What's new

Turkey's Erdogan warns patience will run out on Syria

Well I am yet to see a statement from Iran on accepting either Syrians or even Iraqis. :)



Replied in edited
I don't know about war getting over or not, it would become more direct and we'll know who's who and what's what for sure. :)


You're mixing Syria rebels with ISIS.

No i'm not.

And I was saying that IF syrian rebels are mujahideens THEN houthi rebels are also mujahideens.
 
Maybe they know that in Germany the accomodations are much better and recieve free money ? Its Germany :) So while our borders are open to refugees go and force them to change their routes to EU to Iran.


Army is not involved,IRGC forces are not involved, Airforce are not involved, navy is not involved, special forces are not involved.

What is involved in Syria is intelligence units and voluntary shia militias (they might be active IRGC personnel or retired but mostly they are just average religious citizens).

If we deployed thousands of IRGC or the army the war would be over.

1. It's sending Mongol Shiite refugees from Afghanistan (including children) to kill and die in Syria.

2. These are mercenaries.

3. It is using non-Iranian Shiites from around the world as cannon-fodder.

Iran is also accepting Afghans below the age of 18 provided they have written permission from their parents, the Guardian has learned. At least one 16-year-old Iran-based Afghan refugee was killed in Syria earlier this autumn. The rising number of funerals in Iran is a tangible sign revealing a greater involvement in the Syrian conflict in the wake of the Russian airstrikes.

Iranian terminology for those killed in Syria is “defenders of the holy shrine”. The Abolfazli mosque in eastern Mashhad’s Golshahr district – situated at the heart of an impoverished area accommodating most of the city’s Afghans – is the place where the refugees, usually young men, sign up on a daily basis to go and fight for Iran in Syria.

On an autumn morning this year, some 50 Afghans were queuing at the mosque, which is lacklustre and missing the dome and minaret that decorate some of the country’s most glittering, to put their name on the list. The requirements are simple: those interested have to prove they are Afghan, and singles or minors must have parental consent.

“This is mere exploitation of vulnerable people,” said Mujtaba Jalali, a 24-year-old Iranian-born Afghan refugee from Mashhad who has recently fled to Europe. Jalali, a professional photographer, has visited at least 10 funerals in his city held for Afghans who have lost their lives in Syria. The Guardian is publishing his photographs for the first time, some of which reveal the identities of the Fatemioun members killed.

Although Jalali was born in Iran, he has not been able to hold an Iranian nationality, in common with all Afghan children born there. People like Jalali face immense difficulties in continuing their education, having bank accounts, receiving paperwork to leave the country or have access to work in Iran.


“This is the war Iran is fighting at someone else’s expense,” Jalali said. “It’s Afghan refugees in Iran who are paying the price of Tehran’s support for Assad and they are being lied to about the real motives. It’s not religious, it’s political. Instead of protecting its refugees, Iran is using them.”

According to Jalali, most Iran-based Afghans, who are also Shia,
are not going to Syria to risk their lives on religious grounds but because of the financial and stability benefits that their involvement will bring to them and their families. Nearly 1 million Afghans are registered as refugees in Iran but the country is believed to host at least 2 million more who are living illegally.

Afghan refugees in Iran being sent to fight and die for Assad in Syria | World news | The Guardian

I've just heard that Saudi troops have begun arriving at a base in Turkey in preparation for a ground offensive.
 
Zaidis ARE Shiites. In fact they are one of the oldest, and at one time the largest Shia belief.

The Saudis did not kill the Houthis because they are Shia, otherwise why would they have supported Ali Abdullah Saleh (a Shia) for so many years?

So that means Assad is also not killing rebels bcz they are sunnis, otherwise why majority of his army soldiers would have been sunnis. Assad is killing them bcz they are rebels and saudis are also killing houthis bcz they are rebels. Both are fighting the rebels. No difference.

-There is no ethnic cleansing in yemen because both sides are arabs
-many zaidis dont support Houthi terrorists
-I never knew there is shia bolaches?if you are not why are you making iranian propaganda every where
-Erdogan is not close to salafists because he is sufi

You are talking to a sunni baloch here too. But the baloch who is fed up of saudi terrorism, extremism and takfiriism it promotes through its wahaba ideology (and even you guys are openly supporting al qaeda in syria). Go watch your bombings in yemen which you are doing to kill the civilians there too. Yeah.... the ethnic cleansing of houthis. No difference in syria and yemen.

If you think that everyone who talks against saudi arabia is a shia then you haven't come to pakistan these days i guess.

If syrian rebels are mujahideens then houthi rebels are also mujahideens. And plz do send your forces to syria and resolve this iran vs saudia problem once and for all.
 
So that means Assad is also not killing rebels bcz they are sunnis, otherwise why majority of his army soldiers would have been sunnis. Assad is killing them bcz they are rebels and saudis are also killing houthis bcz they are rebels. Both are fighting the rebels. No difference.



The Saudis supported a Zaidi Shia as leader of Yemen.

The Iranian Ayatolloids will only allow a Nusayri Shia to be leader of Syria, the same way they will only a Ithna Ashari Shia to be leader of Iran.

Pakistan by the way despite being a Sunni majority state has had several Shia leaders. It's illegal for a Sunni to be the leader of Iran.
 
The Saudis supported a Zaidi Shia as leader of Yemen.

The Iranian Ayatolloids will only allow a Nusayri Shia to be leader of Syria, the same way they will only a Ithna Ashari Shia to be leader of Iran.

Pakistan by the way despite being a Sunni majority state has had several Shia leaders. It's illegal for a Sunni to be the leader of Iran.

You are right. And

Bahrain by the way despite being a shia majority state has all sunni leaders. Iraq despite being majority shia was held by sunnis for majority of time, and its illegal for a shia to be the leader in Saudi arabia too. I still don't see a difference. Its the game of power in gulf (its not just about religion).

Bring democracy to all of arab. Problem solved.
 
You are right. And

Bahrain by the way despite being a shia majority state has all sunni leaders. Iraq despite being majority shia was held by sunnis for majority of time, and its illegal for a shia to be the leader in Saudi arabia too. I still don't see a difference. Its the game of power in gulf (its not just about religion).

Bring democracy to all of arab. Problem solved.

'whataboutery'.

I don't have a problem with that. I don't care if the ruler is a Sunni, Ismaili Shia, Jew, Parsi, Hindu, or Sikh, so long as he or she obeys the constitution and upholds the rights of all citizens of the state.

With the greatest of respect neither the Saudi family nor the ruling dynasties in any of the other Arab states pretend to be the religious leaders of Sunnis. In Iran, the people who are the religious leaders of the Ithna Ashari Shia are the one's discriminating against Sunnis.
 
'whataboutery'.

I don't have a problem with that. I don't care if the ruler is a Sunni, Ismaili Shia, Jew, Parsi, Hindu, or Sikh, so long as he or she obeys the constitution and upholds the rights of all citizens of the state.

With the greatest of respect neither the Saudi family nor the ruling dynasties in any of the other Arab states pretend to be the religious leaders of Sunnis. In Iran, the people who are the religious leaders of the Ithna Ashari Shia are the one's discriminating against Sunnis.

Exactly. Its a game of power. And both are the same. No difference. Thats what i was trying to say.

I support the democracy for the whole arab world.
 
Exactly. Its a game of power. And both are the same. No difference. Thats what i was trying to say.

I support the democracy for the whole arab world.

There's a substantial difference.

The Saudis do not claim to be the religious leaders of all the world's Sunnis nor as examples of how every other Sunni Muslim should live.

The Ayatollahs claim to be the 'marjas' or living example of how a Shia anywhere in the world should live their life. Thus the way the Ayatollahs behave towards Sunnis e.g. declaring it illegal for an Iranian Sunni to lead Iran becomes established as the orthodox religious Shia practice.

Capeesh?
 
Last edited:
There's a substantial difference.

The Saudis do not claim to be the religious leaders of all the world's Sunnis nor as examples of how every other Sunni Muslim should live.

The Ayatollahs claim to be the 'marjas' or living example of how a Shia anywhere in the world should live their life. Thus the way the Ayatollahs behave towards Sunnis e.g. declaring it illegal for an Iranian Sunni to lead Iran becomes established as the orthodox religious Shia practice.

Capeesh?

No its not. The saudis wahabis consider themselves to be the only true sect of islam and aal e saud are its patronizers and actively spread their sectarianism through out islamic world. And they are even more extremists infact takfiris. Saudi arab on state level is expanding wahabism plague everywhere. And wahabis tell everybody too that how should you llive otherwise you are murtid or kafir or khariji etc. State level sect expansion. So no difference here.

Thus the wahabis behave towards shias e.g declaring it illegal for a saudi shia to lead saudi arabia established as the orthodox religious wahabi practice. So no difference here too.

Both are the same.
 
There's a substantial difference.

The Saudis do not claim to be the religious leaders of all the world's Sunnis nor as examples of how every other Sunni Muslim should live.

The Ayatollahs claim to be the 'marjas' or living example of how a Shia anywhere in the world should live their life. Thus the way the Ayatollahs behave towards Sunnis e.g. declaring it illegal for an Iranian Sunni to lead Iran becomes established as the orthodox religious Shia practice.

Capeesh?
but still ISIS, al qaeda/nusra, FSA, boko haram, al shabab, ansar al sharia, the Talibans, the many Lashkars operating in Pakistan.. all sunni extremists ?
 
There's a substantial difference.

The Saudis do not claim to be the religious leaders of all the world's Sunnis nor as examples of how every other Sunni Muslim should live.

The Ayatollahs claim to be the 'marjas' or living example of how a Shia anywhere in the world should live their life. Thus the way the Ayatollahs behave towards Sunnis e.g. declaring it illegal for an Iranian Sunni to lead Iran becomes established as the orthodox religious Shia practice.

Capeesh?

you don't know any thing about Marjaeit theory and talking nonsense .... even in Iran there are more than 50 Marjae , so how we can claim single Marjaeit for all the world while we even have so many Marjae in our country and in Shiia !? the answer is that we didn't claim something like this but your sectarian mind is making Lie to justify your hateful hearts ....

Marjaeit is that common people follow their religious duty according of an Ayattollah who is experts in Islam because most of people don't have time to become an experts in Islam ....

even in Sunnis , common people ask their religion problem according of some Mufti and Imams Fatwas ....
 
but still ISIS, al qaeda/nusra, FSA, boko haram, al shabab, ansar al sharia, the Talibans, the many Lashkars operating in Pakistan.. all sunni extremists ?



In the same way many terrorist groups including the Nazi's of the RSS BJP VHP and many others operate in India. When I call them Nazi's I mean that they quite literally supported and still support Hitler.

Hitler was even worshipped in elite Bengali homes in Kolkata, says the writer at a time when Bollywood actor Anupam Kher will be essaying the role of the Nazi dictator in a new biopic to be directed by Rakesh Ranjan.

Savitri Devi first "observed pictures of the Fuhrer on the household altars of Indian families". "When she asked Srimat Swami Satyananda, the (then) president of the Hindu Mission in Calcutta, if she might make a reference to Hitler in her official lecture, he replied that Hitler was for them an incarnation of Vishnu".

Hitler once worshipped as Vishnu in elite Kolkata homes: Historian

and more terrorists such as the child-molesters of the 'northern alliance' India supports in killing Afghans.

I find it rather ironic that Hindu Nazi groups in India spend all their time claiming how the Mongols were a disaster for India, at the same time as they support the Mongol descendants who run the 'northern alliance'.
 
Back
Top Bottom