Presstv Infocus On Houthis; Interviews Badreddin

[Noah-]

'Saudi Arabia enemy of Muslim world' - Press TV News

The leader of the Houthi movement in Yemen says Saudi Arabia is an enemy to the entire Muslim world, accusing the Kingdom of creating hatred and hostility, Press TV reports.

Mohamed Badreddin al-Houthi said in an interview with Press TV that Saudi Arabia is “an enemy to all the free people of the world, including non-Muslims.”

“It manufactures terrorism and an ideology that divides the people, divides Muslims, creates hatred and hostility,” Houthi added.

The Yemeni figure, who is the brother of the late leader of the movement, Hussein Badreddin al-Houthi, further explained that in 2009 the Saudis “bribed the tribal leaders within the Houthi movement into favoring the Salafi-Wahabi ideology” so that they can control the border region between Yemen and Saudi Arabia, especially the northwestern city of Sa'ada.

In 2009, clashes broke out between the Houthi fighters and Saudi forces along the common border between the two countries. The Houthis accused Saudi Arabia of supporting the Yemeni government in attacks against them.

Houthi pointed out that the Saudi regime “would spend hundreds of thousands if not millions” to achieve its goals.

Hussein al-Houthi and a number of his men were killed in an attack launched by Yemeni government forces in an area close to the border with the Kingdom in September 2004.

Yemeni dictator Ali Abdullah Saleh has repeatedly claimed that if he hands over power, Yemen would be divided into multiple states.

Mohamed al-Houthi, however, said the Yemeni nation “cannot be separated,” adding that the most important thing for the movement is “how to serve this nation, our Ummah, how to protect our morals and religious principles.”

“We want dignity and independence. We will not accept continuation of Saleh scenario. We had enough during the 33 years [of his rule]. We cannot be fooled again,” Houthi said.

Saleh, who was injured in an attack on the presidential palace in June, returned to Yemen on September 23 after receiving treatment in Saudi Arabia.

Demonstrators in Yemen have been holding protests against the US-backed Saleh regime since late January, demanding the trial of the Yemeni dictator for the brutal crackdown on the popular uprising.

According to local reports, hundreds of Yemenis have been killed and thousands more have been injured since the onset of the popular uprising in the country.

[ShiaBen]

LOL- I love the title of that article. Such an article can possibly be found at the top of the page on search engines such as google etc.

This will do good for the rest of the Muslim viewers, especially those that think Saudis actually care about them.

[Wahhabism4All]

Haha, PressTV? Man, that is one of the most fraudulent news agencies around. Notice in many of their articles, they excessively write things like "according to sources". You only need to read the fraudulent articles they write about Syria. Then they sign off each articles without a name, instead like ABC/DEF/GHI/JKL.

Iran interfering in other Arab countries again (Iraq, Bahrain, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, Kuwait, the list goes on...). Saudi Arabia, Arab countries, Afghanistan and Pakistan should interfere in Balochistan province in Iran.

By the way, from the Arab spring, the two most brutal dictators have been Ali Abdalleh Saleh, the Yemini President (Zaidi Shiite), and Bashar al-Assad, the Syrian President (Alawite Shiite).

[ShiaBen]

What does Assad or Saleh have to do with Shiites?

Saleh is a western backed puppet. He in fact helps crush Houthi uprisings every now and then.

As for Assad, he's a secular Alawi Baathist.

So let me get this straight, of all the brutal dictatorships, you have pointed out that there are more brutal dictators from Sunni background than Shiite background, point taken!

[Wahhabism4All]

Actually, I don't care which sect a brutal dictator is. Qaddafi and Mubarak are big time dictators too. However, I notice how Shias like to point out if a secular dictator is Sunni, so I am just pointing out that it exists with Shiites as well, and right now, they happen to be the most brutal.

[ShiaBen]

Actually, I don't care which sect a brutal dictator is. Qaddafi and Mubarak are big time dictators too. However, I notice how Shias like to point out if a secular dictator is Sunni, so I am just pointing out that it exists with Shiites as well, and right now, they happen to be the most brutal.

How are they more brutal than the kings of Saudi Arabia and Bahrain?

You act as if there is a positive correlation between Shiites and brutal dictatorships.

Lets focus on countries like Iran that are promoting Islamic unity.

Can you name me one country that promotes more Islamic unity than Iran?

[Basra]

Haha, PressTV? Man, that is one of the most fraudulent news agencies around. Notice in many of their articles, they excessively write things like "according to sources". You only need to read the fraudulent articles they write about Syria. Then they sign off each articles without a name, instead like ABC/DEF/GHI/JKL.

Iran interfering in other Arab countries again (Iraq, Bahrain, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, Kuwait, the list goes on...). Saudi Arabia, Arab countries, Afghanistan and Pakistan should interfere in Balochistan province in Iran.

By the way, from the Arab spring, the two most brutal dictators have been Ali Abdalleh Saleh, the Yemini President (Zaidi Shiite), and Bashar al-Assad, the Syrian President (Alawite Shiite).

More of your Wahhabi propaganda. Press TV is a real news source unlike your combination of Western (Zionist Jewish owned) imperialist propaganda sources and Gulf based monarchy propaganda "news" sources from the Western controlled puppet monarchy's of Qatar or Saudi Arabia. By far the two places were real protesters have suffered the most are in Yemen and Bahrain; both currently controlled by Amerikkkan puppet dictators (Ali Abdullah Saleh and King Hamad ibn Isa al-Khalifa of Bahrain).

Ali Abdullah Saleh dictator of Yemen

King Hamad ibn Isa al-Khalifa dictator/monarch of Bahrain

In Bahrain the vast majority of Bahrain's indigenous people of the island of Bahrain (the Bahraini Shi'a Muslims) turned out in force against the Western backed Al-Khalifa monarchy that only occupied Bahrain after coming (with British Empire assistance) to the island of Bahrain (from the accursed region of Najd in the east of the Arabian Peninsula, also were the "house of Saud" comes from as well") about 200 years ago.

Sahih al-Bukhari Narrated Ibn 'Umar: (The Prophet) said, "O Allah! Bless our Sham and our Yemen." People said, "Our Najd as well." The Prophet again said, "O Allah! Bless our Sham and Yemen." They said again, "Our Najd as well." On that the Prophet said, "There will appear earthquakes and afflictions, and from there will come out the side of the head of Satan." (Book #17, Hadith #147)

end quote.

Responding to Wahhabi claims on accursed Najd (from the work of traditional Sunni Muslim scholars refuting Wahhabi liars). http://www.masud.co....M/misc/najd.htm

As for Syria you Wahhabi clowns are rejected by all real Syrians whether Sunni, Alawi, Druze, or Christian. Syrian's stand against you Wahhabi CIA controlled, al-CIA-duh, thugs and terrorists.

Actually, I don't care which sect a brutal dictator is. Qaddafi and Mubarak are big time dictators too. However, I notice how Shias like to point out if a secular dictator is Sunni, so I am just pointing out that it exists with Shiites as well, and right now, they happen to be the most brutal.

Gaddafi was attacked for what he gave Libya and all of Africa, for Libya he provided the highest standard of living on the African continent (http://www.globalres...xt=va&aid=24389, http://www.globalres...xt=va&aid=26210 and http://www.globalres...xt=va&aid=24152) which the Nazi NATO's have now destroyed with the help of their al-CIA-duh controlled pawns like Abdelhakim Belhadj. And as far as Africa generally, the anti-imperialist/pan-Africanist leader Muammar Gaddafi helped build up Africa and stood up to Western bankster criminals.

http://scienceoftruth.wordpress.com/2011/04/17/why-the-west-wants-the-fall-of-gaddafi-an-analysis-in-defense-of-the-libyan-rais/

http://rt.com/news/economy-oil-gold-libya/

http://www.telegraph...aeda-links.html

And as for Egypt, the Western imperialists have put in their current puppet General Tantawi to led his military junta in Egypt (and the imperialist US just loves the so-called "Muslim Brotherhood" actually should be called the Fasiq Brotherhood which was created by British intelligence back in the 1920s).

Zionist pig Ehud Barak(la) with the imperialist US puppet Gen. Tantawi of Egypt

Edited October 5, 2011 by Basra

[Noah-]

Haha, PressTV? Man, that is one of the most fraudulent news agencies around. Notice in many of their articles, they excessively write things like "according to sources". You only need to read the fraudulent articles they write about Syria. Then they sign off each articles without a name, instead like ABC/DEF/GHI/JKL.

Are you in love with Syria or what? I mean some romantic thingy is going on? Build a monument and name it Syria then get married.

Under every single topic, be it Bahrain or Houthis or Yemen or Iran you keep reciting the same boring stuffs... 'Syria...Assad...Shias & Iran'!

The Saudi-Takfiri-Zionist backed Yemeni government is killing, oppressing and failing Yemenis, somehow that is Syria's Assad fault and related to Iran's supporting Syria! Get over it! If you can't handle the truth and cannot discuss a topic properly where it hits your sensitive sectarian nerves, then just avoid it instead of twisting it and bringing up off topic (repeated) issues.

Edited October 5, 2011 by Noah-

[Professor Higgins]

Btw, one thing I heard but unconfirmed is that the Saudi troops performed even poorer than the Yemeni troops, if it weren't for the Yemeni Army, Saudi troops would have been finished !! Can anyone confirm this ?

[Thurston]

Clashes in Eastern Saudi

[Professor Higgins]

Clashes in Eastern Saudi

At 1 : 18 you can see the officer negotaiting with the protestors in a civilsed manner...thats how its done in Arab countries. Saudi Arabia should open up public institutions like the Military to Shias, especially loyalist Shias, and crack down HARD on ppl waving Iranian placards. Saud should also introduce Pan-Arabism in their Kingdom to make the Shia feel integrated, like Saddam did, then these very ppl will SLAP Iranian adventures on the face, like Iraqi Shia did between 1980 and 88..

Edited October 5, 2011 by Professor Higgins

[Hussien]

Hey dingo, as a Palestinian how many time you have criticized Israel and how many times Iran? Who is it that has robbed you off your dignity- Iran or Israel?

Btw, the only one that Sodarn slapped hard was himself. Thats the way of the fool.

[Professor Higgins]

Hey dingo, as a Palestinian how many time you have criticized Israel and how many times Iran? Who is it that has robbed you off your dignity- Iran or Israel?

Btw, the only one that Sodarn slapped hard was himself. Thats the way of the fool.

We have a comprehensive ideology and we stand by it, we do not change our stance even if Iran sends us a few cartloads of money. As for the Zionist Entity, our stance is very clear, no surrender !!!! They should all be sent back to Europe......anyway my views on Iran are reflect my personal views and that of the Party....they do not necessarily reflect the views of all Palestinians....most Palestinians may be much more pro-Iran than you can imagine, so don't jump to conclusions.

We are also against discrimination against any group as it is practised in Saudi Arabia and Bahrain, we support an unifying ideolgy for all Arabs. I only demonstrated how Saddam overrode Sunni-Shia differences using the Pan-Arabist ideolgy, it helped to integrate the Shia.

Edited October 6, 2011 by Professor Higgins

[Noah-]

^We? Who are you? A leader of a party or what? Would you please introduce yourself; if possible, publish your website and other available infos online!

Of course you do not represent any country... If Mahmood Abbas cannot represent Palestinians, I don't see how an unknown individual on a forum could represent Palestine.

Shias will never be fooled again. They suffered a lot under nationalistic slogans and all those BS.

Shias Arabs cannot get jobs in Bahrain, because they are Iranians? But, non-Arab Pakistanis, Indians, Sri Lankans, Indonesians can get jobs because they are?

In Saudi the same.

Shias holy sites and mosques are destroyed in Saudi, because they were Iranian mosques? Such as Janatul baqi?

Same in Bahrain?

What is next? Insulting prophet of Islam and claim that prophet was not the prophet of God but an Iranian?

How come your fascist Arab eyes cannot see the sufferings and discrimination Shias face in Arab countries? Have you ever considered Shias as your equal Arab brothers?

Why is it that when it is a Shia alliance is going on and Iran is involved then you speak of Arab nationalism? Why you never questioned Sunni Arabs dirty involvement with non Arab countries such as Pakistan, European countries, Americas and etc? Why Arab nationalism is dead over there?

Pakistani soldiers going to Yemen to aid the government in killing Yemeni Arabs, they are invited to Bahrain to kill Bahraini Arabs, what was the reaction of your Arab nationalists? Of course nothing... But, if Iranian soldiers were to join a war in Iraq and invited by Iraqi government and Houthi fighters, then that would be the last days for Arab nationalists, right? Hypocrites!

Edited October 7, 2011 by Noah-

[Professor Higgins]

Have you ever considered Shias as your equal Arab brothers?

Yes.

[Noah-]

Yes.

Well, the actions of the Sunni governments, the oppressions, and your behaviors towards Shia Arabs, AND the nationalists double standards are telling us something else as explained above.

[Professor Higgins]

Well, the actions of the Sunni governments, the oppressions, and your behaviors towards Shia Arabs, AND the nationalists double standards are telling us something else as explained above.

We don't have any issues with common Shia people , we have issues with the Shia religious establishment especially when it dabbles into politics and public life. We don't have any issues with secular Shiaa.

Edited October 7, 2011 by Professor Higgins

[Noah-]

We don't have any issues with common Shia people , we have issues with the Shia religious establishment especially when it dabbles into politics and public life. We don't have any issues with secular Shiaa.

Ok. Now, why you cannot say the same thing about Sunnis? Why this restriction only applies to Shias?

Why don't you have problem with Sunni religious establishment, especially when it dabbles into politics and public life? In your opinion Shias all should become 'infidels' and leave their religion in order to be accepted in Sunni societies? Again, you are all caught cheating... in Syria the secular Assad is hated, but the Wahabi Ikhwanist are preferred by your so called nationalist Arab sellouts! How do you explain that?

Now do not tell me that you have the same problem with Sunnis establishment in 'words' alone. Because, we seen your hypocrite behaviors all across ME.

When it comes to Saudis, Bahrainis and etc... They are closing Shias mosques from Wahhabi-extremism point of view, those people in charge have nothing to do with secularism. The Takfiri government pays religious Sunni clerics from public welfare to run their show 24/7 on TV, in the mosques and all over the country, but they prevent Shias from building a mosque or a gathering. See, you have no way to explain yourself and choose one path.. flip-flop and changing the definition of your own formulas... just like Western hypocrites change the definition of 'democracy' when it comes to their own friends and when it comes to their rivals then totally different regulations are applied.

Edited October 7, 2011 by Noah-

[Professor Higgins]

Ok. Now, why you cannot say the same thing about Sunnis? Why this restriction only applies to Shias?

Why don't you have problem with Sunni religious establishment, especially when it dabbles into politics and public life? In your opinion Shias all should become 'infidels' and leave their religion in order to be accepted in Sunni societies? Again, you are all caught cheating... in Syria the secular Assad is hated, but the Wahabi Ikhwanist are preferred by your so called nationalist Arab sellouts! How do you explain that?

Now do not tell me that you have the same problem with Sunnis establishment in 'words' alone. Because, we seen your hypocrite behaviors all across ME.

When it comes to Saudis, Bahrainis and etc... They are closing Shias mosques from Wahhabi-extremism point of view, those people in charge have nothing to do with secularism. The Takfiri government pays religious Sunni clerics from public welfare to run their show 24/7 on TV, in the mosques and all over the country, but they prevent Shias from building a mosque or a gathering. See, you have no way to explain yourself and choose one path.. flip-flop and changing the definition of your own formulas... just like Western hypocrites change the definition of 'democracy' when it comes to their own friends and when it comes to their rivals then totally different regulations are applied.

Nice argument. Yes, we are also against Sunni religious establishment but the point is Sunnis do not have any "religious establishment" as such to speak of. Since we do not have the system of marja taqleed, so any Sunni religious leader doesn't pose the same threat to State authority as a Shia leader would.

Ask the Shah of Iran and the Azerbaijan Prime Minister. Both of them are Shia but they have issues with the religious establishment..

And generally Sunni religious establishment does not challenge the State authority, but just see Shia history, right from the time of Al- Hussein (ra) through all the 12 Imams in the time of Umayyads and Abbasids through the times of Mongols, Seljuqs, Ottomans, down to modern times, Shia religious authority have always been at loggerheads with the established political authority. Recently I was shocked to read that all of the 12 Imams died a violent death, i.e they were killed by the State. You can say the same thing about Shia clerics in Iran under the Shah, in Iraq under Saddam, in Azerbaijan, Yemen, Bahrain and Saudi today. But that is not the case with Sunni religious establishent, even in Syria the Sunni religious authority is actually supporting the regime. And in Saudi , after the 1924 conquest of Hejaz by the Najdi forces, the Hejazi Sufi , Hanefi and Shafii religious establishemtn quickly supported the Saud monarchy and their version of Salafism.

I have a feeling that Iraqi Shia religious establishment wil soon come into conflict with al Maliki, time will tell.

Edited October 8, 2011 by Professor Higgins

[Logic]

Nice argument. Yes, we are also against Sunni religious establishment but the point is Sunnis do not have any "religious establishment" as such to speak of. Since we do not have the system of marja taqleed, so any Sunni religious leader doesn't pose the same threat to State authority as a Shia leader would.

This is a horrible justification cause Ahlesunnah has armed the ordinary person to make their own decision. Basically an illiterate can go ahead and practice his version of Islam as he seems fit.

And generally Sunni religious establishment does not challenge the State authority, but just see Shia history, right from the time of Al- Hussein (ra) through all the 12 Imams in the time of Umayyads and Abbasids through the times of Mongols, Seljuqs, Ottomans, down to modern times, Shia religious authority have always been at loggerheads with the established political authority. Recently I was shocked to read that all of the 12 Imams died a violent death, i.e they were killed by the State. You can say the same thing about Shia clerics in Iran under the Shah, in Iraq under Saddam, in Azerbaijan, Yemen, Bahrain and Saudi today. But that is not the case with Sunni religious establishent, even in Syria the Sunni religious authority is actually supporting the regime. And in Saudi , after the 1924 conquest of Hejaz by the Najdi forces, the Hejazi Sufi , Hanefi and Shafii religious establishemtn quickly supported the Saud monarchy and their version of Salafism.

You are right. Our Imams and their Marjae followers support Haq alone whereas these Hijazi muftis are concerned about staying on top brass level without any respect to the tenets of Islam. These Saudi religious establishment were vital keys to enforcing the unlawful rule of the Saud monarchy and the very basic issue to all problems in ME.

I have a feeling that Iraqi Shia religious establishment wil soon come into conflict with al Maliki, time will tell.

As long as Ayatollah Sistani is alive i dont see this happening. Keep hoping and wishing.

[Noah-]

Nice argument. Yes, we are also against Sunni religious establishment but the point is Sunnis do not have any "religious establishment" as such to speak of. Since we do not have the system of marja taqleed, so any Sunni religious leader doesn't pose the same threat to State authority as a Shia leader would.

Ask the Shah of Iran and the Azerbaijan Prime Minister. Both of them are Shia but they have issues with the religious establishment..

And generally Sunni religious establishment does not challenge the State authority, but just see Shia history, right from the time of Al- Hussein (ra) through all the 12 Imams in the time of Umayyads and Abbasids through the times of Mongols, Seljuqs, Ottomans, down to modern times, Shia religious authority have always been at loggerheads with the established political authority. Recently I was shocked to read that all of the 12 Imams died a violent death, i.e they were killed by the State. You can say the same thing about Shia clerics in Iran under the Shah, in Iraq under Saddam, in Azerbaijan, Yemen, Bahrain and Saudi today. But that is not the case with Sunni religious establishent, even in Syria the Sunni religious authority is actually supporting the regime. And in Saudi , after the 1924 conquest of Hejaz by the Najdi forces, the Hejazi Sufi , Hanefi and Shafii religious establishemtn quickly supported the Saud monarchy and their version of Salafism.

I have a feeling that Iraqi Shia religious establishment wil soon come into conflict with al Maliki, time will tell.

So, you represent nationalists or the puppet governments? Or they are both the same? lol You totally forgot what actually your argument was here! You were arguing that Shia and Sunni Arabs both deserved and served equal rights under Arab nationalism. I know, because you have no truth behind such slogans, you already forgot your claims and went on to hammer Shias from different angles and blame them all for being oppressed.

1. If you read carefully your reply again, you just provided enough evidence for why Shias religious establishment should be active! In other words! You forgot what was the benefit of being a nationalist.. In other words to surrender to the will of British appointed kings, emirs and puppet presidents. That is what you are, that is what Arab nationalism stand for.

2. In Afghanistan, the Taliban movement was extremely backed and actually was built by Afghan Nationalist movement (backed by the West at the time).

In Pakistan during Zia and after him, the nationalist movements gave all the support and empowerment to Sunni extremist groups that as a result we see Pakistan is a mess today.

In Iraq, Sunni Baathist and the so called Iraqi nationalists for exact 6 years fought side by side with Alqaida, the most extremist and backward religious group that could happen to any religion.. killing or disabling close to a million Iraqis in the mosques and markets.

In Syria Sunni Ikhwanists are taking arms against the government, remember the first uprising against Hafiz, the father... Did the government of Syria destroy all Sunnis mosques after the failed Sunni uprising? Did he blacklisted all Sunnis and discriminated them as the second class citizens for those matters? Of course not!

in Egypt Ikhwanists for years fought against Mubarak, same in Tunisia and Algeria.. Did you or any nationalist movement ever claimed that Sunni mosques should be closed in those countries for those reasons?

You are either someone who has no info or knowledge whatsoever, or simply act dumb.

You do not know the difference between nationalism movements and secularism. You do not know that there is no connection between Arab fascism and nationalism and why the government of Azerbaijan is against religion. You cannot distinguish between secular states and the governments in charge in Saudi, in Jordan, Morocco and other dictator countries. WHAT ARE YOU REALLY talking about? Mixing kings- emirs- baathism- secularism- Sunnism- religious establishment AND THEN, trying to merge them all in making an argument against Shia establishment. You do not know what you support and what you don't. Nonsense Mr. Professor. In my opinion, the professor, needs to go back to elementary school.

To conclude: again, you failed to provide a good explanation to make any sense.

Edited October 8, 2011 by Noah-

[Professor Higgins]

This is a horrible justification cause Ahlesunnah has armed the ordinary person to make their own decision. Basically an illiterate can go ahead and practice his version of Islam as he seems fit.

You are right, that we do not have a definute religious authority leads to the rise of all sorts of extremist people who claim that Qur'an bans TV, cameras, grils schools, etc. cz anybody can claim to prove anything from the Qur'an. I think this is indeed a weak point for Sunnism.

As long as Ayatollah Sistani is alive i dont see this happening. Keep hoping and wishing.

Bel Ro7 bil Dam nafdik ya Saddam !!

In Iraq, Sunni Baathist and the so called Iraqi nationalists for exact 6 years fought side by side with Alqaida, the most extremist and backward religious group that could happen to any religion.. killing or disabling close to a million Iraqis in the mosques and markets.

In Syria Sunni Ikhwanists are taking arms against the government, remember the first uprising against Hafiz, the father... Did the government of Syria destroy all Sunnis mosques after the failed Sunni uprising? Did he blacklisted all Sunnis and discriminated them as the second class citizens for those matters? Of course not!

.

Yes, we nationalists did fight the occupation in Iraq, how DARE you call us Al Qaida and accuse us of killing civilians ? Al Qaida is a CIA production and they did all the suicide bombings in Iraq so as to poison the peoples' minds agauinst the nationalist resistance and to justify a huge US military onslaught against Fallujah and Ramadi. CIA and Al Qaida tried to hijack the resistance and they were somewhat successful in creating sectarian tension. For examole they bombed Al Askari moskque in Samarra and tried to blame it on Sunnis as a result of which there was mob violence and pogroms against Subbis, which created an opposite reaction and this sectarian vendetta continued for 2 years. The puppet Iraqi Police, taking advantage of the general chaos and breakdown of law and order, very craftily killed off young men who were participating in the resistance and labelled them Al Qaida. Such things could never happen before 2003 !!

And by the way when did Saddam close down Shi'a mosques or destroy them ? Where did you get all these stuff ? PressTV ?

Anyway, enjoy this -

[ShiaBen]

This is exactly why Palestine won't get its lands back anytime soon. Guys like Higgins who support U.S. dictators like Saddam.

BTW, the Arab Socialism of Nasser (socialist) was much different than the so called Arab Socialism of Saddam (Vodka drinking Sunni Arab fascist).

This is like comparing Yugoslavia under Tito (true Marxist) to Yugoslavia under Milosevic (Serbian fascist).

It's funny because Nasser struggled his entire life to fight imperialism. He had networks with Tito, Ghandi, Musa Sadr, and brilliant great people.

He fought against Saudi Arabia in attempts to pull Yemen away from them. While Saddam was in bed with Rumsfeld, MKO, Europe, and any other affiliates that squat on Palestine.

[Noah-]

Yes, we nationalists did fight the occupation in Iraq, how DARE you call us Al Qaida and accuse us of killing civilians ? Al Qaida is a CIA production and they did all the suicide bombings in Iraq so as to poison the peoples' minds agauinst the nationalist resistance and to justify a huge US military onslaught against Fallujah and Ramadi. CIA and Al Qaida tried to hijack the resistance and they were somewhat successful in creating sectarian tension. For examole they bombed Al Askari moskque in Samarra and tried to blame it on Sunnis as a result of which there was mob violence and pogroms against Subbis, which created an opposite reaction and this sectarian vendetta continued for 2 years. The puppet Iraqi Police, taking advantage of the general chaos and breakdown of law and order, very craftily killed off young men who were participating in the resistance and labelled them Al Qaida. Such things could never happen before 2003 !!

You know what professor, you did not address any of the topics you brought up under nationalism and you failed to backup the claims you made... I proofed you wrong.. You flip-flopped from one topic to another and finally exposed your through hatreds against Shia Islam, where before you were hidden under anti-Iranian masks and pro-Arab nationalist thingy. NOW, in this reply you totally gone wild by starting to discuss totally a new thing. I am sorry to say this, but you are not qualified to debate or support your arguments in any way. You failed miserably just like Saddam and Alqaidaa did, just like Sadaat and Naser did, just like the Arab countries who are 'big zero' in politics and how to handle their societies. Thanks and come back the next time well prepared.

By the way: I enjoyed your video, a monster's death and going to hell and some dogs chanting.

This is your humanity, bellow in this video clip. This is how Saddam and his dogs tortured and beaten and humiliated their fellow human beings, forget about 'fellow Muslim, fellow Arabs' or fellow countrymen. The nationalist ignorant Arabs have no humanity and no value whatsoever. God called them the 'ignorant folks' and prophet of Islam defined the ppl of 'jahilya' through different hadiths. You are doing very well in keeping alive the culture and tradition of your forefathers from the time of ignorance.

I am not even going to put the video clips of tongues being cut, fingertips being cut with swords, hands being terminated, people are set ablaze during investigation and people's mothers and sisters are being raped in front of their male family members. Down with your humanity and shame on you for supporting such a system, such a regime and such dogs. You are a disgrace to humanity.

Edited October 9, 2011 by Noah-

[DeeeeeBo]

Bel Ro7 bil Dam nafdik ya Saddam !!

LOL you did a realll good job defeding him didnt you ?

Same with Yasser Arafat

LOL please wash your mouth, bil ro7 bil dum nafdeeka ya (whoever it is) has become a joke these days because all sunnis say it and in the end DOG the guy they are screaming for !

Its not the ones who bark loud you should be afraid of, but the ones who are silent !

Like i said, go to bed, or go HANG out somewhere else, Saddam loved HANGing around, you should follow his footsteps !

Salams child,

bye bye

[Philip]

Let them be resurrected with their arrogant bani Israel serving puppet murderers ..

And let people who only care about Islam, the ummah and humble truth get resurrected together as well.

Lets wait for this and see who is right. However, never trust a person like Higgins who thinks it's ok to chose non-believers over believers. And who thinks it's ok to attack Muslims .. And kill them ..

And people like Higgins who think it's ok to steal from your own people by "nationalizing" .. And putting people in terror .. And destroying the country! Shame on the ignorant ! Shame on them, their damm! Their roo7!! They are Israeli agents .. Hypocrite sufyani criminals ..

This is exactly why Palestine won't get its lands back anytime soon. Guys like Higgins who support U.S. dictators like Saddam.

BTW, the Arab Socialism of Nasser (socialist) was much different than the so called Arab Socialism of Saddam (Vodka drinking Sunni Arab fascist).

This is like comparing Yugoslavia under Tito (true Marxist) to Yugoslavia under Milosevic (Serbian fascist).

It's funny because Nasser struggled his entire life to fight imperialism. He had networks with Tito, Ghandi, Musa Sadr, and brilliant great people.

He fought against Saudi Arabia in attempts to pull Yemen away from them. While Saddam was in bed with Rumsfeld, MKO, Europe, and any other affiliates that squat on Palestine.

Abdel Nasser was best friends with his butcher friend Tito .. All socialist / communists are along single Zionist agenda to destroy and retard the countrythey are in.

All of them are Israeli agents and they are all pigs .

They fooled a lot of people until today, but soon their true job descriptions will emerge inshaAllah .. And their true masters.

(salam)

[baradar_jackson]

Abdel Nasser was best friends with his butcher friend Tito .. All socialist / communists are along single Zionist agenda to destroy and retard the countrythey are in.

All of them are Israeli agents and they are all pigs .

They fooled a lot of people until today, but soon their true job descriptions will emerge inshaAllah .. And their true masters.

(salam)

Nasser wasn't a communist, I don't know where you got that idea. He was a pan-Arab socialist. He dealt with Egyptian communist groups rather repressively.

And he wasn't an Israeli agent, either. He was just incompetent in fighting Israel.

Professor Rahimpour Azghadi made a very good point when he was addressing the question of whether the Islamic Republic is Islamic. He said in some respects it is fully Islamic, in some respects it is partially Islamic / in the process of becoming fully Islamic, and in some respects it is not Islamic at all. He said that there are degrees of the Islamicness of a system, just as there are degrees of the un-Islamicness of a system.

So if we envision that the regime of Saddam was the most un-Islamic type of regime conceivable in modern times, then we must recognize that other un-Islamic regimes are, so to speak, less un-Islamic. Nasser, then, would be on the "less un-Islamic" side of the Arab nationalist scale.

Recently (in February or so), when the Leader gave a Friday prayer khutbah in Arabic (directed toward the people of North Africa), he spoke well of Gamal Abdul Nasser.

[Philip]

Nasser wasn't a communist, I don't know where you got that idea. He was a pan-Arab socialist. He dealt with Egyptian communist groups rather repressively.

And he wasn't an Israeli agent, either. He was just incompetent in fighting Israel.

Professor Rahimpour Azghadi made a very good point when he was addressing the question of whether the Islamic Republic is Islamic. He said in some respects it is fully Islamic, in some respects it is partially Islamic / in the process of becoming fully Islamic, and in some respects it is not Islamic at all. He said that there are degrees of the Islamicness of a system, just as there are degrees of the un-Islamicness of a system.

So if we envision that the regime of Saddam was the most un-Islamic type of regime conceivable in modern times, then we must recognize that other un-Islamic regimes are, so to speak, less un-Islamic. Nasser, then, would be on the "less un-Islamic" side of the Arab nationalist scale.

Recently (in February or so), when the Leader gave a Friday prayer khutbah in Arabic (directed toward the people of North Africa), he spoke well of Gamal Abdul Nasser.

People can talk about agents like Nasser as much as possible. Fact is that every thing .. Every little thing .. This arrogant agent did .. Was good for his Israeli agents.

He ruined the Egyptian education system

Ruined the economic system

Deatroyed environment with his damned Dam

He flooded an entire nation called Nuba

He kicked out all Jews .. Who helped in Israeli population

He took away basic freedoms of people

He destroyed Egyptian army

Stole from his own country people under excuse of whatever your politics is .. Not Islamic reason

Terrorized and nationalized and kicked out minorities ..

Destroyed agriculture system by splitting stolen land and giving it to uneducated random people who have no idea .. And now Egypt depends on food from outside, because they urbanized all historic agri land!!

Now Tito is just like Nasser just worse. He killed most people who were from old upper class .. But other than that hes following the same criminal Zionist agenda.

May Allah destroy the evil doers.

Now, which CIA agent is better or worse is not going to help us now ..

(salam)

[baradar_jackson]

People can talk about agents like Nasser as much as possible. Fact is that every thing .. Every little thing .. This arrogant agent did .. Was good for his Israeli agents.

He ruined the Egyptian education system

Ruined the economic system

Deatroyed environment with his damned Dam

He flooded an entire nation called Nuba

He kicked out all Jews .. Who helped in Israeli population

He took away basic freedoms of people

He destroyed Egyptian army

Stole from his own country people under excuse of whatever your politics is .. Not Islamic reason

Terrorized and nationalized and kicked out minorities ..

Destroyed agriculture system by splitting stolen land and giving it to uneducated random people who have no idea .. And now Egypt depends on food from outside, because they urbanized all historic agri land!!

Now Tito is just like Nasser just worse. He killed most people who were from old upper class .. But other than that hes following the same criminal Zionist agenda.

May Allah destroy the evil doers.

Now, which CIA agent is better or worse is not going to help us now ..

(salam)

Brother no offense but don't speak from ignorance.

Yugoslavia severed ties with Israel in 1967 and ties were never restored until Yugoslavia dissolved.

So in what way was Tito a Zionist agent?

[ShiaBen]

Phillip...........if it weren't for Tito..............Bosnian Muslims would have perished at the hands of the Ustashe and Cetnik [Edited Out]s.

Tito was a man. He neutralized the fascists of the Southern Slavic territories. It was because of him that minorities were able to breathe. He recognized all cultures and faiths.

Kosovars, Vojvodina Hungarians, Gypsies, Muslims, Balkan Jews, Goranis, had an appreciation for him. They felt like human beings for the first time. They felt respected and accepted all thanks to this man, in a time and location where ethnic issues were sensitive.

As for Nasser, he wasn't the most successful of military leaders, I will admit as Baradar mentioned above.

But no way was he a closet agent of Zionists planning to destroy Egypt from the inside (this is bologna). Yes, he was Westernized but I respect him for his efforts. Sadat was an opportunistic [Edited Out] that absorbed Nasser's economic improvements. Nasser could have easily chosen to be a puppet of the U.S. etc. but he refused to bend over. Lets not spread false rumors about him.

Also about minorities...........one of Egypt's biggest singers was an Egyptian Jew, and she was well respected by Nasser. So like Iran, he was anti-Zionist, not anti-Jewish. Though, I'm sure there like all countries, fanatics beat up on minorities, irregardless of govt. protection.

Edited October 9, 2011 by ShiaBen

[Philip]

Brother no offense but don't speak from ignorance.

Yugoslavia severed ties with Israel in 1967 and ties were never restored until Yugoslavia dissolved.

So in what way was Tito a Zionist agent?

You know how the zionists made sure all countries are run by their agents ?? Well Tito when he took power destroyed so much, and most are not aware of this. Him being anti-Israeli is same as abdelnaser Saddam and Co. .. In my opinion just to confuse people and avoid them from making the real connection. To break bond of servant -master .. They are all power hungry people who sold their souls !

They sold their countries !

[baradar_jackson]

You know how the zionists made sure all countries are run by their agents ?? Well Tito when he took power destroyed so much, and most are not aware of this. Him being anti-Israeli is same as abdelnaser Saddam and Co. .. In my opinion just to confuse people and avoid them from making the real connection. To break bond of servant -master .. They are all power hungry people who sold their souls !

Tito didn't destroy Yugoslavia, not in the slightest bit. He was the one thing preventing civil war in the Balkans. Is it any surprise that wars broke out shortly after his death, and are continuing to this day?

Every day in the former Yugoslavia, it seems a new language/race wants an independent country and a war starts because of it.

This is not because of Tito, this is because of the absence of Tito! The Balkans today is what the Balkans has been for much of its history. It was only during the few decades that Tito ruled that there was peace between the peoples there.

You can't just going around calling people Zionist agent. Tell us why you think he was a Zionist agent; how did his rule in any way benefit the Zionists? The only time Israel cares about Europe is when they want to take "reparations" money from hungry peasants ("grandchildren of Nazi collaborators") in Poland or Ukraine or wherever.

[Philip]

And even if Tito suddenly went against his masters .. Still doesnt make his political whatever right.

Check the years these things happened:

Creation of UN

Creation of NATO

Creation of Israel

'Socialism' spreading & where

They are all linked ..

This is an attempt to strengthen Israel and weaken the others .. Under their indirect control

(salam)

[baradar_jackson]

And even if Tito suddenly went against his masters .. Still doesnt make his political whatever right.

Check the years these things happened:

Creation of UN

Creation of NATO

Creation of Israel

'Socialism' spreading & where

They are all linked ..

This is an attempt to strengthen Israel and weaken the others .. Under their indirect control

(salam)

Brother when you make claims you need to provide proof; if not with concrete evidence, then with reason.

What you have said neither has evidence, nor is it reasonable.

[Philip]

Tito didn't destroy Yugoslavia, not in the slightest bit. He was the one thing preventing civil war in the Balkans. Is it any surprise that wars broke out shortly after his death, and are continuing to this day?

Every day in the former Yugoslavia, it seems a new language/race wants an independent country and a war starts because of it.

This is not because of Tito, this is because of the absence of Tito! The Balkans today is what the Balkans has been for much of its history. It was only during the few decades that Tito ruled that there was peace between the peoples there.

You can't just going around calling people Zionist agent. Tell us why you think he was a Zionist agent; how did his rule in any way benefit the Zionists? The only time Israel cares about Europe is when they want to take "reparations" money from hungry peasants ("grandchildren of Nazi collaborators") in Poland or Ukraine or wherever.

Yugoslavia is a new concept .

They decided as usual to divide and conquer .. So after ww2 the Austria-Hungarian part, that was roman catholic for over thousand years .. Mostly in peace .. Croatia ..

Let's stick it to some Muslim parts and culturally different Serbian Russian orthodox. And make one country out of them! That lasted 50 years not more .. And 50 years if terror, and people like you don't know much about realities there!

The victors of ww2 approved this , and they allowed the redrawing of maps according to Zionist agenda.

Don't u know that the victors of ww2 r the zionists?? The ones who obviously brainwashed you??

Tito including Nasser "nationalized" or "liberated" livelihood and land and properties from my families .. For no reason other than their "nationalistic" reasons. Because if tito my father family could never return.

Because of Nasser we lost everything.

My grandfathers were among the lucky ones allowed to live, but many many people were destroyed.

Anybody else here a victim of these agents?? Anybody else have 1st hand experience versus opinions without experience?? And family background that precedes those Israeli agents?