Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله
Sign in to follow this  
Twelver12

Is Iran For Or Against The Syrian Government?

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

I'm having trouble figuring out whether or not to go with or against Syria. Sayed Hassan is for. Ive HEARD that Iran isn't. I want to clarify that Imam Khamenei and/or Ahmadinijad are with or against the Syrian government.

The way I think about it is this: The same way I pick a scholar to help me choose what is haraam or not because they spent their whole lives studying the Quran, I like to do the same with most political issues. These leaders know more about this than I do. I fully trust Sayed Hassan, Imam Khamenei, and Ahmadinijad to do what they feel is best according to Allah. So if you don't trust these men then either don't comment or tell me that you don't. If you think its ignorant to fully trust someone then I really don't care because for their whole lives they have been trustworthy people. Im not about to ditch what they say over one thing. Same thing with Prophet Mohamad pbuh, he was the most trustworthy person but as soon as he came out with 1 verse everyone called him a liar. Thank you

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's kind of very difficult to answer your questions. I don't know how to explain it. Iran is a very pragmatic country.

As long as other countries have some kind of a common interest, it will try to remain supportive in that regards.

So when it comes to Syria, I guess it's a two way street. Iran pays billions of dollars to Syria in exchange for using Syria as a transportation tool via Turkey to send goods, information, people, and other forms of networks to maintain its private links Lebanon, Palestine, Hezbollah, etc.

The Assads have relations with Iran in order to protect themselves from Israel, and also to help give Syria some level of financial support.

I'm really hoping most of the money transferred from Iran to Syria, ends up being used wisely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok so you're saying that Iran uses Syria to send aid to the Hizb and Palestine. And Syria gets lots of money doing this. Im not saying that thats the only reason Syria does it but its a benefit they get. So they both need each other in a way. Why are you saying it is difficult to answer? What part don't they support?

Edited by Twelver12

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm having trouble figuring out whether or not to go with or against Syria. Sayed Hassan is for. Ive HEARD that Iran isn't. I want to clarify that Imam Khamenei and/or Ahmadinijad are with or against the Syrian government.

The way I think about it is this: The same way I pick a scholar to help me choose what is haraam or not because they spent their whole lives studying the Quran, I like to do the same with most political issues. These leaders know more about this than I do. I fully trust Sayed Hassan, Imam Khamenei, and Ahmadinijad to do what they feel is best according to Allah. So if you don't trust these men then either don't comment or tell me that you don't. If you think its ignorant to fully trust someone then I really don't care because for their whole lives they have been trustworthy people. Im not about to ditch what they say over one thing. Same thing with Prophet Mohamad pbuh, he was the most trustworthy person but as soon as he came out with 1 verse everyone called him a liar. Thank you

Iran does support Bashar al Assad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

its okay if Iran has the opinion to prefer Bashar al asad for reasons that he is not pro zionism but Iran can not turn a blind Eye to the crimes committed by his regime and has to condemn it and unfortunately its not doing that. It even goes as far as ignoring tens of people who are dying daily and doesnt even report about them but only reports when pro government people die.

Also the ligitimate demand by people to have elections which is denied by the bathist

Also the conflict between bathism and islam which should put Iran and Hizbullah at a distance from such regimes because they are islamic movements.

Its a shame they didnt pressure al asad to make him go to election straight away and all this mess wouldn't have happened

I used to think Iran has Islamic principals more than others specially their stances in the Iraq war but now it looks like they are behaving just like the rest in some aspects

having said all this it doesnt mean that its not the best alternative because the alternative is much worse. teh gulf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Twelver12 Please don't pay attention to the the insults of some people on here.

Both Islamic Iran and Hezbollah have the same policy. So whatever you understand from Sayyed Hassan on Syria, the essence of those positions towards events in Syria are the same as that of Iran. Ayatollah Khamenei is the Leader, and Sayyed Hassan is his general representative in Lebanon, so it is impossible for Iran and Hezbollah to have two contradictory positions on one issue.

In case you haven't seen this video, it provides a good clarification of why Hezbollah (and hence Iran) are taking this position:

Iran/HB do not support any crimes committed by elements within the Syrian government and security force against innocent people, but the alternative to the toppling of the Assad regime now is either a civil war, the division of Syria, or turning Syria into a client state from America and Israel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if bashar announced the election 2 or 3 months after the start of the rebellion things would have been different... he could have let in international observers

the whole story would have been different

or if he started reform before any of this arab revolts then he would have created a system that would have been unshakable

if his supporters didnt commit so much crimes everything would have been different but now its too late and in my guess he is going down

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if bashar announced the election 2 or 3 months after the start of the rebellion things would have been different... he could have let in international observers

the whole story would have been different

or if he started reform before any of this arab revolts then he would have created a system that would have been unshakable

if his supporters didnt commit so much crimes everything would have been different but now its too late and in my guess he is going down

Please stop dreaming, this is not a romantic story about oppressed people rebelling and bringing a cruel and oppresive dictator to his knees, If that was the case then you would be insulting the Palestinians who have been rebelling against the Israeli occupation for over 60 years yet all to no avail. The arab spring is nothing but a disguise to reshape the mideast to the likeing of the US. And the Syrian regime is being punished for its support of resistance rather than its lack of popular support at home. And you still may not realise this but Bashar and deffinetly not his regime are not going down. Everyone knows that a civil war in Syria will not suit anyone, and it will deffinetly infect the regiion.

Please, did you watch that video of sayed Hassan clarifying his stance and why???

How can you overlook anyhing he has said, especially when it makes perfectly clear sence.

Edited by south-lebanon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^^

what he said is good and clear but he didnt explain how we must turn a blind eyes to crimes and act like they didnt happen or just dont report them like press TV and Al alam under the excuse that we may weaken the resistance.

in Islam the aim doesn't justify the means.

The resistance will not Sell her principals to maintain the support of tyrants otherwise the resistance will cease to be an Islamic resistance and it will be any resistance just like the communist resistance or the french resistance.

Islamic resistance has to follow Islamic principals in prioritizing friends and foes and the radical sunnies are definitely of a closer ideology to a radical shia than a bathist

Dont forget the Ikhwan of egypt have always supported the Resistance of iran so why shuold we sell all the ikhwan all over the world for the sake of one secular ?

Even khamenie himself is effected by the ikhwan and likes some of them

lets say a group of hizbullah start unlawfully killing others will sayed hasan say nothing under the excuse that we should not weaken the resistance or will he condemn and ask for their trial?

I mean why does the prophet say " if Fatima stole i will cut her hand" ??? but we must say : if our allies killed and destroyed we must keep silent so we dont get weak?

better to get weak and get killed than to loose our principals

I Also have issues when he says the majority of the Syrians are with Bashar, How can we assert without election?

The problem is Bashar wants Everything or Nothing , if he runs an election he might get half of a thing or even more, god knows but unfortunately all the arab leaders they want only EVERYTHING and at the end they get NOTHING

This wave thats going to sweep Bashar is too big for him, he is no match for it,,, he has nothing to stand other than his good stances with the resistance

all his other cards are weak, dictatorship, secualrism, little bit of sectarianism,

his system is based on ideology in direct conflict with religion and this wave is a religious wave , as you saw in tunesia ikhwan, egypt ikhwan, libya ikhwan,,,,

this wave is the Iranisation of the sunnies , The sunnies today are going through what Iran went in the 1970s and there is no secular who can stand in their face

also this wave is pushed by the global zionism as well who love to see asad fall as he is annoying them as sayed hasan said

I remain having deep respect and even side with hizbullah and thier just cause but with Bashar No

Edited by alimohamad40

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^^

what he said is good and clear but he didnt explain how we must turn a blind eyes to crimes and act like they didnt happen or just dont report them like press TV and Al alam under the excuse that we may weaken the resistance.

in Islam the aim doesn't justify the means.

The resistance will not Sell her principals to maintain the support of tyrants otherwise the resistance will cease to be an Islamic resistance and it will be any resistance just like the communist resistance or the french resistance.

Islamic resistance has to follow Islamic principals in prioritizing friends and foes and the radical sunnies are definitely of a closer ideology to a radical shia than a bathist

Dont forget the Ikhwan of egypt have always supported the Resistance of iran so why shuold we sell all the ikhwan all over the world for the sake of one secular ?

Even khamenie himself is effected by the ikhwan and likes some of them

lets say a group of hizbullah start unlawfully killing others will sayed hasan say nothing under the excuse that we should not weaken the resistance or will he condemn and ask for their trial?

I mean why does the prophet say " if Fatima stole i will cut her hand" ??? but we must say : if our allies killed and destroyed we must keep silent so we dont get weak?

better to get weak and get killed than to loose our principals

I Also have issues when he says the majority of the Syrians are with Bashar, How can we assert without election?

The problem is Bashar wants Everything or Nothing , if he runs an election he might get half of a thing or even more, god knows but unfortunately all the arab leaders they want only EVERYTHING and at the end they get NOTHING

This wave thats going to sweep Bashar is too big for him, he is no match for it,,, he has nothing to stand other than his good stances with the resistance

all his other cards are weak, dictatorship, secualrism, little bit of sectarianism,

his system is based on ideology in direct conflict with religion and this wave is a religious wave , as you saw in tunesia ikhwan, egypt ikhwan, libya ikhwan,,,,

this wave is the Iranisation of the sunnies , The sunnies today are going through what Iran went in the 1970s and there is no secular who can stand in their face

also this wave is pushed by the global zionism as well who love to see asad fall as he is annoying them as sayed hasan said

I remain having deep respect and even side with hizbullah and thier just cause but with Bashar No

You can't compare apples to oranges. Sunnis in Egypt, have nothing in common with Sunnis in Syria.

The mentality of people, nation to nation, is very diverse.

Just because there are several Sunni political groups in Egypt that are pro-Iran or have had a past relationship with Iran, doesn't guarantee that there are a same amount or even similar groups in Syria. I mean, I understand what you're saying, it would have been perfect if Assad stepped down, and some democratic Syrian leader emerged. I'm sure if that was the case, and it was 100% guaranteed to happen, Iran would probably support that.

But I think today's situation is a lot more complex. Iran, Lebanon, Hezbollah, are in a [Edited Out]shoot. Which basically means, they can't turn their backs on Syria because it shares that similar anti-Israel/Saddam/Saudi Arabia type stance, yet at the same time if there are problems in that country, Iran et al. have no power to change them because Syria is not part of Iran, and on top of that Iran itself cannot predict Syria's fate.

So the best thing is exactly this. What Nasrallah pretty much summed up. 1)Maintain a relationship with them.2) And let Assad/Syrian population, workout their difficulties through reforms or however they want to work them out (It's their country after all). If they work them out, great. If not, and Assad et al. are thrown out, then it's not Iran's problem at all. The Syrian people (majority) did not want him, and they threw him out, then Iran will establish relations with that successor regime.

But I think Iran has covered some of the Syrian protests in a few articles of PressTV. It wasn't as detailed or in depth as Al Jazeera (for the obvious reasons), but it did not deny that protests take place against Assad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if bashar announced the election 2 or 3 months after the start of the rebellion things would have been different... he could have let in international observers

the whole story would have been different

or if he started reform before any of this arab revolts then he would have created a system that would have been unshakable

if his supporters didnt commit so much crimes everything would have been different but now its too late and in my guess he is going down

Succinct.

It is becoming clear every day that things in Syria aren't going to calm down without a major shake up, which in all probability means a prolonged civil war culminating in the downfall of Assad, possibly with controlled military intervention by the world powers if casualties soar further.

One thing is for sure: There is no way Assad can survive this avalanche anymore. It's just too late now.

It is high time Iran and other supporters of Assad reevaluate their positions.

Edited by Marbles

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

http://english.al-akhbar.com/content/foreign-intervention-syria-no-room-equivocation

http://conflictsforum.org/2011/understanding-hizbullah%e2%80%99s-support-for-the-asad-regime/

http://atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/MJ22Ak01.html

http://mideast.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/04/07/the_arab_awakening_and_syrian_exceptionalism

One thing is for sure: There is no way Assad can survive this avalanche anymore. It's just too late now.

This is more wishful thinking than anything else.

Difference between him and the others is that he picked the right allies and the right foreign policy. That will make all the difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The secular Baathist rule in Syria will come to an end. Iran and Hezbollah better start worrying because the Syrian Muslims will remember.

Hey Baradar Jackson, do you think it is right that your supreme leader sitting in Iran is supporting a secular Baathist regime killing Syrian Muslims? Is this Islamic of them? You think Ali(ra) would have sided with secular Baathists if they existed back then?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The secular Baathist rule in Syria will come to an end. Iran and Hezbollah better start worrying because the Syrian Muslims will remember.

Hey Baradar Jackson, do you think it is right that your supreme leader sitting in Iran is supporting a secular Baathist regime killing Syrian Muslims? Is this Islamic of them? You think Ali(ra) would have sided with secular Baathists if they existed back then?

We've been over this in the past.

1) Syria under the Assads are nominally Baathist. Saddam was nominally Baathist. This does not imply any connection between the two, in ideology or in action. Hafiz al-Asad, by going against Saddam, became public enemy #1 in the Arab world. By choosing the resistance path, Syria has essentially declared their "No" vote for Baathist pan-Arabism.

2) "Syrian Muslims" is your pathetic euphemism for Salafis who want to kowtow to Israel and the US.

3) As for the secular nature of Syria's regime, well... the world is imperfect. Our ideal vision of government is an Islamic one, but this does not mean that we automatically accept anything with an "Islamic" label. We do not accept Salafist governments, or monarchical governments, that present an Islamic facade. In Syria, is there any possibility of implementing a genuine Islamic system, in the present conditions? No. That said, what is preferable? A resistant secular regime, or a kowtowing regime with a thin religious facade?

4) You're gay. And we won't have you propagating your "gay rights" brand of Islam on our website. This is an Islamic website, jack. Not IslamicLGBTchat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ That's a reply of a reject. Answer my question, would Ali(ra) have sided with secular Baathists if they existed back then? Are you with justice or not? Is anti-Zionism a pillar of your faith over Islamic justice?

Edited by Justice4all

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We've been over this in the past.

1) Syria under the Assads are nominally Baathist. Saddam was nominally Baathist. This does not imply any connection between the two, in ideology or in action. Hafiz al-Asad, by going against Saddam, became public enemy #1 in the Arab world. By choosing the resistance path, Syria has essentially declared their "No" vote for Baathist pan-Arabism.

2) "Syrian Muslims" is your pathetic euphemism for Salafis who want to kowtow to Israel and the US.

3) As for the secular nature of Syria's regime, well... the world is imperfect. Our ideal vision of government is an Islamic one, but this does not mean that we automatically accept anything with an "Islamic" label. We do not accept Salafist governments, or monarchical governments, that present an Islamic facade. In Syria, is there any possibility of implementing a genuine Islamic system, in the present conditions? No. That said, what is preferable? A resistant secular regime, or a kowtowing regime with a thin religious facade?

4) You're gay. And we won't have you propagating your "gay rights" brand of Islam on our website. This is an Islamic website, jack. Not IslamicLGBTchat.

1. I doubt that Syria, during the time of the hafez, supported Iran because of a resistance path considering, in their desire to control the Palestinian issue, launched attacks against the Palestinians and Hezb, to support Amal (Indirectly supporting Israel) for a duration of time.

2. Do you really think that Sheikh Yaqubi and his followers are "salafis"?

3. " In Syria, is there any possibility of implementing a genuine Islamic system, in the present conditions? No. " --- Why?

4. That's uncalled for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ That's a reply of a reject. Answer my question, would Ali(ra) have sided with secular Baathists if they existed back then? Are you with justice or not? Is anti-Zionism a pillar of your faith over Islamic justice?

I am not going to answer such loaded questions.

I already explained to you why your childish labeling ("secular Baathists") is wrong.

The Syrian fitnah has nothing to do with "Islamic justice."

The Syrian fitnah is a phenomenon created by imperial planners. Gullible idiots like yourself then proceed to go along with this imperial plan because they are too retarded to know any better.

Firstly, you should note that for roughly every four "civilian" killed, one security personnel is killed. It is clear that these guys have arms, and pretty good arms. (Syria's military force is nothing to trifle with).

Secondly, most of the happenings in Syria have been not in major cities but in border regions, which further suggests foreign backing and arming for the partisans.

Thirdly, Bashar has not only expressed the need for reform but he has actually implemented reforms. For example, he has called for elections and has allowed the establishment of political parties other than the Bath Party. So what are these "revolutionaries" fighting against? It is clear that the true intent is not to improve Syria's political environment but to overthrow Bashar (who has always been seen as the "weak link" in the chain of resistance).

Fourthly, there is a lot of misinformation regarding Syria in Western propaganda. One example:

Gossmann, Christina. “40-year-old American man admits he posed as Syrian lesbian.” Slate, 13 June 2011. http://slatest.slate...up_gay_gir.html

Fifthly, there have been huge rallies in support of Bashar. See these:

"Syrians demonstrate, raise biggest Syrian flag in support of al-Assad." Al-Manar, 15 June 2011. http://www.almanar.c...id=23&fromval=1

"Syrians hold rallies to support president." Xinhua, 21 June 2011. http://news.xinhuane.../c_13942299.htm

"Thousands of Syrians hold massive festival in support of president." Chinese Central Television, 18 July 2011. http://english.cntv....18/102378.shtml

Sixthly, for decades, the Syrian people in spite of economic hardships and uncontrolled corruption amongst their state officials, have stood by their government for the sole reason of their continued support of Iran and the Resistance in Lebanon. Now we are to believe that they are suddenly fed up with resistance and are uniting behind forces that are encouraged and/or armed by the US and Israel?

Here are some assorted news articles that weigh against the Western narrative:

"80 Police Martyred in Northwest Syria." Al-Manar, 6 June 2011. http://www.almanar.c...id=23&fromval=1

"Deadly ambush kills 120 Syrian police." Russia Today, 7 June 2011. http://rt.com/news/1...-police-killed/

Kevorkova, Nadezhda. “Syria: an uncanny revolution." Russia Today, 29 May 2011. http://rt.com/news/s...ry-people-west/

"'Libyan campaign was staged to start conquering Africa.'" Russia Today, 12 July 2011. http://rt.com/news/l...ria-war-africa/

"Mass grave found in northern Syria." Press TV, 15 June 2011. http://presstv.com/detail/184755.html

Mosku, Anba. “Syrian rebels: Terrorists or the opposition?" RIA Novosti, 4 July 2011. http://en.rian.ru/an.../165017285.html

"Syria: Armed groups attack public establishments." Al-Manar, 16 July 2011. http://almanar.com.l...id=23&eid=21866

"Syrian army fighting ‘militants,’ ‘provocateurs,’ says Lavrov." RIA Novosti, 15 June 2011. http://en.rian.ru/wo.../164626135.html

"US, Saudi Arabia and Israel mastermind Syrian opposition." Russia Today, 2 August 2011. http://rt.com/news/u...i-israel-syria/

Wehbe, Batoul. “Syria’s bloody Monday: 120 martyred, authorities threaten armed groups.” 7 June 2011. http://www.almanar.c...id=23&fromval=1

LOL. "Anti-Zionism" is a just stance, so your last question makes no sense. There is no conflict between anti-Zionism and justice, because if one is just, one can only be anti-Zionist. Opposing imperial plans and artificial fitnah crises is also a just stance. So don't try to become a moral compass, because you are a pathetic scum who is encouraging civil war.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its good to add that our Muslim leaders have learnt from our dear Imam, Imam Ali (a.s.), how to govern and form policies which are in the greatest possible interest of the Muslim Ummah. Wise leaders have to have foresight, wisdom, and consideration of the larger interest of Muslims and the Ummah. If they were to think and decide their policies based on how ordinary people like you and me think and desire, Muslims would have been ruined ages ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

moqtada alsadr who I thought was very simple minded and used to say some wrong things but i realized is one of the very little honest politicians.

they told him there are claims that there buses of Jaish al mahdi entered syria to repress the protests.

normal politicians will deny and say " no there is no such thing"

but this honest man he answers like this:

" if there is such a thing please provide the evidence and I am against such things and if people from my group went to repress the Syrian uprising I am disassociated from them until judgment day"

this guy's knowledge and eloquence is not that much but his honnesty and integrity is very good i just dont know why sunnies hate him

He doesnt play the denial games

previously when they asked him " did jaish al mahdi participate in the sectarian crimes" he said:

"Its true everyone did participate but the focus on jaishulmahdi is because its a huge sector of the society under the spotlight"

so he admits the lack of control over his group in instances and doesn't blindly support his own group . this is called witnessing for the truth and is one of the attributes of hizbullah (gods party not meaning specifically the Lebanese hizbullah only)

later he said to gasan bin jaddo: "how did they identify them as jaish almahdi? anyone who comes and harms you and starts saying we are jaish al mahdi??? "

he admitted the lack of control and the chaos which politicians usually deny

for example ahmadinejad with all the truthful things he said at one instant he said " there are no gays in Iran" lol he made us a joke in the eyes of the people but in many other instances he says very good and intelligent and truthful things

so alsadr remarks seems like he is not with the syrian government even though he said: i prefer that Bashar stays because he is anti American but the protests are legitimate and i support them

We know that Iran and hizbullah are in a tight corner but all we want is to stop blindly supporting bashar and to tell him off about his mistakes and let him run a clean election quickly before more blood spills and before the sectarian hate gets to the level where you will burn the whole region.

These sunnies will never forgive us just like the iraqies and kuwaities are never forgiving the other arabs who supported saddam.

people are selfish they will not understand why hizbullah and iran is acting like this and they will attribute sectarianism to them even though the sectarianism only exists in the lower level and the Iran and hizbullah leadership are not sectarian.

Bashar should have changed this before the revolts even start i mean how could he accept to just let the elite be from one sect like the situation of saddam where 10% sunnies were the elite in Iraq? why doesn't he allways run referendums to reiterate his legitimacy?

If he wants to say he is chosen by god to rule syria for ever then whats the coincidence that his brother or his son is also suitable ?

why didn't khoomainy put his son in power but rather choose based on the ability not the bloodline?

whats the chance that only one family has all the most suitable leaders father , son, grandson like its a farm for them ?

ikhwan are generally diverse and not wahabies and it will be a great mistake to put us in confrontation with the ikhwan because they are the closest to us not the secular or bathists or communists

Ijkhwan of egypt and ikhwan of Palestine generally supported Iran in her just causes

Ikhwan of libya seem okay too and they admitted that saddam was a criminal throwing away that secterian blindness and they also support the bahrain strife

Ikhwan of Tunisia who just won are also diverse and some of them had sectarian talk like condemning the Bahrain strife as iranian but Rashid Alghanooshy who is in the leadership has a good position towards the just causes of the muslims including the illegitimate occupation of Palestine and aggression against Iran

people are generally blind and hate easily... i have been trying to convince Iraqis that not all Palestinians are scum as they say but with no result .

try to convince them that iran is also diverse and has good and bad you will also fail ... people are dead set on blind hatred based on surface analysis and if the whole world is saying : Syrian protest is legitimate then we start saying no they will never forget that ,

Libia will say " yes the saudi claim about their sectarianism is true"

Tunisia will say the same

Egypt ikhwqan will shift away form Us

we will drive the whole sunnie world to hate us over one tiny secular country!!!!

I am just talking materialistically here and its still not feasible

if we talk principals then all this stuff is irrelevant

I mean myself i wanted the "arab spring" to start from the gulf then come to syria but once the people rose up you cant say no to them cause they have a just cause

principal wise whats wrong if our channels air all the crimes that assad's supporters commit and also air all the crimes that the resistance commits ?

I followed al alam and press TV and they are completely ignoring deaths and protests how can we digest this?

We have never sunk this low.

I mean look at aljazeera it published the bahrain strife in extreme details and ask the bahrainies about it

it made a documentary called " shouting in the dark" and Exposed bahrain and saudi in the worse way you could imagine and that cost them the bahraini state TV airing documentary about the scandals of the qatar royal family

thats more integrity than our channels with all honnesty

I used to think hizbullah and WF (which are the best alterantive at the moment) i thought they are probably forerunners for the guided moevments of khurasani and yamani but it doesn't look like it as they are loosing some integrity. it seems they are probably just like any shia movement like the Fatimid or others but not the promised guided movements.

I am not asking to fight al asad and fail him but at least dont turn a blind eye to deaths

at least tell him the problems and pressure him to election

tell him you look towards applying pure islam because Allah says " whoever doesnt rule by what Allah brought then they are the kafereen"

support his brave stance against the global zionists but tell him that it will not be a forgiveness cheque forever and for everything !!!

dont forget the assad supported harakat Amal the secular movement in Lebanon which fought against hizbullah and asad actually has hizbullah blood on his hand too

I saw tanks crushing people, i saw many incidents people shouting " bashar is the only god" and torturing people and forcing them to say " bashar is god and maher is god"

to be fair Bashar condemned this but it shows that his supporters include many kafirs which is very expected from a bathist regime

he was saying there are no tanks but i saw footage's of tanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I saw tanks crushing people, i saw many incidents people shouting " bashar is the only god" and torturing people and forcing them to say " bashar is god and maher is god"

to be fair Bashar condemned this but it shows that his supporters include many kafirs which is very expected from a bathist regime

he was saying there are no tanks but i saw footage's of tanks

watch this video and see for yourself I know its not your favorite channel aljazeera but please give it a chance :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2CAnVKitzzc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is more wishful thinking than anything else.

Difference between him and the others is that he picked the right allies and the right foreign policy. That will make all the difference.

I wish you were right. But if picking right allies and right foreign policy (right according to whom?) were the sole measures of a ruler's popularity then there wouldn't be an upheaval in Syria to begin with. It doesn't take much to understand that Syrian people no longer want authoritarian Baathist rule of the father-son dynasty.

Edited by Marbles

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you are dreaming about a civil war in Syria , i hate to break it to you but the Turkish/NATO Agents running around border towns shooting people does not mean civil war. A couple of landmines should do he trick. Can just smell NATO desperation in the air, their thinking of just attacking with out a pretext.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

I don't understand this fixation with the term "Baathist". Is this intended to return frightening images of Saddam back to the subconscious? Looks like a meaningless scare tactic to me.

I honestly don't even know what it means. Does it mean pan-Arabism? But it's main allies are not pan-Arab. Does it mean "authoritarian"? Then what distinguishes it from other "authoritarian" Arab states that are not "Baathist"

Why, why, why..........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand this fixation with the term "Baathist". Is this intended to return frightening images of Saddam back to the subconscious? Looks like a meaningless scare tactic to me.

I honestly don't even know what it means. Does it mean pan-Arabism? But it's main allies are not pan-Arab. Does it mean "authoritarian"? Then what distinguishes it from other "authoritarian" Arab states that are not "Baathist"

Why, why, why..........

brother that's their political system and ideology. Its like a religion. like communism. like capitalism. its a deviated secular political system which is a dictator type and passes the rule from father to son like the umayah.

the marja3 Mohamad baqir alsadr has said "Anyone who signs up with hizbul bath is a kafir" according to what i heard and at the minimum he prohibited the signing up for it.

Also the quraan says: "Whoever does not judge by what Allah has brought down then those are the kafereen"

so he maybe based it on this verse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

brother that's their political system and ideology. Its like a religion. like communism. like capitalism. its a deviated secular political system which is a dictator type and passes the rule from father to son like the umayah.

the marja3 Mohamad baqir alsadr has said "Anyone who signs up with hizbul bath is a kafir" according to what i heard and at the minimum he prohibited the signing up for it.

Also the quraan says: "Whoever does not judge by what Allah has brought down then those are the kafereen"

so he maybe based it on this verse.

Shahid Sadr also said to obey Imam Khomeini.

And Imam Khomeini was the man who started the Alliance of the Fertile Crescent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...