humanbeing101

You know, it's actually sad. Polemics is one thing & even strong/passionate polemics shouldn't allow you to laugh at victims of a terrorist attack. The irony too is that they accuse shias of taqiya, well here it appears to be the case that they are doing some extreme form of taqiya or have some extreme cognitive dissonance at play. 'Anti-Majos' still defends using that video, not only that. They still claim they weren't laughing at the victims. What were they laughing at then with all those laughing emojis posted on the video whilst it was playing? It's on one their recent videos in a reply to me: The second point is that removing the laughing emojis or making a point of shias doing shirk in a time of hardship doesn't make using that video in that way anymore justifiable. It's not morally justifiable to make a political or religious point of victims of a terrorist attack whilst it is happening & being recorded. Why? For starters, where is the actual human empathy? Not asking about, 1) Whether they survived. 2)Asking about their trauma. etc... Or to put it in anothe way, do you think they'd be ok if it was the other way around? If their relatives/family members were victims of a terrorist attack & some christian or athiest comes along and decries, "why are they praying to allah" or any action that is islamic that they are doing. I highly doubt they'd be ok with that or won't be upset by that.

It's clear this isn't going anywhere, anyway Allah sa'adek.

There were dozens of other figures that assad released who joined ISI at the time. Julani was allowed to freely moved back and forth from Syria during the Iraq war period. Believing assad wasn't implict is just naive.

Now my solution isn't realistic, why not? Assad released SENIOR JIHADIS not just a few nobodies, so please don't downplay... I am affiliated with takfiris? Ok I am, now what?

Kheti Beti again. It's clear you guys are simply interested in being Assadists because you completely again ignored the point and evidence given for the fact Assad assisted those very same jihadists you claim he fought against. You guys keep asking "who should rule Syria", I literally stated a decentralized libertarian confederation should exist there but again you ignore a point you cannot answer. Anyway may Allah guide you if you are sincere and may Allah destroy you if you are just a supporter of the taghuts.

It's crazy I'm telling you Baathis killed my relatives aaah but "so what". Baathism is rooted in Nazism... aaah "so what". Baathis released the jihadis aaah "so what". Kheti Beti...

Except this is found in numerous academic books and journal articles. Here is one by Dr.. Rajan and the publish is 'Routledge':

I literally showed you and with a reference Assad released those same very Jihadists from his prisons. You should also know Baathism has its roots in Nazism, it imported the ultra-nationalist model of the fascists from Europe into own model of rule. Yes it also has Marxist-Leninist influences too. Reference: I would like a model of rule in Syria that is fundamentally Libertarian in nature. A decentralized confederation/federation of communes where Syrians without dictators or representatives can dictate their own lives. Sunnis, Shias, Alawis, Christians etc.. alike jointly. The Syrian state is a European construct and the structure of the Syrian state is also a European construct, namely the Westphalian state-system. Reference:

You keep saying you won't respond if I don't answer your question and yet you keep responding lol... I've already answered your question however. You're employing a presupposition fallacy because it assumes I recognize the Syrian state, I don't. Furthermore it was the taghut Assad that released the Jihadists in the first place in 2011 when he realised his rule could be up. He released Jihadists like Zahran Alloush & Hasan Aboud. Reference: https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2018/08/assad-victory-Syria/566522/

I don't even believe Syria should exist as a political entity.

It's relevant because it will demonstrate whether you have actually lived under Baathi rule or have had family under Baathi rule. Baathis killed many of my people and any justification of their rule is immoral.

Where are you from?

Assad is a taghut and should not be supported by Shias.

You don't seem to have any issue with any of the other posts claiming it is a coup. Quit the bias please and look at the news articles. https://www.independent.co.United Kingdom/news/world/middle-east/Saudi-arabia-shooting-riyadh-gunfire-toy-drone-king-salman-a8316471.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/21/world/Saudi-drone-riyadh.html

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/04/saudi-gunfire-police-shoot-toy-drone-royal-palace-180421201413596.html

I don't but so far no evidence suggests it is A)a coup B)Near the Palace C)or the source of these videos. Notice it is all Qataris and Saudi opposition posting them. I'm not saying it cannot be a coup but I just haven't seen anything to convince me it is.

Fake news.

Some people on this board are just agro lol... I'm not trying to contradict you or "refute" you. It was more of an FYI, these are my relatives; why do I not have a right to mention this?

It matters to me, as these are members of my tribe. Distant relatives of mine, and it will also be used against you if you spread misinformation. Also, what's ridiculous about me correcting something?

the uploader is wrong. I do not believe it was taken in Baghdad but it was taken in Diyala presumably near the Mandali area where ISIS in 2014 came close to taking. It's shia Kurds and they are speaking in Kurdish.

How is any of that refuting anything I stated? God being a physical entity means God is constrained by Space. Material objects take up space. No, I'm saying in the context of stating the throne is a physical entity. If the throne is, so must God be. Are you stating the throne is a physical entity or not? It's called using your brain and logic. The chair cannot be physical, think about it. If it is physical it takes up space. Then the question is where is it? If you say in heaven, then I'd assume if we had technology that allows us to engage in deep space travel. We could get to heaven from earth, right?

If you accept the throne is physical, then you accept the throne is constrained by space. If it is constrained by space, it is contained to A space. If that is the case then God must be physical entity in order to sit on a physical throne. Unless you state God is a metaphysical being sitting on a physical throne; which makes no sense to me.

You just repeated yourself. I'm not questioning the verse, I'm stating the verse is not to be taken literally. But we know it cannot be a literaly physical throne. Do you agree on this?

Which alludes to God having a physical throne...