Jump to content
Mansur Bakhtiari

What is happening in Kurdistan???

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

10 hours ago, Ībn Mūneer Āl-Feylī said:

I take it you also hope civilians die too because the first victims in war are civilians and many civilians have already died. 

No, what makes you think that? I hope conflicts can be solved without violence always but sometimes it cant. As far as I am aware, all the warmongering came form the kurdish side, from the different military organizations, as an example, see:

https://twitter.com/KURDISTAN_ARMY?ref_src=twsrc^google|twcamp^serp|twgr^author

Also see how they want to make this a shia vs kurds thing, further fueling sectarian hatred in service of israel.

What I did was to just linked to the result of the confrontation and it ended up in humiliation as a result of an unthoughtful plan, no unity within ranks, no respect for the chain of command and because they relied on the outrage of the world and/or the support of israel, just like how some people always rely on someone ells to help them.

Barzani gravely miscalculated the geopoltics of his surroundings and how his referendum vote would affect it, he thought he had a lot of leverage while he had none. The result of his actions in politics is the manifest of his lack of basira and he is not suitable to lead any nation.

Anyways brother, no hard feelings, I just dont agree with you regarding this subject and I also think that we should never serve israels interests, not unless there is a bigger plan at work.

I hope Iraq as a country and as a people, which includes the kurds, can move on from this and start rebuilding the society that currently is in ruins and disorder instead of selfishly starting new conflicts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, IbnSina said:

No, what makes you think that? I hope conflicts can be solved without violence always but sometimes it cant. As far as I am aware, all the warmongering came form the kurdish side, from the different military organizations, as an example, see:

https://twitter.com/KURDISTAN_ARMY?ref_src=twsrc^google|twcamp^serp|twgr^author

Also see how they want to make this a shia vs kurds thing, further fueling sectarian hatred in service of israel.

What I did was to just linked to the result of the confrontation and it ended up in humiliation as a result of an unthoughtful plan, no unity within ranks, no respect for the chain of command and because they relied on the outrage of the world and/or the support of israel, just like how some people always rely on someone ells to help them.

Barzani gravely miscalculated the geopoltics of his surroundings and how his referendum vote would affect it, he thought he had a lot of leverage while he had none. The result of his actions in politics is the manifest of his lack of basira and he is not suitable to lead any nation.

Anyways brother, no hard feelings, I just dont agree with you regarding this subject and I also think that we should never serve israels interests, not unless there is a bigger plan at work.

I hope Iraq as a country and as a people, which includes the kurds, can move on from this and start rebuilding the society that currently is in ruins and disorder instead of selfishly starting new conflicts.

It's crazy you know, you do realise the twitter account isn't an official account right? It's some guy in the diaspora making tweets. I can also show plenty of examples Iraqis making racist comments against Kurds, which I have recieved personally too. However that doesn't represent all Iraqis, just like it doesn't represent all Kurds.

Not to mention you completely negate the fact it was the ISF and Hashd that attacked Kirkuk, not the other way around. They attacked Kirkuk out of nowhere, no warning to the people. Plus they also took over a shia kurdish city of Khanaqin, which is in the KRG proper. It predates 2014.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 20/10/2017 at 9:55 PM, Ībn Mūneer Āl-Feylī said:

It does but it is doing more than that as pointed out. Not to mention article 140 doesn't say take the disputed areas by force or even necessarily that the federal iraqi gov has the right to decide over those areas. 

Regardless of legality, the use of force should be the last resort, and should only take place when all other channels of dialogue have been completely exhausted.

As for the idea of a confederation, that should also be achieved via dialogue (and I do believe that could be a solution for the future). Independence requires one simple thing: International support, and even support from the iraqi people. That is not achieved by a secessionist movement in the worst moment against Iraq, regardless of nationalist sentiments and needs. I do also believe that from the Kurdish perspective, it is better to achieve any goal by dialogue because such goals sre to be achieved in Iran and Turkey as well. It's not only Iraq. What happens in Iraq does affect the relationship of the Kurdish region in other states, and its ability to negotiate with these states.

I never understood how Mesopotamia managed to live in a constant state of conflict and wars for all its known history.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 14/10/2017 at 6:56 AM, IbnSina said:

I cannot believe how selfish and ego centered the kurdish leaders are to make such a move in a country that are still fighting terrorism and is in chaos, where people have been going thru hell for years now, heck generations. It this really the right time to push for independence and create another conflict? In the middle of a freaking war against daesh(la)?

 

FWIW (a reader comment):

Quote

 

Kirkuk is not a Kurdish city. It was never Kurdish (even by historical standards), and it never had a Kurdish majority living there. Kirkuk is a major M.E. city, with a very active commerce and thus very multi-ethnic, diverse.

The Kurds used the resulted generalized confusion in Iraq, caused by ISIS's invasion of southeastern Iraq, to capture the city and claim it for Kurdistan and thus take its rich oil reserves -- by far the largest of the already oil rich country.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/oct/22/kurds-bitter-defeat-iraq-reclaims-kirkuk#comments

Then you have the following complication:

Quote

Are these the good muslims or the bad muslims. I can never remember.

And then this:

Quote

 

Kirkuk was never theirs whatever rubbish and lies they spin amongst the glitterati of the Guardian.
They just wanted a power grab of the oil rich parts of Iraq.

They had autonomy and were smuggling billions of dollars of oil to Turkey and Israel. But it's never enough, never for greedy crooked gangsters running Kurdistan.

I'm against violence and war but the Kurds have colluded with Israel towards the downfall of Iraq for years so let's see how their mates help them now.

 

If you google boot lick haji shiachat you'll see a post of mine germane to this topic and made before I was a Mod.

Edited by Haji 2003

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/21/2017 at 12:03 PM, Ībn Mūneer Āl-Feylī said:

It's crazy you know, you do realise the twitter account isn't an official account right? It's some guy in the diaspora making tweets. I can also show plenty of examples Iraqis making racist comments against Kurds, which I have recieved personally too. However that doesn't represent all Iraqis, just like it doesn't represent all Kurds.

Not to mention you completely negate the fact it was the ISF and Hashd that attacked Kirkuk, not the other way around. They attacked Kirkuk out of nowhere, no warning to the people. Plus they also took over a shia kurdish city of Khanaqin, which is in the KRG proper. It predates 2014.

Brother, my point is that there is a sentiment of "shias are attacking us, damn shias" which is much different from the racism you have gotten from arabs because shias are not a race while kurds arguable are. One is fueling sectarian violence which serves the interests of israel as it weakens and divides the nations surrounding it as well as weakening the ummah, while the other one is old school racism. Neither are good but there is a clear difference between them which is important to notice. Especially when you are a shia yourself as well.

Also with regards to ISF and Hashd attacking Kirkuk out of nowhere and no warning, this is not true. I was following the news and a 24 hours deadline for kurdish forces to hand over Kirkuk was given, this warning was also extended another day, then the forces went into Kirkuk. Also Kirkuk is part of the nation of Iraq, so per definition you cannot call it an attack if the government sends forces to one of its own cities. What you, per definition, could call it though, is that Kirkuk was illegally occupied by kurdish forces who did not wish to leave it until they were forced to because they were making money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, IbnSina said:

Brother, my point is that there is a sentiment of "shias are attacking us, damn shias" which is much different from the racism you have gotten from arabs because shias are not a race while kurds arguable are. One is fueling sectarian violence which serves the interests of israel as it weakens and divides the nations surrounding it as well as weakening the ummah, while the other one is old school racism. Neither are good but there is a clear difference between them which is important to notice. Especially when you are a shia yourself as well.

Also with regards to ISF and Hashd attacking Kirkuk out of nowhere and no warning, this is not true. I was following the news and a 24 hours deadline for kurdish forces to hand over Kirkuk was given, this warning was also extended another day, then the forces went into Kirkuk. Also Kirkuk is part of the nation of Iraq, so per definition you cannot call it an attack if the government sends forces to one of its own cities. What you, per definition, could call it though, is that Kirkuk was illegally occupied by kurdish forces who did not wish to leave it until they were forced to because they were making money.

1-You continue to talk about Iraq when you don't know anything. You keep using the world "illegal" but have not read anything in regards to article 140. 

2-You also clearly don't know the dictionary:

Quote

Take aggressive military action against (a place or enemy forces) with weapons or armed force.

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/attack

They attacked kirkuk using force against another force the peshmerga.

3-Your point on the Kurds makes no sense, the KRG is a legally recognized entity within Iraq, Peshmerga have every right to defend the KRG from anyone. Also by the logic of saying "kirkuk is in iraq and therefore iraq can take it", well the KRG is in iraq too, are you now justifying them taking Erbil?

4-Article 140 doesn't justify the central government using force on Kirkuk. I'm still confused as to why you keep ignoring the links I posted:

Quote

Implementing Article 140 Voting One of the uncertainties in the process is who will be able to vote in the referendum. The language of Article 140 is imprecise, not defining the exact boundaries of where the referendum would be held or who within those boundaries would be eligible to vote.77 As of now, a voter registry has not been created and there is no consensus on the criteria for eligibility. Residency requirements will be problematic given the number of displaced persons that could potentially be on the registry: formerly-expelled Kurds who returned to their hometowns after the fall of the Ba’ath regime as well as newly-displaced Arab wafadeen who have been living in Kirkuk for decades. Furthermore, it may be difficult for authorities to distinguish between Arab Kirkuki IDPs and Arab Baghdadi IDPs who have arrived in the past few years or months. The latter group would, in any case, be precluded from a vote, as would Kurdish IDPs with no connection to Kirkuk. While disagreements over the voter eligibility may prove to be a time-consuming impediment, it is not likely to impact the end results of a referendum. Analysts have looked to the governorate’s outcome of the December 2005 election for guidance in forecasting results of a Kirkuk referendum. Based on those numbers, and current demographic estimates, it is widely thought that a vote held in either Kirkuk City or Kirkuk governorate would result in KRG control.78 Indeed, this explains why Kurds are so keen to move forward with the referendum, and why other communities remain opposed. As ICG Iraq analyst Joost Hiltermann stated in an interview on National Public Radio, “The Kurds want to have the referendum because they know that they will win it and that this will mean that they can incorporate Kirkuk into their Kurdish region. For the same reason, the other communities in Kirkuk adamantly oppose it and will boycott such a referendum - and will reject its results if it is held. And this can only lead to violence…”79

The Role of the UN Just two weeks prior to the 31 December 2007 referendum deadline, UN Special Representative to Iraq, Steffan de Mistura, proposed a six-month delay and expanded UNAMI (United Nation’s Assistance Mission for Iraq) assistance to carry out the referendum – a move which garnered relatively widespread approval in Iraq. UNAMI announced its future involvement in the implementation of Article 140 on its website, stating the following: In view of the technical and logistical difficulty of holding a referendum prior to 31 December 2007, as mandated in the Constitution, and given the corresponding need for a technical delay, it has been indicated to UNAMI that the next best step would be to initiate, in January 2008, and within six months, a process of facilitating the implementation of the Article with technical assistance of the United Nations (UNAMI/Baghdad) to the authorities involved, including the High Committee for Implementation of Article 140. This would enable all parties involved to contribute constructively to such a process.

https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/0303_iraq_ferris.pdf

 

Edited by Ībn Mūneer Āl-Feylī

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Ībn Mūneer Āl-Feylī said:

1-You continue to talk about Iraq when you don't know anything. You keep using the world "illegal" but have not read anything in regards to article 140. 

2-You also clearly don't know the dictionary:

They attacked kirkuk using force against another force the peshmerga.

3-Your point on the Kurds makes no sense, the KRG is a legally recognized entity within Iraq, Peshmerga have every right to defend the KRG from anyone.

4-Article 140 doesn't justify the central government using force on Kirkuk. 

Ok brother, you are iraqi politics expert and I am not. You are the expert of the dictionary and I am not.

You want to know why so many non Iraqis care about what is going on in Iraq?

Its because this is bigger than your nationality or my nationality. I put the interests of the shias before the interest of my own nation because I define myself as a shia, a muslim, before I define myself as whatever ells. In this case, the interests of the shias and the interests of your countrymen are not aligned.

You have yet to answer one question that I hope will make it click for you:

What are the self interests of israel that makes it invested in any of these events unfolding, why are they supporting a kurdish independent state or why do they even care about the kurds to begin with?

Answer this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, IbnSina said:

Ok brother, you are iraqi politics expert and I am not. You are the expert of the dictionary and I am not.

You want to know why so many non Iraqis care about what is going on in Iraq?

Its because this is bigger than your nationality or my nationality. I put the interests of the shias before the interest of my own nation because I define myself as a shia, a muslim, before I define myself as whatever ells. In this case, the interests of the shias and the interests of your countrymen are not aligned.

You have yet to answer one question that I hope will make it click for you:

What are the self interests of israel that makes it invested in any of these events unfolding, why are they supporting a kurdish independent state or why do they even care about the kurds to begin with?

Answer this.

1-This has nothing to do with shiasm, if you think the geopolitics of the region has anything to do with shiasm then you are naive. 

2-The same reason Israel supported Iran during the Iran-iraq war, a means of seeking potential allies in the middle-east against hostile state surrounding it. Nor does Israel care about the Kurds. Iran also doesn't care about the shias. Politics is all about self-interest, Iran cannot even fix it's own country. You have to pay to see a doctor if you are dying in iran, that should tell you enough...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Ībn Mūneer Āl-Feylī said:

if you think the geopolitics of the region has anything to do with shiasm then you are naive. 

Well I mean you can't say this isn't a factor at all, ISIS and AQ have anti-Shia agendas that's pretty much given from their ideological standpoint. Also, Saudi Arabia's wahhabi mentality is vehemently anti-Shia, ideologically too. But more broadly in the region, I tend to agree with you that its more of a pro-American/pro-Israel block of influence vs. an anti-American/pro-Iranian/at times pro-Russian (at times not Pro-Russian) block of influence, this doesn't always translate into pro-Shia vs. anti-Shia, even the US and Iran have cooperated at times in Iraq when interests did align, and again on the Kurdish issue the US seems to have backed off as well, which de facto means it hasn't exactly allied itself against Iran/Iraq on that issue either. Interests are complex, I am constantly struggling to learn and develop my own thoughts on the region. I have been VERY wrong on a lot of things too. I thought the US would militarily intervene in this case, it didn't. Also the Kurdish issue in Syria, I wasn't aware of the different factions in Kurds that weren't pro-Israel either. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Ībn Mūneer Āl-Feylī said:

Iran also doesn't care about the shias. Politics is all about self-interest

I agree that ultimately interests dictate policy, but I fail to understand what iran gains from being anti-Israel and also what it gained from cutting off ties with apartheid SA after the revolution in 1979, when SA was one of its biggest buyers of oil. Iran could've just allied itself with Israel and been free of sanctions and probably been an economic superpower. But, I also don't believe it's about oppression, because Israel while being an oppressive regime is definitely not the only oppressor in the world. Oppression happens in Russia and China and indeed India against muslims in all 3 cases, all of which iran has close ties to. I understand it's not possible to oppose every country because they're all oppressive to some degree but choosing some over others must have something to do with interest. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/22/2017 at 8:35 PM, Ībn Mūneer Āl-Feylī said:

1-This has nothing to do with shiasm, if you think the geopolitics of the region has anything to do with shiasm then you are naive

I believe there are people who care about their faith genuinely (such as the leader of Iran) and I believe faith can unite people of different races and origins, this is not nativity, it is reality even if most people do not take their faith seriously.

On 10/22/2017 at 8:35 PM, Ībn Mūneer Āl-Feylī said:

Iran also doesn't care about the shias

What you are saying is simply not true, the truth is in the actions seen.

As you see, Iran is strongly against Israel and America, had it simply been a game of politics to ensure wealth and power, then surely Iran would not benefit from this hostility. As you can see Iran is under sanctions because of it.

Why would Iran care about Palestine and why would Iran care about israel if it was simply a political issue? Surely Iran would rule for the stronger party had it been politics only?

You do not recognize Irans efforts for the shias of the world because your are either in denial or ignorant about it but the truth is that Iran is the back bone and power house (the only one) of the shias and it is in the interest of all shias to see their power grow, because it is our power. Furthermore had it not been for Iran, Karbala and Najaf and other holy places in Iraq would have been demolished by now.

If Iran had only been interested in power and not cared about shias, then I can promise you that instead of helping the government and people of Iraq they would be storming oil rich areas and occupying them, trying to annex it, much like how others tried to.

 

Iran is a theocracy lead by grand Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, he has the final say and to say that Iran does not care about shias is to call the ayatollah a hypocrite and I do no not think that is what you wish to say. But you expect Iran to be perfect and every aspect of it 100% according to Islam because of its leader and the doctors for free? Who is naive then?

Or are you trying to say that there is no difference between israel and iran?

Please brother, this is not a discussion of my country vs your country, stop identify yourself as a kurd for a moment and see this for what it is. When dhulm manifest like israel is supporting you and when you see people around you waving israeli flags, thats when you need to stop for a moment and reflect on the situation.

The corrupt and incompetent kurdish leaders not only lack foresight but they are also serving israels interest by dividing muslim countries (yinon plan) and should they succeed then rest assured you would have mossad spies and israeli army bases and missiles that much closer to the shias. You think the saudis are a threat to israel? They bought them long ago. Who ells stands in their way?

Put the pride aside, put the ego aside and be a shia before you are anything ells and ask yourself what is in the best interest of the shias of the world: That a israeli supported and backed country is established in the middle of 4 countries, 2 of them shia dominated, 1 shia lead and the 4th not a saudi lover, thus weakening them and their power and wealth while also enabling israel and its agenda?

Or that we AS SHIAS put our nationalities aside and work to increase our power thru the shias that lead these nations?

You want to work for the hastening of our Imam(ajf) dont you? Then lets establish that base, that army and that power and those sincere groups of people for him!

I pray that one day our borders will be removed and our countries united into one in the service of our Imam(ajf).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@IbnSina

Quote

I believe there are people who care about their faith genuinely (such as the leader of Iran) and I believe faith can unite people of different races and origins, this is not nativity, it is reality even if most people do not take their faith seriously.

and if they don't?

Quote

As you see, Iran is strongly against Israel and America, had it simply been a game of politics to ensure wealth and power, then surely Iran would not benefit from this hostility. As you can see Iran is under sanctions because of it.

Sanctions don't hurt the regime, they hurt the people. The regime uses the sanctions as a scapegoat to maintain power.

Quote

Why would Iran care about Palestine and why would Iran care about israel if it was simply a political issue? Surely Iran would rule for the stronger party had it been politics only?

They don't care and the politics is around self-interest. Namely geo-political goals. 

Quote

If Iran had only been interested in power and not cared about shias, then I can promise you that instead of helping the government and people of Iraq they would be storming oil rich areas and occupying them, trying to annex it, much like how others tried to.

Iran does occupy Iraq, look at the hashd; they are Iranian backed. They do not answer to the Abadi but to Iran's solemani. 

Quote

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/15/world/middleeast/iran-iraq-iranian-power.html

From Day 1, Iran saw something else: a chance to make a client state of Iraq, a former enemy against which it fought a war in the 1980s so brutal, with chemical weapons and trench warfare, that historians look to World War I for analogies. If it succeeded, Iraq would never again pose a threat, and it could serve as a jumping-off point to spread Iranian influence around the region.

Even the Interior ministry of Iraq is owned by Iran:

Quote

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/appointment-of-iraqs-new-interior-minister-opens-door-to-militia-and-iranian-influence/2014/10/18/f6f2a347-d38c-4743-902a-254a169ca274_story.html?utm_term=.919625a884bf

 Iraq’s parliament voted Saturday to put an affiliate of an Iranian-backed paramilitary group in charge of a key security ministry, a move that could strike a serious blow to efforts to unite Sunnis and Shiites to wrest back their country from Islamist extremists.

Quote

Or are you trying to say that there is no difference between israel and iran?

yes I am.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Ībn Mūneer Āl-Feylī said:

Namely geo-political goals

What's the goal though of being anti-Israel? It makes no sense, theoretically, Palestine is Sunni and Arab, if Iran wanted it could've just cooperated with Israel and been very powerful economically. You say sanctions solidify the regime, but the reason they are imposed is because they want to weaken the regime. Also, can you answer my question about why they would stop trading with apartheid SA after being one of their biggest oil exporters? Again, I don't think this has to do with oppression entirely, as iran still has ties to India which conducts a military occupation in Kashmir, as it does with Russia and China, who are guilty of suppressing their own Muslim populations too. But I want to know how you would answer the questions I've asked you? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Ībn Mūneer Āl-Feylī said:

Even the Interior ministry of Iraq is owned by Iran:

Beautiful. I hope to one day see Iran also own all the ministries in Kabul than the inept, corrupt, and tribal Afghans that currently do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Ībn Mūneer Āl-Feylī said:

and if they don't?

If they dont want? Explain yourself without being shy, who are you referring to? Ayatollah Khamenei? 

20 hours ago, Ībn Mūneer Āl-Feylī said:

Sanctions don't hurt the regime, they hurt the people. The regime uses the sanctions as a scapegoat to maintain power.

Right and wrong, the goal of sanctions is to wear down the regime by making its people struggle. When people are having it harder to make by they naturally start blaming their government and thus a public opinion is created which can be used for toppling a government thru a revolution or a coup (see "green revolution"). 

We have seen this happen in different countries throughout the history. Now its happening in Venezuela.

20 hours ago, Ībn Mūneer Āl-Feylī said:

They don't care and the politics is around self-interest. Namely geo-political goals. 

If they dont care and if its all about self interest, then use your brain and realize that they would not take the weaker party as a friend. You said yourself that Israel gave/sold weapons to Iran during the Iran-Iraq war in aims of making an ally, so they were stretching a hand to the new regime but Iran spat on it. Now why on earth would they do that if money and power was the sole agenda? Please...

Had Iran no religious care/moral and only been about money, then you would see Iran financially and technically flourish just like they did during the shahs era when the regime was a puppet regime of the US and UK, not to mention Israel.

 Your seriously running out of arguments and I feel at this point your just defending your pride, God forbid you would be wrong for once right?

20 hours ago, Ībn Mūneer Āl-Feylī said:

Iran does occupy Iraq, look at the hashd; they are Iranian backed. They do not answer to the Abadi but to Iran's solemani. 

Hashd was made after the fatwa of Seyyed Sistani and it is made by the brave Iraqi men who wish to save the holy places of the Shias as well as their country from daesh(la). Iran backs them with ammunition and weapons, they have sent their advisers to help and support them in their efforts.

Does that mean Iran is occupying Iraq? Whats the status of your sanity brother?

These politicians in Baghdad have no right to order the Hashd because would it be up to them, Iraq would have fallen already, just like it was doing before the Hashd was created. Hashd was created by the fatwa of a shia leader, it is made out of shias and is advised and supported by shias. Stop defining everyone by their nationality and try to understand what I am saying.

20 hours ago, Ībn Mūneer Āl-Feylī said:

yes I am.

If you mean to say that israel lead by nethanyahoo(la) and Iran lead by Ayatollah Khamenei are the same then not only do I not think you do not recognize the efforts of the Iranian government for the strengthening of shias world wide and not only do I think you might be ignorant about it but I also think at this point that you are delusional.

The more I discuss with you, the more I realize how nationalistic you are, how nationalistic your reasoning is and it is sad to see an intellectual human being let his mind and judgement be clouded by something so primitive as nationalism, in fact it is not far from racism, just change race by nationality and there you go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/23/2017 at 6:04 AM, IbnSina said:

If Iran had only been interested in power and not cared about shias, then I can promise you that instead of helping the government and people of Iraq they would be storming oil rich areas and occupying them, trying to annex it, much like how others tried to. Iran is a theocracy lead by grand Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, he has the final say and to say that Iran does not care about shias is to call the ayatollah a hypocrite and I do no not think that is what you wish to say. But you expect Iran to be perfect and every aspect of it 100% according to Islam because of its leader and the doctors for free? Who is naive then?

Or are you trying to say that there is no difference between israel and iran?

Please brother Ībn Mūneer Āl-Feylī , this is not a discussion of my country vs your country, stop identify yourself as a kurd for a moment and see this for what it is. When dhulm manifest like israel is supporting you and when you see people around you waving israeli flags, thats when you need to stop for a moment and reflect on the situation.

The corrupt and incompetent kurdish leaders not only lack foresight but they are also serving israels interest by dividing muslim countries (yinon plan) and should they succeed then rest assured you would have mossad spies and israeli army bases and missiles that much closer to the shias. You think the saudis are a threat to israel? They bought them long ago. Who ells stands in their way?

Put the pride aside, put the ego aside and be a shia before you are anything ells and ask yourself what is in the best interest of the shias of the world: That a israeli supported and backed country is established in the middle of 4 countries, 2 of them shia dominated, 1 shia lead and the 4th not a saudi lover, thus weakening them and their power and wealth while also enabling israel and its agenda?

Or that we AS SHIAS put our nationalities aside and work to increase our power thru the shias that lead these nations?

You want to work for the hastening of our Imam(ajf) dont you? Then lets establish that base, that army and that power and those sincere groups of people for him!

I pray that one day our borders will be removed and our countries united into one in the service of our Imam(ajf).

brother these words are gold.. but as you can see the person doesnt follow logic or reason... he functions on a different plane. its useless.

Edited by Hameedeh
Quote shortened in length.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recent Posts on ShiaChat!

    • I'm so sorry. Can it still be operable?  She is in my prayers
    • How can they be misguided when they believe in same pillars of the faith and books of hadiths?
    •   We must understand that the akhbaries are our brother in Islam, just misguided. Their literature is extremely persuasive and even attractive to the uninitiated. This 400 yr old dead philosophy had been reintroduced by mere chance amd the pervasive way in which their literature is being freely distributed is mere coincidence. OR Yasser Habib is able to have expensive Satellite broadcasting equipment, can take over a small British town, and is viciously aggressive towards Sunnis and their leaders. These Are paid for and planned activities designed to foment fassaad and fitnah. The same way wahabism,qadianis, and bhai were introduced as splintering movements. So when you play into hands of the puppet master and yourself  "QUO VADIS" Who benefits from Muslims, imamis, and shia  movements being splintered. Who is threatened by our Unity, who has encouraged Muslims to fight amongst themselves, who would be more vulnerable if we become United.   always ask not just what is being said, but what is the motivation and implication of such speech. Critical thinking skills used to be plentiful in the Muslim Ummah, let's revive that.  
×