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

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, Guest Basira said:

I'm saying US will force Iraq to decide. 

So you believe the Iranian were able to create a nation that was truly independent based on the principle "neither Eastern nor Western". Why do you forbid the Iraqi people of the same opportunity to create a truly independent nation making its own decisions?

4 hours ago, Guest Basira said:

I tell you the logic of Iran's Iraqi friends and you say "let the Iraqi people decide". I never said they have no voice (although you did twice at least say that democracy isn't necessary for legitimacy - you even mentioned a monarchy could work. Hardly allows Iraqi people a voice. I on the other hand believe Iraqis have a say. However, I don't think Iraqis can choose anyone they like without consequences. That's not realistic. Iran was attacked by Saddam's Ba'thee a party. Iran has a legitimate concern to stop his followers or similar anti-Iran forces from taking power. Sorry to limit Iraqi options here but to choose something that threatens Iran after all the support Iran gave Iraq then it just justifies Iran attacking Iraq. Just because I'm a sovereign country doesn't mean I can choose to antagonize my neighbor and not pay the price. Have a bit of historical awareness.)

Iran does not fear an enemy government in Iraq, that isn't even possible. Iraqis have no mood for wars or bad relations with anyone, they are tired from conflict. 

Hypothetically (for you, I believe it is possible) if Iraq was able to maintain neutrality in the region, that in itself would be a threat to Iranian regional ambitions. It would lose a big Shi'a powerbase and it would lose the landbridge that connects it to Lebanon. Iran doesn't fear an enemy in Iraq, if fears a lack of friend and a lack of support for its vision for the region.

4 hours ago, Guest Basira said:

Don't want to upset you but even Sayyid Sistani cooperated with the Americans. It's well-known. In the interests of stable Iraq he made it easier for Americans to stay in control in the Surge years. He had his detectors but also had reasons. He thought it's better to have stability. Those who supported the invasion also had their reasons, because Saddam and his family had to be removed for Iraq to prosper. You can disagree strongly with their reasoning but you can't ignore the context of their cooperation. Sistani cooperated too and was praised no less for it by the West.

Co-operation =/= puppetry. There is no problem with co-operating with Iran, Iraq did that to extinguish ISIS. Iraq did that with alot of States. Puppetry is having a master over you. Malign influence is imposing your will on countries via puppets and proxies.

Quote

Iran has several factions. Like you call Ruhani reformist but he's not. First term, Reformists voted for him because he was more likely to win against the opponent (who wasn't the socalled Establishment candidate). Their own candidate withdrew in the middle of the race. Iran is semi-democratic and the presidential elections are democratic. If it wasn't, why did they let 3 different brands of "anti-Ahmadinejad" candidates in 2009? I use that just as on easy illustration but if you know more you can find illustration in their previous Parliament elections too.

You talk about anti-Khomeinist deal. But you miss the point surely. The Islamic Republic allows for huge disagreement over how to reach core ideals of Revolution. Yeah, I don't think Imam Khomeini would do the deal but it's not a dictatorship.

Rouhani and Zarif believed in negotiations to end hostility with the West and Zarif + Rouhani regularly make policy proposals that absolutely are contrary to Iran's Revolutionary goals. Such as: calling for a non-aggression and non-interference treaty with the Gulf States, including Saudi and Bahrain. If you think these are Khomeinist ideals which are based on revolutionary expansion and "supporting the oppressed" then I don't know what to tell you. And by the way I support this proposal.

As for Iran being democratic that is laughable. Democracy means anyone can run regardless of ideology, can a Mossadegh-like candidate run for Presidency in Iran? Even his Tudeh Party is banned. 

Quote

It seems you really don't know much about Kurdish nationalism. They feel Kurdish not Iranian, Turkish or Iraqi. They feel like minority. "Iraqi nationalism" is make-believe. So is Iranian nationalism which has a longer history than Iraq as a single political entity. 

 

You need to be better informed about how corruption happens in countries broken by decades of tyranny and chaos and sectarianism. Nothing to do with Iran.

 

I know alot about it. That's why it is disgraceful, it is based on race. It is like if someone said "I feel white, not American". White is a race, while America is a nation-state. Iraqi nationalism is pushing the idea of the nation-state and rejecting these racist and sectarian ideas, and with prosperity it can work.

Right, and supporting corrupt sectarian parties doesn't help broken countries at all.

Edited by Sumerian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Sumerian said:

So you believe the Iranian were able to create a nation that was truly independent based on the principle "neither Eastern nor Western". Why do you forbid the Iraqi people of the same opportunity to create a truly independent nation making its own decisions?

Iran does not fear an enemy government in Iraq, that isn't even possible. Iraqis have no mood for wars or bad relations with anyone, they are tired from conflict. 

Hypothetically (for you, I believe it is possible) if Iraq was able to maintain neutrality in the region, that in itself would be a threat to Iranian regional ambitions. It would lose a big Shi'a powerbase and it would lose the landbridge that connects it to Lebanon. Iran doesn't fear an enemy in Iraq, if fears a lack of friend and a lack of support for its vision for the region.

Co-operation =/= puppetry. There is no problem with co-operating with Iran, Iraq did that to extinguish ISIS. Iraq did that with alot of States. Puppetry is having a master over you. Malign influence is imposing your will on countries via puppets and proxies.

 

 

If you guys become Arab nationalist/supremacist this quickly I will advice all Non Arab Shias to be cautious even South Asians because this is toxic and you’re acting with the same logic the Saudis do when they blame internal problems in their own country. I don’t think these protests will bring more reform in fact they might bring another Saddam it might turn to Civil War now good luck this is what you wanted?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Enlightened Follower said:

Sumeri it's propaganda but many Iraqis are falling for it

It's propaganda that Hawza students and preachers have joined the protests? 

 

2 hours ago, Mohammadi_follower said:

You didnt answer the question. I was asking if such demands had been make by votes or you just head that from people shouting in the streets ? Because just putting reforms because some people shout in the streets had never been a solution. You say "the corrupt are not allowing for these reforms to happen" but you also said that all Iraqi politicians are corrupted so what are we supposed to do ?

Every revolution starts from "shouts in the streets" That's how Iran's revolution came to fruition. That's right, the corrupt are not allowing it, which is why the Government needs to resign and the people want to force it to do so. 

2 hours ago, Mohammadi_follower said:

About "interfering" what is wrong if these iraqis believe they want to follow the guidance of leaders coming from Iran ? These leaders of Iran have a transnational view of the world after all. Like I said they don’t want to make "Persian empire great again" or some stuffs like that. So you want to censor them ? This is the only solution ? What you would think if we say now we must censored all Iraqi marjas in Iran ? 

That's exactly the problem. "Transnationalism". Iraqis reject that - mostly, and even the Shi'a marja in Iraq rejects that and calls for respect of Iraqi soveriegnty and non-interference. Why can't Iran respect that? 

And anyone who recieves assistance from a foreign country cannot be a politician. That's in nearly every country in the world, as a matter of law. 

2 hours ago, Mohammadi_follower said:

I find very inappropriate to compare United States and Iran on this issue so I just don’t want to answer this because I find this comparison just ridiculous for not say something else.

Bruv I don't care who is interfering, whether they are a good country or a bad country. Interference in itself is a bad thing and is rejected by the people of Iraq. Just respect that. 

2 hours ago, Mohammadi_follower said:

So you have some names from civil parties ? Could you be more clear and give us clear names of leaders from such groups ?

Sure. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilized_Alliance_(Iraq)

I disagree with "secularism" but agree with nearly everything else. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Sumerian said:

 

 

Every revolution starts from "shouts in the streets" That's how Iran's revolution came to fruition. That's right, the corrupt are not allowing it, which is why the Government needs to resign and the people want to force it to do so. 

 

The little difference is that we had a leader called Rouhollah Khomein (رضي الله عنه). What about you ?

19 minutes ago, Sumerian said:

 

 

 

That's exactly the problem. "Transnationalism". Iraqis reject that - mostly, and even the Shi'a marja in Iraq rejects that and calls for respect of Iraqi soveriegnty and non-interference. Why can't Iran respect that? 

 

I don’t understand why caring so much about human constructions like countries and borders and not caring much about our religion which we have in common in Iran and Iraq. I mean as far as I know we don’t force you to become iranian in Iraq. We don’t force you to speak Farsi or celebrate norouz as far as I know. 

 

21 minutes ago, Sumerian said:

 

Bruv I don't care who is interfering, whether they are a good country or a bad country. Interference in itself is a bad thing and is rejected by the people of Iraq. Just respect that. 

 

If this is rejected by "people of Iraq" why are there many armed groups and political parties in Iraq who pledges alliegeance to Ayatollah Khamenei ? You are contradicting yourself.

22 minutes ago, Sumerian said:

 

Sure. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilized_Alliance_(Iraq)

I disagree with "secularism" but agree with nearly everything else. 

Ok great now you have names or parties it is better ? Could we just have proofs that most protesters want this party in particular ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sumerian said:

I know alot about it. That's why it is disgraceful, it is based on race. It is like if someone said "I feel white, not American". White is a race, while America is a nation-state. Iraqi nationalism is pushing the idea of the nation-state and rejecting these racist and sectarian ideas, and with prosperity it can work.

Right, and supporting corrupt sectarian parties doesn't help broken countries at all.

Browse through 5 seconds of Kurdish twitter and they don’t consider themselves Iraqi, 92% voted to secede and no Kurd has loyalty to Iraq.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sumerian said:

Bruv I don't care who is interfering, whether they are a good country or a bad country. Interference in itself is a bad thing and I

https://m.jpost.com/Israel-News/Israel-Katz-We-sympathize-with-the-Iraqi-peoples-struggle-for-freedom-606788/amp

 

Israel is cheering you guys great job 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mohammadi_follower said:

The little difference is that we had a leader called Rouhollah Khomein (رضي الله عنه). What about you ?

Most uprisings are sporadic at the start and then become centralised with a leadership. Insha Allah that day comes.

1 hour ago, Mohammadi_follower said:

I don’t understand why caring so much about human constructions like countries and borders and not caring much about our religion which we have in common in Iran and Iraq. I mean as far as I know we don’t force you to become iranian in Iraq. We don’t force you to speak Farsi or celebrate norouz as far as I know. 

So tell me, why does Sistani care about it? You have yet to reply to that.

1 hour ago, Mohammadi_follower said:

If this is rejected by "people of Iraq" why are there many armed groups and political parties in Iraq who pledges alliegeance to Ayatollah Khamenei ? You are contradicting yourself?

So because a country has many armed groups and parties that pledge allegiance to it that means people love it? Okay then Syrians love terrorists, as there are 60+ terrorist groups in Syria. Since when does size of armed groups matter? 

What matters is what most people think. If you add up Kurds, Sunnis and Shias, most Iraqis are not in favour of Iran. Simple. Iran should respect their choice.

1 hour ago, Mohammadi_follower said:

Ok great now you have names or parties it is better ? Could we just have proofs that most protesters want this party in particular ?

The protesters demands are the same demands as this party. This party also joined the protests.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Enlightened Follower said:

If you guys become Arab nationalist/supremacist this quickly I will advice all Non Arab Shias to be cautious even South Asians because this is toxic and you’re acting with the same logic the Saudis do when they blame internal problems in their own country. I don’t think these protests will bring more reform in fact they might bring another Saddam it might turn to Civil War now good luck this is what you wanted?

I don't care about Arabs or Arab issues. You seem to misunderstand me. Arab nationalism is garbage. I care about Iraqis, whether they are Sunnis, Shias, Arabs or Kurds. What is important to me in creating a Government is nationality - not sect or ethnicity. 

That's why I want to see the sectarian system ended. 

I don't care about Saudis, to hell with them. And Saddam is dead and buried for good. There will be no second Saddam, there are no Arab nationalists in Iraq anyway. To hell with the Arab world and all the problems it brings anyway.

Edited by Sumerian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Sumerian said:

Most uprisings are sporadic at the start and then become centralised with a leadership. Insha Allah that day comes.

 

Whatever the tendency of this leadership I hope you will effectively have one because if you have not you will go nowhere but inshallah you will have one.

 

28 minutes ago, Sumerian said:

 

So tell me, why does Sistani care about it? You have yet to reply to that.

 

Contrary to many people in this forum I am not someone who idealize Ayatollah Sistani and who considers that everything he says is forcelly the best thing to follow.

 

29 minutes ago, Sumerian said:

 

So because a country has many armed groups and parties that pledge allegiance to it that means people love it? Okay then Syrians love terrorists, as there are 60+ terrorist groups in Syria. Since when does size of armed groups matter? 

 

Again I find your comparison really absurd. These Iraqi groups we were talking about are part of the government and helped many people against Isis. Many iraqis voted for them. While this syrian group you are talking to me are nothing like that.

 

31 minutes ago, Sumerian said:

 

What matters is what most people think. If you add up Kurds, Sunnis and Shias, most Iraqis are not in favour of Iran. Simple. Iran should respect their choice.

 

Excuse me but these is not the Iraqi kurds which not a so long time ago make a referendum for becoming independant and answered in majority positively ? Why you just don’t respect their choice like you said ?

 

33 minutes ago, Sumerian said:

 

The protesters demands are the same demands as this party. This party also joined the protests.

Well I am just waiting to see if protesters are really in majority in favor of this party like you said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Mohammadi_follower said:

Whatever the tendency of this leadership I hope you will effectively have one because if you have not you will go nowhere but inshallah you will have one.

Inshallah.

1 minute ago, Mohammadi_follower said:

Contrary to many people in this forum I am not someone who idealize Ayatollah Sistani and who considers that everything he says is forcelly the best thing to follow.

Well that's your choice. But for anyone here that follows him, he says respect our sovereignty. So do it.

1 minute ago, Mohammadi_follower said:

Again I find your comparison really absurd. These Iraqi groups we were talking about are part of the government and helped many people against Isis. Many iraqis voted for them. While this syrian group you are talking to me are nothing like that.

Big deflection. First of all, there are over 60 armed militias in Iraq, many of them are not even part of the government or any political party, they are just part of "Hashd". 

Secondly, if rebels were given a platform many Syrians will vote for them as well. 

5 minutes ago, Mohammadi_follower said:

Excuse me but these is not the Iraqi kurds which not a so long time ago make a referendum for becoming independant and answered in majority positively ? Why you just don’t respect their choice like you said ?

Because Kurds are Iraqi. This is like if the street I live in voted to become independent from my country, that means nothing. But Iranians are not Iraqi, so they have no right to Iraq at all. 

Absurd comparison.

6 minutes ago, Mohammadi_follower said:

Well I am just waiting to see if protesters are really in majority in favor of this party like you said.

Insha Allah early elections happen, and you will see an increase in support for civil parties, because after the violence displayed by this pathetic government, everyone hates the Islamists. Especially the younger generation of Iraqis. Reform is coming insha Allah.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Sumerian said:

 

Well that's your choice. But for anyone here that follows him, he says respect our sovereignty. So do it.

 

What about religious people part of pro-Khamenei groups ?

 

4 minutes ago, Sumerian said:

 

Big deflection. First of all, there are over 60 armed militias in Iraq, many of them are not even part of the government or any political party, they are just part of "Hashd". 

Secondly, if rebels were given a platform many Syrians will vote for them as well. 

 

These groups are not actually represented by Hadi Al Amiri ? Well maybe but they are more divided than the hashd al shabi so I don’t think so.

6 minutes ago, Sumerian said:

 

Because Kurds are Iraqi. This is like if the street I live in voted to become independent from my country, that means nothing. But Iranians are not Iraqi, so they have no right to Iraq at all. 

Absurd comparison.

 

But here we are not talking about a street where dozen persons live. We are talking about millions of people of a same ethnic group who said at 90% that they want leave Iraq. Actually this is your comparison that I find absurd. You call them "iraqis" while it looks like most of them just don’t want to be iraqis. 

8 minutes ago, Sumerian said:

 

Insha Allah early elections happen, and you will see an increase in support for civil parties, because after the violence displayed by this pathetic government, everyone hates the Islamists. Especially the younger generation of Iraqis. Reform is coming insha Allah.

I find that a little weird to say "inshallah" while you say you are against islamist and for seculars.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Mohammadi_follower said:

What about religious people part of pro-Khamenei groups ?

Their opinion doesn't matter if they're non-Iraqi. And such people are very small minority in Iraq anyway.

5 minutes ago, Mohammadi_follower said:

These groups are not actually represented by Hadi Al Amiri ? Well maybe but they are more divided than the hashd al shabi so I don’t think so.

No, they are not all represented at all directly in Parliament, and they work outside of state control.

7 minutes ago, Mohammadi_follower said:

But here we are not talking about a street where dozen persons live. We are talking about millions of people of a same ethnic group who said at 90% that they want leave Iraq. Actually this is your comparison that I find absurd. You call them "iraqis" while it looks like most of them just don’t want to be iraqis. 

Doesn't matter, because anything based on ethnicity is rejected. Ethnicity doesn't and shouldn't matter, this is what you don't seem to understand. There is a reason why the richest countries are the way they are, they don't care about ethnicity that's why.

9 minutes ago, Mohammadi_follower said:

I find that a little weird to say "inshallah" while you say you are against islamist and for seculars.

Certain Islamists use Islam as a name and banner only. They are charlatans, they use Islam for their worldly benefits. That's one of the forms of nifaaq. It's not like they have even implemented Islamic Law to begin with, and it has been 16 years, so what is the point of them being "Islamist"? Nothing. 

At the very least Civil parties clearly want change that will benefit the economy and push for independence. Insha Allah for that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Sumerian said:

Their opinion doesn't matter if they're non-Iraqi. And such people are very small minority in Iraq anyway.

No, they are not all represented at all directly in Parliament, and they work outside of state control.

These people are iraqis and Hadi Amiri is leader of one of this most important group so I don’t really understand of what you are talking about.

 

6 minutes ago, Sumerian said:

 

Doesn't matter, because anything based on ethnicity is rejected. Ethnicity doesn't and shouldn't matter, this is what you don't seem to understand. There is a reason why the richest countries are the way they are, they don't care about ethnicity that's why.

 

That maybe doesnt matter for you but it looks like Iraqi kurds are concerned by that. And well this is not so true "ethnicity" is always an important aspect in many anglo-saxon countries and some other rich country (like spain for exemple).

 

7 minutes ago, Sumerian said:

 

Certain Islamists use Islam as a name and banner only. They are charlatans, they use Islam for their worldly benefits. That's one of the forms of nifaaq. It's not like they have even implemented Islamic Law to begin with, and it has been 16 years, so what is the point of them being "Islamist"? Nothing. 

At the very least Civil parties clearly want change that will benefit the economy and push for independence. Insha Allah for that.

And of course we could be 100% sure that civil parties will be 100% clean contrary to islamist parties I guess ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Basira

I think you misunderstand the slogan. Neither East not West meant neither liberal capitalism nor socialist communism but Islamic Republic. 

I'm not making the decisions. Why do you ask me to respect Iraqi sovereignty? I'm not infringing it. I'm just saying in the real geopolitical world, Iraq can't choose anything it wants. Iran can't either. The US can't either. Choices are limited by various factors. I'm saying Iraq is forced to make a decision about its relationship with Iran. The US will force it. Iran like you say has a regional alliance. If Iraq doesn't cooperate with this alliance then the alliance will treat Iraq's government as an obstacle helping the US hegemony in the region. It's simple. I make a decision that makes my neighbors suffer at America's hands and my neighbors will make me suffer. Geopolitical justice. 

 

Proper Nazis can't stand in Germany. Not democratic? The US is de facto bipartisan. Not democratic? The EU leaders are chosen by member state leaders some who don't even have a majority mandate in their countries. Not democratic?

Democratic means people get to choose between different politically visible parties. In US it's always between two wings of the same historical party (Democratic-Republican party) and in the end between two people. And let's be realistic, no, not anyone can run. In theory sure but actual practical democracy? On your standards no. Anyway you're not a democrat and I'm not so it's not important.

 

No you just see disagreement with the leader's opinion as anti-ideals of Revolution. 

That whole exportation of Revolution is not debated. What is debated is what "exportation" means. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Basira

Oh, and about the Kurdish question. 

No, Kurdish isn't just a race. It's also a culture, a linguistic family, and a people and existed for centuries as a distinct people before Iraq existed as a country. They even fought for a country before Iraq ever existed. Treaty of Sevre even proposed a Kurdistan as a country but the Treaty of Lausanne replaced it a few years later. So Kurds as a separate nationality is a historic fact. Unlike Iraqi which is just an area covering most of Arab Iraq and bits of Ajam Iraq (true Iraq is bigger than the country. Most of Ajam Iraq which is part of the region of historical Iraq is in today's Iran. Tehran and next to it Rayy is part of Ajam Iraq.)

You are just biased and prejudiced because it doesn't suit your grand vision of nationalism. 

Iraq is just British colonial lines you pretend somehow is sacrosanct. There's nothing sacred about it. God hasn't given Iraqis sovereignty over Kurdish question or Kurds sovereignty over North Iraq. It's just legacy of historical politics played by power. Today power still plays politics. The Resistance plays power against colonial legacy and doesn't believe in colonial idols that stop the Muslim people from becoming allies over non-Muslim foreign policy. Democracy is not waajib and influencing other countries isn't haraam if it is to bring strength to Muslims as a whole against divide and rule of colonialists.

You need to think why Transnationalists should treat your colonial based nationalism as holy over their identity as colonized Muslims who used to live in just two "nationalities" 100 years ago Ottoman and Qajar Empires but now they are divided plundered and made to fight each other. 

Actually country like United Kingdom has four nations: English, Welsh, Scottish and Irish. They are called nations. Scotland even got a referendum for independence but they said No. In Iraq they said Yes. Give it to them. After everything Baghdad and being linked to Baghdad has done to them, if there is any Kurdish population that deserves it more it's Kurds in North Iraq.

Iran's independence only good because it was based on anti-colonial Muslim identity. Muslim identity is holy. Even Fiqh makes Muslim at peace with other Muslim and makes them equal in law and ummah. Nationalism is self-defeating and divisive without dividing properly. You divide against Iranians who want to share with you and help you but you want to keep Kurds who want to divorce you. Absurd and arbitrary and funny.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Mohammadi_follower said:

These people are iraqis and Hadi Amiri is leader of one of this most important group so I don’t really understand of what you are talking about.

Al-Amiri himself is unpopular. 

6 hours ago, Mohammadi_follower said:

That maybe doesnt matter for you but it looks like Iraqi kurds are concerned by that. And well this is not so true "ethnicity" is always an important aspect in many anglo-saxon countries and some other rich country (like spain for exemple).

Some Iraqi Kurds are stuck in the 20th Century where ethnicity mattered. You will find that the most successful nations have no care factor for people's ethnicity. 

6 hours ago, Mohammadi_follower said:

And of course we could be 100% sure that civil parties will be 100% clean contrary to islamist parties I guess ?

They've never been tried but their reform packages are appealing. Islamists have been tried for over a decade.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Yeah let's weaken Iran and Shias even more whilst the Saudis are having fun

The protest have nothing to do what Iran, Saudi or Israel think and what they want. Also it have nothing to do with weakening of Shias. The current events have weakened Shias even more than united. This is the protest against the failure of government that have caused only injustice and suffering to Iraqi people. All these stupid sectarian army groups should be banned and all these government parties that are based on sectarianism should be banned because they only will think of one part of people and not for whole Iraqi people interest.

This protest is inevitable and it is an consequence of long failure of promises.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Monday,2000hrsEST/NYC 04Nov19

5, at least, killed in Baghdad. Protesters have crossd the AI-Ahrar Bridge over the Tigris.  DeutscheWelleTV showed one protester thanking "volunteers" for providing the protesters with bullet resistant vests.

https://www.dw.com/en/Iraq-security-kill-baghdad-protesters-with-live-rounds/a-51109436 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Guest Basira said:

Oh, and about the Kurdish question. 

No, Kurdish isn't just a race. It's also a culture, a linguistic family, and a people and existed for centuries as a distinct people before Iraq existed as a country. They even fought for a country before Iraq ever existed. Treaty of Sevre even proposed a Kurdistan as a country but the Treaty of Lausanne replaced it a few years later. So Kurds as a separate nationality is a historic fact. Unlike Iraqi which is just an area covering most of Arab Iraq and bits of Ajam Iraq (true Iraq is bigger than the country. Most of Ajam Iraq which is part of the region of historical Iraq is in today's Iran. Tehran and next to it Rayy is part of Ajam Iraq.)

You fail to understand why "Kurdish independence" is a sham. First of all, where would the borders lie? Secondly, what about the minorities like Turkmens, Yezidis and Assyrians who don't want to be ruled by Kurds? Should they get a referendum as well? See when you play the "race game", every ethnic group wants their own piece of the pie. Any nation that is founded on the basis of ethnicity (like Israel) is a racist nation. Iraqi is not a race, it is a nationality, based on the land of Iraq, a land that consists of different groups of people.

Kurdish nationality has never existed because their has never been a Kurdish state. 

I don't recognise race, it means nothing to me. I recognise nationality.

5 hours ago, Guest Basira said:

Iraq is just British colonial lines you pretend somehow is sacrosanct. There's nothing sacred about it. God hasn't given Iraqis sovereignty over Kurdish question or Kurds sovereignty over North Iraq. It's just legacy of historical politics played by power. Today power still plays politics. The Resistance plays power against colonial legacy and doesn't believe in colonial idols that stop the Muslim people from becoming allies over non-Muslim foreign policy. Democracy is not waajib and influencing other countries isn't haraam if it is to bring strength to Muslims as a whole against divide and rule of colonialists.

This is nonsense, because even Iran believes in so-called "British borders". Tell me, do Afghan and Iraqi refugees (whom are Muslims) have the same "rights" as their Iranian "Muslim brothers" inside Iran? (Answer is no). The whole concept of "citzenship" is based on recognised borders. It has no basis in Islamic Law. So then tell me why does Iran "divide" between different people living in Iran? I'm sorry, you can't have your cake and eat it too. Either you believe in one ummah with equality for all believers or you discriminate on the basis of nationality, which is what Iran and every nation does. Your slogans and rhetoric are pretty but they don't hold up. What you said does not exist.

Edited by Sumerian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Sumerian said:

Kurdish nationality has never existed because their has never been a Kurdish state. 

Technically, not true. They had a pretencious one(by western machinations) in the eary 1920s.

Share this post


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

Technically, not true. They had a pretencious one(by western machinations) in the eary 1920s.

Nope their language is closer to Farsi they are Indo European they came from Central Asia then migrated with Persian tribes into Iraq and became the Medes, also their culture is different and they were Zoroastrian before.

Share this post


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

@Sumerian  l do not know how much of this is accurate, but l think you will like to read it.

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/11/analyst-Iraq-protests-overcome-sectarianism-191104190411464.html

"overcoming sectarianism (divisions)"

It has. There has been no sectarian slogans, only nationalist slogans. From all people, Shias, Sunnis and even Christians. These are the first "Iraq First" protests.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Iraq slams attack on Iran's consulate in Karbala

https://en.abna24.com/news//Iraq-slams-attack-on-irans-consulate-in-karbala_986069.html

November 4, 2019 - 8:15 PM News Code : 986069 Source : IRNALink: 

Iraq slams attack on Iran's consulate in Karbala

 

Iraqi Foreign Ministry in a statement on Monday condemned recent attack by a group of people under the guise of protesters on Iranian consulate in Karbala.

Asa'ib Ahl al-Haq's leader reveals Israel, UAE's role in Iraq unrests

https://en.abna24.com/news//asaib-ahl-al-haqs-leader-reveals-Israel-uaes-role-in-Iraq-unrests_986026.html

November 4, 2019 - 2:34 PM News Code : 986026 Source : FNALink: 

Asa'ib Ahl al-Haq's leader reveals Israel, UAE's role in Iraq unrests

 

Leader of Asa'ib Ahl al-Haq Resistance Movement Qais Khazali said that Israel and the UAE are playing an even bigger role than the US and Saudi Arabia in exacerbating unrests and clashes in Iraq.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Abu Nur said:

The protest have nothing to do what Iran, Saudi or Israel think and what they want. Also it have nothing to do with weakening of Shias. The current events have weakened Shias even more than united. This is the protest against the failure of government that have caused only injustice and suffering to Iraqi people. All these stupid sectarian army groups should be banned and all these government parties that are based on sectarianism should be banned because they only will think of one part of people and not for whole Iraqi people interest.

This protest is inevitable and it is an consequence of long failure of promises.

But is it not a little injust to ban parties because they are based according to their religion? The baathist claimed to be nationalists and to represent all Iraqis regardless of their religions and I didn't see so great results. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Sumerian said:

Al-Amiri himself is unpopular. 

 

In the last elections he was the second one in term of votes. 

 

8 hours ago, Sumerian said:

 

Some Iraqi Kurds are stuck in the 20th Century where ethnicity mattered. You will find that the most successful nations have no care factor for people's ethnicity. 

Well it looks that it is not just "some kurds" because in the referendum most of them said they wanted to leave Iraq. 

And again this is false. You go to America ethnicity is always a big factor. You go to Canada and you will see that the difference between anglophones and francophones is huge. You go to great britain and you will see most people refering themselves mostly as English, Scottish, Welsh, Irish more than British. Etc etc there are many other countries like that. It is maybe true that in Australia where you live this is probably not a big factor but that really exist in many "développed countries". 

8 hours ago, Sumerian said:

 

They've never been tried but their reform packages are appealing. Islamists have been tried for over a decade.

Like I said before I am sceptic to think that others were corrupt so if course these ones will be not even if they never ruled. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Sumerian said:

 

This is nonsense, because even Iran believes in so-called "British borders". Tell me, do Afghan and Iraqi refugees (whom are Muslims) have the same "rights" as their Iranian "Muslim brothers" inside Iran? (Answer is no). The whole concept of "citzenship" is based on recognised borders. It has no basis in Islamic Law. So then tell me why does Iran "divide" between different people living in Iran? I'm sorry, you can't have your cake and eat it too. Either you believe in one ummah with equality for all believers or you discriminate on the basis of nationality, which is what Iran and every nation does. Your slogans and rhetoric are pretty but they don't hold up. What you said does not exist.

About these I would agree and also disagree with you. It is true that like you said there are discriminations toward Iraqis and afghans in Iran and this is a shame because like you said it is based on citizenship which has no basis on Islamic laws. Without excusing it I want to say it is also in big part because iranian government has already to much difficulties with people living already in Iran to treat equally those who come as refugee. There are also many racism among some Iranians unfortunately.

But I want to say that these last years iranian authorities make a lot of effort to evolve the situation. Now children of refugees could more easily go to school, children of refugees could more easily have iranian nationality etc. 

And about what the other brother said it is also true that Iraq is just an invention of British. 

If Iranian authorities care about these borders like you said this is not because they think these borders are good. This is because they don't want more chaos in the region. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tuesday Morning EST, 05Nov19

Overnight Killings --3 confirmed, many wounded. 1 outside a gov't official's house.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-Iraq-protests/at-least-three-people-killed-as-security-forces-use-live-rounds-on-Iraqi-protesters-idUSKBN1XF0X8 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mohammadi_follower said:

In the last elections he was the second one in term of votes. 

In an election that hardly anyone even went to the polls for, he came second, and if you count Sunnis and Kurds, the pro-Iran people turn out a real minority. And now Iran has lost even more support in these protests. 

1 hour ago, Mohammadi_follower said:

Well it looks that it is not just "some kurds" because in the referendum most of them said they wanted to leave Iraq. 

And again this is false. You go to America ethnicity is always a big factor. You go to Canada and you will see that the difference between anglophones and francophones is huge. You go to great britain and you will see most people refering themselves mostly as English, Scottish, Welsh, Irish more than British. Etc etc there are many other countries like that. It is maybe true that in Australia where you live this is probably not a big factor but that really exist in many "développed countries". 

Where in these countries is there laws that discriminate between ethnicites? Yes, there are people that identify as "white" or "black" or "Anglo" but is there any laws in Government that are based on this? The answer is no. There are no major laws on the basis of race.

Like I said, no modern civilised country has policies on the basis of race. Only on nationality.

1 hour ago, Mohammadi_follower said:

Like I said before I am sceptic to think that others were corrupt so if course these ones will be not even if they never ruled. 

What?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mohammadi_follower said:

If Iranian authorities care about these borders like you said this is not because they think these borders are good. This is because they don't want more chaos in the region. 

Glad we are getting somewhere. Iraqis do not want chaos either, if everyone stayed in their own house their would be no chaos. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mohammadi_follower said:

But is it not a little injust to ban parties because they are based according to their religion? The baathist claimed to be nationalists and to represent all Iraqis regardless of their religions and I didn't see so great results. 

It is not injust to ban parties that separate a nation by for their favor and their people and fail to fulfill the basic and simplistic things the people want, event if the parties be it according to religion sects.

Quote

The baathist claimed to be nationalists and to represent all Iraqis regardless of their religions and I didn't see so great results. 

The Iraq people do not want brutal leadership or corrupted leadership that does not hold on justice and peace, the common things that Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) favor. The current situation in Iraq is mostly like this:

And of the people is he whose speech pleases you in worldly life, and he calls Allah to witness as to what is in his heart, yet he is the fiercest of opponents.
And when he goes away, he strives throughout the land to cause corruption therein and destroy crops and animals. And Allah does not like corruption. 2:204-205

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Sumerian said:

In an election that hardly anyone even went to the polls for, he came second, and if you count Sunnis and Kurds, the pro-Iran people turn out a real minority. And now Iran has lost even more support in these protests. 

 

And of course other elections will have more participation I guess.

 

21 minutes ago, Sumerian said:

 

Where in these countries is there laws that discriminate between ethnicites? Yes, there are people that identify as "white" or "black" or "Anglo" but is there any laws in Government that are based on this? The answer is no. There are no major laws on the basis of race.

 

Did I say that must exist ? Does that actually exist in Iraq or Iran ?

 

22 minutes ago, Sumerian said:

 

What?

I just said that I sceptic to think that the political party will not be corrupt contrary to other Iraqi political groups.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Abu Nur said:

It is not injust to ban parties that separate a nation by for their favor and their people and fail to fulfill the basic and simplistic things the people want, event if the parties be it according to religion sects.

The Iraq people do not want brutal leadership or corrupted leadership that does not hold on justice and peace, the common things that Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) favor. The current situation in Iraq is mostly like this:

And of the people is he whose speech pleases you in worldly life, and he calls Allah to witness as to what is in his heart, yet he is the fiercest of opponents.
And when he goes away, he strives throughout the land to cause corruption therein and destroy crops and animals. And Allah does not like corruption. 2:204-205

So you want to forbid religious parties in Iraq if I understood well ?

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.


×
×
  • Create New...