- A population of 80 million.
- A cohesive national community with practically unexploitable division lines.
- A geographic position atop the jugular vein of global energy supplies.
- A network of regional allies across the region.
- A latent nuclear weapons capability.

These all explain why the US felt it could afford the costs of invading Iraq and Libya while throwing hundreds of thousands of insurgents at Syria, but did not deem it affordable enough to launch similar operations against Iran.

Pro-Iranians here want you to believe it's because Iranians are more military competent and can make US pay enormous price which simply isn't true. They got in 8 year war of attrition with Iraq which was poorly trained army even though well equipped.

Iraq was backed by the west and western client regimes in its war of aggression against Iran. As well as by the entire Soviet bloc. Its war effort completely financed by PGCC monarchies. It was a western and eastern proxy war on Iran.

The reality is those powers want Iran to be dominant to counter Arab states, Turkey and Pakistan.

The reality is those powers want to destroy Iran but have so far miserably failed. The reality is they have tried to enroll Arab states, Turkey and Pakistan to this effect, with varying success - thank God, not all Muslim leaders in neighboring countries are stupid enough to fall for this.

Iran can at any time be used against these states.

Iran is at war with the zio-American empire. Arab states are US allies, Turkey is a NATO member. If the US does not mean well, first thing they should do is to rescind their alliance with Washington. Which Iran would actually welcome with utmost joy.

And has threatened all of them in the past and continues to

Iran has not threatened any of these.

all under US and Russian military protection to protect their interests in areas like Iraq and Syria. .

Iran and the US are enemies, fought a direct war in 1988. Iranian assets blew up Marine barracks in 1983 in Lebanon. Iran supplied Iraqi guerillas to eliminate 600+ US occupation troops in the 2000's.

The US and Turkey on the other hand are military allies in the framework of NATO. The US and practically every Arab state are allies.

Iran does not enjoy Russian "military protection", but is a partner on equal footing to Moscow in Syria. In Iraq, Russia has no military presence, while the US has consistently been at loggerheads with Iran there.

The aim is cultural domination by Iran and Israel in the region.

Iran's aim is to oust zio-American imperialists from the region and empower Muslims of every denomination, including its Sunni Muslim brothers.

Taliban victory disrupted and delayed final phases of plan.

The Taliban and Iran have established a working relationship. Also, the Taliban have zero bearing on developments in the Arab world.

And of course we get billions of articles since 1979 about how Israel and Iran on verge of war or how Israel almost authorized strike on nuclear facilities or how Iran says it can destroy Israeli army in 11 minutes(but never does for some odd reason).

There isn't anything odd about it. Iran can pummel the zionist entity into dust with its ballistic missiles means alone.

But we also get gazillions of reports on the actual conflict opposing the two sides.

On assassinations of Iranian political and military leaders, as well as the killings of Iranian scientists.

On the zio-American propaganda campaign against Iran, which is the most massive of its kind in the entire history of mankind, with 80 to 90 zio-American backed, Persian-language satellite broadcasters calling for regime change 24/7, not to mention the incomparable amounts of anti-Iran propaganda the internet is being flooded with, including by the empire's sectarianist and takfiri useful idiots.

On the stringent sanctions slapped on Iran, which currently have no equivalent anywhere.

On the proxy wars fought by Iran and the zio-American empire in various theaters across the region.

And the bigger agenda needed is corruption of beliefs of Muslims to allow for this Israeli /Iranian domination to happen. This is why Iranian regime is pushing and trying to shove twelver beliefs down our throats.

No, it isn't. Iran never sought to impose any sort of religious beliefs on anyone anywhere in the world.

On the contrary, it willingly cooperated and selflessly lent its support to its Sunni Muslim brothers in various places such as Bosnia and Herzegovina, Palestine, Kurdish regions of Iraq, Afghanistan. Absolutely no religious types of conditions were placed on this aid.

And why West praises this belief system and tries to make it seem fascinating and why they love and praise guys like Jalaluldin Rumi who promotes shirk.

No, the west does not "praise" Shia Islam anymore than it praises Sunni Islam.

Jalaleddin Rumi was a Hanafi Sunni. Again, the quoted user's ignorance of basic historic facts pertaining to Iran comes smacking readers with full force.


And why this Ayatollah Khomeini guy took title of Nabi Allah Esa for himself and called himself Ruh Allah

This would be a lie. Imam Khomeini (rahmatAllah alayha) did not "call himself" Ruhollah, his parents did. Ruhollah is a common first name in Iran.

Example: the famous Iranian composer Ruhollah Khaleghi.

As for the "nabiAllah esa" title, never heard of it. Don't even know what it is supposed to mean. Chances are that no evidence is going to be provided here either.

and his regime claiming he was in direct communication with God .....

Substantiate this assertion with evidence. Because it's nonsense, and no valid evidence will be provided, this much I can predict. Behold everyone.

Muslims aren't stupid anymore and going to understand sooner or later .....

Most Muslims are not going to let themselves get fooled by hollow assertions with zero evidence to back them up. They require proof. Attempts to keep them in the dark or mislead them out of sectarianist or racialist motivations which solely play into the hands of zionist and US imperialists, will fail as they have failed to this day.

Taliban steadfastness cannot be denied,but you are right this is not over and it could be bigger trap for them. They're facing lots of threats and destabilization efforts by Iranian, Indian, British, Russian , US and other intelligence agencies who no doubt are very active there and cooking something up.

Yeah, which is why the Taliban just asked the US to extend its diplomatic presence in Afghanistan.


- - - - - -
there is no proof that it was done by Iranian backed group , in fact even today not much is known about the group that did it.

Go ahead and enlighten us as to who the realistic alternative candidates would be.

Either way, my point stands: Iran and the US do have a history of direct military confrontation, which is what the discussion was all about.

Iranian diplomats in Erbil were abducted by the US military and mistreated. Fact.

Iran and the US did fight a war in 1988 in the Persian Gulf. Fact.

The US regime did down an Iranian civilian airliner. Fact. And no, it was not an "accident".

That's all we're trying to set straight.
 
Last edited:
Was exiled in Iraq for many years, which expelled him. Then spent less than four months in France.

Of course major zionist and US collaborators will get executed after a Revolution. Compared to other Revolutions though, the Iranian one led to far fewer executions.



Nonsense. Iran did not "arm" any Iraqi militants in the immediate aftermath of the Islamic Revolution. That's a pure fabrication.

What Iran did though, was to execute Habibollah Elghanian, the main zionist ringleader in Iran and head of the infamous Zeytoun network, an Isra"el"i influence operation in Iran.

What Iran also did right away, was to invite Yasser Arafat to Tehran and replace the zionist diplomatic mission by a Palestinian one.

What led to war between Iran and Iraq was Saddam's belief that Iran being caught in revolutionary turmoil represented an opportunity for him to grab oil-rich Iranian lands of Khuzestan. This was an openly stated objective.



What? There was no "stampede" in Mecca in 1979 or 1980, this happened in 2015 and most of its victims were Iranian pilgrims.

Also, no "war" was triggered with Saudi Arabia. The latter, on the other hand, decided to finance Saddam's illegal invasion of Iran.



The Northern Alliance took shape in 1996. In other words, 8 years after the demise of Imam Khomeini (rahmatAllah alayha).

When where "thousands of Taliban prisoners massacred by the Hazaras"? More freestyle fabrication on the go by someone who obviously does not master the topics they are commenting on.

Also, there is no such thing as "the Hazaras" as a monolithic political organization. Hazaras are a so-called ethnic community. Only racists incriminate ethnic, national or racial communities as a whole and without distinction. Which, needless to say, stands in stark contrast to Islamic principles.



No Arab nation tried, because no Arab nation came to adopt the asymmetric thinking developed by Iran after 1979. And most of all, most Arab countries are US allies. Hence the quoted point is totally moot.

The few Arab nations that did in fact continue to oppose the US after the collapse of the USSR, namely Iraq, Syria and Libya, did not follow an Iranian-style defensive doctrine.

Moroever, none of them is endowed with certain assets Iran enjoys. Such as:

- A population of 80 million.
- A cohesive national community with unexploitable division lines.
- A geographic position atop the jugular vein of global energy supplies.
- A network of regional allies across the region.
- A latent nuclear weapons capability.

These all explain why the US felt it could afford the costs of invading Iraq and Libya and destabilizing Syria, but not Iran.



Iraq was backed by the west and western client regimes in its war of aggression against Iran. As well as by the entire Soviet bloc. Its war effort completely financed by PGCC monarchies. It was a western and eastern proxy war on Iran.



The reality is those powers want to destroy Iran but have so far miserably failed. The reality is they have tried to enroll Arab states, Turkey and Pakistan to this effect, with varying success - thank God, not all Muslim leaders in neighboring countries are stupid enough to fall for this.



Iran is at war with the zio-American empire. Arab states are US allies, Turkey is a NATO member. If the US does not mean well, first thing they should do is to rescind their alliance with Washington. Which Iran would actually welcome with utmost joy.



Iran has not threatened any of these.



Iran and the US are enemies, fought a direct war in 1988. Iranian assets blew up Marine barracks in 1983 in Lebanon. Iran supplied Iraqi guerillas to eliminate 600+ US occupation troops in the 2000's.

The US and Turkey on the other hand are military allies in the framework of NATO. The US and practically every Arab state are allies.

Iran does not enjoy Russian "military protection", but is a partner on equal footing to Moscow in Syria. In Iraq, Russia has no military presence, while the US has consistently been at loggerheads with Iran there.



Iran's aim is to oust zio-American imperialists from the region and empower Muslims of every denomination, including its Sunni Muslim brothers.



The Taliban and Iran have established a working relationship. Also, the Taliban have zero bearing on developments in the Arab world.



There's nothing "odd" about it. Iran can pummel the zionist entity into dust with its conventional means alone.

But we also get gazillions of reports on the actual conflict opposing the two sides.

On assassinations of Iranian political and military leaders, as well as the killings of Iranian scientists.

On the zio-American propaganda campaign against Iran, which is the most massive of its kind in the entire history of mankind, with 80 to 90 satellite zio-American backed, Persian-language broadcasters calling for regime change 24/7, not to mention the incomparable amounts of anti-Iran propaganda the internet is being flooded with, including by the empire's sectarianist and takfiri useful idiots.

On the stringent sanctions slapped on Iran, which currently have no equivalent anywhere.

On the proxy wars fought by Iran and the zio-American empire in various theaters across the region.



No, it isn't. Iran never sought to impose any sort of religious beliefs on anyone anywhere in the world.

On the contrary, it willingly cooperated and selflessly lent its support to its Sunni Muslim brothers in various places such as Bosnia and Herzegovina, Palestine, Kurdish regions of Iraq, Afghanistan. Absolutely no religious types of conditions were placed on this aid.



No, the west does not "praise" Shia Islam anymore than it praises Sunni Islam.

Jalaleddin Rumi was a Hanafi Sunni. Again, the quoted user's ignorance of basic historic facts comes smacking readers with full force.



This would be a lie. Imam Khomeini (rahmatAllah alayha) did not "call himself" Ruhollah, his parents did. Ruhollah is a common first name in Iran.

Example: the famous Iranian composer Ruhollah Khaleghi.

As for the "nabiAllah esa" title, never heard of it. Don't even know what it is supposed to mean. Chances are that no evidence is going to be provided here either.



Substantiate this assertion with evidence. Because it's nonsense, and no valid evidence will be provided, this much I can predict. Behold everyone.



Most Muslims are not going to let themselves get fooled by hollow assertions with zero evidence to back them up. They require proof. Attempts to dumb them down in order to implement sectarianist agendas which solely play into the hands of zionist and US imperialists will miserably fail as they have failed to this day.



Yeah, which is why the Taliban just asked the US to extend its diplomatic presence in Afghanistan.


- - - - - -


Go ahead and elighten us as to who the alternative candidates would be. Don't play silly.

Either way, my point stands: Iran and the US do have a history of direct military confrontation, which is what the discussion was all about.

Iranian dipomats in Erbil were abducted by the US military and mistreated. Fact.

Iran and the US did fight a war in 1988 in the Persian Gulf. Fact.

The US regime did down an Iranian civilian airliner. Fact. And no, it was no "accident".

Kindly stop trying to hijack the discussion.
there is no hijacking the attack was claimed by Islamic Jihad Organization which was more a underground guerrilla organization than a militia (Iran usually tends to make militia rather than guerillas) and Iran always officially and unofficially denied having anything to them . its Zionist and US who claimed Iran funded and supported them but never could provide any evidence and more importantly after Iran stepped in and supported Hezbollah , their activities ceased and we saw different type of resistance
 
Exactly , the guy was exiled in France , came off plane, executed some Iranians. Then immediately began arming militants and inciting uprisings in Iraq which led to war between Iran and Iraq. And immediately did stampede in Mecca and almost triggered war with Saudi Arabia. And aided northern alliance and facilitated northern alliance in cooperation with US during which thousands of Taliban prisoners were massacred by the Hazaras. All while Iran was a weak state and indeed was ill equipped and unable to sustain war let alone real war by US to create regime change. Iran is allowed to develop ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons program without military consequences. Any other Arab nation that tried that would get attacked. Pro-Iranians here want you to believe it's because Iranians are more military competent and can make US pay enormous price which simply isn't true. They got in 8 year war of attrition with Iraq which was poorly trained army even though well equipped. The reality is those powers want Iran to be dominant to counter Arab states, Turkey and Pakistan. Iran can at any time be used against these states. And has threatened all of them in the past and continues to, all under US and Russian military protection to protect their interests in areas like Iraq and Syria. The aim is cultural domination by Iran and Israel in the region. Taliban victory disrupted and delayed final phases of plan. And of course we get billions of articles since 1979 about how Israel and Iran on verge of war or how Israel almost authorized strike on nuclear facilities or how Iran says it can destroy Israeli army in 11 minutes(but never does for some odd reason). And the bigger agenda needed is corruption of beliefs of Muslims to allow for this Israeli /Iranian domination to happen. This is why Iranian regime is pushing and trying to shove twelver beliefs down our throats. And why West praises this belief system and tries to make it seem fascinating and why they love and praise guys like Jalaluldin Rumi who promotes shirk. And why this Ayatollah Khomeini guy took title of Nabi Allah Esa for himself and called himself Ruh Allah and his regime claiming he was in direct communication with God ..... Muslims aren't stupid anymore and going to understand sooner or later .....


Taliban steadfastness cannot be denied,but you are right this is not over and it could be bigger trap for them. They're facing lots of threats and destabilization efforts by Iranian, Indian, British, Russian , US and other intelligence agencies who no doubt are very active there and cooking something up.
You have turn whole history from 1979 till now upside down,than whitewashed all Arab leaders incopetence,stupidity,lack of any vision and mid to long term strategy,and put it all on Iran. No matter how much Arabs and other Iranian neighbors try to put all blame for their inconpetence on Iran,fact is ,they are only one to blame. Iran is under heavy sanctions for 41 yrs,was in war for 8 yrs,against 40+ countries,including both superpowers...And despite all that,it developed itself,better than its neighbors that sold their asses to one or other power. Today,Iran is sole country that provide real and open support to Palestinians...While Arabs agreed to be Israel bitch,till now they sell their asses to US only,but Israel is new level of idiotizm.Let me ask you,in few months or years,when citizens of these petrol stations overthrow their ruling families because they support Israel,...I suppose Iranians will be one to blame...They are so stupid,they dont get it,that even if you have apsolute powe,still you must listen what people want,majority of them,otherwise they will stand up against gov.
 
there is no hijacking the attack was claimed by Islamic Jihad Organization which was more a underground guerrilla organization than a militia (Iran usually tends to make militia rather than guerillas) and Iran always officially and unofficially denied having anything to them . its Zionist and US who claimed Iran funded and supported them but never could provide any evidence and more importantly after Iran stepped in and supported Hezbollah , their activities ceased and we saw different type of resistance

If former CIA station chief for the Middle East, Robert Baer in his book "The Devil We Know" is a credible source (and I believe he is to some extent), then Iran deliberately used several front organizations to confuse the enemy while it was busy setting up Hezbollah. One such group openly sported Iranian flags in Lebanon and had a very radical outspoken leader. All eyes of hostile intelligence agencies turned on said group... which largely led them to miss out on the real thing Iran was preparing in the background. So Iran did help in the creation of different types of organizations, from popular movements to political parties to tiny, more obscure entities. And, Hezbollah's genesis occurred on the basis of an assortment of previously founded, small activist groups.

Yes, when Hezbollah reached the required maturity, there was no more need for those small groups. But a grassroots movement with a flawless organizational structure is not generated in a matter of days. It takes some time. And let's not fool ourselves into believing that in the meantime, Iran was content to do without any allies in Lebanon while the country had been invaded by the zionist entity.

It's not surprising at all that Iran would refuse to acknowledge involvement in the 1983 attacks against US and French occupation troops and interests in Beirut. As a state you don't openly recognize playing a part in such operations, even if their targets are military ones. This is routine practice for intelligence services. It's the principle of plausible deniability.

Moreover, you did not address the question what realistic alternative candidates there would have been other than Iran. Truth is there are none. And if you believe a totally obscure group nobody had ever heard about springs up out of nowhere to conduct the most deadly strikes US forces had suffered since the end of the Vietnam war without any state support, then there's nothing I can say. However I do agree that the zio-Americans falsely attributed later attacks against civilian targets, such as the AMIA bombing in Argentina, to this Islamic Jihad Organization.

Either way: my point was that contrary to what some individuals suggested in this thread, there is very much a history of armed confrontation between Iran and the US. Whether or not you want to include the Beirut barrack bombings into the list won't matter at the end of the day, since there are multiple other episodes of real armed struggle between Iran and the US regime, several of which are completely undeniable, such as the 1988 clash in the Persian Gulf or Iranian support for Iraqi Resistance groups such as Kata'eb Hezbollah which fought US occupiers in the 2000's.
 
Last edited:
@AgNoStiC MuSliM @Foxtrot Alpha @krash @waz one no, at-least 3 of your takfiri gang are active again
so can you point me to where it says "kuffar kingdom" in the image you just posted?

Did you know that "kafir" doesn't mean "atheist" but "non-Muslim"? Furthermore, are you aware that "takfir" is defined as excommunicating Muslims (rather than non-Muslims)? Like some here seem to have been doing with quite the impunity considering that they repeatedly qualified followers of Twelver Shia Islam as "kafirs", "enemies of Muslims" and so on.
 
Last edited:
Another fact which needs to be set straight given related inaccuracies spread across this forum as of late: the first prominent incident opposing Iranians and Jews took place as far back as during Antiquity, namely in the 5th century BC. Open a Bible or Ancient Testament and read the Book of Esther. Then go and find out what the Jewish festival of Purim, one of the most important ones in Judaism, is all about.

Incidentally, the "modest" amount of 75.000 Iranians are said to have been massacred by Jews during that episode...

Over 75,000 people are slaughtered by the Jews, who are careful to take no plunder (9:16–17).


https://iranicaonline.org/articles/esther-book-of

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Purim

This by the way will remain significant no matter how historically accurate the story narrated in the Book of Esther is. Because Jewish leaders obviously decided at some point in the distant past to commemorate such an event in this sort of a way, in other terms to portray a certain high-ranking Iranian general of the Achaemenid Empire, his followers and tribesmen as their existential enemies. Period.

And I never heard of any major clash between Arabs and Jews taking place as early as this.

So much for the supposed "alliance between Persians and Jews against Arabs and then Muslims throughout history", a perfect intellectual scam which only people who never properly studied Iranian history could possibly construe.
 
Last edited:
Did you know that "kafir" doesn't mean "atheist" but "non-Muslim"?
you are even dumber than the last one, if anything it fits the two of you the best because it does not mean atheist who does not believe in any God.

kafir is the one who denies God, hides the truth, is ungrateful, thankless (I bet you'll "prove" me wrong by quoting from the font of knowledge the Wikipedia just like your cohort did)
Like some here seem to have been doing with quite the impunity considering that they repeatedly qualified followers of Twelver Shia Islam as "kafirs", "enemies of Muslims" and so on.
are you accusing me? if so it is another one of your lies! showing me where I did it would be better then just spouting lies
Exactly , the guy was exiled in France , came off plane, executed some Iranians. Then immediately began arming militants and inciting uprisings in Iraq which led to war between Iran and Iraq. And immediately did stampede in Mecca and almost triggered war with Saudi Arabia. And aided northern alliance and facilitated northern alliance in cooperation with US during which thousands of Taliban prisoners were massacred by the Hazaras. All while Iran was a weak state and indeed was ill equipped and unable to sustain war let alone real war by US to create regime change. Iran is allowed to develop ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons program without military consequences. Any other Arab nation that tried that would get attacked. Pro-Iranians here want you to believe it's because Iranians are more military competent and can make US pay enormous price which simply isn't true. They got in 8 year war of attrition with Iraq which was poorly trained army even though well equipped. The reality is those powers want Iran to be dominant to counter Arab states, Turkey and Pakistan. Iran can at any time be used against these states. And has threatened all of them in the past and continues to, all under US and Russian military protection to protect their interests in areas like Iraq and Syria. The aim is cultural domination by Iran and Israel in the region. Taliban victory disrupted and delayed final phases of plan. And of course we get billions of articles since 1979 about how Israel and Iran on verge of war or how Israel almost authorized strike on nuclear facilities or how Iran says it can destroy Israeli army in 11 minutes(but never does for some odd reason). And the bigger agenda needed is corruption of beliefs of Muslims to allow for this Israeli /Iranian domination to happen. This is why Iranian regime is pushing and trying to shove twelver beliefs down our throats. And why West praises this belief system and tries to make it seem fascinating and why they love and praise guys like Jalaluldin Rumi who promotes shirk. And why this Ayatollah Khomeini guy took title of Nabi Allah Esa for himself and called himself Ruh Allah and his regime claiming he was in direct communication with God ..... Muslims aren't stupid anymore and going to understand sooner or later .....


Taliban steadfastness cannot be denied,but you are right this is not over and it could be bigger trap for them. They're facing lots of threats and destabilization efforts by Iranian, Indian, British, Russian , US and other intelligence agencies who no doubt are very active there and cooking something up.
please do not reply to me ever again, thank you in advance
 
Last edited:
you are even dumber than the last one, if anything it fits the two of you the best because it does not mean atheist who does not believe in any God.

What he wrote corresponds to common usage (whether right or wrong), you trying to pass him off as a takfiri for referring to Christians as kafirs was therefore a bit far-fetched in my opinion. On a personal note, I have nothing against Christians and am aware they believe in God, even though obviously from an Islamic point of view their beliefs are considered to have been tampered with over the centuries.

I will add this link for your information, do of it what you will, my purpose here is not to start a controversy nor a theological debate. It's from Dar al-Ifta, an Egyptian Sunni Islamic foundation for fatwas:
https://www.dar-alifta.org/Foreign/ViewFatwa.aspx?ID=5918

But once again, I'd be the last person to express hostility towards a Christian simply by virtue of their religious affiliation. In fact I have no issues with the notion of cooperating with Christians as long as political outlooks converge.

are you accusing me? if so it is another one of your lies! showing me where I did it would be better then just spouting lies.

Calm down please, it's not you I had in mind, obviously. But someone whose posts you liked here. And no, there's no lie therein. Don't force me to post screenshots, it'd be off topic.
 
Last edited:
If former CIA station chief for the Middle East, Robert Baer in his book "The Devil We Know" is a credible source (and I believe he is to some extent), then Iran deliberately used several front organizations to confuse the enemy while it was busy setting up Hezbollah. One such group openly sported Iranian flags in Lebanon and had a very radical outspoken leader. All eyes of hostile intelligence agencies turned on said group... which largely led them to miss out on the real thing Iran was preparing in the background. So Iran did help in the creation of different types of organizations, from popular movements to political parties to tiny, more obscure entities. And, Hezbollah's genesis occurred on the basis of an assortment of previously founded, small activist groups.

Yes, when Hezbollah reached the required maturity, there was no more need for those small groups. But a grassroots movement with a flawless organizational structure is not generated in a matter of days. It takes some time. And let's not fool ourselves into believing that in the meantime, Iran was content to do without any allies in Lebanon while the country had been invaded by the zionist entity.

It's not surprising at all that Iran would refuse to acknowledge involvement in the 1983 attacks against US and French occupation troops and interests in Beirut. As a state you don't openly recognize playing a part in such operations, even if their targets are military ones. This is routine practice for intelligence services. It's the principle of plausible deniability.

Moreover, you did not address the question what realistic alternative candidates there would have been other than Iran. Truth is there are none. And if you believe a totally obscure group nobody had ever heard about springs up out of nowhere to conduct the most deadly strikes US forces had suffered since the end of the Vietnam war without any state support, then there's nothing I can say. However I do agree that the zio-Americans falsely attributed later attacks against civilian targets, such as the AMIA bombing in Argentina, to this Islamic Jihad Organization.

Either way: my point was that contrary to what some individuals suggested in this thread, there is very much a history of armed confrontation between Iran and the US. Whether or not you want to include the Beirut barrack bombings into the list won't matter at the end of the day, since there are multiple other episodes of real armed struggle between Iran and the US regime, several of which are completely undeniable, such as the 1988 clash in the Persian Gulf or Iranian support for Iraqi Resistance groups such as Kata'eb Hezbollah which fought US occupiers in the 2000's.
AMIA attacked was something happened by Zionist themselves and they attribute it to this movement , again other childish attack against target like tourist buses in Europe that they attributed to Hezbollah which every one knew how true they are . my point is Hezbollah deny it , Iran deny it .even Moqnyeh that they say was the head of IJO never acknowledged such thing.
why i must believe something that a former USA spymaster say for the record I don't believe in former spy if you enter KGB, CIA, NSA, MI6, MI5 or Mossad you joined for life you are even part of them after life and they use you for their agenda and CIA agenda is to demonize Iran and Hezbollah in the western hemisphere to desensitize their population against any atrocities they did here on this side of the world. and what better than interview and memoire of a so called retired spy master .

my point when we denied any attack anywhere if we were participated and why we deny this one. or for example about AMIA why they are so afraid of Iran participate in fact finding about that incident what's in those hundreds of thousands of pages of investigation that they fear may come to light ? and why we must fall in their trap ?
 
Iran's aim is to oust zio-American imperialists from the region and empower Muslims of every denomination, including its Sunni Muslim brothers.

We can clearly see that:


Iran even tried inciting Shia revolution in Pakistan:


July 5, 1980
Shiite Protests in Pakistan Expose Sectarian Tensions
Tens of thousands of Shias protest in Islamabad against the imposition of some Sunni laws on all Muslims. Pakistan’s president gives Shias an exemption, but the sectarian confrontation becomes an important political issue in the country.

Iranian supported groups doing their sectarian violence in name of fighting Israel/USA, while getting into power thanks to USA. And doing joint operations against ISIS:


One of Baghdad's most deadly sectarian pogroms, which saw at least 40 people, apparently all Sunnis, killed by Shia militants in a rampage in a Baghdad suburb last weekend, has further damaged sectarian relations in Iraq.

Witnesses said gunmen, some masked, set up roadblocks and stopped motorists in the mainly Sunni suburb of Jihad, near Baghdad airport, demanding to see identity cards. Those with Sunni names were shot dead; Shias were released.





The Taliban and Iran have established a working relationship. Also, the Taliban have zero bearing on developments in the Arab world.

No they don't, it's normal diplomatic relationship. Taliban is aware of Iranian terrorist regime nature. Iranian 'resisitance axis' media is calling the Taliban takeover a US conspiracy against Iran and refuses to recognize Taliban's rule over of Afghanistan or attribute any legitimacy to the movement.
..
..
Before this incident, Iran was supportive of the Afghan Northern Alliance, and the city of Mazari Sharif was one of the headquarters of the alliance. It is reported that between May and July 1997 Abdul Malik Pahlawan executed thousands of Taliban prisoners as a revenge for the 1995 death of Abdul Ali Mazari. "He is widely believed to have been responsible for the brutal massacre of up to 3,000 Taliban prisoners after inviting them into Mazar-i-Sharif."[4] As revenge, Taliban forces captured Mazar-i-Sharif and killed hundreds of Northern Alliance members, particularly members of the Hazara and Uzbek ethnic group as they were accused of being the ones who carried out the killings of Taliban prisoners.[citation needed]



There isn't anything odd about it. Iran can pummel the zionist entity into dust with its ballistic missiles means alone.

Sure it can, so why don't Iran do it?






No, it isn't. Iran never sought to impose any sort of religious beliefs on anyone anywhere in the world.

Nonsense, Iran is trying to export Twelver Shiasm and force it down peoples throats by changing scholars, forcing processions in Sunni dominated areas, and altering demographics of Muslim dominated cities in the name of attaining soft power.


No, the west does not "praise" Shia Islam anymore than it praises Sunni Islam.

West absolutely idolizes Twelver Shia Islam, tries to make it appear as intriguing and defends Twelver Shia sect. It never covers the original and real Shia sects which came before the Safavid takeover of Iran.

Jalaleddin Rumi was a Hanafi Sunni. Again, the quoted user's ignorance of basic historic facts pertaining to Iran comes smacking readers with full force.

I never said he wasn't, I said he is idolized for promotion of shirk beliefs. Should be noted he is from Persian background, just like the other mushrik mystic Al-Hallaj. We don't care if they claim to ascribe to Islam. Their beliefs were about ridiculing Islam.



This would be a lie. Imam Khomeini (rahmatAllah alayha) did not "call himself" Ruhollah, his parents did. Ruhollah is a common first name in Iran.

Example: the famous Iranian composer Ruhollah Khaleghi.

As for the "nabiAllah esa" title, never heard of it. Don't even know what it is supposed to mean. Chances are that no evidence is going to be provided here either.

Do you read Quran? Do you know Rooh-Allah is the title of Prophet Jesus, why is your guy giving himself such a title?
 
We can clearly see that:

in that incident Iranian were targeted not otherwise and why because they said down with Israel
Yemeni work after several years of Yemen even their school busses being bombed by one certain foreign invading forces
again an invasion against Iran
the only thing I can say it's your laziness that you only managed to find that single article ,the VOA news ran such article on daily bases and guess what they never provide proof for their claims
Iran even tried inciting Shia revolution in Pakistan:
again baseless claims without any proof and there are far more interested parties for making uprising in Pakistan than Iran also why made revolution in a friendly country ?
an incident from 2006 , you strategically forget to mention in those days some Sunni angles on daily bases blown up at least 100 or more Shia demon and you managed to find one incident attributed to some angry Shia youth congratulation on your fairness and thoroughness .
West absolutely idolizes Twelver Shia Islam, tries to make it appear as intriguing and defends Twelver Shia sect. It never covers the original and real Shia sects which came before the Safavid takeover of Iran.
well I'm sure some one here has already stated that shiism originated from mecca and medina not Iran
 
Last edited:

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom