@Sineva : may I suggest to directly jump to the final quote contained in this post - somehow I have the feeling you will be reasonably amused by it.
I stopped taking the user all too seriously.
It would seem that to him, a Shia-majority country whose regime is implementing a severe form of secularism (complete with hijab ban for university students), whose president lays flowers at the feet of a masonic-type obelisk, whose courts hand jail sentences to Islamic activists and to ulema, and which officially engages in a strategic partnership with the zionist entity, is a worthy partner for Islamic "unity"...
Whereas a Shia-majority country that stands up to the US and zionist regimes, that dares to supply arms to anti-zionist Resistance groups, that has played a key role in eliminating ISIS and that is applying sharia law, must be considered a "rogue state".
When it comes to the Azarbaijani regime, its staunch secularism (as well as zionism) will be excused in a heartbeat. A different standard shall of course apply to the Syrian government. About the latter, he claimed that the pan-Arab Baathists had been teaching generations of Syrian children that they are "not Arabs" but somehow linked to Europeans...! He also made the claim that the SSNP (Syrian Social Nationalist Party), another secular nationalist and anti-zionist movement allied to the Syrian government (but formerly outlawed by Damascus because their ideology somewhat conflicts with Arabism), aims to eliminate "all religion" (sic)...
When you are allied to the west, to Turkey and to Isra"el", secularism isn't an issue. When you are circumstantially cooperating with a government that is allied to Iran, then apparently secularism becomes synonymous with wanting to "end all religion".
He appears to seriously believe Iran was on the Serbian side during the Bosnian civil war... something any person with even rudimentary knowledge of the topic will of course laugh off (in fact he's the only person I ever encountered anywhere to make that claim).
When confronted about some of the peculiar assertions he has made and when asked to substantiate these with evidence, he will dodge the request, shoot the messenger and resort to more of the same (i. e. more blanket statements).
He doesn't seem to be interested in discussing facts, documents and sources presented to him, no matter how valid, and will dismiss them out of hand as "propaganda". You provide him with Azari, Serbian, American, British sources, he will label them "Iranian propaganda" (probably without having taken the time to read them at all).
The more people debate his assessments, the more categorical and self-contradicting his comments would seem to become, as they increasingly devolve into sloganeering with little regard for coherence.
Some of the latest, taken from the dedicated Karabakh war thread:
Pay attention to the stark vocabulary used here in relation to the "kuffar"... Reminiscent of certain groups and their flawed binary interpretation of every political issue as reflective of a clash between Muslims and kuffar.
Yet right after that, he will post the following, in response to a Turkish user claiming to be non-Muslim:
When they are Turkish, non-Muslims are no longer "villain" nor "heinous", apparently.
But my absolute favorite has to be the following:
So tiny Armenia (population: 3 million, global influence: well, I'll let you guess) has had a secret plan to genocide over 1.8 billion Muslims to the last one (question is if the effort will include those "rogue Iranian deep state officials who side with non-Muslims")... With every one of the user's posts, one really makes an amazing new discovery. How else would we have come to learn about Erevan's realistic project to wipe every Muslim off the face of the planet? That's certainly a major and acute threat we must all be extremely wary of, afterall Armenia is a rising global superpower endowed with the necessary means to carry out its sinister designs.
