Jump to content

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

lol.... yes yes, it make perfect sense that wahabi al qaeda would be in alliance with shia Iran, best of friends in fact.

Alhamdulillah we have the CIA reports to rely on for truth regarding this, who needs a brain and the ability to process information right?

How could anyone with the slightest political and religious knowledge ever believe such a claim?

Heres something ells, that makes perfect sense, to believe:

I heard usama bin laden is actually alive and living next door to the jewish israeli friendly ex president Ahmadinejad in northern Tehran, they spend their days playing squash together.

 

Hey, lets all ignore the fact that america supplied, trained and gave power to the talibans (including osama bin laden) once upon the time to fight the ruskis and then left the talibans to ruin the whole country and its people.

 

Actually, lets also ignore the fact that the US government does not want to release all documents regarding 9/11 because they are afraid it would hurt relationships with saudi.

http://beta.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-0427-bacevich-28-pages-saudi-911-20160427-story.html

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Gaius I. Caesar said:

It is absolutely dumb, I am sorry but it is really that stupid of a theory.

"Accusation" is a better word choice.

This accusation was made back in the 1990s. UBL's brat was allowed to stay in lran under strict conditions.

Now, about a decade ago, some relative of an al-Qaida member made a public comment and was subsequently evicted from lran.

For comparison, the US hosts hundreds of those with political asylum status.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Mohamed1993 said:

l would not believe the US gov't unless l saw confirmation from Wikileaks, the Russians, the lranians, or somebody else more reputable than Washington.

Zarif comments:

http://www.presstv.com/Detail/2017/11/03/540805/Iran-Zarif-CIA-US-Saudi-Arabia-911-attacks-Qaeda-bin-Laden  

Edited by hasanhh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even ansar al-Allah in iraq during late 90s and early 2000s was said to be funded by Iran:

Quote

As Ansar al-Islam grew more violent, information began to surface about three worrisome aspects of Ansar al-Islam: (1) its interest in chemical weapons; (2) its possible links to Saddam’s regime; and (3) its connections to Iran.

https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/uploads/Documents/opeds/4224e31e5fa37.pdf

Quote

http://web.stanford.edu/group/mappingmilitants/cgi-bin/groups/view/13

Shortly after the U.S-led invasion of Iraq in March 2003, KRG and Coalition troops launched an offensive against Ansar al-Islam in Iraqi Kurdistan.  The majority of AI members were captured, killed, or fled to neighboring Iran.  Mullah Krekar fled to Norway where he has remained ever since.  In his place, Abu Abdullah al-Shafi, also known as Warba Holiri al-Kurdi, assumed command of the remnants of the organization[16] [17][18]  From Iran, the group continued to operate under Shafi’s leadership and was temporarily renamed Ansar al-Sunna (iofficially re-adopted the name Ansar al-Islam in 2007). 

 

Share this post


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

Ansar al-Allah is part of AQ...

AQ Khan or al-Qaida ?

al-Qaida has been a "spent" group since about 2005. They are nobodies and lSlL is going the same way.

What is left of "islamic" groups are "localists" with local grievances not "globalists".

Edited by hasanhh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder why these leaks don't discuss the US' role in funding Al Qaeda to topple Ghaddafi and Assad. Wikileaks talks about how the US was clearly aware of the link between islamists in Libya and Al Qaeda, this didn't stop them from imposing their no-fly zone and getting rid of Ghaddafi. The only thing that stopped them from doing the same in Syria was Russia. What's the point of releasing this information? Is this somehow to aid the war on terror? If so, they should mention how they've been funding AQ as and where they deem to serve their interests, without which these leaks can really be dismissed as selective information to suit their own agenda. They will never release anything that implicates them, and they will selectively release stuff to demonize who they don't like.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Mohamed1993 said:

I wonder why these leaks don't discuss the US' role in funding Al Qaeda to topple Ghaddafi and Assad. Wikileaks talks about how the US was clearly aware of the link between islamists in Libya and Al Qaeda, this didn't stop them from imposing their no-fly zone and getting rid of Ghaddafi. The only thing that stopped them from doing the same in Syria was Russia. What's the point of releasing this information? Is this somehow to aid the war on terror? If so, they should mention how they've been funding AQ as and where they deem to serve their interests, without which these leaks can really be dismissed as selective information to suit their own agenda. They will never release anything that implicates them, and they will selectively release stuff to demonize who they don't like.

Bro, the US believes tell a lie thousand times till they say it's truth.

Edited by Sindbad05

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, hasanhh said:

AQ Khan or al-Qaida ?

al-Qaida has been a "spent" group since about 2005. They are nobodies and lSlL is going the same way.

What is left of "islamic" groups are "localists" with local grievances not "globalists".

Ansar al-Allah fi iraq, is a kurdish salafist AQ affiliate. It was led by Mullah Krekar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Btw many people on social media aren't buying this, I'm seeing a lot of responses like oh this is Saddam and WMD all over again, but again most of the news media and independent journalists I follow are usually followed by people who mostly are critical of everything they hear. So may just be a selection bias.

Share this post


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

They showed video of bin laden's son wedding in Iran and a whole document of transcripts

yea.. who? oh the cia.. lol. keep trusting the cia..

just the fact that the report comes from the cia should tell you something

Edited by kirtc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i think it's just to demonize iran.

http://www.presstv.com/Detail/2017/11/03/540873/US-Iran-Saudi-Arabia-911-Qaeda-CIA

whatever faults iran might have, it's the only country in the world with completely free riba banking system.

https://www.islamicfinance.com/2015/02/establishment-national-interest-free-banking-systems-iran-sudan-pakistan/


 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recent Posts on ShiaChat!

    • Did someone miss that Russia actually made a deal with Saudi Arabia and sold them S-400 air defense missile? Don't you get it, these people are playing with the resistance and it is sadness that we buy and ask help from the enemy of Islam. It is us that gonna lose every war that they create, because that is how they make easy money.
    • I live in a burb of Chicago. Population of the Metro Chicago area and it’s surrounding areas = 9.5 mil
    • actually, one such effort done is: (1) Whosoever is an adherent to one of the four Sunni schools (Mathahib) of Islamic jurisprudence (Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi`i and Hanbali), the two Shi’i schools of Islamic jurisprudence (Ja`fari and Zaydi), the Ibadi school of Islamic jurisprudence and the Thahiri school of Islamic jurisprudence, is a Muslim. http://ammanmessage.com/the-three-points-of-the-amman-message-v-1/ but extreme wahhabis reject this. let's not be extremists like them. i remember, during 2003 invasion of iraq, thousands of gi joes died. today, the modern jihadists are their foot soldiers. how to prevent this (being foot soldiers for US or some other entities) from repeating itself in future? 1. spread the fact that shiism is not majoosi/jewish creation. 2. while not belittling others, shiism has strong evidence to be the islam  propagated by the Prophet, preserved through His Ahu Bayt as. 3. let's race towards good deeds - you don't have time to throw stones during a 100m dash, do you?
    • Looking at anyone who is not your partner in marriage - with lust - is haram.
    • Al-Salamu Alaykum This is what you should do if you found a lost item: Question: Suppose that Muslim, residing in a non-Muslim country finds a suitcase (full of clothes) with or without the owner’s nametag on it. What should he do with it? Answer: A suitcase of personal belongings normally has the nametag through which the owner can be contacted. If he knows that it belongs to a Muslim or a non-Muslim whose property is sacrosanct (or even if there is a likelihood —a considerable likelihood— [that it belongs to a non-Muslim whose property is sacrosanct]), it is necessary for him to announce it for one whole year that he has found that item [so that the owner can come forward and claim it]. If he cannot find the owner [even after the lapse of one year], he should, based on obligatory precaution, give it in charity. However, if he knows that it belongs to a non-Muslim, it is permissible for him to keep it provided that he is not legally bound to announce what he finds in that country or to hand it over to the authorities, etc. (1) In the latter case, he is not allowed to take possession of it; rather it is compulsory on him to act in accordance with the legal undertaking. Question: If I find an item in a European country without any distinctive sign on it [identifying the owner], is it permissible for me to keep it? Answer: If it has no distinctive sign by which one can contact the owner, it is permissible for you to keep it except in the case [of the legal undertaking] mentioned earlier. Source:  http://www.sistani.org/english/book/46/2057/
×