Search the Community

Salaam aleikum everyone. I'll be soon relocating to Qatar for work inshaAllah, and I would like to live as close as possible to an Imami masjid / husseiniyya to bring my children regularly. I've found Imam al-Sadiq, Imam Zain al-Abidin, and al-Buharna masajid. Are there some in other areas of Doha, like in al-Rayyan for example? Are there some more central, towards al-Waad, Al-Sadd, Madinat Khalifah, West Bay ? I've found lists online, but I'm unable to locate the places. So if you live in Doha or know someone there, please help JazakAllahu khairan

I want to attend Jum'a or regular prayers in a Shi'a Masjid in Doha Qatar. I heard there are at least two, could anyone help me to finf the larger one and where can I meet other Shi'a Muslims in Doha? Thanks a lot Blessings!

Allying against Iran: US is creating Arab NATO While the US envisages a new military alliance as a tool to counter potential threats from Iran towards the Gulf monarchies and the Middle East, there are a number of obstacles in the way of creating an Arab military bloc. According to Defense News, an Arab NATO would consist of six Gulf states, i.e. Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Bahrain, Oman, Qatar, plus Egypt and Jordan. The commander of the Royal Bahraini Air Force, Maj. Gen. al-Khalifah, said that this is an American idea which was approved by the Arab Gulf countries, "but didn't take shape yet." He expects this alliance to be successful, although "we are still at the beginning." Back in October, the Bahraini foreign minister said that the Gulf security alliance could be formed by next year. Defense News sees at least one sign of progress there, as the Gulf countries are already involved in the Saudi-led coalition in Yemen that fights against Houthi rebels, mainly by carrying out airstrikes. "We have been sharing information between coalition fighters all along the operations [in Yemen], and we have been training alongside with the Gulf countries through joint exercises, and this enhances our capabilities," al-Khalifah said. Incompatible with Iran On the other hand, there are clear and tangible challenges on the way to creating this new military alliance, not least of them being the issues of interoperability. All the potential members operate different types of weapons and military equipment: the Egyptian Air Force operates the Russian MIG and the American F-16, while the Saudi Air Force has the American F-15SA and the European Eurofighter Typhoon, and the UAE is equipped with the F-16 and the French Mirage. But the issue of interoperability is not the only impediment for creating an Arab NATO as the relations between Qatar and other Gulf countries have not been fully restored since 2017 when Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Bahrain cut ties with Qatar. All eight potential members of the new military alliance have concerns related to Iran and Iranian-backed armed groups operating in numerous countries across the Middle East. "Iran continues to cause risks to other nations and act as a destabilizing agent across this region. They aim to disrupt the balance of power and place at risk the livelihood of citizens," Commander of the US Air Forces Central Command Lt. General Joseph Guastella said during the 2nd Manama Airpower Symposium. According to Guastella, the experience of setting up and operating NATO itself could prove useful in establishing an Arab version of the alliance: "There is value in looking at what NATO has been able to do and the successes of an alliance that has guaranteed essentially stability for the region there for decades." Adding America and Israel into the mix "People have been talking about an Arab NATO for several years now," said Vladimir Sazhin, Senior Researcher at the Middle East Department of the Institute for Oriental Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences. According to him, there are plans to get Israel to participate in the alliance that would bring together six monarchies of the Persian Gulf, Egypt, and Jordan. However, instead of becoming a full-fledged member of the Arab NATO, Israel would supply intelligence to the alliance. The US is expected to participate in a similar manner, providing all the necessary resources without officially joining the organization. "The idea to call it an 'Arab NATO' is something journalists came up with. In all of the relevant areas, this potential new alliance will be very much inferior to NATO. I don't believe that it will ever reach the level of NATO," said Sazhin. According to him, even if the bloc is ever established, it is unlikely to resemble NATO at all. There may be some formal organizational structures established, but there are serious doubts regarding their effectiveness and efficiency. Ultimately, all we see is propaganda and media noise, and not much actual progress, Sazhin said. Just how capable the Gulf monarchies are in terms of setting up a united front against Iran remains to be seen. "I very much doubt they would go through with this without the support of other countries. There is a very broad range of attitudes towards Iran among the Gulf states," Sazhin stressed. On one end of the spectrum, there is Saudi Arabia, on the other – countries like Qatar and Oman. The last two are not particularly anti-Iran. As for economic relations, the United Arab Emirates have very close ties with Iran. Tehran's relationship with Abu Dhabi provides it an opportunity to evade US financial and economic sanctions, the expert stated "I think that if there were an Arab military organization then it would most likely be lacking in efficiency and decision-making, but would be very active publicity-wise," Vladimir Sazhin said. "A summit with US President Donald Trump and monarchs of the Gulf countries was expected to take place back in autumn this year in the United States. It was believed that the main topic on the agenda would be the creation of a strategic Middle East alliance that experts already call an Arab NATO for the sake of simplicity," Elena Suponina, adviser to the director of the Russian Institute for Strategic Studies, said. That summit was postponed until the first half of 2019. One of the reasons was the scandal around the murder of Jamal Khashoggi, a Saudi political analyst. It created an atmosphere that compelled the US to refrain from any discussions regarding strategic cooperation. According to Suponina, that is not the only obstacle that stands in the way of creating such an organization. Firstly, relations between Saudi Arabia and Qatar are somewhat clouded; secondly, there is still too much turbulence in the region. The plans are in place, but it would be very difficult for the Americans to make them come true, Suponina believes. Nevertheless, there is every reason to believe that the US is not giving up on these plans since in the upcoming years the main goal of the US in the region will be to contain Iran. This is exactly why America pursues the creation of, if not a full-fledged military organization, then at least something very close to it. Even that kind of alliance would be very useful for the US, the expert thinks. "Donald Trump's idea is to form an Arab NATO that would include Arabian monarchies and – by a long stretch of the imagination – Israel. This idea may sound benevolent, but so do many other plans that are not meant to happen," Evgeny Satanovsky, president of the Institute for Middle East Studies, said. Satanovsky believes that the new military alliance is meant to zero in on Iran. There is no doubt that Saudi Arabia wants to establish that alliance. However, it is very unlikely that the US will succeed in convincing Israel to join the club. Israeli society will never accept that offer. There is zero chance that an Arab NATO will become a reality, he said, adding that Israel doesn't really need any military help from the Arab countries to fight Iran. The Arab armies do not constitute any significant military power nor they are organized enough to be a force others can rely on if it comes to that. For the Arab countries, it is absolutely out of the question to be part of the same military alliance with Israel due to the kind of narrative that permeates their societies. The State Department and the White House – unsurprisingly – do not understand this, Satanovsky claims. It is absolutely clear that Saudi Arabia seeks to create an Arab or Islamic military alliance and to be at the helm. Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman has already damaged relations with Egypt and the United Arab Emirates, cut relations with Qatar, and raised tensions between Saudi Arabia and Pakistan – all in pursuit of this goal. ARAB NATO

Great article on the root cause of the Syrian war: http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/09/15/assads-death-warrant/

Saudi Arabia and Qatar target-- civilians in Yemen's massacre carried out by their puppets Alqaida/ISIS & Al-Islah party. Lets see if any Sunni country, scholar or group condemn this!?! -------------------------------------------------- Triple bombings claim 142 lives at mosques in Yemen’s capitalAt least 142 people have been killed and nearly 351 wounded after three bomb attacks hit mosques crowded with worshippers in the Yemeni capital, Sana’a, in quick succession. Witnesses said two bombers carried out an attack inside the Badr mosque in southern Sana’a during midday prayers on Friday. One walked inside the mosque and detonated his explosive device, causing panic and making dozens of worshippers rush toward the outside gates. A second bomber then attacked at the gate as panicked worshippers tried to flee. Yemeni emergency personnel and Houthi fighters carry a body on a stretcher following a bomb explosion at the Badr mosque in southern Sana’a, March 20, 2015. © AFP A third bomber targeted- al-Hashoosh mosque in northern Sana’a. One witness at the mosque said the force of the explosion threw him a couple of meters away. “The heads, legs and arms of the dead people were scattered on the floor of the mosque,” Mohammed al-Ansi said, adding, “Blood is running like a river.” Ansi noted that many of those who did not die in the blast were critically wounded by shattered glass falling from the windows. There has been no immediate claim of responsibility for the bombings, but the acts of terror bear the hallmarks of those carried out by the al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), which is based in Yemen. The attacks come a day after intense gun battles between supporters and opponents of fugitive President Abd Rabbuh Mansour Hadi in the southern port city of Aden left more than a dozen people dead and forced closure of the city’s international airport. PressTv

Wounded Nusra terrorists killed by angry Druze community in Israel to avenge the massacre of Druze community in Syria. Syrian terrorists' link to Israel badly exposed. Now, let me see if those Takfiris on this forum who denied Syrian rebels-Zionists links are still reading this from their own sources everywhere? Aarabiya: http://english.alarabiya.net/en/News/middle-east/2015/06/23/Wounded-Syrian-killed-as-Druze-attack-Israeli-ambulance-Police.html

:lol: :rolleyes: :lol: The union of Zionists and Khawarij, after Syria now the two brutal movements are going to befriend each other in Gaza! Feel sorry-- for those who were so naive to express their support for such groups (no matter what) because these groups were oppressed and were confronting Zionists and caring for Quds... so now, I hope the case is closed. ---------------------------------- Israel's secret cooperation with Hamas Link: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4650733,00.html

By now it is clear that Iran and/or Russia will never give up on Syria, and as it seems the west + Wahabi Gulf dictators are working on plan-B to invade Syria, attack ISIS regions, train the so called 'moderate terrorists' and enable them to take over ISIS cities... then from there they will/might expand the 'moderate terrorists' rules and will help them directly to go after Syrian army. Is it a crucial time for Shias/Iran to make sure that doesn't happen and a massacre of Shias/Alawites and other Syrians who reject Takfiris rules and laws does not happen? And prevent the western-Wahabi alliance to overthrow the Syrian government? Should Iran just send troops or should it just increase its aids to Shia groups/Syrian government/Hizbullah instead?

Syria rebel leader killed in bomb attack Hassan Abbout, the leader of Ahrar Al-Sham Hassan Abboud, the leader of Ahrar al-Sham group, among top commanders killed in bombing at meeting in Idlib. The leader of one of Syria's most powerful rebel groups has been killed along with dozens of other commanders in a bomb attack on a high-level meeting in Idlib province. Hassan Abboud, the head of the Ahrar al-Sham brigade, was among up to 45 people killed on Tuesday at the meeting in an underground bunker near an ammunition dump outside Ram Hamdan. The Idlib meeting brought together Ahrar and a number of other brigades fighting as the Islamic Front alliance, such as Ahrar, Abdallah Azzam and the Iman brigades, to discuss a strategy to fight the Islamic State. Activists named others killed in the attack: Abu Yazan al-Shami, a member of the Ahrar's shura council, military field commanders Abu Talha al-Askari and Abu Yousuf Binnish, and Abu al-Zubeir, the head of the Iman brigade. Abu al-Mustafa al-Ambsi, a member of the political bureau of Ahrar, told Al Jazeera that the group was investigating the attack. "There is a possibility that the meeting was infiltrated and an explosion happened first in the bunker," he said. "Maybe someone planted a device inside because the bunker is at a secret location”. He said that killing of such an elite group "will only make us more resilient to fight and continue the fight until we liberate our homeland". It is not known who staged the attack but Islamic State sympathisers hailed the death of Abboud on social media. Another of Ahrar's leaders, Abu Khaled al-Souri, a close associate with al-Qaeda leaders Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri, was killed by the Islamic State earlier this year. That assassination caused the schism that pitted the Islamic State group against other rebel factions in Syria. Ahrar has about 20,000 fighters and is the main force in the Islamic Front alliance, which was formed earlier this year to oppose the Islamic State group. Ahrar advocates for a state run on Islamic principles, which protects the rights of women and religious and ethnic minorities, and disagrees with the approach of the Islamic State group. In an interview with Al Jazeera in December 2013, Abboud said he would fight for his rights and dismissed talks in UN-brokered Geneva between the Syrian government and the exiled rebel umbrella Syrian National Coalition "We see Geneva as a tool of manipulation - to derail the Syrian revolution away from its goals and objectives ... whatever outcome the conference may yield, will be binding on the Syrian National Coalition only. "For us, we will continue to fight for our revolution until we restore our rights." However, the rise of the Islamic State after the Geneva talks gave the civil war a new dimension, with Ahrar fighting not only the government but other rebel groups. Aljazeera https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PzyrlVjm3XY

Too late, the sponsors of ideology find they have made a monster Having spent billions, the Wahhabists of Saudi Arabia and Qatar are finding that money can't buy loyalty It seemed like a good idea at the time. Thanks to the immediacy of television, innocent civilians in Syria were writhing from gas attacks before our eyes, with the blame laid on their own government. Yet despite a red line having been crossed by this use of chemical weapons, the international community decided against air strikes on the Assad regime. Instead we encouraged two oil-rich Arab states, Qatar and Saudi Arabia, to continue arming rebel groups to oust the ruthless dictator in Damascus. Now, thanks to those weapons, one of the groups has grown into the Frankenstein's monster of the so-called Islamic State whose brutal fighters have swept through Syria and Iraq, crucifying and beheading like a deadly inhuman tide. Saudi Arabia has been a major source of financing to rebel and terrorist organisations since the 1970s, thanks to the amount it has spent on spreading its puritan version of Islam, developed by Mohammed Abdul Wahhab in the 18th century. The US State Department has estimated that over the past four decades Riyadh has invested more than $10bn (£6bn) into charitable foundations in an attempt to replace mainstream Sunni Islam with the harsh intolerance of its Wahhabism. EU intelligence experts estimate that 15 to 20 per cent of this has been diverted to al-Qa'ida and other violent jihadists. The only other official Wahhabi country is Saudi's Gulf neighbour Qatar, which is, per capita, the richest country in the world. It likes to paint itself as a more liberal and open version of the Muslim sect. Its newest and biggest mosque is named after Wahhab, but this is the fun, football-loving version. The Qataris are Barcelona's shirt sponsors, the owners of Paris St-Germain and, albeit amid allegations of dodgy financial footwork, will host the 2022 World Cup – to which, to the horror of their Saudi neighbours, women will be admitted. In Qatar, unlike Saudi, women are allowed to drive and travel alone. Westerners can eat pork and drink alcohol. There is no religious police force or powerful class of clerics to enforce morality. Qatar's Al Jazeera television network stands in contrast with the region's state-controlled media, and the Qataris are investing in the West, including the Shard, Harrods and big chunks of Sainsbury's and the London Stock Exchange. But that is not the crucial difference. Where the Saudis tend to support restrictive strong-man regimes like their own across the Arab world, the Qataris, throughout the Arab Spring, have backed grassroots Islamists such as the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. The tiny country has given $200m to Hamas, which is constantly firing low-grade rockets from Gaza into Israel. It is more open-minded towards the Shia Muslims of Iran and Hezbollah in Lebanon, whom the Saudis see as enemies. It even has good relations with the Taliban. And it has been the biggest funder of the Syrian rebels, with sources in Doha estimating it has spent as much as $3bn in Syria alone – 70 military cargo flights were sent in the past two years – in an attempt to develop networks of loyalty among rebels and set the stage for Qatari influence in a post-Assad era. Riyadh sees its tiny neighbour – "300 people and a TV channel", as one Saudi prince dismissively said – as a troublesome and dangerous gadfly. The result of all this is that Qatar and Saudi have channelled funds, arms and salaries to different groups in Syria. Until last year they were creating rival military alliances and structures. But their efforts at discrimination have been in vain. On the ground the rebel groups have been porous, with personnel switching to whichever was the best supplied. Fighters grew their beards or shaved them off to fit the ideology of the latest supplier. Many moved to whichever group was having most success on the battlefield. Key Qataris and Saudis felt it didn't matter as long as the result was the fall of Assad. But eventually two of the most extreme groups began to dominate, and eventually one of them, Jabhat al-Nusra, lost dominance to the other, Isis – the ruthless and potent force which has declared itself the Islamic State. Only towards the end have the funders realised the error of their strategy. The Qatar government has stemmed the flow of funds. At first it believed it could change the ideology of those it funded once the war against Assad was over. But now it realises it was creating a sleeping monster, as the Saudis had done when they financed the Taliban to fight the Soviets in the 1980s. In April, the Saudis sacked the head of their intelligence services, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, who had been responsible for the details of arming the Syrian rebels. His blunders led to the massive empowerment of the kind of grassroots Islamism which is the greatest threat to the Saudi claim to be the leader of global Islam because of its vast wealth and its custodianship of the holy city of Mecca. They have left it too late. The genie is out of the bottle. Some funds continue to flow from wealthy Qatari individuals and from conservative Saudi preachers collecting funds through their television shows. But the terrorists of the Islamic State, who were earning $8m a month from a Syrian gas field where they have established robust logistical lines, have added a further $1m a day from the half dozen Iraqi oilfields they have seized. Worse still, the conflict in Iraq has solidified into religiously defined ethnic identity lines. As Washington has now realised, the Islamic State will have to be stopped militarily. But real progress to re-civilise the cradle of civilisation which was Mesopotamia will require countries such as Saudi Arabia and Qatar – as well as the West, Iran, Israel and Syria – to make some hard decisions about the hierarchy of evil and where their greatest enemy lies. http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/too-late-the-sponsors-of-ideology-find-they-have-made-a-monster-9687723.html

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/07/09/secret-document-appears-to-show-qatar-payoffs-to-key-morsi-cronies/ A secret document that appears to show six-figure payments from Qatar to top Muslim Brotherhood officials is fueling charges of corruption and hypocrisy at ousted Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi and his Islamist cronies. The document, allegedly recovered in the ransacking of Muslim Brotherhood offices in Cairo after the Egyptian military removed Morsi from office, lists payments ranging from $250,000 to $850,000 to top Morsi associates from the former Prime Minister of Qatar. The payments, which some observers believe may be linked to funding Qatar provided the Morsi government on steep and unpopular terms, undermine the religious regime’s moral authority, say experts. “The notion was that because they were Islamists, because they are more religious, they had higher morals when it came to issues like corruption,” Jonathan Schanzer, vice president of the Washington-based Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, told FoxNews.com. “It seems that when in power, Islamists can often succumb to the same temptations.” The document, written in both English and Arabic, was brought to light by independent Egyptian journalist Abdallah Hamouda in a recent appearance on the BBC. Hamouda said he “challenged the people whose names were listed to defend themselves, but no one rang [back].” The document, dated March 28, 2013, details the transfer of sums from “HE Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim bin Jabber Al Thani (May God Protect Him), Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs” of Qatar, to a long list of significant Muslim Brotherhood members. Sheikh Hamad stepped down from his position late last month along with the Emir of Qatar who -- in a move that shocked the whole region -- suddenly abdicated in favor of his 33-year-old son, Sheikh Tamim. Qatar’s public support for the Morsi regime had already caused anger in Egypt at the Gulf Kingdom, which many believe tried to take advantage of the changes in Egypt to further its own political agenda. Schanzer said the apparent financial corruption would be a natural extension of the political corruption he believes led to Morsi’s ouster. Despite holding office for less than a year, Morsi forced out hundreds of judges and government officials, replacing them with Muslim Brotherhood figures. “That was seen as a manipulation beyond the pale,” said Schanzer. The brazen abuses of the democratic mandate Morsi received just over a year earlier prompted tens of millions of people to take to the streets in protest, and, ultimately, Egypt’s powerful armed forces to step in, he said. But the secret payments flowing in from Qatar as Egypt’s economy crumbled may be related to huge loans the country made to Egypt that were criticized by economists as not being in Egypt’s best interests. Instead of using the funds to restructure debt, the Morsi government simply added to Egypt’s debt burden at interest rates that benefited Qatar, critics said at the time. But if secret payments helped smooth the way for the massive loans from Qatar, it may have backfired. “Qatar has spent billions of dollars in Egypt and at least right now it looks as though this was a bad investment on their part,” Schanzer said.

Is the war on Syria is the war on Islam as the Syrian Mufti stated a few months ago? It is a war waged by the most brutal-backward, fanatic-terrorist groups on the planet. And the danger is doubled when western-hypocrites are aiding and arming Alqaida and Muslim Brotherhood Jihadists. Therefore, at the moment the war on Syria is more important than the war on Iran The war on Syria is more important than the (2006) war on Lebanon The war on Syria is more important than the Alqaida/Baathist war on Iraq We all should pray for the fall of Saudi-Salafi backed terrorist groups in Syria.. with Assad or without Assad, that is not important. And hope the groups and governments with power in Iran-Iraq-Lebanon extend and expand their aids to the Syrians to defeat the Takfiris. ________________________________________ A very good news today was reported by Zionist backed Alarabiya! Syrian army seizes strategic town near capital Syrian forces loyal to President Bashar al-Assad seized a strategic town east of Damascus on Wednesday, breaking a critical weapons supply route for the rebels, activists and fighters said. Rebels have held several suburbs ringing the southern and eastern parts Damascus for months, but they have been struggling to maintain their positions against a ground offensive backed by fierce army shelling and air strikes in recent weeks. “The disaster has struck, the army entered Otaiba. The regime has managed to turn off the weapons tap,” a fighter from the town told Reuters via Skype. “The price of a bullet will go from 50 Syrian pounds to 1, 000 Syrian pounds ($10) now, but we must pay and retake it. It's the main if not the only route.” Rebels said they pulled out of Otaiba, a gateway to the eastern rural suburbs of Damascus known as al-Ghouta, in the early hours after more than 37 days of fighting in which they accused the government of using chemical weapons against them twice. The government has denied using chemical weapons and accused rebels in turn of firing them in Aleppo. Rebels used Otaiba for eight months as their main supply route to Damascus for weapons brought in from the Jordanian border, where Saudi Arabia and other private donors are believed to be sending in arms. Government forces pushed in with tanks and soldiers. “Now all the villages will start falling one after another [inshallah], the battle in Eastern Ghouta will be a war of attrition,” another fighter in the area said, speaking by Skype. More than two years into their struggle to end four decades of Assad family rule, the rebels remain divided by struggles over ideology and fighting for power. [hypocrites, what happened to your revolution and democracy claims?] Rebels fighting in Otaiba said they sent a distress call to brigades in other parts of Ghouta but it went unanswered by other units with whom they compete for influence and weapons. “To all mujahedeen (holy warriors): If Otaiba falls, the whole of Eastern Ghouta will fall ... come and help,” part of the message sent to fighters said. The army appears to have been advancing on fronts across Syria in recent weeks, even in northern provinces where rebels seized large swathes of territory. Alarabiya

Here is a quote from a full article on what wahabi and zio unity result in By financing and arming these gas ghouls and macabre murderers, the West, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Turkey and Qatar are shooting themselves in the foot, leg, back and mouth because they are creating something that they cannot control. http://presstv.com/detail/2013/04/11/297643/zionism-taking-world-to-hell-in-handbasket/

Egyptian President Morsi leaves presidential palace as protests turn violent CAIRO – Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi left the presidential palace Tuesday as violence erupted between police and at least 100,000 protesters gathered in Cairo. In a brief outburst, police fired tear gas to stop protesters approaching the palace in the capital's Heliopolis district. Morsi was in the palace conducting business as usual while the protesters gathered outside. But he left for home through a back door when the crowds "grew bigger," according to a presidential official who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak to the media. Fox News

Shaykh Muhammad Al Arifi writes in his Tweet: ''Some of the brothers have asked us about waging war inside Israel - we say to them, Jihad is not allowed in countries where there is peace - such as Saudi Arabia, Israel and Qatar... " This monafiq cleric was the one who few years ago insulted Shia scholars, including Ayt. Sistani because the Houthis in North Yemen gave Saudi soldiers a good lesson after they invaded their regions. After he called all Shias as majoosi and Sahaba insulters, he then went on to say that Shias never did Jihad in their history and always conspired with moguls and Tatars and etc.. against the Muslim world. He also actively called on all Sunnis and Sunni countries to help terrorists in Syria against Rafidhis (Alawites) and invited ppl to join the Jihad in Syria and Iraq. Now, he forbids Jihad in Israel, Qatar and Saudi. May you burn in hell Al-Arifi, inshallah!

"Fitna" is worse than killing :shaytan: :shaytan: :shaytan: (Video)

News of the day: Qatar (backed by the west) rewards Hamas for its services against Syria & Iran! Qatar pays Hamas $ 400 million (a terrorist organization on American/European/Israeli list) while the entire west and Zionists are silent and did not react... So what happened to funding and supporting a "terrorist" organization? The answer is clear, they are silent because Hamas/Qatar implemented the Zionist agendas recently, especially in Syria..and these moves are acceptable by the Zionists.. Now they can get the money and receive Emir of Qatar in Gaza with no action or reaction from western or Israeli media... most of them even did not report this trip and Qatar's announced funding. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Qatari emir in historic Gaza visit Sheikh Hamad is the first head of state to visit embattled Palestinian enclave since international blockade imposed. Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani, the emir of Qatar, has arrived in the Gaza Strip to inaugurate a Qatari investment project worth hundreds of millions of dollars to rebuild the impoverished and overcrowded coastal enclave. "This visit has great political significance," said Hamas government spokesman Taher al-Nunu. Mouin Rabbani, a senior fellow at the Institute of Palestine Studies in Amman, framed the emir's visit as part of a regional power struggle. Hamas had long been headquartered in Syria, but the group has pulled away from Damascus since the start of the uprising against president Bashar al-Assad. "[Qatar] is engaged in a struggle for influence with Syria and Iran in regional terms," he said. "Hamas and Palestine more broadly have significant symbolic value in this context, and Qatar has in fact been instrumental in weaning Hamas away from Damascus." Aljazeera

Iran vows to hit US bases if Israel strikes US bases in Qatar, Afghanistan and Bahrain will be targets if Israel attacks Iran, senior military official says Iran will target US bases in the Gulf should a war break out with Israel, a senior Iranian military official has said. General Amir Ali Hajizadeh, a commander with Iran’s revolutionary guards, said on Sunday that US military bases in Qatar, Bahrain and Afghanistan are legitimate targets, because Israel would not attack the Islamic Republic without US involvement. "The Islamic Republic of Iran considers the US bases in the region as part of American soil and will definitely target them if a war breaks out," he was quoted as saying. A spokesman for the US Department of Defence told Al Jazeera: "Inflammatory rhetoric of this sort is unhelpful." "The United States stands ready to defend itself against any threat in the Middle East or elsewhere," Jim Gregory, a Department of Defence spokesman, told Al Jazeera by email. The US Navy's Fifth Fleet is based in Bahrain, while Qatar and Afghanistan host large military bases and thousands of troops. 'Pre-emptive attack' "We see the United States and the Zionist regime [of Israel] alongside one another and we can by no means imagine that the Zionist regime would initiate a war [against Iran] without the US support." Should Israel and Iran engage militarily, "nothing is predictable... and it will turn into World War III," Hajizadeh said, adding that some countries might enter the war in favor of or against Iran, likely in reference to the oil-rich Gulf states. Hajizadeh’s statement, made during an interview with Iran's state sponsored Al-Alam television, is the latest salvo in a long-running war of words over Iran’s nuclear programme. Iran says its nuclear programme is intended solely for peaceful purposes, while the West and Israel believe Tehran wants to develop weapons. "Iran will not start any war but it could launch a pre-emptive attack if it was sure that the enemies are putting the final touches to attack it," Al-Alam TV said, paraphrasing the military commander. Aljazeera ----------------------------------- If Iran attacks these countries in times of war, it will receive the absolute support and backing of the entire Shia community worldwide!

What is the difference between the Saudi Government & Zionists? What is the difference between the Qatari Government & Zionists? What is the difference between the Bahrain Government & Zionists? What is the difference between Turkey's Government & Zionists? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING

by Thierry Meyssan In a few days, perhaps as early as Friday, June 15, at noon, the Syrians wanting to watch their national TV stations will see them replaced on their screens by TV programs created by the CIA. Studio-shot images will show massacres that are blamed on the Syrian Government, people demonstrating, ministers and generals resigning from their posts, President Al-Assad fleeing, the rebels gathering in the big city centers, and a new government installing itself in the presidential palace. This operation of disinformation, directly managed from Washington by Ben Rhodes, the US deputy national security adviser for strategic communication, aims at demoralizing the Syrians in order to pave the way for a coup d’etat. NATO, discontent about the double veto of Russia and China, will thus succeed in conquering Syria without attacking the country illegally. Whichever judgment you might have formed on the actual events in Syria, a coup d’etat will end all hopes of democratization. The Arab League has officially asked the satellite operators Arabsat and Nilesat to stop broadcasting Syrian media, either public or private (Syria TV, Al-Ekbariya, Ad-Dounia, Cham TV, etc.) A precedent already exists because the Arab League had managed to censure Libyan TV in order to keep the leaders of the Jamahiriya from communicating with their people. There is no Hertz network in Syria, where TV works exclusively with satellites. The cut, however, will not leave the screens black. Actually, this public decision is only the tip of the iceberg. According to our information several international meetings were organized during the past week to coordinate the disinformation campaign. The first two were technical meetings, held in Doha (Qatar); the third was a political meeting and took place in Riyad (Saudi Arabia). The first meeting assembled PSYOP officers, embedded in the satellite TV channels of Al-Arabiya, Al-Jazeera, BBC, CNN, Fox, France 24, Future TV and MTV. It is known that since 1998, the officers of the US Army Psychological Operations Unit (PSYOP) have been incorporated in CNN. Since then this practice has been extended by NATO to other strategic media as well. They fabricated false information in advance, on the basis of a “story-telling” script devised by Ben Rhodes’s team at the White House. A procedure of reciprocal validation was installed, with each media quoting the lies of the other media to render them plausible for TV spectators. The participants also decided not only to requisition the TV channels of the CIA for Syria and Lebanon (Barada, Future TV, MTV, Orient News, Syria Chaab, Syria Alghad) but also about 40 religious Wahhabi TV channels to call for confessional massacres to the cry of “Christians to Beyrouth, Alawites into the grave!.” The second meeting was held for engineers and technicians to fabricate fictitious images, mixing one part in an outdoor studio, the other part with computer generated images. During the past weeks, studios in Saudi Arabia have been set up to build replicas of the two presidential palaces in Syria and the main squares of Damascus, Aleppo and Homs. Studios of this type already exist in Doha (Qatar), but they are not sufficient. The third meeting was held by General James B. Smith, the US ambassador, a representative of the UK, prince Bandar Bin Sultan (whom former U.S. president George Bush named his adopted son so that the U.S. press called him “Bandar Bush”). In this meeting the media actions were coordinated with those of the Free "Syrian" Army, in which prince Bandar’s mercenaries play a decisive role. The operation had been in the making for several months, but the U.S. National Security Council decided to accelerate the action after the Russian President, Vladimir Putin, notified the White House that he would oppose by all means, even by force, any illegal NATO military intervention in Syria. The operation has a double intent: the first is to spread false information, the second aims at censuring all possible responses. The hampering of TV satellites for military purposes is not new. Under pressure from Israel, the USA and the EU blocked Lebanese, Palestinian, Iraqi, Libyan and Iranian TV channels, one after the other. However, no satellite channels from other parts of the world were censured. The broadcast of false news is also not new, but four significant steps have been taken in the art of propaganda during the last decade. • In 1994, a pop music station named “Free Radio of the Thousand Hills” (RTML) gave the signal for genocide in Rwanda with the cry, “Kill the cockroaches!” • In 2001, NATO used the media to impose an interpretation of the 9/11 attacks and to justify its own aggression against Afghanistan and Iraq. At that time already, it was Ben Rhodes who had been commissioned by the Bush administration to concoct the Kean/Hamilton Commission report on the attacks. • In 2002, the CIA used five TV channels (Televen, Globovision, ValeTV and CMT) to make the public in Venezuela believe that phantom demonstrators had captured the elected president, Hugo Chávez, forcing him to resign. In reality he was the victim of a military coup d’etat. • In 2011, France 24 served as information ministry for the Libyan CNT, according to a signed contract. During the battle of Tripoli, NATO produced fake studio films, then transmitted them via Al-Jazeera and Al-Arabiya, showing phantom images of Libyan rebels on the central square of the capital city, while in reality they were still far away. As a consequence, the inhabitants of Tripoli were persuaded that the war was lost and gave up all resistance. Nowadays the media do not only support a war, they produce it themselves. This procedure violates the principles of International Law, first of all Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights relating to the fact of receiving and imparting information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.” Above all, the procedure violates the United Nations General Assembly resolution, adopted after the end of World War II, to prevent further wars. Resolutions 110, 381 and 819 forbid “to set obstacles to free exchange of information and ideas” (like cutting off Syrian TV channels) and “all propaganda provoking or encouraging threats to peace, breaking peace, and all acts of aggression”. By law, war propaganda is a crime against peace, the worst of crimes, because it facilitates war crimes and genocide.

What is the best title to describe the new satanic front in the ME? The front that includes the backward Arab monarchies, paid Salafi terrorists and their Zionist backers! -ZioSalafis -ZioWahabis -Ziomonarchies I personally think ZioSalafis fits them well! These groups and their Zionists backers are not only responsible for the brutal Arab tyrant leaders, but also funding the terrorist networks to strike across the Muslim regions. I hope IRI and its allies work hard to target their interests and defend the helpless people and the region against the brutality of this network. The worried Puppet Arabs meet to merge their states Haniya declares his support for Al-Khalifa against the protesters Terror in Syria: ZioSalafis funded suicide attacks in Syria

The Rise of New Bloody War in the Middle East The advent of democracy and equality of citizens in the Middle East is not only a bad news for the current dictators of the Arab world, Al Qaeda and its Wahhabi affiliates are equally worried. Also in Pakistan and Afghanistan, Wahhabi share one common characteristic with the current Wahhabi rulers of Saudi Arabia, i.e., acute hatred for Shia who they consider infidels. The events of the Arab Spring have heightened long-standing tensions in Saudi Arabia's Eastern Province. Just three days after large-scale protests started in Bahrain on 2011, protests began in the Eastern Province, which is a 30-minute drive across the causeway from Bahrain. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the Saudi interior ministry vowed to crush the protests with an "Iron Fist" and has unleashed a media-smear campaign against protests and the Shiites in general. While protests subsided over the summer, they started again in October and have become larger ever since, leading to an ever more heavy-handed response from the security forces. The Eastern Province is home to virtually all of Saudi Arabia's oil and to a sizeable Shiite majority, or around 30 percent of Saudi Arabia's citizen population. The Wahhabi creed of Salafi Islam that the state sponsors in Saudi Arabia has developed a special hostility toward the Shiites. Saudi Shiite citizens in turn have long complained of discrimination in religious practice, government employment, and business, and overall marginalization. For decades, opposition groups formed by Saudi Shiites, both leftist and Islamists, as well as hundreds of petitions by Shiite notables, have had the same demands: an end to sectarian discrimination in government employment and representation in main state sectors including at the ministerial level; more development in Shiite areas; the strengthening of the Shiite judiciary; and an end to arbitrary arrests of Shiite for religious or political reasons. None of these demands would significantly undermine the position of the royal family, or otherwise threaten the integrity of Saudi Arabia. They would rather cement the current political system and buy the allegiance of two million people living on top of the kingdom's oil. The perception of systematic discrimination has led some Saudi Shiites to embrace revolutionary ideologies over the decades. While pro-Iranian groups still exist amongst Gulf Shiites, they are not the most powerful amongst Saudi Shiites and had largely renounced violence as a political tool since at least the mid-1990s. But Saudi Arabia's repressive response to the protests and the zero-concessions policy are providing fertile breeding ground for future opposition groups. A repetition of post-1979 Shiite politics, when hundreds of young Shiites left Bahrain and Saudi Arabia's Eastern Province to become active in regional revolutionary movements, seems possible. As the protests in Bahrain and particularly in Qatif receive only limited attention on Gulf-owned channels like Al Jazeera and Al Arabiya, local Shiites are forced to watch the Iranian-sponsored Arabic-language Al Alam channel, Lebanese Hezbollah's Al Manar, Iraq's Ahlul Bait TV, or increasingly other pro-Assad channels to receive updates on the situation in their areas. The new cold war in the Middle East has turned into a fully-fledged media war, in which media outlets are either with the protests in Bahrain and Qatif and for Assad's regime, or with the protests in Syria and against the allegedly sectarian protests in Bahrain and Qatif. The situation for Saudi Shiites in the Eastern Province is no secret. The U.S. State Department's Annual Report to Congress on International Religious Freedom for the second half of 2010, the period immediately predating the Arab Spring, records arbitrary detentions, mosque closures, and the arrest of Shiite worshippers. U.S. diplomatic cables released by Wikileaks revealed that U.S. diplomats, and particularly the staff at its consulate in Dhahran, have an incredible amount of information on the local Shiite communities and seem almost obsessed with grievances they deem legitimate. But the specific problems of the Saudi Shiites almost never come up at high-level meetings with Saudi officials. This is not only due to the close Saudi and U.S. alliance. Americans sometimes share the suspicion of the Gulf Shiites, which permeates some of its allied regimes. This suspicion is partly to do with Iran, but also has its roots in the 1996 bombing of the Khobar Towers, which killed 19 U.S. servicemen. Nine Shiite prisoners have been incarcerated since 1996 for their alleged membership in Hezbollah al-Hijaz and their involvement in the bombings. They were indicted in the United States in 2001, but as U.S. foreign policy priorities changed after September 11 they became "forgotten," the name they are known by amongst Saudi Shiites. The indictment hints at the involvement of Lebanese Hezbollah and Iran but no evidence has ever been made public. At the time some Americans called for retaliation against Iran as a response to this bombing. But after September 11, fingers began to point toward al Qaeda as involved in the attack, raising questions about the guilt of these prisoners. The Shiite prisoners cannot hope ever to be "rehabilitated" in one of the government's much advertised de-radicalization programs. It seems to be justified to at least ask for a public trial, a move repeatedly endorsed by Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International. But such a trial does not appear to be on the foreign-policy agenda of the United States. The behavior of the Saudi leadership only allows the conclusion that repression of the Shiites is a fundamental part of Saudi political legitimacy. The state does not want to change the position of the Shiites and Shiite protests are used by the state to frighten the Sunni population of an Iranian takeover of the oilfields with the help of local Shiites. Similar narratives have been propagated in the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) media for months, at the cost of further deepening the sectarian divide in the Gulf States. The GCC intervention in Bahrain has severely worsened sectarian relations in the Gulf and beyond to levels not seen since the Iranian Revolution. But this open Saudi sectarianism has already had negative repercussions in Iraq, as well as in Syria, Lebanon, and Kuwait. Bahrain looks set for years of sectarian conflict, community relations have broken down completely, and the state is conducting a campaign of what Shiite activists call "ethnic cleansing." Rather than completely alienating the Shiites, Saudi Arabia and Bahrain should negotiate a social contract with them. Failing to do so will lead to years of instability with uncertain outcomes. And it is far from certain that other Saudis will not be encouraged by the Shiite protests, as a recent statement by liberal Saudis from all over the kingdom denouncing the crackdown in Qatif has shown. The West should press its allies, above all Saudi Arabia and Bahrain, to stop simply shooting and arresting their Shiite citizens and brandishing them as Iranian agents and traitors. The alienation of Shiite youth foments a perfect breeding ground for a new Gulf Shiite opposition movement. Even without external help for the local Shiite protesters, the area looks ripe for a return to the tense sectarian politics of the 1980s. The United States should in its own, and in the Gulf States', interest push for a real reconciliation between the Shiites of Bahrain and Saudi Arabia and their governments. Otherwise, sectarianism will come to dominate the Gulf, to the detriment of all.

The outcome of the war in Iraq and the de-facto takeover of Iraqi politics by Shia parties as resulted in "push-back" reaction in many Sunni Arab states, in particular in Bahrain and Syria. The behind-the-scenes but direct involvement of Gulf States like Qatar in the war in Libya and the transformation of the Arab League into a "US/NATO invitation committee" clearly shows that the rich oil sheikdoms are becoming concerned and have decided to counter what they perceive as the "Shia crescent's" threat. But let's remind ourselves of what we are talking about here: the Shia crescent is nothing else but a list of countries where the Shia have been systematically and brutally repressed and excluded from the political process either by secularist (Shah in Iran, Saddam in Iraq), Wahabi zealots (Bahrain, Saudi Arabia) or a mix of both (Lebanon). It also happens that these are the parts of the Middle-East in which most oil can be found. In other words, the Shia crescent is nothing else but the territories where the Western Empires have used local Sunni proxies to oppress and impoverish the majority population while stealing their natural wealth. This is what all this nonsense about the "terrorist Mullahs" and the "Shia threat" really is designed to conceal: that the Shia, inspired by Iran and Hezbollah, are engaged in a national liberation struggle which threatens all those billionaires which have been in bed with the British, the USA and the Israelis since day one. Everywhere you look, Sunni leaders, and in particular of the Wahabi type, have been working hand-in-hand with the Zio-American interests, even at the clear detriment of the interests of the local Muslim population (Balkans, Caucasus, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, etc.). Oh sure, there are regular clashes between the US and various Wahabi groups worldwide, but they are tactical, local, in nature. In the big picture the West and the Wahabis have always walked in lockstep with each other (as seen recently in the case of Libya). And don't let the fact that the Shia mostly deny all this deceive you: that denial of the obvious reality is an old Shia survival technique destined to blame any Shia-Sunni tensions on any and all conceivable causes but the obvious one: the religious one. I think that this is a very misguided approach, but it has been historically the one most Shia have chosen: Shias much rather believe themselves to be a part of the big Islamic "Ummah" than to contemplate the outright distressing possibility that most of the Muslim world is hostile towards them (which is what the historical record shows). The civil war in Syria really brought it all out in the open and if in the past one could debate the putative successes of Iranian diplomacy with its Gulf neighbors and the various smiles and hugs it resulted in, but the fact is that Iran's neighbors are now all joining forces against it. Even Turkey, which tends to be cautious in its policies towards Iran is now fully involved in the external intervention in Syria, which is another bad sign for Iran. As for Hezbollah, it always new that all the Arab and Sunni expressions of support for its causes were just that - empty words, lip-service to the personal popularity of Hassan Nasrallah, but that in reality Hezbollah had no other friend or ally except Iran. In his famous 2006 "Divine Victory speech" Hezbollah's leader Hassan Nasrallah said the following: The people of Lebanon gave strong proof to all the peoples of the world. The Lebanese resistance provided strong proof to all Arab and Islamic armies. Arab armies and peoples are not only able to liberate Gaza and the West Bank and East Jerusalem, they are simply capable of regaining Palestine from sea to river by one small decision and with some determination. The problem is that when one is torn between two choices and is asked to choose between his people and his throne, he chooses his throne. When he is asked to choose between Jerusalem and his throne, he chooses his throne. When he is asked to choose between the dignity of his homeland and his throne, he chooses his throne. What is distinct about the resistance movements in Lebanon and Palestine is that they chose the dignity of their people, holy places, and freedom and offer their leaders, sons, and dear ones as sacrifices to join the throne of God Almighty. These words are a direct slap in the face of all the hapless Sunni and secular (Baathist) Arab leaders who literally for decades drowned the world in fiery speeches and yet have never achieved anything: from the Wahabi fat cats of the Gulf, to the Masonic Baath leaders of Lebanon, to the "progressive/popular" secular leftists leaders of the various Palestinian factions, none of them ever managed to scure even a modest victory against Israel. Compare that to the Shia who defeated the USA in Iran, then defeated the USA again in Iraq, and then defeated Israel's four brigades, three reserve divisions and entire Air Force and Navy with roughly one thousand second rate Hezbollah soldiers (the best Hezbollah fighters were all kept north of the Litani river). What Hassan Nasrallah is saying is this: the reason why the Arab and Islamic world was always defeated is because it was lead by unworthy leaders who care about their thrones more than anything else. Such talk is tantamount to a death threat to all these leaders and they are now "circling the wagons" under the protection of Uncle Sam and his Israeli overlords to stop the Shia liberation movement.